Isn't it strange how the "no Muslims at all, even US citizens" controversy broke right when it would be most helpful to President Obama's narrative of how Americans are horrid haters of Islam?
Turns out, it's not the first time he's rescued the Democratic narrative at a critical moment. Suspicious, maybe.
For a long time I thought he was just a Clinton Stalking Horse. Now I'm not so sure, but it remains a workable hypothesis.
22 comments:
What strikes me is that the people who have worn out the 'racism' claim till it's meaningless are surprised when the threat of being branded a racist no longer makes anyone pause to reconsider... What did they expect?
He very well could be in cahoots with Shrillary.
But he has a point. Racism, my ass.
Same-o to some sort of ignorant yapflap about "religion." Cheney is a great example of someone who doesn't have a friggin' clue about "religion"--and like all the rest in DC., with K Street Barracks and Secret Service all handy-like.
If he'd said, "Hey, this proves that point about the Syrian refugees -- how can we let them in when our vetting system is this broken?" I'd be on a different page about it.
How can you deny American citizens their right to come home, though? I mean, consider a US servicemember who is overseas on orders. Say they happen to be a Muslim. Does this apply to Sergeant Hassan? Who may well have been decorated for service in Afghanistan?
Sure, it's no wonder that the insult lost its sting. There are other reasons to reconsider this position, even if you're not the least bit worried about what other people will think of you for suggesting it.
He couldn't succeed at being a stalking horse if a lot of Americans didn't give him power, so his own motives should be irrelevant. I also think he's too narcissistic to do that favor for anyone.
Yet he is rescuing them. My hope is that he gets the Democrats to act ever-crazier. which seems to be happening to Obama, anyway.
For a long time I thought he was just a Clinton Stalking Horse. Now I'm not so sure, but it remains a workable hypothesis.
I'm still not ruling it out. He sounds like a walking Republican stereotype as perceived by Democrats.
But at the same time, he does have support from Republicans. Mostly because of the reasons laid out over at Ace's place, namely that average conservatives are pissed off at the establishment and their wishy-washy handling of actual national security concerns, and that they're latching on to Trump because he is absolutely against the establishment. It's why Carson was doing well too, right up until he went all... ridiculous on everything.
More nuanced take: no, he cannot bar re-entry of US citizens.
However, see RedState today: http://www.redstate.com/2015/12/08/trumps-method-barring-muslims-different-refugee-vetting-process/
We already DO vet returning US citizens very thoroughly.
As to the other part of his statement, barring NON-citizen Muslims from entering the country--that's called national security or national defense. (Take your pick.)
ISIS has declared a caliphate. If we take them at their word, one thing follows:
History teaches us that caliphates are enemies (see, e.g., Vienna and Lepanto.) A caliphate is, in Islam, a "state," and, in Islam, the only 'allowed' state, period.
Until ISIS made their declaration, 'religion' was somewhat irrelevant. One could argue that Mohammedanism is and always was inimical to the West, of course, and such an argument can be well-supported.
But it is NOW the case that there is an active war going on, whether we admit it or not. The least-intrusive way to fight that war is to keep enemy agents and troops out of our country.
Well, you can't vet anyone coming from ISIS-held territory. There's no one to vet them with except ISIS, and they (a) aren't talking to us, and (b) couldn't be trusted if they were. You can't go to the security services and ask if they're good people or if they've been hanging around the wrong crowd if there are no security services, or if they're run by people who are your enemies.
In fact, that problem generalizes to Syria, even in areas where ISIS has never held territory. It's clearly true for Tehran's sphere of influence. That means Iraq too, unless it happens to be an Iraqi we have extensive files on from the war (e.g., one of our former interpreters).
The only way to vet people from these war zones, or Iran, would be if we happened to have intelligence on them personally that led us to believe they were the right kind of people. And that can't be done in public, since even the existence of the information is often a secret, let alone the content.
You're right about the caliphate and what it means for those who adhere to their particular reading of Islamic law. It must be destroyed.
I too also agree that ISIS must be destroyed. But imagine in 1940 if German Jews were attempting to flee Nazi Germany for the US. Sure, they're Germans, and it'd be a perfect time for the Nazis to try and sneak some agents into the US. But does that mean we should bar them from entering? Yes, I know the question before us is of religion and not nationality (sort of), but frankly, I don't see real options here. People legitimately fleeing ISIS (and Assad, who is frankly little better) honestly fear for their lives and need help. And yes, ISIS would dearly love to sneak some operatives in with legitimate refugees. But given that clearly they can inspire people already here to swear to their Caliphate without even having to sneak in with refugees, I really fail to see that the risk is any greater than that we face from those already here.
I have known many good Muslims from my time in service. I'm sure Grim does as well. To say that all are a threat is as stupid and shortsighted as the gun grabbers who see all citizens with guns as a threat because of mass shootings. And just as it is foolish to punish the law abiding in an attempt to stop criminals, it is foolish to block all Muslims because of the actions of the terrorists.
There are options between "do nothing for them and leave them to fate" and "turn them loose in the USA on a presumptive pathway to permanent residency and eventual citizenship." I'm not opposed to taking on as citizens the ones who are a good fit for the American project, for that matter, but I'd like to know that you were ideologically committed to the American ideal of limited, Constitutional, government with respect for our traditions and liberties.
You'd find some Syrians who are gung-ho to be Americans in the truest sense of the word. I'll take all of them you can find, gladly.
The others I think we should assist without importing them. Let's help them retake Syria and build a decent society there, in the manner of the Marshall Plan. Take the willing and train them, equip them, and support them in the fight to take back their own country, and help them rebuild it. Support the weak or injured or sick until there's a safe home for them to return to eventually.
The brash behavior of Trump has done one great service- it has brought up things that need to be discussed, that have previously been a forbidden topic due to political correctness. The fact is that lot's of Americans are not happy with the way things have been going, and feel suffocated because they are not allowed to voice any concern with out being instantly branded as monsters for even the most mild criticism.
Trump has thrown a brick through that window.
I'll give you that.
@ MikeD: Umnnnhhhh....please remind me of all the terrorism committed by German Jews prior to WWII. For that matter, as to "fearing for their lives," let's then admit ONLY Christians from Syria/Iraq.
And finally, it is very difficult to believe that under-30 males--who are the predominant class of 'refugees' in Europe--are unable to take up arms and fight their own damn war. Are they all pussies like Obama?
Dad, my example was that they might be turned away because they are German, not because they are Jews.
Also, ISIS is not restricting their attacks to non-Muslims, they attack any who don't hold to their narrow brand of Islam (so Yazidi, Shiites, Druze, insufficiently appropriate Sunnis like the Kurds, etc). So you may find some of those people also in legitimate fear for their lives.
And Dad, would you say the Jews who tried to flee Germany were pussies for failing to take up arms and fight for their homes? Sure, some did in Warsaw, when it was far, far too late. But the overwhelming majority did not. I will not condemn them or their lack of actions in preventing the Holocaust.
"And finally, it is very difficult to believe that under-30 males--who are the predominant class of 'refugees' in Europe--are unable to take up arms and fight their own damn war. "
Maybe they are going to fight their own war, just on a new battleground.
I think the US did refuse to allow in German Jews pretty much because, well, Jews.
Same government also interned lots of citizens of Japanese extraction.
But yeah, Trump is saying what lots are thinking, and it is curious to watch sites like Memeorandum list all the headlines. Hear a co-worker talk about Trump going "Full Hitler" although I don't think he even knows what that means.
1) What Eric said. Further, we ARE proposing a religion test, not a nationality test.
2) Correct. ISIS and other radical Muslims will kill damn near anybody. So why are you proposing to allow them into the USA?
3) You won't condemn all those people for running away. Instead, you'll condemn me and my children to a life on "condition yellow alert." Nice. Very nice.
The fact that we excluded Jews because they were Jews would be bad enough, but as you say, it's not like we were facing a threat from the Jews of the world. So in order to put it into an apples to apples comparison, I proposed that they would be forbidden entry because they were German. I'm not sure it makes your case that it's reasonable that we excluded them in reality because "well, who likes the Jews?"
I'm NOT proposing we let in ISIS or other radical Muslims. Where in the world did you get that idea? I said we should let in people fleeing from them, just as we should have allowed people fleeing prosecution from the Nazis (or indeed, the Soviets) even though, like now, there would be a risk of the people they're fleeing from to hide inside the refugees. It's a far different proposition.
Dad, I'm not condemning you or anyone else to a blessed thing. Nor am I condemning them as pussies for failing to stand up to murderers, but you are. What I am saying is that yes, we should take in refugees. But we should not do it blindly. By all means, restrict it to just women and minor children (and not "I'm 17... really, I just have a thick beard cause of reasons.") By all means, don't just let them roam the countryside all willy-nilly. Keep tabs on them. Just because we take them in doesn't mean we need to give them the keys to the kingdom.
But nor should we blindly reject them either. Yes, ISIS will want to sneak someone in among the refugees. But clearly, they don't currently NEED to either. The San Bernadino shooters weren't refugees, and yet they were true ISIS supporters. So if we're worried about domestic terrorism threats, they're already here. I'm not saying "hey, let's just let in whoever and screw caution!" But I am saying that it is the morally right thing to do to help people who are legitimate refugees. Matthew 25:40
I said we should let in people fleeing from them...
Just as a point of fact, almost all of the refugees are not fleeing from ISIS. They are generally fleeing from Assad's forces.
Matthew 25:40
A point well worth considering. I don't dispute that we should do a great deal for them. As I've said before, I'm willing to go myself to help fight to restore their home to them.
What if there were a similar crisis here, I wonder? We are supposed to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Would you prefer to be accepted as a refugee, or to have your friends come and fight to restore the United States and help you rebuild it?
A point well worth considering. I don't dispute that we should do a great deal for them. As I've said before, I'm willing to go myself to help fight to restore their home to them.
At this point in time, I think the opportunity is lost. Fighting Assad now means explicitly fighting the Russians. Yes, they're ostensibly there to "combat ISIS", but their goal is to prop up the Assad regime. I think, short of being willing to fight the Russians, we are going to have to concede that Assad will remain in power.
What if there were a similar crisis here, I wonder? We are supposed to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Would you prefer to be accepted as a refugee, or to have your friends come and fight to restore the United States and help you rebuild it?
Of course I would prefer our friends and allies to come fight for us. But Syria is not a good guys vs bad guys situation. It's the Scylla and Charybdis, crushing the people in between. No matter who wins in Syria, things will continue to be absolute misery there for the people. And I don't even see the "rubble makes no trouble" solution working either. The sad and sorry fact of the matter is, the best we can hope for is the good and honest people to flee and seek shelter elsewhere while the various factions fight it out, then to eliminate the final victor, THEN send the refugees back with assistance to rebuild. Then again, given our track record of rebuilding nations (I'll give us a solid 2:1:3 on that front; Germany and Japan did well, Korea is kind of a wash, and we flat out abandoned Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan) I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope for that either.
OK, then. Only women and chilluns--and all Christians of any sort!
Assad is a bad guy. ISIS is a bad guy. The reason the Russkies support Assad is that he keeps the rad-Muzzies under control, admittedly the hard way. And the Russkies have memories of a lot of dead schoolchildren.
In this particular instance, Putin is doing the work for us.
Democrats start wars, Republicans try to win them and rebuild the wreckage, then Democrats sell out US allies for cash and votes. That's generally the pattern and one America is fated to be destroyed by, since the last chance to reverse it was destroyed.
The center cannot hold, so the Republicans themselves will dissolve. The people are no longer sufficient to rule themselves and they know it.
Russia's dominance is momentary, perhaps. But you're raising an important question, and a troubling one, about our duty as Christians. It's the most important duty.
In a way, it hardly matters what we think -- Putin has control of part of it, and Obama another part. Our will is of small matter. But it is important, all the same, that we think and reason and decide according to our best conscience. I would still rather go, and even go and die, than let America die in my place. Of course, perhaps America wouldn't die. Perhaps many of these are just the right kind of people. But I'd like to be sure, or if not quite sure, as sure as we can be given the difficulties.
Post a Comment