No singling out of any RELIGIOUS group, on THAT basis is, I believe, permissable in the USA, per the Constitution
Outside the USA, it certainly IS permissable, but disgusting especially since the very same result could have been obtained by listing nations of origin, and therefore Trump PURPOSEFULLY decided to say MUSLIMS.
WHY?
Why did he choose to say muslims?
In fact why not say he favored all legal immigration, was 100% set against allowing any ILLEGAL immigration at all, and pursuant to that goal had a list of temporarily banned nations which make common sense to all americans?
Further, banning muslims, even for a week is an impractical and unworkable solution.
"Hi, I'm an assyrian christian, my family are all dead and I'm from Al Hind-tit, Iraq where the town hall is rubble and I'm seeking asylum in the USA. Here's my passport" (PS manufactured and 'aged' in Raqqa)
Why not temporarily stop ALL immigration until we 'figure out what the hell is going on'?
Who are you going to call?
You happy with the State dept overseeing that?
It's not that Trump HATES muslims, it's that he is willing to single out ANY RELIGIOUS group on the basis of their unifying quality.
HOW THEY PRAY.
27 comments:
Fundamental Islam is as much ant-Western-civilization geopolity as it is religion.
Just sayin'.
"Why did he choose to say muslims?"
Because he understands the problem...as far as I can tell, and he's the only one politically incorrect enough, and in that respect non-politician-y enough to say it out loud.
"No singling out of any RELIGIOUS group, on THAT basis is, I believe, permissable in the USA, per the Constitution."
I think this is the one thing you and I completely disagree on. He's not singling out a religious group but a political one. Just because Islam has been accepted as a religion in the West doesn't mean it takes away from what it really is. It is as much a religion as Communism is.
And I agree it is not fool proof, it is not even a plan, its an idea. And a valid one at that. You can't stop everybody, you definitely CAN stop most of the people who may harm you. What's your alternative? Ted Hand-Out-Teddy-Bears-To-Illegals-And-No-Deportation Cruz? Marco Gang-Of-Eight Rubio?
As for banning by country of origin: How are you going to stop crazy Muslims from the EU? Because let's not forget that those (now) European Muslims are at times more crazy than their otherwise less crazy brethren in say Indonesia, or even Lebanon.
Anyway, at times it sounds like people have a problem because the idea is not "fool proof", but what's the solution then? Not doing anything? No idea, or plan will ever be fool proof.
"Fundamental Islam is as much ant-Western-civilization geopolity as it is religion."
Agree with most of what you said except that it is "Islam".
Islam is a political system before it is a religion. It is baffling that people don't understand that. Supporting Islam and pandering to Muslims is nothing but treason.
"Islam is a political system before it is a religion."
BINGO
Dr. Warner's Statistical Islam discusses "Political Islam":
"Islam devotes a great amount of energy to the kafir. Not only is the majority (64%) of the Koran devoted to the kafir, but also nearly all of the Sira (81%) deals with Mohammed’s struggle with them. The Hadith (Traditions) devotes 32% of the text to kafirs. The part of Islam that deals with the “outsider”, the kafir, is defined as political Islam. Since so much of the Trilogy is about the kafir, the statistical conclusion is that Islam is primarily a political system, not a religious system. Mohammed’s success depended on politics, not religion. The Sira, Mohammed’s biography, gives a highly detailed accounting of his rise to power. He preached the religion of Islam for 13 years in Mecca and garnered 150 followers. He was forced to move to Medina and became a
politician and warrior. During the last 9 years of his life, he was involved in an event of violence every 6 weeks. When he died every Arab was a Muslim. Mohammed succeeded through politics, not religion. There are two distinct growth processes—religion
and politics. Teaching and religion grew at a rate of about 12 new Muslims per year. Politics and jihad grew at a rate of 10,000 new Muslims per year, an enormous increase. This is a process yield improvement of over 800%. Politics was almost a thousand times more effective than religion. If Mohammed had continued with preaching religion we can extrapolate that there would have
only been 265 Muslims when he died, instead of the 100,000 that resulted from his politics and jihad.
This political importance is reflected in the text of the Sira. There are many more pages devoted to a year of jihad than there are devoted to preaching Islam."
Ban Islam and vote Trump
As long as Islam is a religion, it's POLITICAL interpretation is IRREVLEVANT under the Constitution.
We would need a bill passed by congress, signed by the president (and then it would be overturned by SCOTUS..BET ON IT) o change that and declare Islam to be made into Communist party status, except that even THAT is not illegal here.
I cannot stress enough that on this basis alone, you would find, due to the HISTORY OF THE PLANET, 95%+ of jews in america lining up against any such (totally unconstitutional) move in the USA.
Jews would work against this singling out with all they have.
WE HAVE TO.
It would end up as much a personal responsibility to our children and grandchildren, and God as the assholes who think killing us is theirs.
Far better to take the course of the SPLC on the Aryan nation .. if you preach violence and violence results.. YOU PERSONALLY and YOUR ORG are responsible criminally AND CIVLILY
IOW, if you have a mosque which teaches intolerance (FOR ANY REASON) and in essence SEDITION and violence or other illegal acts result, with damage to property, the BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the mosque (OR WHATEVER) are both criminally,, and financially responsible THEMSELVES aside from the house of worship itself, and the overarching relgious organization with deeper pockets the mosque, temple, whatever belongs to.
The choice is to turn this nation into a warped version that HAS BREACHED the BILL OF RIGHTS, or to KILL THESE FUCKERS there.
Declare a real war, and decide to win it and then execute that, unti the will of the other side is as broken as 1945, with any and all means necessary
Nico,
Islam is a political system before it is a religion.
Okay, I'll defer to you on that matter. You would know!
Epa,
As long as Islam is a religion, it's POLITICAL interpretation is IRREVLEVANT under the Constitution.
I can't agree.
Epa except the Constitution is for people already under American jurisdiction, its not even a Constitutional matter. Trump's idea/speech was for those coming in or wanting to come in. Just like it doesn't apply to the terrorists in GITMO, the constitution says nothing about Muslims from all over the world trying to invade the US. Its as simple as that.
As far as American Muslims are concerned, any action against those who have done nothing illegal in the US would be illegal and unconstitutional and if Trump had suggested "deporting" them (like some Muslim groups tried to say he was planning to do) then you and I would be in agreement that Trump was talking about breaching the bill of rights and going against the constitution and hence not fit for office.
Nico what I speak of as being unconstitutional is the declaring of Islam a poltical entity, and voiding Islam as religious one.
There is nothing illegal about banning anyone from entering the USA ANY president decides to ban for any arbitrary reason. Any reason.
Last saturday Mrs Epa and I were at a dinner with many jews. Trump's statement about singling out Muslims was center stage. No one cared if Rubio wanted Jesus, or Cruz turning into an evangelist..at all.
Many to all would support 100% a list of nations we halt immigration from. A plurality might go for total stop to all imigration. There wasn't ONE who supported Trump's statement.
ANATHEMA to jews.
The vast majority (and there were registered R's there..I am I) said they would either not vote for president in Nov or support WHOEVER the D was.
This would totally reverse the leaching of Jews to the republican side, ESPECIALLY after the last 12 months.
Maybe it doesn't matter as a % of the vote, but if not, it FREES a vocal progrommed (not here) minority to speak out forcefully. Where the cameras can see.
BTW:
Full Definition of religion
the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion
the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Under the Bill of Rights, Islam is a religion.."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
SCOTUS has said this applies to the STATES as well.
US v Ballard defines the SINCERITY of the individual in belief and faith as THE CRITERION for legal definition of religion.
"The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment."
There is NO WAY Islam can be de-authorized as a religion. If fulfills our own requirements to be considred a religion.
Scientology is recognized.
C'mon.
Make peace with this and let's find another way.
I am 100% opposed to trying to make Islam a non religion and I am not what one might call a progresssive jew. This should tell you that every american who happens to be jewish would work, donate and support opposition to this, and NEVER vote, donate or support any politician who fought for this goal, for their entire voting life.
Trust me on this one.
I have many jewish friends up here who not only supported Obama, but worked for him who bitterly regret this and their support for the democratic party (the majority of whom now support palestinians). This issue, trying to delegitimze ANY religion, legally would put the bulk (AND ME) onto the other side.
Epa, you have a good point here.
Now, let me tell you what the problem is:
Arab CHRISTIANS are being murdered by the Muslims and these Arab Christians need asylum.
Jews are being murdered too, but they have Israel.
The Christians have nothing.
If it were the Jews in danger, I would be saying bring the Jews into the US and keep the Muslims out.
But it's the Christians, and no one cares.
NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE CHRISTIANS.'
Does that sound familiar to you.
Remember, over 2 million Christians were slaughtered in Sudan in the past 25 years.
No one did shit.
It's a religious war, right?
Same problem as Israel and the Palestinians.
Epa, you write - 95%+ of jews in america lining up against any such (totally unconstitutional) move in the USA.
Jews would work against this singling out with all they have.
WE HAVE TO.
I RESPOND - And, would you stand against Christians being singled out to be saved among the Arab Nations?
Is that right?
Would you stand against saving the ARAB CHRISTIANS?
Epa I can't argue against or for what you say about what Jews would support or what they wouldn't. You know about that way more than I do.
What America does with the status of Islam within the US is obviously up to Americans. But my point, which I probably didn't articulate very well, is that there is NOTHING stopping the theoretical Trump administration from treating Muslims ALL AROUND THE WORLD (except the US) as a political entity that is dangerous and COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE with the Constitution of the US and the US way of life.
And to Pastorius's point, I think everyone on this blog would agree with him on the point of saving Jews (JEWS not Israelis) if it came down to it. And not just people on this blog but a lot of Christians in general. And NO ONE would advocate either letting them die at the hands of Muslims by refusing to take in ANYONE from that region; neither would anyone advocate letting ALL OF THEM come in, Muslims who are murdering the Jews and the Jews because you wouldn't want to appear as inconsiderate toward a religious group or it might affect you personally some decades down the line.
I do have to concede on 2 points:
1) that Christians have not seen the kind of persecution Jews have so I can at least TRY and understand where Epa is coming from.
2) I'm just a foreigner so WTF do I know about internal US matters.
I am concerned though. And I don't see ANYONE else being able to do anything different than what has already been going on. Cruz is great as a senator but another LAWYER, CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERT and a FIRST TIME SENATOR as president of the US, YGBFKM!
republic's first war- against muslims-barbary pirates- tripoli- Jefferson- Marines- Shores of Tripoli-
nothing has changed except the PC crap -
read the koran- !!
C-CS
Pasto
Saving actual assyrian (or any) christians, zoroastrians, yezidis.. the problem is that to WIN this without risking the nation we need a coherent plan.
These people are being wiped out. If we cannot allow people from certian nations here, and we cannot vet anyone who says they are not muslim, how do we accomplish their rescue and safety?
If the nation agrees this is our job, our ROLE on earth really...and we are being compelled to that role, aren't we?
The least worse answer is what we did in northern Iraq for the Kurds- which worked.
The next step is to have a COMPETENT govt which can and will be merciless in vetting, including acting with speed, to admit ALL THOSE who wish to come here in ORDER TO BECOME AMERICANS.
And admit ALL THOSE who are in danger of being killed.
We MAY wish to establish a contractual agreement to tracking these individuals until they become citizens.
Nico..
'there is NOTHING stopping the theoretical Trump administration from treating Muslims ALL AROUND THE WORLD (except the US) as a political entity that is dangerous and COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE with the Constitution of the US and the US way of life.'
I can't understand why this is not the practiced foreign policy of the USA, certainly since 9/11. This has nothing to do with Trump.
Every so called 'muslim' nation can then make up their minds how they want to proceed. Are we the 'arrogant power' that makes up it own laws, arrogating god's authority or are we a potential ally they might need, and therefore they have to make some decisions?
One thing has resolved itself if we look at the last 8 years.
If the USA does not stick a flag in the ground, and stand there and lead, the world will end up like Sweden, Finland, GB, and Cologne, one nation at a time. But we need to do this and remain the USA. In WW2 we went somewhat off the rails with Koromatsu, but by and large did fine, especially over time. From 1861-65 Lincoln did some things which were off the rails too, but we came back to normal very quickly.
I have no doubt that in a war to the death some attitudes may be offensive
But we have to recognize where we are to do that.
My fear is that by assuming we will always be ok, we will act as if this must be true and then>>>>SULLA
This is a great and needed discussion and we should be having this out loud until November. We don't have coups and and takeovers, and juntas, so if this gets loud out there during the election, TOUGH. We should all be having this talk
C-CS reading a racist religious founding document has NOTHING to do with upholding the Constitution for our own good.
Our OWN good.
Decision of the supreme court over the back half of the establishent clause go back over a century and its not PC Crap
If people like us, in this blog and at this point in time are unable to even entertain a basic consensus, it's clear we are not at an extreme situation, yet. But it will come.
If there is one person who understands the value of the protections offered by the American Constitution and its legal system, it's me. I come from the Land of Oz, where everything goes, and nobody is held accountable for his or her actions. But we cannot keep pretending that the Constitution was meant to cover all humans on earth, UNLESS they are on US soil.
The concept of political Islam has to be introduced to the general population. Soon. Religion is the enforcing arm of Islam. I remember one imam saying that had apostasy not been punishable with death, Islam would not have survived.
As for the Jews, unless I am mistaken, all polls showed Netanyahu losing miserably in the last election. In the end, liberals got behind him and gave him the lead. When your very existence and the survival of your people are threatened, it may be necessary to make some adjustments to your principles.
BTW the concepts of treason and sedition seem to have been erased from our conscious minds, but hope they are still part of our legal codes. Rubio proposed to close radical mosques and gathering places where radical ideas were preached. One or two weeks ago, when discussing this, Megan Kelly (a lawyer herself) said that would be unconstitutional, because those measures would infringe on the First Amendment, and that actions could be taken ONLY after the perps acted on those ideas. I am not a lawyer, but common sense tells me that is nonsense. How could you prevent treasonous acts unless you stop the traitors in the planning stage?
Basic questions: 1. Aren't there laws against hate crimes, incitement to violence, treason/sedition? Isn't Kelly's statement a misinterpretation of what free speech was actually meant to mean? 2. What is the interaction or overlapping between those laws and the First Amendment?
As for Trump's idea of banning Muslims (temporarily) from entering the US, some Constitutional lawyers apparently disagree on the common perception it would be unconstitutional. And Jimmy Carter banned nationals of a Muslim nation to enter the US after the events of 1979.
The problem with Trump's plan is that he included US citizens, and there is where all hell broke loose.
"I can't understand why this is not the practiced foreign policy of the USA, certainly since 9/11. This has nothing to do with Trump."
I can't understand it either, but again it has everything to do with Trump, if not for him we wouldn't even be talking about it. And who other than Trump would even dare have that kind of policy? Especially now when "being like Europe" seems to be the new "it" thing.
Pff, I mean we wouldn't even be talking about it as being a possibility. We always talk about things like this but honestly take Trump out of the equation it just leaves me, you, Pasto and AOW discussing it.
No offense but last it I checked we have no power to do sh*t.
'. I am not a lawyer, but common sense tells me that is nonsense. ' ..no you are totally wrong, UNLESS the FBI has a judge's FISA approval and has infiltrated your organization.
THere is no prior restraint in the USA.
See SCOTUS/NYT/Pentagon Papers.
Sedition was used in the 1919 cases of Debs etc, and it became ANATHEMA in the USA.
Sedition is an english principle and voiding it was one of the primary goals of 1776.
Nico.. the only time I heard anything from Trump regarding muslims and what to do worldwide WAS his remark about immigration. AFAIK, he has no announced plan to counter jihad, and he thinks (AS LBJ DID) he can deal with people like Putin etc as if they were biz opponents.
VERY dangerous.
TOday he blew me away...
His tweet: I don't believe I have been given any credit by the voters for self-funding my campaign, the only one. I will keep doing, but not worth it!
UNFORCED ERROR.
I still say he is the only one who understands how critical a closed border is, and the main proponent of the dismatling of free trade for everyone.
This election is a huge mess so far.
"Nico.. the only time I heard anything from Trump regarding muslims and what to do worldwide WAS his remark about immigration. AFAIK, he has no announced plan to counter jihad, and he thinks (AS LBJ DID) he can deal with people like Putin etc as if they were biz opponents."
No he does not have a specific plan to deal with global Jihad (he has hinted toward one that would kill most of the funding for jihad though) neither does anyone else. We're specifically talking about who would keep America, and in turn the world, safe. Curbing Muslim immigration is one of the biggest steps toward that.
I understand what you're saying about Putin, but Churchill and FDR dealt with Stalin when they had to. Bad deal over the long run but a pretty good deal when fighting a common enemy. Out of the current leaders in the world Putin is the only one capable of stopping Jihadis from overrunning the world. There's none in the West, NOT ONE.
His tweet is that of a petulant child. Obviously lashing out like that out of nowhere is something only an idiot would do and here Trump is acting like an idiot.
I don't worship the guy, the times are so bad that its sad he's, IMO, our best/the only chance.
In any case, American leadership in the world is important for world stability. I don't see Cruz being that leader neither do I see Rubio in that role. These guys, especially Cruz, are idealists rather than realists. We already have an idealist in the White House and look where we are.
When the world is back to normal again, I'd hope people like Trump wouldn't be needed to lead powerful countries like America. But in the absence of any real leadership from the West (specifically America) we are only left 3 real choices: 1) Hope Putin acts and Russia (or China) becomes the power that leads the world 2) or we subjugate ourselves to Islam and accept our fate. 3) Hope someone like Trump becomes president and sure he'd be extremely flawed but at least he'd be someone I can count on to fix the mess we're in right now and then disappear (or go back to reality TV).
1 and 2 are not an option for anyone sane enough. 3 is the only thing I can see. I am of course open to hear about saner solutions but so far all I hear is (not just from you Epa but others as well that I talk to) "I don't like what Trump said". Well damn, neither do i but this is the world we live in now, don't we?
"This election is a huge mess so far"
Noflirckinshit
Right now, RIGHT NOW, I am behind Trump more than anyone else. And this is a very recent development based on a number of things.
First there is no way I can vote for Rubio.
And after the last few days there is no way I can vote for Cruz.
Why?
The channeling of Pat Robertson for one. He was utterly shameless in his acceptance last night. That was pandering at it's worst/best.
His voter shaming tactic left a huge bad taste inmy mouth.
And if the Ben Carson story is true then that seals it for me against Cruz.
“I will apologize to no one for using every tool we can to encourage Iowa voters to come out and vote,”
Well it might not be illegal but it's slimy and smarmy as hell. And that just smacks of Politics as Usual. And that is not what I am looking for.
At least Trump will tell you what he thinks to your face.
As for his no muslims comment I am actually in favor of closing the borders for a minimum of two years, no one in, all applications in progress frozen. Either we're going to et serious about protecting America and Americans or we're not.
Bu it doesn't matter because since they can't have Jeb they will find a way to get Marco. With Nikki Haley as V.P.
As for the Dems last night showed Hillary's in real trouble with the voters. But moreso she is in trouble with the law. You think Barack (who is no fan to begin with) doesn't know where this email situation is going?
Bernie can't win (unless we have really taken leve of our senses) but you know who can? And I believe it has been preordained since the summer and when all this really started blowing up in her face?
Crazy Uncle Joe Biden. A champion campaigner.
Yes I know he dropped out. Didn't have it in him (I don't doubt that by the way) to run the race.
But by the time he dropped out Barack had a fair idea of how serious Hillary's troubles were (as he gleefully rubbed his hands in the dark of the Oval Office).
"Say, Joe, why don't you back out for now. Save yourself the trouble of a grueling primary campaign. having to fend off attacks from not just one or two Dems and one or two Repubs but nearly 15 Repubs. Then, at the convention you could get the nomination a-la Hubert Humphrey and start in all fresh and rested".
You think that's far fetched? Any more than anything else we have seen these last eight years?
November is going to be Rubio/Haley vs Biden/Warren.
And in the unlikely event I am right we are, as Pasto said, all truly and finally fucked.
Along the same lines as midnight rider speculated above:
http://dcwhispers.com/n-h-republican-power-broker-says-no-trump-no-cruz-yes-bush-kasich/#3AfFwYcccSEdZYpY.99
This morning Governor Merrill was adamant that New Hampshire primary voters would choose an establishment candidate to represent them in the GOP nomination process. He specifically pointed to the campaigns of Jeb Bush and John Kasich as those he approved of.
He also appeared dismissive of the possibility that either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz would win New Hampshire.
Then he dropped a bombshell that clearly had Fox Business host Neil Cavuto a bit stunned.
Merrill indicated it would be a brokered Republican convention regardless, and from there a proper candidate would be nominated.
MR, by elimination I'm about where you are and I don't fucking like it.
Nico, we can work with Putin, but LBJ always insisted if he could deal with John L Lewis, the head of the UNited MIne Workers, he could work something out with Ho Chi Minh. THAT civilizational level misconception is what I am worried about.
We have another prez right now who suffers from this shit
Everyone sux anyway
Benjamin Franklin: "A republic. If you can keep it."
Apparently, we could not do so.
Post a Comment