Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Trump Calls for Banning Muslims

Michael L.

The New York Times - blecch - tells us:
DonaldDonald J. Trump called on Monday for the United States to bar all Muslims from entering the country until the nation’s leaders can “figure out what is going on” after the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., an extraordinary escalation of rhetoric aimed at voters’ fears about members of the Islamic faith.
Well, there is a very good reason that many Americans are becoming more and more concerned about the behavior of some within the Islamic faith.

{The mass murdering of people with semi-automatic rifle fire in the name of Allah, while crying out Allahu Akbar!, will tend to do that.}

The truth of the matter is that since 9/11 Americans have, within the United States, been exceedingly moderate in their response to the Jihad, but things are heating up and the San Bernardino attack is going to bring out nativist tendencies throughout the US.

In the first time, ever, I recently saw fear in the face of a friend of mine concerning radical Islam because her sister lives within a ten minute drive of the attack site in southern California.

For most Californians, until this moment, Islamic terrorism has been an abstraction and viewed as a result of the history of Western-American colonialism, imperialism, and racism.

Trump, however, is wrong to call on a ban of all Muslims coming into the United States because it is too much of a broad brush.  He is correct to be concerned, and the Democrats are fools not to be, but the ban should be limited to the current rush of immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa.

The EU is selling Europe the rope with which to hang itself, but that does not mean some innocent Muslim family from, say, Indonesia or Europe, should not be allowed entrance to the United States.

I know a thing or two about American History and given late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century disdain for both Catholic and Jewish immigration, there is no possible way that I would support a general ban on Muslim immigration into the US.

However, that does not mean that the Jihad should be disregarded, as is the progressive-left tendency.

Both ISIS and Hamas should be demolished.

The West is at war with political Islam... whether it likes it or not.


  1. Paul Berman:


    1. I get it. We are the "stupid peasants". We fear what don't understand. We need a steady guiding wisdom of a "serious" (D) candidate to save us from our childish fears. Paul Berman is smart. He read Marx! (Did he vote for the "smartest man in the room"?)

    2. Jacob, that's what fueled my initial disgust with dKos and Progressives generally. They really think they are smarter than everyone else. It always irked the shit out of me.

    3. Jacob,
      Berman is one of the only people on the Left who has been prepared to tackle the issues of radical Islam.
      He stands out in his journalism and his other writings.
      He has been shunned by many on the Left for speaking out.

      Some links:

      "What you can't say about Islamism."


      Hope that works and I didn't make a mistake. If I did, I'm sure the article will be available via Google WSJ.archive.


      He's not what you think.

    4. Hugely important book:

      "The flight of the Intellectuals."

      The controversy over Islam and the Press


      Paul Berman is one of the most important voices in America. He is something akin to Nick Cohen in his track record of having been able to confront the problems in the Islamic world and, of course, Islamism. He is *not* in any way like the appalling goons at the DK or indeed at any similar site. And he is no run of the mill "progressive."
      I would not link to his work if that was the direction he was coming from.
      I wouldn't want to.

    5. k,
      I agree. Paul Berman is a liberal voice in the wilderness who has been trying to sound the alarm, i.e., get a serious and honest discussion going.

      On another note, I find that there is a bigoted assumption behind the "this is not who we are" rhetoric.

    6. Paul Berman is an important scholar.

      He is one of three that I have tended to rely upon concerning the connection between Nazi ideology and what Phyllis Chesler calls "Palestinianism."

      Berman, Küntzel, and Herf... although I feel certain at this point that there are others digging into the material.

      What really gave me pause with Berman was where in one of his books, perhaps Flight of the Intellectuals, where he describes the increase in hostility among westerners toward Israeli Jews - if not Jews, in general - during the height of the Arab violence and hostility toward those Jews during the first two intifadas.

      In other words, it was during the time when Arabs most sought to kill Jewish people that European animosity toward those Jews spiked.

      The same thing is happening now.

    7. Re your points in the above comment:

      Wonderful article by Joshua Muravchik:


      And from Heather Wilhelm, re Trump etc:


    8. Good article by Joshua Muravchik. But his date for the turnaround of world opinion is wrong. It's not 1967 and "occupation", it's 1992 and surrender. Jewish left worked overtime to undermine Zionism in the service of Oslo.

  2. Attention Trump despisers. Trump did not create the Jihad problem. He is a problem solver by occupation. In this case perhaps a simplistic problem solver but like I say; he did not create this problem. The horrible truth is that Trump's solution would solve the problem to a great extent while, as he suggested, lawmakers figure things out. Everyone else's solution is being nice and taking what comes; even if that means more San Bernardinos or worse. I suspect a lot of Americans trust Trump's solution.

    1. No of course Trump did not cause the jihadi problem. Absolutely. Neither, contrary to progressive opinion, did the West.

      I also agree that the total denial of the reality and danger of Islamic extremism by the Left has helped to create the environment in which Trump is flourishing.
      Personally, I think Trump is really only about Trump. He's a megalomaniac who requires unnatural amounts of attention. He is unpleasant in the extreme, incoherent, and fundamentally unserious.
      In what he is doing, he is driving the possibility of having a much needed debate about Islamism, and about the need for reform within Islam, further and further away from ever actually happening. That, and the introduction into the public sphere of some really awful ideas, is his contribution. The opposite of anything that could be productive.

      Important things:
      All jihadis are Islamists.
      Not all Islamists are jihadis.
      Most Muslims are not Islamists.
      Many, many Muslims around the world are crying out for Westerners to help them in the fight against jihadis. They are the first victims of jihadis.
      The West, driven mostly by the regressive Left, is absolutely unable to make the necessary distinctions and to offer their support to millions of people who desperately need it.
      We need serious people, and people who are genuinely brave, to confront the complexities of the issues the world faces. There are precious few of those.
      Trump is not one of them.

      But it is true to say that if the political class, the intelligentsia, and the media, in America and in Europe, had not been so unwilling about - or ideologically incapable of - confronting the issue of the problems in the Muslim world and the rise of Political Islam, then this situation would never have arisen.

      So, while we should blame Trump alone for the worst of his rhetoric, we should keep in mind who helped to create the vacuum that he has been able to fill, and to use to further his seemingly endless desire for self-promotion.

      It's staggeringly depressing.

    2. "I also agree that the total denial of the reality and danger of Islamic extremism by the Left has helped to create the environment in which Trump is flourishing."
      The left has helped to create an environment where jihad is flourishing.

    3. Jeff, exactly. Had the left been serious about defending its alleged values, it would have been condemning things Islam for a long time but you know; white privilege, the OTHER etc. The silence of Feminism is a crime.

    4. Jeff,
      I agree that the Left has helped to create an environment where both radicalization can flourish, and indeed, actual jihadi violence, too.
      Absolutely. Absolutely.
      I also think the effect of Trump will be that the Left will, self-righteously, hunker down in their position and refuse to hear any reasonable and necessary criticism of Islam or Islamism. As what we are desperately needing is to have a reasonable, rational debate where those ideas and critiques can be made, I fear his rhetoric will thus be extremely counterproductive. And at a time when things are so serious, that is quite frightening.
      Believe me, my anger at the Left for what they have done could not be greater.
      I also agree that the "This is not who we are" rhetoric is hollow and empty. Especially coming from Obama who has utterly failed to confront reality over this problem and who answers every difficulty by blaming the American people for their supposed bigotry. He has been an architect of the current situation, and, as usual, will refuse to take any responsibility. All responsibility will be placed on the shoulders of ordinary Americans. Although, now Donald Trump will have set himself up as the bogeyman they can blame for everything.
      It is an astonishing mess.

    5. Not necessarily. Maybe it will be just the opposite. Trump has broken the topic wide open and now we have permission to talk about it. The Left may double down, like Loretta Lynch and her shameful threats against anyone daring to exercise free speech, but now that the conversation has started, there just might be greater and greater pushback. It's possible.

  3. Trump would not exist except for Obama, just as Obama would not exist except for Bush.

    Trump's popularity shows how far the pendulum has swung under Obama and his progressive wave that threatens to undermine Americanism by creating a global environment that will come to resemble a gulag.

  4. "Convert who protested outside Parliament over Syrian airstrikes with poster saying 'I am a Muslim... do you trust me enough for a hug?' now faces jail for threatening to bomb MP's house

    Muslim convert Craig Wallace, 23, admitted sending malicious messages
    Wrote on Facebook that he would bomb Tory MP Charlotte Leslie's house
    Called her a 'dirty pig-f****** w***' day after she voted in favour of airstrikes

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3349803/Muslim-convert-faces-jail-threatening-bomb-MP-s-house.html#ixzz3tlsKiV7o
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    1. Yes. And sadly, Charlotte Leslie has received horrendous abuse from leftists over the last year for other reasons. Including her support for tracking, and even her relationship with a BBC radio presenter who happens, I think, to be a conservative. Even her parents' property was vandalized. It's a really awful situation. I feel enormous sympathy for her. British politics is ugly in so many ways. Awful!

  5. I for one no longer care either way. The left owns this. Let a million in and lose track of them. When buses full of democratic voting illegal Mexican lesbian social justice warriors are blown up, I will be laughing, but not in a microaggression kind of way. I truly don't care anymore.

  6. Hey Trudy. Looks like I just got banned at Harry's Place too. lol

    1. Jeff, yeah. I guess some snowflake didn't like my sense of humour, lol Oh well, I hardly ever posted there maybe 5 times in the last 5 years.

    2. Doodad,
      I also post at Harry's Place a few times a year, but having read other commenters there I can't even imagine how you would be censored.

      As for Trump, he is playing the media like a fiddle. And his support is only going up, and that is not because we are a nation of racist Islamophobes. I have been talking to very reasonable people from very similar backgrounds to myself who are telling me they are voting for Trump.
      A few of them have pointed out the media's consistent choice to leave off the "until our representatives figure this out" part of Trump's immigration remarks. Our liberal media very much prefers to go "a racist hunting" than to have the serious discussion they always claim they are having.

  7. Obama used to be the chess master (can you say "master" anymore?) while everyone else is playing checkers.

    Trump may actually fit that label. Start with something outrageous to get attention. Otherwise, it simmers below the surface. And the national conversation begins.

    The question is how things have evolved that causes a Trump to take hold.

    The version of a world with universal values and beliefs is a pipe dream. When people maintain that the dream is the reality, they lose credibility. Heard in a movie that, "Ideas are peaceful, history is violent."

    This does not even get to the fascist tendencies of the professional dissenters and crybullies to punish over their ideologies.

    Enter Mr. Trump. Fact is more incredible than fiction.

    1. "Start with something outrageous to get attention. Otherwise, it simmers below the surface. And the national conversation begins."

      This is exactly it. He's a catalyst.

    2. I think, School, that you have a point.

      Trump, like, say, Ann Coulter, is expanding the Overton Window, but can you think of any previous US president that got elected to the highest office in doing so?

      Most American presidents come to office because they seem to represent the spirit of their times and they galvanize that mood. Ronald Reagan, for example, did not create the mood of the 80s - good times, college days - but he embodied it.

      Zeitgeist is a good word. US presidents tend to represent the zeitgeist of the time.

      Kennedy, of course, was about optimism and expansion coming out of the allegedly dull 1950s.

      {By the way, how dull and conformist could the 1950s have actually been given that it produced the Civil Rights Movement, the Beat Generation, and Rock n Roll?}

      LBJ was about civil rights, reform, big government and the new New Deal... I seem to recall where he wanted to call the Great Society, the Big Deal, but they wisely talked him out of it.

      Nixon, needless to say, represented a backlash against the excesses of the 1960s.

      And it goes on and on and on and on.

      American politics, in the broadest sense, is constantly swinging back and forth between the poles of FDR and Eisenhower, but I will always prefered Truman.

      What would a Trump America look like?

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. Who knows? I wonder if he is a democrat. He has generally ruled by fiat.

      Would be nice to hear his philosophy of civil and minority rights. His zeal to attack political correctness should not ignore there are real problems where people need to be brought together.

      Would not surprise to see him as a pragmatist that can make things work better in an environment of merit. Things are now so off kilter that a shakeup is in order. His executive experience compared to Obama's in 2008 is night and day.

      That he is even in the picture, however, is testament to American schizophrenia in the age of social media. The culture created under a progressive hegemony is fueled by manipulation via the internet, where the worst of human character becomes mainstream, where click bait is a priority, and where the is ZERO time for reflection.

      Clinton is even more dishonest, and lacking in principles. She has a record filled with ethical questions. Trump cannot be similarly tarred. His misstatements are not about policies or conduct, and should be understood in the context of the man.

      In any event, not a very tempting choice. Too much poison. The right-wingers are a scary lot, too, but mainly want to be left alone, while the leftists credo is to meddle in everything.


  8. 8 U.S. Code 1182 – Inadmissible aliens

    (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

  9. " “Two male Afghan air force students did not report for duty yesterday at their regular maintenance training at Moody AFB in Valdosta, Georgia. Both are assigned to the 81st Fighter Squadron. They have been at Moody since. February 2015 and were screened prior to their arrival in the United States more than a year ago. The students have trained alongside American counterparts for the entirety of 2015 and do not pose any apparent threat. There is a well-coordinated process among federal agencies to locate the individuals as quickly as possible and return them accordingly to the proper authorities to manage their present situation.”


    Officers. Check local Christmas parties.

    1. They're usually found in a few days with colossal handovers and an STD.

  10. You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

    The Jewish people will stand up for ourselves.

    1. "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
      Exactly, and worth repeating.

  11. This is a strategic mistake. The left and Obama have to own this whether it turns out badly or turns out well.

  12. A long time ago - when Carter was president and the world was young - a reporter came down to Plains, Georgia, to interview his mother, Lillian.

    At one point during the interview, if my memory serves, the reporter said something like, "Lillian, does Jimmy ever lie?"

    To which she replied, "My Jimmy doesn't lie."

    To which he replied, "Oh, come now, Miss Lillian, surely he must have lied sometime in the past."

    Thus causing her to say something like, "Oh, well, I suppose he has occassionally told a 'white lie.'"

    And he said, "A 'white lie'? Please, Miss Lillian, what do you mean by that? What is a 'white lie'?"

    And she says, "Y'know when you first turned up at my door an hour ago and I said, 'Welcome to Plains. It's a pleasure to meet ya.'? That was a white lie."


  13. "'World's biggest' drug kingpin El Chapo declares war on ISIS with chilling threat

    16:53, 10 DEC 2015 UPDATED 21:59, 10 DEC 2015 BY GEMMA MULLIN

    An alleged encrypted email from Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán to ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi has been leaked online

    One of the world's most wanted drug lords has reportedly 'declared war' on the Islamic State in a threatening letter.

    Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán apparently sent an encrypted email to the ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi after one of his cartel's shipments was destroyed.

    His letter, which has been leaked by cartelblog.com, claims his men will "destroy" the terror group if they continue to 'impact on their operation'.

    The Mexican drug baron, who runs the notorious Sinaloa cartel, allegedly told Al Baghdadi that his organisation are 'not soldiers' but 'lowly p*****s'.

    He apparently wrote: "Your god cannot save you from the true terror that my men will levy at you if you continue to impact my operation.

    "My men will destroy you. The world is not yours to dictate. I pity the next son of a wh*** that tries to interfere with the business of the Sinaloa Cartel.

    "I will have their heart and tongue torn from them."


  14. "“It’s O.K., it’s O.K. to be afraid,” she said. “When bad things happen, it does cause anxiety and fear,” she added. “But then you pull yourself together and, especially, if you want to be a leader of our country, and you say:‘O.K., what are we going to do about it? How are we going to be prepared?’” Hilary after Trump's Muslim remarks.

    " Hillary Clinton could hardly keep herself from laughing at the mention of his name. “I’m sorry, I can’t help it,” she told ABC News on Sunday, letting out a giggle that made advisers squirm." Hilary before the remarks. Is she running scared?


  15. That's the pithy point though, no? When the left says 'concerned' or 'afraid' they mean not only is it stupid and childish to BE concerned but that it's also dangerous and possibly treason.