BECAUSE we are nation of refugees.
Always on Watch: Epa,I was wondering why you hadn't weighed in
earlier.You said: America is an EXCEPTION to a lot of problems SPECIFICALLY
BECAUSE we are nation of refugees.Is or was an exception to a lot of
problems?
IS I say.
IS.
And we are strong precisely because we are and continue to be a nation of refugees.
Our laws and traditions and values are a stew of the ideas and laws and traditions and values we brought with us. And they have become American.
Those who still come to this country bring with them ideas and laws and values and traditions. Some of them become part of our own, assimilated, either directly or modified, others discarded.
We continue to be strong because we are a nation of refugees. It may benefit us to have Muslims – or anyone else for that matter -- in our society. As long as they assimilate and, more importantly, can live within and not try or advocate trying to overthrow our existing laws and cultures they can be held as example to others. They can spread the word that maybe parts of their religion should be discarded.
Now this should endear me to folks:
Take our President (please). I don’t give a fig if he’s Christian, Jew, Hindu or Muslim.
That’s right, I don’t care if he is or was Muslim.
My concern is that he is upholding and not trying to undermine American Culture and law. That he’s not doing so is another matter entire.
But put Ethnic Nationalism into place and he would not be our President based strictly on his race.
Now how fucking American is that?
What is a man and what does he stand for should be the question we ask. Not what country or region of the world or skin color or whether he’s Slavic or Germanic or Asian or Middle Eastern.
That’s a lot of men to be asking questions of you say.
Well, no one said Freedom was easy. You have to work at it.
I’ve said before my daughter goes to school with a girl who is Muslim. Her family has hurt no one. And although she wears a Muslim headdress in many ways she tries to be like any other kid. They try to fit in.
Go ahead. Try to deport them simply because they are Muslim. And guess who’s going to be standing there reminding you of our First Amendment while openly practicing our Second Amendment.
Until they’ve crossed a line, been proven to be actively engaged in trying to overthrow our laws and traditions, they have the same right to life here as anyone else.
THIS IS AMERICA.
Epa also said if Belgium wants to practice Ethnic Nationalism OR WHATEVER THE FUCK WE CHOOSE TO CALL IT (Oreo Cookies for all I care) that’s Belgium’s problem.
THIS IS AMERICA, GODDAMMIT, AND WE ARE FUCKING BETTER THAN THAT. OUR FOUNDERS MADE SURE TO PUT IT ON PAPER. They recognized we were a nation of refugees, some of them refuges themselves, and KNEW OTHERS WOULD FOLLOW THEM. Others would leave their homelands to come to America to find Freedom.
And if that is what they are seeking who are we to deny them based on race creed or color?
Or Ethnicity? (getting tired of that word yet?)
And shame on us, SHAME ON US, if we do. Then we deserve the scorn and derision of the very men who founded this STILL GREAT NATION. And we deserve not the liberty nor security we now enjoy. Deserve not to be called American as it has been defined.
I don’t care if your name is Smith or Jones or Pastorius or Echevarria or Hussein or Schneider or Yost or Milton or Levin or Berman or Gellar or Johnson.
I’ll treat you decently as a human being. And will expect the same in return. Should you violate that, or demonstrate you don’t feel that way, then we’re going to have trouble.
My ancestors are German, Polish, Dutch, French, English, Russian. My wife’s are Polish, Irish (oy), Lithuanian, German.
Which part of me do you want to send back and why? The part who arrived here AFTER 1900 or BEFORE 1645?
America is a melting pot but more than that. I offer America is a fine Damascus Blade. Not made of one steel but an alloy of strong carbon steels and soft spring steel.
This allows us to be both strong and deadly when we need to be yet flexible and resilient so we don’t break when required.
Take away part of that and we will become brittle and prone to failure when needed most.
And like a fine Damascus Blade we have a deep and gorgeous swirling whirling pattern in us when held to the right light. A pattern, a motif, made up of all our various ethnicities that is part of us but does not define or make us. But that we have forged through the centuries into the fine blade we have become. And the motif has made us stronger.
Embrace Ethnic Nationalism and that Damascus Blade will be the Sword of Damocles.
So go ahead, cut heads with The Devil if you like. But don't come wailin' 'round here when he comes for yours.
Pastorius – please feel free to throw in here if you like.
24 comments:
"I’ve said before my daughter goes to school with a girl who is Muslim. Her family has hurt no one. And although she wears a Muslim headdress in many ways she tries to be like any other kid. They try to fit in."
No, they don't try to fit in. The headdress is but the obvious tip of the iceberg. The headdress represents a strong belief in a system which does not agree with you or your melting pot ideals.
This is not about the child. It is about extending second amendment protections to a seditious belief system.
The very existence of the headdress on a 'child' segregates her from others. Far too many well intentioned but misguided people consider that assimilation. Islam never assimilates. Islam only permits integration to strengthen it's influence.
Anonymous -- what if they CHOOSE to wear the hijab? CHOOSE.
My grandmother -- 94 years old -- wears a scarf to Catholic mass every, EVERY, Sunday. Has all her life. Because she feels it proper.
So does that make her guilty of sedition?
My wife often wears a scarf or hat in public. As do I. Both Catholic. Because we choose to. How about a Yamulke? Do either make a Jew or Catholic guilty of sedition?
Your definition is too broad. You need to ascribe intent. Because they wear a scarf or hijab means nothing in and of itself. The reason they wear it does. Are they forced or do they choose to do so?
My wife often wears a scarf or hat in public. As do I. Both Catholic. Because we choose to. How about a Yamulke? Do either make a Jew or Catholic guilty of sedition?
Does the doctrine calling for such headgear call for sedition?
Apples and oranges. You know better.
The muslim headdress also symbolizes the second class stature of females. Assimilation?
BTW, some recent victims of honor killing would beg to differ with your characterization of "choice".
Anon -- it is not apples and oranges. If they are being forced to wear the hijab then yes, I completely agree with you. Without question. Or anything where they are forced to hide their face and identity.
But if they choose to -- and I have seen them once or twice without it -- that is another matter.
Islam as it stands is seditious, yes, I've NEVER stated otherwise. That does not make every Muslim so.
And that is the point Pastorius and I and others are trying to make.
You cannot broadstroke this issue. They're Muslim, they come from a Muslim country, on that basis alone we cannot let them in.
AMong other things our Constitution would forbid it. Now, you could change the Constitution but do that, change it so it becomes excluding instead of including, is not the road we want to go down.
And what we are further saying is if we do it for Islam, where does it end?
My point is, and it's the same one I've made before, there is nothing wrong with Ethnic Diversity within a culture as long as that diversity is not actively engaged in overthrowing that culture.
It's happened all through American History. Look at my own state. Poles and Irish in the coal regions. Germans here in Dutch country. God knows what the hell that stew is in Philly. Large Hispanic and Vietnamese groups in my hometown.
But they have assimilated into American Culture while maintaining many of their own tradiitons and giving us a few.
You cannot say to one person you cannot stay here, you cannot come in, because you wear a scarf and say to another you can come in even though you wear a scarf. You cannot say to one it is wrong for you to not want to eat pork because your religion forbids it and to another it is okay for you not to want to eat pork because your religion forbids it.
This is a nation built upon laws. The same law for all. And if you're going to come here AND AGREE TO LIVE BY OUR LAWS (read:Sharia is a non-starter) then welcome. But we see the haft of a knife, a hint of a rip cord, and that same 2nd Amendment I'll use to protect your sister I will turn on you.
We are a free nation and to remain such it is incumbent on us to prove (to some degree of certainty) someone coming here has nefarious intent, not to merely assume they do.
Because if we think Keeping Ahmed Hussein out because of his name is going to save our ass then we're just asking for John Walker to take it out.
BNP SHOCK HORROR!
The Neanderthal, knuckledragging, neo-Nazi, racist, tattooed, skin-headed, live hamster-eating BNP are poised to pick up nearly 30% of the London vote according to the latest opinion poll: http://www.thelondondailynews.com/record-june-euro-elections-p-2921.html
BNP policies include...
- Annexation of Austria
- Invasion of Poland
- Conversion of Jews (into lampshades)
- Compulsory attendance for all schoolchildren at 48 hour long Wagnerian operas
- Drivers of trains which run late to be suspended (by piano wire)
Thanks for the tip, Antifa. I put it on the front page for you.
I still kinda like the "Islam, OK, Sharia, no way" thingy.
Seems sharia is the line in the constitutional sand, so to speak.
And yes, I know all the arguments that if no sharia, no real Islam. But those are for the Muslims to make when they tell me my legal system has to enforce the sale of young children into arranged marriages, allow capital punishment for "adultery", and require all women to wear shrouds, among other things.
But to Epa's point, there are lots of Muslims going about their daily business as Muslims right now, and I have not heard of Sharia being imposed on society (ok - not yet, anyway).
Ro
I fucking hate the burqa, and I do believe, in fact profouncly so, that anytime you see a woman in a burqa you are seeing evidence of Islamonazism (at least in the mind of the husband, if not both the wife and the husband).
That being said, I agree with you. We can not govern by appearances, as the French do. It's so French, to mistake fashion for politics.
The truth is, it all comes down to laws and ideas. If these people preach the overthrow of the government, then they ought to be incarcerated and/or deported. If not, then let them be.
Like Ro said, I behind the "Islam Ok, Sharia, No way" idea.
A lot of right and a lot of wrong.
Epa is right that we are an exception because we're a nation of refugees. Ask any Italian-American if they remember the bad times and how their family ended up here. Ask a native Italian. The Italian-American will know their history and the native Italian won't. Jews may be the only exception to this worldwide and even that's seriously iffy.
Midnight Rider, you're all wrong about the Mohammedan family whose kid goes to school with your daughter. They are directly responsible for dozens if not hundreds of deaths, as are all zakat-paying Mohammedans without exception. They could quite easily be deported. A single Islamic prayer is grounds for deportation or execution. We just don't enforce our sedition laws. No Mohammedan is innocent of either murder or sedition. They never could be, hypothetically. The 1st and 4th pillars ensure it.
MR, your grandmother's hat is not an open, explicit call for genocide. There is no comparison. It should be banned on all public property, and banned by individuals on private property. It's also an extreme safety risk: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4783 . Not only that, but it is a clear signal that the wearer is a whore (nikah = prostitution, it's an obligation, so all Mohammedan females are whores by definition and without exception), so forcing it on a child is abusive and should never be tolerated. It is not your grandmother's hat.
Pasto, stop calling them 'husbands' and 'wives.' They are whores and johns, nothing more. Read any buku nikah. It's money for vagina, nothing more. There's no 'love, honor, cherish' in Islam. Arabic doesn't even have words which are remotely synonymous.
Jdamn,
I see what you mean. I was only using the legal terminology. Your point makes sense in the case of the Islamonazis to whom I was referring.
By the way, Jdamn, I studied English Lit in college. I had professors who insisted that before Petrarch there was no such thing as romantic love.
I'm quite sure that is absolute bullshit.
Many academics think that mind is defined solely by the recorded word. I do not believe that. While I do believe in the Biblical idea that the world is made of words, I do not buy the idea that the human being is not capable of creating himself from words which he never personally speaks.
A man who never speaks is still a man.
Therefore, even though Muslims do not have a language for love, I do believe that some do still feel it.
I also believe that the Islamic ideology does so enslave many of them that they do, indeed, deny the very love which takes fire in their hearts, the Love that is natural to all the people who are created in the Image of God.
The Islamic ideology is the chains of Moloch. Of that I have no doubt. But, as it says in Romans,
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do (Y)instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show (Z)the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16on the day when, (AA)according to my gospel, (AB)God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
Wow, jdamn, so much pure hate. You don't know these people and you're ready to execute based on my description alone. Or if they say a prayer. And you know they're zakat-paying muslims, yes? Got a straight line to the Almighty himself, do you?
Wish'd you had read all I wrote. I said neither burqa -- which I detest-- nor Niqab -- just as much.
We're talking hijab, and only a headscarf at that. Face open and in full view. The kid and mom I've both seen in jeans. And the scarves themselves are quite colorful. In fact, you can see enough of their faces that I could pick them up out of a lineup whether they were wearing those scarves or not. It's easier when you're not blinded by hate.
Now then, whores, hmm. Little 11 year old a whore. I'll have my 11 year old be sure to tell her that because that. of course, is how we want to raise our children. Have you seen how American kids dress these days? I mean as long as we're labeling folks whores based partly on dress.
Now then, execution you mentioned. For praying. Ok. We'll startwith the mom since that's easier.
What do you like there? The American way or the Islamic? Oh hell, let's have fun and go with the Islamic.
Stoning, perhaps? Preceded of course by rape from the guards. Or do you like the hangings, hoisted on a crane to slowly strangle, not a free drop to broken neck.
Now, the little girl. Islamic I suppose is what we stick with. A beheading in order for praying? Of course, with the afireentioned rape by the guards first. Or do you think a single Makarov to the head would be in order?
Must be wonderful to be so all powerful, all seeing, all knowing, jdamn. Just hope I don't answer to the same god you do. But maybe someday you'll get to be in front when they come for these people. You'd like to lead that charge, ain't?
But now that we've solved our little Islamic problem tell me, about the Hindu brother and sister who also wear headdresses as mandated by their religion to school. How shall we deal with them?
Christ the scarf was a metaphore for basing judgements on appearance alone. Some obviously understand that. Some don't.
One more thing before I leave this little lovefest. Might have been helpful had I brought it up earlier but, from the way folks prejudge, I doubt it.
My uncle. Good Christian man. Has a nephew (no blodd relation to me). Also a good Christian man.
Fell in love. Got married. Both could live here freely but they live in Pakistan.
She's a Muslim.
Wear's a scarf. Willingly and voluntarily. Certainly not forced by her husband.
So when shall I tell my uncle to let his nephew know when the executioner will show up to grab the whore? And the raping prison guards?
Because, of course, it's the only Judeo-Christian thing to do.
I'm late here. Took a day off, more or less, from the web.
MR said: there is nothing wrong with Ethnic Diversity within a culture as long as that diversity is not actively engaged in overthrowing that culture.There is the crux of the matter, I think.
When I asked "is or was an exception," I was in no way suggesting that America shouldn't be an exception.
The melting pot worked in the past precisely because it was a melting pot.
Are we still a melting pot? Or are we Balkanized? I believe that sufficient Balkanization in America will lead to a race war.
I concur with Pastorius:
The truth is, it all comes down to laws and ideas. If these people preach the overthrow of the government, then they ought to be incarcerated and/or deported. If not, then let them be.
Like Ro said, I behind the "Islam Ok, Sharia, No way" idea.As to the hijab, every single former Moslem -- and even one non-jihadist Moslem -- has personally told me that wearing the hijab should not be permitted as it is a statement of sedition, i.e., tacit support of shari'a law and Islamic supremacism. In fact, more than one of these ex-Moslems have stated that wearing the hijab is the equivalent of wearing a swastika. I can't disregard these former Moslems' views. Symbolisim in Islam is more important than Westerners realize.
Well, we absolutely cannot forbid the wearing of head coverings in this country - it is a very basic freedom of expression issue.
If we start to object to symbols, aren't we becoming what the Editrix is warning about in Europe? Does it have to be Islamofascist vs. Neo-fascist?
Are the libs here as suicidal as they are in Europe, such that they will not allow a line to be drawn? The "no sharia" line? That line being "equal protection under the law"? (As the West uses those terms, not as they are interpreted by Islam.)
Because if they will not allow that line; if they, in fact, continue to demonize and finally outlaw those standing for constitutional / natural rights principles of equal protection, "dispassionate" justice, rule of law and equality of all under that law, we may as well just start discussing how to secure our bunkers.
I believe anything else is, sorry to say, just rearranging the Titanic's deck chairs.
Ro
I agree with Ro, but as to AOW's point about Hijabs, I would have to say that, personally, if my daughter decided to be a burqa-wearing Muslim, I would see it as the same thing as wearing a swastika, and I would throw her out of the house.
I would not tolerate such a thing in my house.
As I said earlier, I do see the burqa as being evidence of Islamonazism.
I'm with MR, I don't see the Hijab the same way. However, as AOW says, most ex-Muslims do warn us of the symbology of the Hijab.
We're a nation of laws.
And our laws permit the display of the swastika. And the wearing of white hoods with Odin's Cross. No matter how reprehensible.
They therefore also protect the display of the hijab.
Yes.
I was only explaining how I feel about these symbols personally. Personally, I will not put up with them in my home. No matter who brings them in.
No no, I understood that, Pasto. Comment was not directed at yours but made in general. Bottom line sort of thing.
I wouldn't put up with it in my home, either.
Ro said:
Well, we absolutely cannot forbid the wearing of head coverings in this country - it is a very basic freedom of expression issue. MR said:
And our laws permit the display of the swastika. And the wearing of white hoods with Odin's Cross. No matter how reprehensible.
They therefore also protect the display of the hijab.To the point that we neglect to admit what the symbolism is?
BTW, before the Muslim Brotherhood gained power in Egypt, women didn't wear hijabs. So Nonie Darwish told me.
For years, in a private Christian school at that, we had Moslem students. Not a single one even tried or wanted to wear a hijab.
The wearing of hijabs has proliferated in America. Why?
Maybe I've got this wrong, but I thought that donning the hijab wasn't even suggested in Arab countries until a girl had had her first menses.
I see a lot of little girls (about age 4 or so) in the D.C. area wearing the hijab.
AoW -- I didn't say we should neglect or ignore the symbolism. Any more than we should neglect or ignore the symbolism of the swastika and hood. Awareness does not equal discrimination (though that's not quite the right word here).
We have to protect their rights equally as long as they are within the law.
THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE US FROM KEEPING A CLOSER EYE ON THEM BECAUSE OF THE CHOICES THEY MAKE.
I think some people are missing that point in this discussion.
If headdress, or scarf is a marker of a REFUSAL to assimilate, then there is not a single lubavitch jew who is an assimilated american.
Nor is there a SINGLE SIKH who can measure up against such a marker.
We cannot distinguish so simply between an American who by family custom, personal religious philosophy, or place of worship is pious or a fanatic. We can recognize that certain requirements of certain religions mean certain things, but that wouldn't have helped with Atta or any of the 19. Or KSM (who had only a mustache, not a beard).
We might easily find the very person who adheres to strict dress and behavior to also be a believer in non compulsion before all else, and the last part of 5:32, OR NOT.
Better to know what is taught in a mosque, than worry about who wears what.
Better to make the boards of the mosque (and any other place of worship) PERSONALLY ECONOMICALLY responsible to ensure no hate is taught and no violence results than exhibit actions based on concern over wearing of prayer shawls, or wudu at work
Epa -- "If headdress, or scarf is a marker of a REFUSAL to assimilate, then there is not a single lubavitch jew who is an assimilated american.
Nor is there a SINGLE SIKH who can measure up against such a marker.
We cannot distinguish so simply between an American who by family custom, personal religious philosophy, or place of worship is pious or a fanatic. We can recognize that certain requirements of certain religions mean certain things, but that wouldn't have helped with Atta or any of the 19. Or KSM (who had only a mustache, not a beard)."
EXACTLY what I'm trying to get at in my own ham handed way.
Thank you.
Post a Comment