The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Will the Zeroth Amendment Trump the First Amendment?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Christopher Caldwell semi-famously observed in 2009:

“One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong.”

Of course, that’s even truer for immigration, which has a massive political Ratchet Effect.

It’s been evident for some time that the the dominant ideological logic is trending toward making it inevitable that all 7 billion noncitizens on Earth be assumed to have civil rights to move to America.

Call it the Zeroth Amendment.

And the Zeroth Amendment is death to the First Amendment. Notice how much of the reaction to Donald Trump’s proposal that we call an immigration time-out for Muslims until we can figure out how better not to let in jihadis is to respond: We can’t even talk about that because that makes the Muslims who are already here even madder, and then they’ll really kill us! In fact, what we Americans need to do is to stop exercising our First Amendment rights when it comes to immigration. No American citizen should be allowed to object to any noncitizen immigrating here. After all, so many of their cousins are already here.

The new Leahy Amendment is another small step in that direction:

It is the sense of the Senate that the United States must not bar individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion, as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this Nation was founded.

Even when hundreds of millions of pious followers of a faith believe that waging jihad against Christians, Jews, and unbelievers is a sacred duty.

From Powerline:

Earlier today the Judiciary Committee passed the amendment on a 16-4 vote, with Senators Sessions, Cruz, Vitter and Tillis voting no. News accounts portray the vote as a symbolic repudiation of Donald Trump’s talk about excluding Muslim immigrants, and characterize the amendment as having little or no legal significance.

POSTED ON DECEMBER 10, 2015 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN IMMIGRATION
ARE DEMOCRATS TRYING TO ESTABLISH A RIGHT TO IMMIGRATE TO US?
Foreigners have no right to emigrate to the United States. How many immigrants we want to take in, and who those immigrants should be, are issues decided by us in our sole discretion, through our political process. This has always been the law, and has always been the fact.

But there are ominous signs that the Democrats may be trying, surreptitiously, to effect a radical change in these basic principles of American sovereignty. Senator Pat Leahy proposed, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, an amendment to Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which provided as follows:

It is the sense of the Senate that the United States must not bar individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion, as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this Nation was founded.

Earlier today the Judiciary Committee passed the amendment on a 16-4 vote, with Senators Sessions, Cruz, Vitter and Tillis voting no. News accounts portray the vote as a symbolic repudiation of Donald Trump’s talk about excluding Muslim immigrants, and characterize the amendment as having little or no legal significance.

In fact, the amendment creates an extraordinarily dangerous precedent. If given legal effect, it would, for the first time, purport to create legally justiciable rights in foreign persons who want to enter the United States but are barred from doing so by our laws, or by a presidential proclamation under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Jeff Sessions delivered a blistering denunciation of Leahy’s feel-good camel’s nose:

The adoption of the Leahy Amendment would constitute a transformation of our immigration system. In effect, it is a move toward the ratification of the idea that global migration is a “human right,” and a civil right, and that these so-called “immigrants’ rights” must be supreme to the rights of sovereign nations to determine who can and cannot enter their borders….

Fundamentally, foreign nationals living in foreign countries have no constitutional right to enter the United States. If they did, any alien denied entry could file suit to demand entry and claim damages for lost employment, lost welfare benefits, lost income…. The rules governing the selection of immigrants are, by definition, opposite the rules governing the treatment of citizens living or naturalized in the United States…. Our goal is to choose for admission those likeliest to succeed and flourish and, crucially, to support our Constitutional system of government and our values of pluralism and Republican governance.

In short, the whole point of an intelligent immigration system is to discriminate between beneficial and detrimental would-be immigrants. But intelligence is discrimination, so intelligence is racist.

In contrast, suicidal stupidity isn’t racist. So it’s better.

 
Hide 223 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Earlier today the Judiciary Committee passed the amendment on a 16-4 vote, with Senators Sessions, Cruz, Vitter and Tillis voting no.

    Normally I would say we need to just vote these guys out but voting doesn’t appear to make much difference with politicians who are like interchangeable parts on a lawn mower.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/will-the-zeroth-amendment-trump-the-first-amendment/#comment-1256844
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    We can’t even talk about

    Jeb Bush used similar logic that we must not discuss illegal immigration because we might piss off their legal relatives. “They’re doing high fives in the Clinton campaign right now when they’re hearing this,” he said.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Blah says:

    Took me a moment, but nice clip art rachet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Drawings have advantages over the photos I usually use to illustrate things.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Here are the names of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary that voted in favor of the Leahy amendment and against the people of the United States. Make sure they hear from you, especially if you live in their state:

    Chuck Grassley, (R-IA)
    Orrin G. Hatch0 (R – UT)
    Lindsey Graham (R – SC)
    John Cornyn (R – TX)
    Michael S. Lee (R – UT)
    Jeff Flake (R – AZ)
    David Perdue (R – GA)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bob
    David Purdue elected in 2014 ... what a coincidence!
    , @Reg Cæsar
    Four Westerners and three Southerners (Cornyn counting as both). What's going on here? Do they think evangelicals and Mormons were offended?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. pyrrhus says:

    Criminal and even suicidal stupidity is what the Fedgov and MSM do so well….

    Read More
    • Replies: @midtown
    I would call it homicidal stupidity, but I see your point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. josh says:

    You know, this is what happens when your elites do their business clandestinely; nobody learns anything from history, because nobody understands history in the first place. Not only is an honest history of Islam completely off the table, the entire history of religion. People simply assume that religion just is the neutered version that exists in America (which liberals still manage to build up as some all powerful monolith in their minds) or that entering the borders of constitution-land just magically turns religion from a shared, lived, communal experience that embraces all aspects of life (hey, like liberalism!) to a set of arbitrary opinions with no relevance to the outside world except for determining which days to throw a party. The truth is, Christianity in the west, including the US was intentionally neutered by its chief competitor liberalism. Christianity in America is mostly just liberalism with tackier music.

    Maybe the elites can neuter Islam too, but I doubt it. Not that Islam is less vulnerable than Christianity, but today’s elites are more clueless than yesterday’s. Yesterday’s elites knew they were engaging in a vast conspiracy. Today’s elites seem like they are only slightly more clued in than the ignorant masses that they manipulate.

    You know we are in a bad state when you can’t tell if the people in charge are evil or stupid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. This is an unbelievably scary development, one that goes right to the core of our sovereignty.

    Can similar moves against our freedom of speech be far behind?

    Do we still have a country? Or not?

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag
    The "or nots" seem to be winning. We're akin to a drug addicted whore giving away her body unto death.

    Real concerns about terrorism doesn't even slow down this juggernaut, let alone arguments for the scarcity value of open space and the less cultural pressure in general we would get from reduced immigration.
    , @Desiderius

    Do we still have a country? Or not?
     
    Yes, such as it is.

    What we no longer have is a nation.

    Leahy and gang have an empire, to which we are now subject.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. William Perry, an ex Secretary of Defense and leader, with ex Senator Sam Nunn , of the Nuclear Threat Initiative which has resulted in cooperation with Russia to reduce levels of nuclear weapons by factors of around ten, said about a week ago at a book signing in Washington DC that he believes a terrorist nuclear attack on a city in the United States is “imminent”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Countries are stupid idea.

    Feeds right into white privilege and white supremacy

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Luke Lea says: • Website

    A relevant comment I made earlier today in the Financial Times:

    @CityTrader “You will also realise why the sunni muslim community doesn’t distance itself from the IS, whom we call terrorists, but who are in fact the most religious muslims (Sunni) in the eyes of their interpretation of the Quran.”

    You are right about that. Here in the U.S. we are just beginning to learn the true nature of Islam and how it differs from Christianity. Thus where Jesus taught by precept and example an ethic of self-sacrifice and nonresistance to evil, which is no threat to the other members of society, Muhammad — whom all pious Muslims are taught to revere as the perfect model of what a Muslim should be — taught political domination and submission by any means necessary, which most definitely does threaten the liberty and safety of non-Muslim members of society.

    We are just waking up to the possibility that Islam may not be compatible with the liberal ideals and institutions that lie at the heart of our culture and civilization, leading to the unhappy conclusion that the only good Muslim is one that does not take his religion too seriously.

    Thus a joke currently making the rounds: What is the difference between a moderate Muslim and a radical Muslim? A radical Muslim pursues jihad. A moderate Muslim wants radical Muslims to pursue jihad.

    Unfortunately this is no joke but is accurately reflected in the five schools of Islam:https://goo.gl/YScuWQ

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    And a liberal Muslim wants Americans to shut up about moderate and radical Muslims.

    Actually, I've never even heard the term "liberal Muslim" used before. What do you call a Muslim who wants Enlightenment values in Islam? Dead man walking?
    , @conatus
    You see all these Muslims worshiping at Mosques and they are all men. No women.
    It is a man's religion, the exact opposite of Christianity which is a woman's religion. Rodney Stark made the point in the Rise of Christianity(1997) that Christianity gained adherents by paying particular respect to women(and their ideal world) and taking care of the weak.What do some people call Jesus? The bearded woman.
    It's probably only due to the success and concomitant incursions of Islam into Europe that Christianity at least paid lip service to masculinity. Bill Whittle has called the Koran a 'manual for conquest.' And the Muslims did a damn good job of conquering the Mediterranean rim.
    Nowadays no more lip service from the pulpit.Things have changed and Christianity does not even nod its head to masculinity. Now Christians socially compete to womanize themselves and 'give' to the 'other'(the one with the beheading knife.)
    That Christian simpering smile is a sign of the Circumcellions(a Donatist sect) who went around getting themselves slaughtered by the Romans(so they would head straight to Heaven). Rather than carry steel blades they carried wooden clubs they called 'Israelites' while they taunted the Roman soldiers.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcellions
    We in the West are now governed by Circumcellions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Here’s an interesting and potentially enlightening if ultimately irrelevant question:
    If we didn’t have Middle East wars and Islamic terrorism to worry about, what would our political system be focused on right now?
    Energy? Polygamy? Even more BLM?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Transgender 24/7?
    , @IHTG
    I thought the Middle East stuff was a distraction from the regular schedule of BLM.
    , @anon
    Depends, if it wasn't happening because the current media had been overthrown then we wouldn't have the transgender, BLM etc stuff either.

    So in a world without the current media i'd say
    - stamping out child abuse
    - hbd and genetic engineering
    - increasing prosperity the sensible way
    -- which would either require a lot of sustainable technology
    --- or space mining
    basically what 1950s scifi predicted before the 60s pushed everything off course.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Luke Lea
    A relevant comment I made earlier today in the Financial Times:

    @CityTrader "You will also realise why the sunni muslim community doesn't distance itself from the IS, whom we call terrorists, but who are in fact the most religious muslims (Sunni) in the eyes of their interpretation of the Quran."

    You are right about that. Here in the U.S. we are just beginning to learn the true nature of Islam and how it differs from Christianity. Thus where Jesus taught by precept and example an ethic of self-sacrifice and nonresistance to evil, which is no threat to the other members of society, Muhammad -- whom all pious Muslims are taught to revere as the perfect model of what a Muslim should be -- taught political domination and submission by any means necessary, which most definitely does threaten the liberty and safety of non-Muslim members of society.

    We are just waking up to the possibility that Islam may not be compatible with the liberal ideals and institutions that lie at the heart of our culture and civilization, leading to the unhappy conclusion that the only good Muslim is one that does not take his religion too seriously.

    Thus a joke currently making the rounds: What is the difference between a moderate Muslim and a radical Muslim? A radical Muslim pursues jihad. A moderate Muslim wants radical Muslims to pursue jihad.

    Unfortunately this is no joke but is accurately reflected in the five schools of Islam:https://goo.gl/YScuWQ

    And a liberal Muslim wants Americans to shut up about moderate and radical Muslims.

    Actually, I’ve never even heard the term “liberal Muslim” used before. What do you call a Muslim who wants Enlightenment values in Islam? Dead man walking?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Here are the bullet points of Ted Cruz’s position on immigration.

    SECURE THE BORDER

    * Build a wall that works …. I will complete the wall.

    * Triple the number of Border Patrol agents.

    * Increase vital aerial surveillance and other technology along the border.

    * Finish the biometric tracking system at our nation’s ports of entry.

    RESTORE THE RULE OF LAW

    * End President Obama’s illegal amnesty. …. I will rescind each and every one …

    * Increase deportations and end catch-and-release.

    * End sanctuary policies, sign Kate’s Law, and deport criminal immigrants.

    * Prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving financial benefits and strengthen E-Verify.

    REFORM LEGAL IMMIGRATION TO PROTECT AMERICANS

    * Suspend the issuance of all H-1B visas for 180 days to complete a comprehensive investigation and audit of pervasive allegations of abuse of the program.

    * Halt any increases in legal immigration so long as American unemployment remains unacceptably high.

    * Enforce the public-charge doctrine. Current law requires legal immigrants to certify that they will be economically self-sufficient. A Cruz Administration will ensure they do not receive government assistance, which defies the law and harms American taxpayers.

    * End birthright citizenship. …. I will take steps to pass legislation or a constitutional amendment to end it.

    The points are elaborated at the webpage.

    https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan-summary/

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew
    Holy smoke! Sounds just like Trump.
    , @tbraton
    Sounds very much like The Donald without the popular appeal. Sort of like the high school nerd who thinks that, if he dresses like the BMOC and apes his mannerisms, he will be just as popular as the BMOC. I sense he is beginning to get on Trump's nerves, so he can say good-bye to that Supreme Court appointment. I cannot imagine that either he or Rubio is near the top of Trump's list of potential VPs, but damn if I can figure out who would be a good running mate if Trump were to secure the nomination, which appears rather certain at this point.
    , @Dirk Dagger
    Overton and such ...

    ISIS and related Islamic terrorists are already here. More are coming. We must stop them. Until FBI director James Comey gives us the green light, I say seal the borders. -- Larry Kudlow in NRO

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. bomag says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    This is an unbelievably scary development, one that goes right to the core of our sovereignty.

    Can similar moves against our freedom of speech be far behind?

    Do we still have a country? Or not?

    The “or nots” seem to be winning. We’re akin to a drug addicted whore giving away her body unto death.

    Real concerns about terrorism doesn’t even slow down this juggernaut, let alone arguments for the scarcity value of open space and the less cultural pressure in general we would get from reduced immigration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. AndrewR says:

    I really fear that Trump will be assassinated.

    Of course that will not change the core roots of his popularity, but this may seem to be a trivial point to those who would kill him.

    A board member of the Colorado ACLU openly called for Trump to be assassinated.

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/10/colorado-aclu-board-member-shoot-trump-voters-before-election-day/

    When liberals in places of prestige and authority call for these things that bodes very poorly for the future.

    I have little doubt that mass violence would break out following a Trump assassination. That may be a feature, not a bug, to his foes though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @27 year old
    Not quite, ((Loring Wirbel)) threatened to shoot "Trump voters", rather than Trump himself. Which to me is worse.

    He has been made to resign from his position at the ACLU though


    http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/11/colorado-aclu-chairman-resigns-after-writing-about-shooting-trump-supporters/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. On topic:
    Recent polling reported in Politico shows more Americans are in favor of Trump’s database than are in favor of an immigration ban. How screwed up is that?!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    What is crazier?

    Keeping Muslims out to maintain a western democracy or invading Muslim lands to turn them into western-style democracies?

    That said, Trump went too far.

    He should have said would-be-immigrants from certain Muslim nations need a serious raking over.
    And Muslims who are part of some organizations need to be looked into.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Bettega says:

    You can be sure that this unlimited “right of immigration” will not be extended to Swedish homeschoolers or Australian gun-owners. That makes it no more than a power grab. Previously, the power to decide who would move to a country rested upon it’s respective government, according to the considerations that Sessions mentioned. Now, the power lies with left-wing intellectuals, only they can decide if a determined people has a “human right” to migration or if technical procedures should preclude it, and the criteria is basically “who is more likely to vote for left-wing parties?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Henry Bowman
    Dude, for everyone of those groups we taken in we will take in 100 3rd world, collectivist voting, gun hating, killers of western civilization. Its not worth it
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    “In short, the whole point of an intelligent immigration system is to discriminate between beneficial and detrimental would-be immigrants. But intelligence is discrimination, so intelligence is racist.”

    Paradoxically, an intelligent immigration policy should sometimes discriminate AGAINST intelligence.

    Jews are more intelligent, so Jewish immigration led them to taking over elite institutions.
    With their great power, Jews promote minoritarianism, of which homos, angry blacks, and Muslims are a part.

    Soros and NYT say we need to take in more Muslims.

    “Even when hundreds of millions of pious followers of a faith believe that waging jihad against Christians, Jews, and unbelievers is a sacred duty.”

    Lots of Muslims have enraged attitudes.

    But is it less so with Jews?

    In polls, many Jews say they prefer Muslims over Evangelicals.
    European Jews call for open borders and abolish-ment of Europe.
    The Newsweek cover of commander Obama was done by Jews.
    Jews gloat that whites are demographically finished.
    Tim Wise and his tick tick tick. No wonder Jews love clock boy.

    Muslims may want to kill some whites, but many Jews wanna destroy the white race.

    Muslims see whites as infidels.
    Jews see whites as the race that oppressed and mass-murdered Jews.
    Both groups are in revenge mode.

    Btw, given American attitudes about Muslims — invade their lands, bomb them, take their oil, cheer when Israel occupies and destroys Palestinians, starve them through sanctions, etc — , it would even more sense for Muslims to ban all Americans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    Jews see whites as the race that oppressed and mass-murdered Jews.
     
    This absurdity is treated by a fraction here as axiom. The Jews who identify as Jews (as opposed to mere racial Jews) overwhelming support the Zionist project, which depends completely on the power of America. American negroes aren't sympathetic; Muslims, obviously, even less. The most frothing Israel boosters are gentile, the Republican who can't stop bragging that they met "Bibi." They are part of the very white (and practically Jewless) Tea Party movement.

    [How do you know that policy would change if Jews didn't command so many elite posts? Political correctness comes more from "white" Puritanism than from the international Jewry. Public shaming isn't a Jewish ritual.]
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Steve, please have a read! Americans would benefit from its perspective on Trump’s comments. It has hundreds of share on Facebook through different pages but Americans should know that he wasn’t lying.

    http://www.thisisourhome.co.uk/blog/2015/12/9/trump-somehow-knows-londons-security-situation-better-than-boris

    https://www.facebook.com/thisisourhomeuk

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Ragno says:

    Notice how much of the reaction to Donald Trump’s proposal that we call an immigration time-out for Muslims until we can figure out how better not to let in jihadis is to respond: We can’t even talk about that because that makes the Muslims who are already here even madder, and then they’ll really kill us!

    When the details of the Rotherham nightmare, and Blighty’s meek acquiescence to no-go sharia zones in their own homeland, began to emerge in US media – granted we’re still waiting for 80% of that media to get around to acknowledging any of it – it became easy to whistle past the graveyard and recall Archie Bunker’s long-ago dismissal of our cousins across the pond with England is a fag country.

    Easier to laugh in disbelief than begin to grasp that this most distressing/repulsive of realities: a native population cowed into lickspittle servility out of fear of its unstable and unwanted immigrants – a condition encouraged and enforced by its own quisling elites – becomes, over time, the natural order of things.

    Look! We’ve already begun! Just as Rotherham was enabled by the fear of being labelled and prosecuted as ‘racist’, so the dead of San Berdoo came about partly because the Americans who knew, or strongly suspected, were too terrified of Loretta Lynch clapping the darbies on them to blow even a warning whistle…. and with Salon, HuffPo – and sooner rather than later, the NYT and WaPo – screeching for the harshest possible punishment the better to ‘send a message’, it’s hard to blame them.

    The next stage – law enforcement declining to wear any sort of identifying garments out of the fear of death – is no longer an IF proposition, but a WHEN.

    Don’t believe me? Go back a few days to the point where the identity of the shooters became known, and count up the articles appearing questioning what sort of knuckle-dragging white racism had prompted the massacre. When you start to see headlines – as I did – shouting “Victims had made fun of killer’s beard”, you can woof and bark all you like, because so long as it’s backed up by knock-kneed parliamentary cowardice, it’s all shadow-boxing in empty rooms. You can save yourselves a lot of time and just blow out the pilot light right now.

    Read More
    • Agree: (((Owen)))
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    You can save yourselves a lot of time and just blow out the pilot light right now.
     
    Blow out your own pilot light Spanky. But before you do see if you can get the rest of the idiotic defeatist block (calling all Private Hudson/Bill Paxtons of Aliens fame) to do the same. The rest of us are too busy working to correct the imbecility of the Democrats/Liberal/Leftist/Lib-republicans.

    It is better to die trying than to succumb to the despair advocated by you nitwits.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. conatus says:
    @Luke Lea
    A relevant comment I made earlier today in the Financial Times:

    @CityTrader "You will also realise why the sunni muslim community doesn't distance itself from the IS, whom we call terrorists, but who are in fact the most religious muslims (Sunni) in the eyes of their interpretation of the Quran."

    You are right about that. Here in the U.S. we are just beginning to learn the true nature of Islam and how it differs from Christianity. Thus where Jesus taught by precept and example an ethic of self-sacrifice and nonresistance to evil, which is no threat to the other members of society, Muhammad -- whom all pious Muslims are taught to revere as the perfect model of what a Muslim should be -- taught political domination and submission by any means necessary, which most definitely does threaten the liberty and safety of non-Muslim members of society.

    We are just waking up to the possibility that Islam may not be compatible with the liberal ideals and institutions that lie at the heart of our culture and civilization, leading to the unhappy conclusion that the only good Muslim is one that does not take his religion too seriously.

    Thus a joke currently making the rounds: What is the difference between a moderate Muslim and a radical Muslim? A radical Muslim pursues jihad. A moderate Muslim wants radical Muslims to pursue jihad.

    Unfortunately this is no joke but is accurately reflected in the five schools of Islam:https://goo.gl/YScuWQ

    You see all these Muslims worshiping at Mosques and they are all men. No women.
    It is a man’s religion, the exact opposite of Christianity which is a woman’s religion. Rodney Stark made the point in the Rise of Christianity(1997) that Christianity gained adherents by paying particular respect to women(and their ideal world) and taking care of the weak.What do some people call Jesus? The bearded woman.
    It’s probably only due to the success and concomitant incursions of Islam into Europe that Christianity at least paid lip service to masculinity. Bill Whittle has called the Koran a ‘manual for conquest.’ And the Muslims did a damn good job of conquering the Mediterranean rim.
    Nowadays no more lip service from the pulpit.Things have changed and Christianity does not even nod its head to masculinity. Now Christians socially compete to womanize themselves and ‘give’ to the ‘other’(the one with the beheading knife.)
    That Christian simpering smile is a sign of the Circumcellions(a Donatist sect) who went around getting themselves slaughtered by the Romans(so they would head straight to Heaven). Rather than carry steel blades they carried wooden clubs they called ‘Israelites’ while they taunted the Roman soldiers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcellions

    We in the West are now governed by Circumcellions.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Chrisnonymous
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Have you ever been to a mosque?

    It's only men not because only men are attracted to worship but because of their rules. In Christian churches, there also used to be a distinction between men and women (viz, priests, fancy church hats for women, etc). The difference is that modern Christianity is a synthesis of Christianity and liberalism while modern Islam is still a medieval religion.

    If you think some of the changes Christianity made aren't good, you should try watching people tortured to death or have your relatives killed by whim.
    , @Mark Eugenikos

    It is a man’s religion, the exact opposite of Christianity which is a woman’s religion.
     
    I'll take it you've never heard of Charles Martel, Charlemagne, Jan Sobieski, Ivan IV of Russia, or Peter the Great (to mention just a few)? Education is a good thing, you should try it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. We shouldn’t bar people based on their religion because you can never really prove who is a true Muslim or a true Christian. I don’t want “Christian” Syrians admitted either because they could simply be Muslims lying to the immigration official.

    We should bar people based on their country of origin. Allow no immigration from nations with significant jihadist activity. That would included essentially all of the Middle East and North Africa, and parts of Central Asia. In fact, Trump should have phrased his proposal that way to eliminate all of this hand-wringing about religious persecution. Though, I suppose Trump intentionally phrased it his way so he can dominate the news cycle and troll the media intelligentsia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @27 year old
    >We should bar people based on their country of origin. Allow no immigration from nations with significant jihadist activity.

    what israel does
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. A “camel’s nose?” Proof that all Republicans are Racist!

    I guess we should all brace for more wretched refuse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Clyde says:

    The Democrats voted for this for reasons we know. The Republicans voted for this as a vote against Donald Trump. Look up brokered convention, because this is what the Republican establishment is thinking of resorting to, to stop Trump. And follow the money because a huge chunk of that Republican machinery will lose their jobs if Trump gets the nomination.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. Actually getting that amendment out to the states would be useful. One wonders if it would pass? You need only 13 no votes to stop it. The process might remind the states that they have the power to bring the Federal Hegemon to heel. An amendment repealing or strictly defining Congress’ power to “regulate” Interstate Commerce could work wonders.

    We can dream.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    We can dream.
     
    That dream can become reality. We need new political alignments and institutions to match an orientation to the interests of American citizens. Once the citizenry understands the orientation, the momentum will be unstoppable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Of course, it is a simple, obvious and undeniable fact – obvious to an intelligent 7 year old even – and it scarcely needs me to repeat here, that any nation state, as so defined, is really dumb enough to establish so-called ‘open borders,’ ( this, incidentally, is the mainstream political orthodoxy throughout the west, which is being foisted in secretly and incrementally, as we speak), then that ‘nation’ will cease to exist in any sense that has any real meaning, simply by dint of the fact that a whole ‘new’ slew of people, a replacement nation, in fact, can come in, take it over, and run it in their own selfish interest – all strictly legal and tickettyboo – and once firmly ensconced in they can *and* will junk damned stupid ‘Economist’ style bullshit and put in intelligent policies, ie keeping the nation strictly national.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. Vinay says:

    Well, I *did* say Trump’s proposal would have a Dylan Rooff get-the-Confederate-flag-banned kinda effect, didn’t I? Exhibit A!

    Although, frankly, I’m surprised because Trump seems to have judged the moment far better than I’d initially assumed. I think the backlash is not as intense because politicians and media recognize that grandstanding comes with a significant risk. Obama’s lecture on admitting Syrian refugees was a totally boilerplate cost-free no-brainer reiteration of noble American principles but Paris and San Bernardino quickly turned it into a political liability.

    Even mocking people for being afraid of women-and-children turns out to be politically risky.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. NOTA says:

    It looks to me like they did a completely symbolic act without any legal significance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Honorary Thief
    "Sense of the Senate" = Feelz
    , @Big Bill
    You are wrong. Go read Vox Day. SJWs start with feeble things like "Codes of Conduct" (which is what the Leahy Amendment is) to set the tone. This is classic entryism.

    Hence, Open Source projects and teams are being pressured to agree to various codes of conduct regarding "women" and "inclusiveness" and "diversity" and "safe spaces", etc.

    Once the Code is in place, (non binding as it is) it will be used to pressure men to shut up or leave the projects who disagree, in those typical feminist whiney "male oppressor" rants they go off on.

    The beta male girl-appeasers will go along with the various chastisements of other "bad" males untl the entire project turns into a WPA program for gurrrl empowerment.

    The Leahy Amendment "Code of Conduct" has teeth, when you realize that it is merely the first step in a lefty SJW campaign that will never end. Read Vox. Follow GamerGate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Man. Wouldn’t it be amazing to see the US government rush to the defense of US citizens with the alacrity they defend non-citizens?

    Read More
    • Agree: ben tillman
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. SPMoore8 says:

    The reason why this resolution is out there is because a lot of people don’t like the idea of disallowing someone to come to the US simply on the basis of a religious test: it sounds too much like not allowing Jewish immigrants from Nazism, etc.

    But two points:

    a) As has been repeatedly said here, an immigration policy that is preferential to one group must necessarily discriminate against all other groups. If we accept the premise that some groups can be preferred, then it should follow that some groups can be actively not preferred.

    b) In this case, “religion” is just a criterion, like anything else: height, weight, skin color, ability to work in Silicon Valley, ability to harvest green onions, etc. Obviously we should have criteria for immigration — because we do in fact have such criteria, and I’m not even talking about the quotas. This is particularly so since, in this case, the particular religion in question has a large intersection with terror attacks.

    c) I appreciate what Trump is doing WRT Overton window, but his billboard pronouncements, while getting a lot of attention, lack nuance and thus are easy prey for MSM misrepresentation. Should we have what is, in effect, a moratorium on Muslim immigration? Well, any such moratorium is going to have exceptions: that’s the first point we should recognize. Second, a strictly religious test (i.e., “are you a Muslim?”) is insufficient, since all a terrorist would need to do would be to declare himself/herself a Secular Humanist and they’d get in, no question.

    Overall, I think Trump would have better served if he had simply said that the Arab lands, including those Muslim countries adjacent to Arab lands (that would include Afghan, Pakistan, Iran, and the Caucasus) are in turmoil and are closely associated with terrorism, and for the sake of our own citizens we should temporarily suspend immigration from those countries until we can control the risk of allowing political radicals into the country. I mean, really, I don’t think anyone is particularly concerned about, say, an immigrant from Djakarta. At least, not yet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rod1963
    The reason why this resolution is out there is because a lot of people don’t like the idea of disallowing someone to come to the US simply on the basis of a religious test: it sounds too much like not allowing Jewish immigrants from Nazism, etc

    No it doesn't, there is popular support for this. Otherwise Trump would have taken a hit.

    But wee need to do something, most mosques in the U.S. and Canada are funded by the Saudis and staffed by Hanbali or Salafist radicals as Imans. Which means the source of radicalization is in our own back yards so to speak and guarantees a endless stream of Muzzies being radicalized.

    And we have no idea what's coming in from the ME. None.

    No one wants to touch any of this except Trump.

    The sad fact the establishment repeatedly chooses to do nothing rather than deal with Muslim immigration and the radicalization that is going on in Mosques across the country or the fact at a quarter of Muslims here support Jihad and half Shariah law, is rather horrific because it means they have no qualms about letting Muslims kill Americans as long as the altar of PC/MC can be preserved.

    In the end it will be the Muslims who make the decision for us when they launch more terrorist attacks and pile up the bodies of dead Americans.
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    The only problem with your proposal is that Islamists also come in, visa-free, from places like France and Belgium. And there a lot of them there too, extreme even, as we have seen.

    Notice the, "home-grown," terrorists. Or the "American citizens" and "French citizens" who shoot, stab and blow up people in the name of Allah/Mohammed/Islam.

    The one consistent variable in all this crap for my entire life has been Muslims, wherever they come from. (Yes, most Muslims are wonderful, ordinary people whose concerns in life are pretty much like mine, but the rotten ones are a subset.

    Now, the question is, how do we identify Muslims for this purpose? We can't. There is not way to do it. This Trump proposal is just a thought experiment, a campaign stunt, and talking point.

    But it leads us to thinking about what we really can do. And that includes your proposal, which would indeed stop a large part of the flow.
    , @Anonymous
    Look, prior to 1965, all 'Asiatics' were more or less prohibited from immigrating to the USA on the grounds of 'national origin', but which everyone really understood to mean 'race', if not 'religion'.

    Despite intermittently whipped-up hysteria about 'civil rights abuses' in the southern USA concerning blacks, virtually no serious commentator at that time regarded the USA as a 'moral pariah' or even a 'tyrannical "human rights" abusing regime'. In fact the common perception of the USA was around the globe at that time, was of the final, ultimate guarantor of 'freedom, democracy and liberty'.

    And this was only in the memory of a good number of people still living.
    , @Anonymous
    Anyhow, Trump is doing this more for dog-whistling than anything else.

    His message to the worldwide Muslim ummah is 'put your house in order, clean-up your act and police yourselves - only you can police yourselves and apply moral pressure to the troublemakers'.
    'Look for the past half century you've dealt with lily livered coward after lily livered coward as 'western leaders' and you - quite rightly - have taken them for the pussies that they are. 'You think that things will always be like that, and that you can always walk all over us, but things are going to change, the worm has turned'.

    Trump, the shrewd, ruthless and intelligent man that he is, knows that if he - god willing - ever became American president , holds the 'Trump card' in all of this.
    The bare fact is that Muslims need the USA far more than the USA needs Muslims. The USA thrived and dominated the world, from inauspicious beginnings, entirely *without* the presence of Muslims on its soil.
    To avoid eating each other, Pakistanis *need* to move in on the USA.
    The USA can do very nicely, thank.you, without Pakistanis.
    , @jtgw
    So basically what Rand Paul has been proposing.
    , @Thea
    I'm not sure the American public has ever really preferred nuance but Trump is doing it exactly right. Ask for more than you want then negotiate done. You win and look cooperative in the process.

    We probably can't ban Muslims unless we close the border( which I want but won't get.) we can severely restrict them and allow only a safer (hopefully) subset in the USA
    , @Divine Right
    "Overall, I think Trump would have better served if he had simply said that the Arab lands"

    Trump should say that we shouldn't accept immigrants from countries that don't accept Americans as immigrants. He should seize this issue to expose liberal hypocrisy and rub it in their faces. The argument I just presented is basically idiot proof - no way they could spin that as being bad or unfair even to morons.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. 1. They should call this the Leaky Amendment.

    2. It should be amended to read that the least diverse and most pro-immigration states have a special responsibility to take more of these “migrants” in. Get Sen Leahy’s comments on record.

    3. This doesn’t have the force of law, but never mind. Pretend it does. Independent actors should hang this around the head of every Democrat in 2016. That party has to own it and eat it. Non-Democrats will prosper in proportion to how strongly they oppose it– squishies a little, firebreathers a lot. So the incentives are right for a change.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax

    It should be amended to read that the least diverse and most pro-immigration states have a special responsibility to take more of these “migrants” in. Get Sen Leahy’s comments on record.
     
    Vermont moonbats would be overjoyed to learn that 30,000 Somalis are moving next door. They might subsequently vote with their feet, but it would only be because they wouldn't want to be gentrifiers.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    2. It should be amended to read that the least diverse and most pro-immigration states have a special responsibility to take more of these “migrants” in. Get Sen Leahy’s comments on record.
     
    Placing the consequences on the morons that voted for the moonbats advocating the policy would poetic justice. No, it would be cosmic justice. If that principle were enshrined in law the mindless stupidity that we fight against would dissipate in a New York minute.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. “the fundamental principles on which this Nation was founded”

    Where can I find a complete catalog of these principles, along with pre-1776 evidence of their existence? There must be a Wikipedia article listing them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. rod1963 says:
    @SPMoore8
    The reason why this resolution is out there is because a lot of people don't like the idea of disallowing someone to come to the US simply on the basis of a religious test: it sounds too much like not allowing Jewish immigrants from Nazism, etc.

    But two points:

    a) As has been repeatedly said here, an immigration policy that is preferential to one group must necessarily discriminate against all other groups. If we accept the premise that some groups can be preferred, then it should follow that some groups can be actively not preferred.

    b) In this case, "religion" is just a criterion, like anything else: height, weight, skin color, ability to work in Silicon Valley, ability to harvest green onions, etc. Obviously we should have criteria for immigration -- because we do in fact have such criteria, and I'm not even talking about the quotas. This is particularly so since, in this case, the particular religion in question has a large intersection with terror attacks.

    c) I appreciate what Trump is doing WRT Overton window, but his billboard pronouncements, while getting a lot of attention, lack nuance and thus are easy prey for MSM misrepresentation. Should we have what is, in effect, a moratorium on Muslim immigration? Well, any such moratorium is going to have exceptions: that's the first point we should recognize. Second, a strictly religious test (i.e., "are you a Muslim?") is insufficient, since all a terrorist would need to do would be to declare himself/herself a Secular Humanist and they'd get in, no question.

    Overall, I think Trump would have better served if he had simply said that the Arab lands, including those Muslim countries adjacent to Arab lands (that would include Afghan, Pakistan, Iran, and the Caucasus) are in turmoil and are closely associated with terrorism, and for the sake of our own citizens we should temporarily suspend immigration from those countries until we can control the risk of allowing political radicals into the country. I mean, really, I don't think anyone is particularly concerned about, say, an immigrant from Djakarta. At least, not yet.

    The reason why this resolution is out there is because a lot of people don’t like the idea of disallowing someone to come to the US simply on the basis of a religious test: it sounds too much like not allowing Jewish immigrants from Nazism, etc

    No it doesn’t, there is popular support for this. Otherwise Trump would have taken a hit.

    But wee need to do something, most mosques in the U.S. and Canada are funded by the Saudis and staffed by Hanbali or Salafist radicals as Imans. Which means the source of radicalization is in our own back yards so to speak and guarantees a endless stream of Muzzies being radicalized.

    And we have no idea what’s coming in from the ME. None.

    No one wants to touch any of this except Trump.

    The sad fact the establishment repeatedly chooses to do nothing rather than deal with Muslim immigration and the radicalization that is going on in Mosques across the country or the fact at a quarter of Muslims here support Jihad and half Shariah law, is rather horrific because it means they have no qualms about letting Muslims kill Americans as long as the altar of PC/MC can be preserved.

    In the end it will be the Muslims who make the decision for us when they launch more terrorist attacks and pile up the bodies of dead Americans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Unfortunately, between Donald Trump’s blustery delivery and the other side’s “how dare you” response, there is little intelligent discussion of this between both sides anywhere (the discussion here is intelligent but regrettably one-sided.)

    So by way of intelligent discussion (not to sound too Socratic) – let’s say we knew that there was a particular organization (not a religion) where 100% of the members were in favor of suicide bombing. I’m sure we would not let them in – in fact, Communist party membership is still technically a bar to admission to the US, so we do “discriminate” against members of certain organizations (I think Nazi membership is also still a bar.)

    How about if only 80%, 70%, 50%, or even 10% of the members of this mythical organization were in favor of suicide bombing? I suspect the organization would still be on the “do not bother applying” list.”

    So lets change our hypothetical to reality – and look at Islam. There is a great study based on polling done by the Pew Research Center of Muslim attitudes around the world – http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf.

    They don’t have figures for Syria, but they do have Jordan which is right next door – and, if anything, is more Western than Syria. So we’ll use Jordan as a surrogate for Syria. 15% of Jordanians think suicide bombing is justified. 71% Think Sharia should be the law of the land (I suppose their land, not our land.) 41% are in favor of honor killings. And, 96% think homosexuality is morally wrong (and it’s the left clamoring to let them in!?)

    Pakistani immigrants and their progeny have also been in the news recently. 13% in favor of suicide bombing, 84% want Sharia, 41% in favor of honor killing, and 90% think homosexuality is wrong.

    And, our old friend Afghanistan – 39% for suicide bombing, 99% for Sharia, 60% for honor killing – and apparently they didn’t bother or were too scared to ask the homosexuality question there.

    So, the legitimate questions which is not being discussed – we have limited room for immigrants, and can pick among many worthy people that want to enter. “Vetting” will never tell us all that much – I’m sure that 99% of the 15% of Jordanians that think suicide bombings are just fine would come up clean even with the intensive investigation that we would never as a practical matter actually do. So, do we let in a population where 13%+ of the people think suicide bombing is OK, where 41%+ think honor killing is OK, where 90%+ think homosexuality is wrong – or do we let in people who are lower risk and who’s values are closer to ours?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    I welcome you to the site.

    I think many posters here have long ago done that sort of analysis, which is part of the reason why they have come to their present world view. One can do a similar sort of analysis for others as well as Muslims. For example violent criminals, as exemplified by homicides.

    A map of the world homicides/capita and its relation to demographics gives strong evidence that homicides are not a gun thing, but a race and ethnicity thing. Sub-saharan Africa and Central/South Americans are the world's most homicidally violent people. Thus it is no surprise that black capitals like Detroit and Baltimore are violent hell holes. If we ask the question - "Would our country benefit from the immigration of peoples who, in aggregate, will give us crime rates that overwhelm a precinct with an order of magnitude increase in crime?", the answer is surely no.

    Unfortunately the left has made it impossible to debate such topics publicly. We are intellectually disarmed when it comes to analysis of different peoples and our own legitimate ethnic interest in maintaining a society of inter-compatible people, people like ourselves. Thus when we finally ask these sorts of questions, we fumble around like rank amateurs trying to learn the basics of a new sport, even when we are gifted in other intellectual pursuits.

    You can compare any two peoples, and the further they are ethnically and racially apart, the more likely that they are going to be incompatible in different ways. Even relatively non-(violently)-criminal East Asians will form their own insular groups. Corruptness is baked into their nature. Prostitution, and other means of using feminine wiles for financial gain are also much more common with females. They are often also more savvy and ruthless businessmen on average, and will tend to outcompete European labor. Until you have dealings with them you won't run into all of these aspects.

    Due to the mental shackles of PC, the average person has been trained to recoil whenever anything negative has been said about other peoples, and to blurt out "sterotyping" or "bigot" etc in order to shut down discussion. They are uncomfortable with the thought that they might have a right to decide whether any other people have a right to enter their country, and certainly not that immigrants should be just like them.

    But really, this is a natural state of things and is the case in most countries. PC in European countries is a temporal and geographical anomaly. So, while Muslims are the current people of interest in terms of permissible immigration, you might find that the underlying axioms of your thought need questioning.

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    If you are a Leftist what are you doing here?

    Virtually all readers here already know that inviting adherents to a violent, supremacist, political ideology to America is so far beyond stupid that any comparisons to fence posts (wooden, steel or composite) is an insult to the fence post. Islam is that political ideology

    The energy, institutions and political power enabling the idiots that run this country are all generated from the Left. Get thee to the Leftist sites and persuade that collective ship of fools to reverse course.

    I do not think you will succeed. But you should try. If you do try, you will be able to live with yourself when the denouement arrives. If you don't you will wrestle forever with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's choices, errors and warnings. That is, assuming you are there when the gathering storm has run its course.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    ACLU Board Member: Trump Supporters Should Be Shot!

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12/now-libs-are-calling-for-trump-supporters-to-be-shot/#ixzz3u29AGnur

    ‘The thing is, we have to really reach out to those who might consider voting for Trump and say, “This is Goebbels. This is the final solution. If you are voting for him I will have to shoot you before election day.” They’re not going to listen to reason, so when justice is gone, there’s always force, as Laurie would say.’

    Where’s Karlin’s geographic map which shows the percentage of people who believe you should be executed for expressing support for a particular political candidate? Given the choice between being considered a Nazi or a Taliban, I will inhesitatingly choose the former.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. MLK says:

    I’ve long been fascinated by the disappearance of formerly common arguments, even as the course of events proves their efficacy. For example, what happened to warning about the “Chilling Effect” on Free Speech discourse? Indeed, in that case it first fell into disuse as it became more evident, and now it has been rolled out as a feature not a bug. Those quashing free expression tout their actions as producing a sanguine Chilling Effect on Hate Speech.

    I rehearsed the above because the Slippery Slope is running through a similar trajectory.

    I have done the relevant searches on these terms so I’m shooting from the hip. But I think my intuition is right. It’s relevant here since that is the salient criticism of this Sense of the Senate resolution.

    I’ve long rejected the now common practice of applying a partisan or ideological prism out of the gate. It is anything but enlightening. Instead, consider two distinguishable but intertwined issues at the moment: Immigration and Firearms. Pretty much all of the arguments are the same. With minor adjustments you could permissively interchange one for the other.

    My message is hopeful, at least for those who favor (qualified or limited) Gun Rights and Immigration Restrictionism. Which position more closely qualifies as unAmerican, shutting down firearms possession or immigration?

    It wasn’t just happenstance that I also mentioned Free Speech. It’s a cardinal error to think as many do that an alternate exigent response to San Bernardino wasn’t rolled out. This is downright strange given that it was made by the President and the Attorney General in each of their speeches. In short, (still) pedal to the metal Immigration, with it’s actual and risks of harm ameliorated by Gun Rights and Free Speech (2nd and 1st A.) Restrictionism.

    Back when the Middle Class was driving the bus, at the height of its reign in the early 50s, common sense prevailed over dogmatism. Problems were dealt with. Troublemakers were sat on or if necessary subjected to a heavy hand. Slippery Slope warnings could be ignored because the American Middle Class was in charge and it abhorred extremism and orthodoxy.

    No more.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Road Warrior
    Immigrant chic and gun stigmatization are nothing alike. Even if both exemplify a ratchet effect the ratchets are turning in opposite directions. The cultural message is that guns are inherently schmutzig and vile and that no property right attains, however our adult masters will deign to let us have them, like a problematic toy, under certain ever-narrowing conditions. The pesky loophole nuisance of private guns keeps alive if only symbolically the competition for Ingsoc. By contrast the ethos holds up immigrants/noble savages as wonderful and angelic and beaming sunshine out of their asses, while strenuously censoring any evidence of Bad Behavior
    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    the American Middle Class was in charge and it abhorred extremism and orthodoxy.
     
    Each conjunct is false. What Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex was in charge. And the era was one of extreme ideological conformism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @SPMoore8
    The reason why this resolution is out there is because a lot of people don't like the idea of disallowing someone to come to the US simply on the basis of a religious test: it sounds too much like not allowing Jewish immigrants from Nazism, etc.

    But two points:

    a) As has been repeatedly said here, an immigration policy that is preferential to one group must necessarily discriminate against all other groups. If we accept the premise that some groups can be preferred, then it should follow that some groups can be actively not preferred.

    b) In this case, "religion" is just a criterion, like anything else: height, weight, skin color, ability to work in Silicon Valley, ability to harvest green onions, etc. Obviously we should have criteria for immigration -- because we do in fact have such criteria, and I'm not even talking about the quotas. This is particularly so since, in this case, the particular religion in question has a large intersection with terror attacks.

    c) I appreciate what Trump is doing WRT Overton window, but his billboard pronouncements, while getting a lot of attention, lack nuance and thus are easy prey for MSM misrepresentation. Should we have what is, in effect, a moratorium on Muslim immigration? Well, any such moratorium is going to have exceptions: that's the first point we should recognize. Second, a strictly religious test (i.e., "are you a Muslim?") is insufficient, since all a terrorist would need to do would be to declare himself/herself a Secular Humanist and they'd get in, no question.

    Overall, I think Trump would have better served if he had simply said that the Arab lands, including those Muslim countries adjacent to Arab lands (that would include Afghan, Pakistan, Iran, and the Caucasus) are in turmoil and are closely associated with terrorism, and for the sake of our own citizens we should temporarily suspend immigration from those countries until we can control the risk of allowing political radicals into the country. I mean, really, I don't think anyone is particularly concerned about, say, an immigrant from Djakarta. At least, not yet.

    The only problem with your proposal is that Islamists also come in, visa-free, from places like France and Belgium. And there a lot of them there too, extreme even, as we have seen.

    Notice the, “home-grown,” terrorists. Or the “American citizens” and “French citizens” who shoot, stab and blow up people in the name of Allah/Mohammed/Islam.

    The one consistent variable in all this crap for my entire life has been Muslims, wherever they come from. (Yes, most Muslims are wonderful, ordinary people whose concerns in life are pretty much like mine, but the rotten ones are a subset.

    Now, the question is, how do we identify Muslims for this purpose? We can’t. There is not way to do it. This Trump proposal is just a thought experiment, a campaign stunt, and talking point.

    But it leads us to thinking about what we really can do. And that includes your proposal, which would indeed stop a large part of the flow.

    Read More
    • Agree: SPMoore8
    • Replies: @AnAnon
    "Now, the question is, how do we identify Muslims for this purpose? " - I know right, they'll blend in, disappear, and we'll never be able to find them.
    , @Crank
    "Now, the question is, how do we identify Muslims for this purpose? We can’t."

    Even if we could, it's irrelevant. They will have children, who will also have children, etc. So-called moderate muslims all to often seem to produce (to their dismay) not so moderate children, as your comment about "home grown" jihadis demonstrates.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. well says:

    Well, it’s not “suicide” for everyone, is the problem. Secularist Aspen/Davos types have a sub-psychopathic milieu-fortified corporate raider mentality that they’ll just be able to ride out whatever Hobbesian scenario unfolds, and quite a few of them are childless as well. You can’t deal with a donor riot (-P. Brimelow) by traditional appeals to their “long-term self-interest,” much less civic-mindedness, because their Weltanschauung is like the doomsday partygoers in the Kingsman movie, a bunch of soi-disant Ayn Rand supermen who don’t see the need for continued existence of a middle class. Also aristocrats have always emotionally identified with mountain savages for some reason

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. snorlax says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    1. They should call this the Leaky Amendment.

    2. It should be amended to read that the least diverse and most pro-immigration states have a special responsibility to take more of these "migrants" in. Get Sen Leahy's comments on record.

    3. This doesn't have the force of law, but never mind. Pretend it does. Independent actors should hang this around the head of every Democrat in 2016. That party has to own it and eat it. Non-Democrats will prosper in proportion to how strongly they oppose it-- squishies a little, firebreathers a lot. So the incentives are right for a change.

    It should be amended to read that the least diverse and most pro-immigration states have a special responsibility to take more of these “migrants” in. Get Sen Leahy’s comments on record.

    Vermont moonbats would be overjoyed to learn that 30,000 Somalis are moving next door. They might subsequently vote with their feet, but it would only be because they wouldn’t want to be gentrifiers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Are there any "homegrown" moonbats in Vermont yet? Or are they all still relocated flatlanders, like Bernie Sanders and James F Loewen?

    I actually do live by 30,000 Somalis. They're less annoying than white progs. But that's damning with faint praise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. AnAnon says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    The only problem with your proposal is that Islamists also come in, visa-free, from places like France and Belgium. And there a lot of them there too, extreme even, as we have seen.

    Notice the, "home-grown," terrorists. Or the "American citizens" and "French citizens" who shoot, stab and blow up people in the name of Allah/Mohammed/Islam.

    The one consistent variable in all this crap for my entire life has been Muslims, wherever they come from. (Yes, most Muslims are wonderful, ordinary people whose concerns in life are pretty much like mine, but the rotten ones are a subset.

    Now, the question is, how do we identify Muslims for this purpose? We can't. There is not way to do it. This Trump proposal is just a thought experiment, a campaign stunt, and talking point.

    But it leads us to thinking about what we really can do. And that includes your proposal, which would indeed stop a large part of the flow.

    “Now, the question is, how do we identify Muslims for this purpose? ” – I know right, they’ll blend in, disappear, and we’ll never be able to find them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    There is a continual error in taking globo-libertarian pronouncements at face value, i.e. “[X] is the civil-rights-issue-of-our-time” They don’t actually believe that crap, they just toss it out like a stun grenade because they know their rivals will not be able to come up with a “respectable” answer; it’s weaponized smarm, just like the gay-marriage apocalypse. It’s an efficient way to sow chaos among the rabble who may then even volunteer to become the idiocratic army. Thus the great thing about the Trump press release: the offhand colloquial touch of “until they can figure out what is going on.” At first that seemed merely humorous but tactically it may have been a fluorish of taste-your-own-medicine brilliance. Even the dimmest proles, whatever they variously believe the government really ought to be doing for them, universally suspect that incompetence has soaked into its highest levels; so it’s the Keystone Kops elite’s turn to sputter and make excuses, Joe Izusu-like, as to how expertly they “know what’s going on.” Moral of the story, always be on offense

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. @NOTA
    It looks to me like they did a completely symbolic act without any legal significance.

    “Sense of the Senate” = Feelz

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. syonredux says:

    Syrian migration related:

    It seems that people are keen on using Steve Jobs as a symbol for the benefits of mass immigration from the Middle East-North Africa:

    http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/11/9891764/banksy-steve-jobs-syrian-refugee

    Of course, Jobs’ mother was of Swiss-German ancestry…..and he identified completely with his adoptive parents:

    “Knowing I was adopted may have made me feel more independent, but I have never felt abandoned,” said Steve Jobs.

    “I’ve always felt special. My parents made me feel special.”

    He hated it when anyone referred to Paul and Clara Jobs as his “adoptive” parents or implied that they were not his “real” parents: “They were my parents 1,000%,” he said.

    Of his biological parents, Jandali and Schieble, he was dismissive: “They were my sperm and egg bank. That’s not harsh, it’s just the way it was, a sperm bank thing, nothing more.”

    http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/apple/who-is-steve-jobs-syrian-immigrant-father-abdul-fattah-jandali-3624958/

    Also interesting to note that Jobs’ very fair* biological father feels quite comfortable in the Occident:

    “I have never experienced any problem or discrimination in the United States because of my religion or race. Other than my accent, which might sometimes suggest that I’m from another country, I have completely integrated in society here,” he is quoted as saying in a Lebanese news website.

    http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/apple/who-is-steve-jobs-syrian-immigrant-father-abdul-fattah-jandali-3624958/

    *http://cdn2.macworld.co.uk/cmsdata/features/3624958/steve-jobs-jandali-father_thumb800.jpg

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Jobs' biological father was from the tippy-top elite of Syria: his father's uncle was Syria's ambassador to the UN, which is a quasi-aristocratic job.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. You know I thought that Trump’s rise would settle a lot of the “No one speaks for me” secessionist sentiment that has been swirling in the country for a quite a while.

    It seems though like there’s plenty of fools who see this as an opportunity to continue to double down on their idiocy and rub the noses of most of America in their utopia chasing. The time before Inauguration Day is going to be interesting. As one Twitter wag stated, its like hearing a rattling from your engine and you’re just hoping you can make it home.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. @MLK
    I've long been fascinated by the disappearance of formerly common arguments, even as the course of events proves their efficacy. For example, what happened to warning about the "Chilling Effect" on Free Speech discourse? Indeed, in that case it first fell into disuse as it became more evident, and now it has been rolled out as a feature not a bug. Those quashing free expression tout their actions as producing a sanguine Chilling Effect on Hate Speech.

    I rehearsed the above because the Slippery Slope is running through a similar trajectory.

    I have done the relevant searches on these terms so I'm shooting from the hip. But I think my intuition is right. It's relevant here since that is the salient criticism of this Sense of the Senate resolution.

    I've long rejected the now common practice of applying a partisan or ideological prism out of the gate. It is anything but enlightening. Instead, consider two distinguishable but intertwined issues at the moment: Immigration and Firearms. Pretty much all of the arguments are the same. With minor adjustments you could permissively interchange one for the other.

    My message is hopeful, at least for those who favor (qualified or limited) Gun Rights and Immigration Restrictionism. Which position more closely qualifies as unAmerican, shutting down firearms possession or immigration?

    It wasn't just happenstance that I also mentioned Free Speech. It's a cardinal error to think as many do that an alternate exigent response to San Bernardino wasn't rolled out. This is downright strange given that it was made by the President and the Attorney General in each of their speeches. In short, (still) pedal to the metal Immigration, with it's actual and risks of harm ameliorated by Gun Rights and Free Speech (2nd and 1st A.) Restrictionism.

    Back when the Middle Class was driving the bus, at the height of its reign in the early 50s, common sense prevailed over dogmatism. Problems were dealt with. Troublemakers were sat on or if necessary subjected to a heavy hand. Slippery Slope warnings could be ignored because the American Middle Class was in charge and it abhorred extremism and orthodoxy.

    No more.

    Immigrant chic and gun stigmatization are nothing alike. Even if both exemplify a ratchet effect the ratchets are turning in opposite directions. The cultural message is that guns are inherently schmutzig and vile and that no property right attains, however our adult masters will deign to let us have them, like a problematic toy, under certain ever-narrowing conditions. The pesky loophole nuisance of private guns keeps alive if only symbolically the competition for Ingsoc. By contrast the ethos holds up immigrants/noble savages as wonderful and angelic and beaming sunshine out of their asses, while strenuously censoring any evidence of Bad Behavior

    Read More
    • Replies: @MLK

    Immigrant chic and gun stigmatization are nothing alike.
     
    You misunderstand me. I suggesting these are opposites. All the moralizing and post-hoc reasoning aside, proponents of the status quo on Immigration are Laissez Faire. Just as imperfectly, we can understand proponents of the status quo on Gun Rights as arguing the efficacy of Laissez Faire, at least insofar as the Restrictionist changes proposed.

    I don't at all disagree with the balance of your comment. It illustrates Elite/Establishment predilections. The Megaphone's emanations as someone who I cannot recall put it.

    All of these arguments are undergirded by the same principles.. That in my view should bode ill for the Pedal-to-the-Metal Immigration crowd because it stands in contradistinction to the American Way. Their response to San Bernardino was to renew their jihad on Free Speech and Gun Rights. That is their salve for the immigrants that ail us, and that is a whole lot more troubling than their tongue-clucking about Trump's insensitivity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Cryptogenic [AKA "Gentile Ben"] says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. Graham says:

    I find it interesting, and definitely worthy of note in this context, that the Green Card Lottery specifically excludes various nations. Those include Mexico, India, Bangladesh and Pakistan, which is probably of benefit to America. But Canada is also excluded, and so is part of my country, the UK, in rather an offensive way: although UK citizenship is unitary, the US makes a distinction between the Northern Irish (come on in!) and the English, Scots and Welsh (beat it, you damn limeys!).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The Green Card Diversity Lottery was originally referred to in Congress as the Irish Bill for being yet another Ted Kennedy wardheeler push to get more Irish voters on the rolls to vote for Kennedys unto the seventh generation. Like 1965, it didn't do much for Irish immigration while having massive unintended consequences.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. BenKenobi says:

    And here I was hoping that the Leahy Amendment meant America was going off the food, and strictly on the liquor.

    At the rate things are going it doesn’t sound too far fetched.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @SPMoore8
    The reason why this resolution is out there is because a lot of people don't like the idea of disallowing someone to come to the US simply on the basis of a religious test: it sounds too much like not allowing Jewish immigrants from Nazism, etc.

    But two points:

    a) As has been repeatedly said here, an immigration policy that is preferential to one group must necessarily discriminate against all other groups. If we accept the premise that some groups can be preferred, then it should follow that some groups can be actively not preferred.

    b) In this case, "religion" is just a criterion, like anything else: height, weight, skin color, ability to work in Silicon Valley, ability to harvest green onions, etc. Obviously we should have criteria for immigration -- because we do in fact have such criteria, and I'm not even talking about the quotas. This is particularly so since, in this case, the particular religion in question has a large intersection with terror attacks.

    c) I appreciate what Trump is doing WRT Overton window, but his billboard pronouncements, while getting a lot of attention, lack nuance and thus are easy prey for MSM misrepresentation. Should we have what is, in effect, a moratorium on Muslim immigration? Well, any such moratorium is going to have exceptions: that's the first point we should recognize. Second, a strictly religious test (i.e., "are you a Muslim?") is insufficient, since all a terrorist would need to do would be to declare himself/herself a Secular Humanist and they'd get in, no question.

    Overall, I think Trump would have better served if he had simply said that the Arab lands, including those Muslim countries adjacent to Arab lands (that would include Afghan, Pakistan, Iran, and the Caucasus) are in turmoil and are closely associated with terrorism, and for the sake of our own citizens we should temporarily suspend immigration from those countries until we can control the risk of allowing political radicals into the country. I mean, really, I don't think anyone is particularly concerned about, say, an immigrant from Djakarta. At least, not yet.

    Look, prior to 1965, all ‘Asiatics’ were more or less prohibited from immigrating to the USA on the grounds of ‘national origin’, but which everyone really understood to mean ‘race’, if not ‘religion’.

    Despite intermittently whipped-up hysteria about ‘civil rights abuses’ in the southern USA concerning blacks, virtually no serious commentator at that time regarded the USA as a ‘moral pariah’ or even a ‘tyrannical “human rights” abusing regime’. In fact the common perception of the USA was around the globe at that time, was of the final, ultimate guarantor of ‘freedom, democracy and liberty’.

    And this was only in the memory of a good number of people still living.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    "And this was only in the memory of a good number of people still living."

    I remember it and I'm only 61.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. And the Zeroth Amendment is death to the First Amendment.

    The hypocrisy is off-putting. Can anyone point to where Steve has ever defended the First Amendment rights of his political enemies?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crank
    Can you point to where Steve has attempted to deny, or applauded or encouraged government action to deny, the first amendment rights of his political enemies?
    , @peterike

    Can anyone point to where Steve has ever defended the First Amendment rights of his political enemies?

     

    Can anyone point to where Steve has advocated for legislation to silence them?

    It really isn't necessary for Steve to state the obvious just so it makes you feel better.
    , @reiner Tor
    I'm not sure if your post was sarcastic, but let me take it at face value.

    Can anyone point to where Steve has ever defended the First Amendment rights of his political enemies?
     
    Have they ever been threatened since Steve started blogging? Or indeed, since he was born?
    , @Dennis Dale
    No, Stephen. The question is: can you point to an instance where Steve's political enemies have ever been denied their first amendment rights?
    , @tbraton
    "Can anyone point to where Steve has ever defended the First Amendment rights of his political enemies?"

    Well, I probably fall into that camp since I once disagreed with him about whether the housing bubble was nation-wide or restricted to a handful of states, as he erroneously contended. He went ahead and posted my messages, so I consider that as a strong defense of my right to speak my mind, just like Voltaire.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. MG says:

    Trump has done great service to America by cutting through to the very core of the issue. Yes, we may quibble that his proposal lacked nuance and so on, but once you have the big idea planted in the public sphere it is relatively easy to fill in the details. No politician or commentator was even willing to go there and Trump did. For this, I am grateful to him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @SPMoore8
    The reason why this resolution is out there is because a lot of people don't like the idea of disallowing someone to come to the US simply on the basis of a religious test: it sounds too much like not allowing Jewish immigrants from Nazism, etc.

    But two points:

    a) As has been repeatedly said here, an immigration policy that is preferential to one group must necessarily discriminate against all other groups. If we accept the premise that some groups can be preferred, then it should follow that some groups can be actively not preferred.

    b) In this case, "religion" is just a criterion, like anything else: height, weight, skin color, ability to work in Silicon Valley, ability to harvest green onions, etc. Obviously we should have criteria for immigration -- because we do in fact have such criteria, and I'm not even talking about the quotas. This is particularly so since, in this case, the particular religion in question has a large intersection with terror attacks.

    c) I appreciate what Trump is doing WRT Overton window, but his billboard pronouncements, while getting a lot of attention, lack nuance and thus are easy prey for MSM misrepresentation. Should we have what is, in effect, a moratorium on Muslim immigration? Well, any such moratorium is going to have exceptions: that's the first point we should recognize. Second, a strictly religious test (i.e., "are you a Muslim?") is insufficient, since all a terrorist would need to do would be to declare himself/herself a Secular Humanist and they'd get in, no question.

    Overall, I think Trump would have better served if he had simply said that the Arab lands, including those Muslim countries adjacent to Arab lands (that would include Afghan, Pakistan, Iran, and the Caucasus) are in turmoil and are closely associated with terrorism, and for the sake of our own citizens we should temporarily suspend immigration from those countries until we can control the risk of allowing political radicals into the country. I mean, really, I don't think anyone is particularly concerned about, say, an immigrant from Djakarta. At least, not yet.

    Anyhow, Trump is doing this more for dog-whistling than anything else.

    His message to the worldwide Muslim ummah is ‘put your house in order, clean-up your act and police yourselves – only you can police yourselves and apply moral pressure to the troublemakers’.
    ‘Look for the past half century you’ve dealt with lily livered coward after lily livered coward as ‘western leaders’ and you – quite rightly – have taken them for the pussies that they are. ‘You think that things will always be like that, and that you can always walk all over us, but things are going to change, the worm has turned’.

    Trump, the shrewd, ruthless and intelligent man that he is, knows that if he – god willing – ever became American president , holds the ‘Trump card’ in all of this.
    The bare fact is that Muslims need the USA far more than the USA needs Muslims. The USA thrived and dominated the world, from inauspicious beginnings, entirely *without* the presence of Muslims on its soil.
    To avoid eating each other, Pakistanis *need* to move in on the USA.
    The USA can do very nicely, thank.you, without Pakistanis.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Crank says:

    When you think about it, our actions in World War II were clearly a violation of the 14th Amendment since we discriminated against the Japanese and Germans on the basis of their national origin. Also a violation of the 1st amendment since we were bombing Shinto followers of the Emperor – their living God. Amirite?!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    You forget the Negative First Amendment of the 21st Century Living Constitution: "It's A-OK to bomb the hell out of anybody the President feels like."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Crank says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    And the Zeroth Amendment is death to the First Amendment.
     
    The hypocrisy is off-putting. Can anyone point to where Steve has ever defended the First Amendment rights of his political enemies?

    Can you point to where Steve has attempted to deny, or applauded or encouraged government action to deny, the first amendment rights of his political enemies?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. peterike says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    And the Zeroth Amendment is death to the First Amendment.
     
    The hypocrisy is off-putting. Can anyone point to where Steve has ever defended the First Amendment rights of his political enemies?

    Can anyone point to where Steve has ever defended the First Amendment rights of his political enemies?

    Can anyone point to where Steve has advocated for legislation to silence them?

    It really isn’t necessary for Steve to state the obvious just so it makes you feel better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "Can anyone point to where Steve has ever defended the First Amendment rights of his political enemies?"

    What would I do without them for material?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Crank says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    The only problem with your proposal is that Islamists also come in, visa-free, from places like France and Belgium. And there a lot of them there too, extreme even, as we have seen.

    Notice the, "home-grown," terrorists. Or the "American citizens" and "French citizens" who shoot, stab and blow up people in the name of Allah/Mohammed/Islam.

    The one consistent variable in all this crap for my entire life has been Muslims, wherever they come from. (Yes, most Muslims are wonderful, ordinary people whose concerns in life are pretty much like mine, but the rotten ones are a subset.

    Now, the question is, how do we identify Muslims for this purpose? We can't. There is not way to do it. This Trump proposal is just a thought experiment, a campaign stunt, and talking point.

    But it leads us to thinking about what we really can do. And that includes your proposal, which would indeed stop a large part of the flow.

    “Now, the question is, how do we identify Muslims for this purpose? We can’t.”

    Even if we could, it’s irrelevant. They will have children, who will also have children, etc. So-called moderate muslims all to often seem to produce (to their dismay) not so moderate children, as your comment about “home grown” jihadis demonstrates.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    So-called moderate muslims all to often seem to produce (to their dismay) not so moderate children
     
    Liberal Parents, Radical Children-- Midge Decter
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. t says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. jtgw says:
    @SPMoore8
    The reason why this resolution is out there is because a lot of people don't like the idea of disallowing someone to come to the US simply on the basis of a religious test: it sounds too much like not allowing Jewish immigrants from Nazism, etc.

    But two points:

    a) As has been repeatedly said here, an immigration policy that is preferential to one group must necessarily discriminate against all other groups. If we accept the premise that some groups can be preferred, then it should follow that some groups can be actively not preferred.

    b) In this case, "religion" is just a criterion, like anything else: height, weight, skin color, ability to work in Silicon Valley, ability to harvest green onions, etc. Obviously we should have criteria for immigration -- because we do in fact have such criteria, and I'm not even talking about the quotas. This is particularly so since, in this case, the particular religion in question has a large intersection with terror attacks.

    c) I appreciate what Trump is doing WRT Overton window, but his billboard pronouncements, while getting a lot of attention, lack nuance and thus are easy prey for MSM misrepresentation. Should we have what is, in effect, a moratorium on Muslim immigration? Well, any such moratorium is going to have exceptions: that's the first point we should recognize. Second, a strictly religious test (i.e., "are you a Muslim?") is insufficient, since all a terrorist would need to do would be to declare himself/herself a Secular Humanist and they'd get in, no question.

    Overall, I think Trump would have better served if he had simply said that the Arab lands, including those Muslim countries adjacent to Arab lands (that would include Afghan, Pakistan, Iran, and the Caucasus) are in turmoil and are closely associated with terrorism, and for the sake of our own citizens we should temporarily suspend immigration from those countries until we can control the risk of allowing political radicals into the country. I mean, really, I don't think anyone is particularly concerned about, say, an immigrant from Djakarta. At least, not yet.

    So basically what Rand Paul has been proposing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Stephen R. Diamond

    And the Zeroth Amendment is death to the First Amendment.
     
    The hypocrisy is off-putting. Can anyone point to where Steve has ever defended the First Amendment rights of his political enemies?

    I’m not sure if your post was sarcastic, but let me take it at face value.

    Can anyone point to where Steve has ever defended the First Amendment rights of his political enemies?

    Have they ever been threatened since Steve started blogging? Or indeed, since he was born?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    Freedom of religion is a First Amendment right. Trump proposes to abridge this right by allowing the security state to create opprobrious lists of American Muslims. [Of course this is an abridgement: would it not serve to dissuade citizens from practicing their Muslim religion if they know it will subject them to special scrutiny?]

    Steve hasn't opposed that measure; my guess is he supports it. Trump's proposal, if enacted, would not only violate the First Amendment; it also misdirects opponents of migration, to the advantage of the neocons and Zionists, to focus on security issues - sensationalized by the MSM - rather than economic and cultural issues.

    Views regarding history are also a clue (which you seem to want to discount). I didn't see any rightists here (exception noted: Priss Factory) objecting to Pat Buchanan's support of McCarthyism. If I may guess, I'd bet you retrospectively support it too. Yes or no?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Big Bill says:
    @NOTA
    It looks to me like they did a completely symbolic act without any legal significance.

    You are wrong. Go read Vox Day. SJWs start with feeble things like “Codes of Conduct” (which is what the Leahy Amendment is) to set the tone. This is classic entryism.

    Hence, Open Source projects and teams are being pressured to agree to various codes of conduct regarding “women” and “inclusiveness” and “diversity” and “safe spaces”, etc.

    Once the Code is in place, (non binding as it is) it will be used to pressure men to shut up or leave the projects who disagree, in those typical feminist whiney “male oppressor” rants they go off on.

    The beta male girl-appeasers will go along with the various chastisements of other “bad” males untl the entire project turns into a WPA program for gurrrl empowerment.

    The Leahy Amendment “Code of Conduct” has teeth, when you realize that it is merely the first step in a lefty SJW campaign that will never end. Read Vox. Follow GamerGate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    SJWs start with feeble things like “Codes of Conduct” (which is what the Leahy Amendment is) to set the tone. This is classic entryism.
     
    The question is not codes of conduct, which are necessary to civilized life, but who gets to write them.

    When they say you can't legislate morality, what they mean is you can't.
    , @snorlax
    As a developer, of all the things SJWs do, having codes of conduct for open-source projects bothers me the least. Software development is inherently apolitical and open-source projects are inherently meritocratic. Just act like a mature adult, don't name your variables bigTits, and you should be okay.

    If you have projects rejecting contributions because of what the contributor has said or done outside the project, then that would be another thing, but I haven't heard of any significant cases of that happening.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. “Notice how much of the reaction to Donald Trump’s proposal that we call an immigration time-out for Muslims until we can figure out how better not to let in jihadis is to respond: We can’t even talk about that because that makes the Muslims who are already here even madder, and then they’ll really kill us!”
    in a similar way Manuel Valls, Prime Minister of France said today that getting Le Front elected could likely result in a civil war in France. What he actually means: right-wingers have been right with their concerns about immigration in the recent decades and by now it is to late to change anything. Submission is the only option for him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. Realist says:

    This country has no need for immigrants from anywhere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    Every immigrant should have a private sponsor who is responsible for their support. If said immigrant never becomes self-sufficient, the sponsor remains liable.

    Talk is cheap, actions can be dear.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @reiner Tor
    I'm not sure if your post was sarcastic, but let me take it at face value.

    Can anyone point to where Steve has ever defended the First Amendment rights of his political enemies?
     
    Have they ever been threatened since Steve started blogging? Or indeed, since he was born?

    Freedom of religion is a First Amendment right. Trump proposes to abridge this right by allowing the security state to create opprobrious lists of American Muslims. [Of course this is an abridgement: would it not serve to dissuade citizens from practicing their Muslim religion if they know it will subject them to special scrutiny?]

    Steve hasn’t opposed that measure; my guess is he supports it. Trump’s proposal, if enacted, would not only violate the First Amendment; it also misdirects opponents of migration, to the advantage of the neocons and Zionists, to focus on security issues – sensationalized by the MSM – rather than economic and cultural issues.

    Views regarding history are also a clue (which you seem to want to discount). I didn’t see any rightists here (exception noted: Priss Factory) objecting to Pat Buchanan’s support of McCarthyism. If I may guess, I’d bet you retrospectively support it too. Yes or no?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I'm not American, so I care very little for American issues except that the US is dragging the rest of Western Civilization down.

    As far as I know, almost all people accused by McCarthy later turned out to have been communists or on Soviet payroll or both, after all. It's also difficult to feel sympathy for them knowing that they would have happily oppressed my rights to free speech, and in fact, that's what their side - which, after all, won - has been trying to do ever since, and has actually largely succeeded in doing through extralegal means.

    So yeah, in retrospect, it would have been good if they would have been oppressed as much as people are oppressed by the SJW crowd at present. Please note that that was not the case: most of the people blacklisted in Hollywood could keep working there under various pseudonyms, because the lords of entertainment were on their side.

    Now I don't know if I would have supported McCarthysm at the time, without the knowledge I have today. Probably I'd have found Mr. McCarthy at least distasteful, but who knows?
    , @Mike Sylwester

    Trump proposes to abridge this right by allowing the security state to create opprobrious lists of American Muslims.
     
    Trump has proposed that the US Government keep track of Syrian refugees who will be allowed to immigrate.

    Surely the US Government already has a data base that includes all legal immigrants (every US resident who ever has been issued an Alien Registration Number ), and it's easy to select from that data base all Syrians (or any other nationality) who immigrated in the refugee status.

    I suppose that Trump might intend for the Federal Government to keep track of those particular refugees' address changes and criminal records over an extended period of time. I don't think that is outrageous.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Hepp says:
    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    That this individual sired seven children before going off the deep end is alarming in itself. Canada looks to be more dysgenic even than we are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Ivy says:

    Any iSteve reading may pick up added meanings, such as when discussing the Ratchet Effect, to wit:

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ratchet

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I was going to bring up the Ratchet Effect of Immigration Politics a few weeks ago, but I got diverted by reading up on the new meaning of the word "rachet" and tried to come up with some clever wheeze combining the two, but was stumped.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Should there be religious tests for migration? Steve has brought up the precedent of excluding Russian Christians. Shouldn’t this be treated as a grievous error, on a par with interning the Japs, rather than as a righteous precedent?

    This is what I mean by the hypocrisy of rightists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dennis Dale
    It's only treatment here has been to point out the hypocrisy of those denouncing Trump's proposed Muslim ban. No one has suggested for a moment it's a "righteous precedent". I'm thinking Whiskey still has enough neocon in him to defend it. Whiskers? You out there?
    , @IA
    The biggest screw-up groups use human rights to shake down the most successful group, i.e., Europeans. Muslims have zero interest in "human rights" wherever they are dominant. So, it's non-euros - using a map drawn by status-marking Eloi - who hypocritically exploit foolish infidels.
    , @Thea
    Really I don't care if The right is hypocritical. I make no pretenses of pretending to be egalitarian. The left on the other hand wants to do to whites what is claims was wrong to do to blacks.

    The egalitarians are the ones who are hypocrites. Whites are no longer likely to be hired, accepted at elite schools, express unpopular opinions while minorities are treated like golden calves no matter how silly they are.
    , @anon
    Should there be religious tests for migration? Steve has brought up the precedent of excluding Russian Christians. Shouldn’t this be treated as a grievous error, on a par with interning the Japs, rather than as a righteous precedent?

    No. It's not like we really need Russian Christians either. I'd be happy if they didn't let ANYBODY immigrate. Since that's not really going to happen, can't we at least keep out the ones that cause the most problems?

    What is it with you people? Why are you so DETERMINED to cause more problems for America? Why do you hate this country so much?
    , @Whiskey
    No Stephen, our support for Trump's excellent plan not to let Muslims in (I'd go further and deport ALL Muslims too) is because of the nature of multi-cultural societies. As Lee Kwan Yew noted, in a multicultural society, let alone a multi-racial one, you vote your ethnicity and skin color and religion. ALL that is left is to be either the dominant group that makes all the rules and controls everything, or the dominated group that is enslaved.

    I am not as a Straight White man big on myself being enslaved.

    EVERYTHING ELSE is a "nice to have" compared to avoiding ENSLAVEMENT.

    ALREADY I have to bow and scrape to every Lesbian, Gay, Black, Black Lesbian tranny, etc. I have less rights, and less people to back me, than a Black heroin dealer in Baltimore.

    No religious test, separation of Church and state, those are fine things for mono-ethnic societies where they can AFFORD principles. Me, as an average White man without money, power, and connections, I cannot LITERALLY afford that.

    So, no I don't want to be enslaved by Sharia Law which if we don't keep out Muslims is a slam dunk thing given that about 1 billion Muslims would move here by Tuesday if they could.

    Just to be clear, my priorities are sensibly: 1. My own personal survival; 2. Not being enslaved by Third world conquerors and their anti-White PC / Diversity enablers (ask the WHITE girls of Rotherham how that goes), 3. Everything else including religious tests and freedom of speech.

    To be fair, I like Putin's idea of nuking ISIS. I'd like to keep all Muslims out, kick the ones we have out including Citizens (the Constitution is already a dead letter and only SUCKERS play with its dead concepts now -- its all power and subjugation), and maybe nuke Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran on general principles, payback, and such. Just to make a few points about messing with us.
    , @Paco Wové

    Steve has brought up the precedent of excluding Russian Christians. Shouldn’t this be treated as a grievous error, on a par with interning the Japs, rather than as a righteous precedent?
     
    Why? The internees were citizens of this country, deprived of their rights. Russians are Russians, and have no such rights.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @peterike

    Can anyone point to where Steve has ever defended the First Amendment rights of his political enemies?

     

    Can anyone point to where Steve has advocated for legislation to silence them?

    It really isn't necessary for Steve to state the obvious just so it makes you feel better.

    “Can anyone point to where Steve has ever defended the First Amendment rights of his political enemies?”

    What would I do without them for material?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. tbraton says:

    “It’s been evident for some time that the the dominant ideological logic is trending toward making it inevitable that all 7 billion noncitizens on Earth be assumed to have civil rights to move to America.”

    As I stated in a message responding to one of your blogs back in October, the “right to emigrate” was the basis for the Jackson-Vanik Amendment in 1974:

    “Keep in mind that the basis for the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment, sponsored by the former socialist Henry “Scoop” Jackson, was the “right to emigrate.” According to Wikipedia, “Richard Perle, Jackson’s staffer who drafted the amendment in an interview said that the idea belongs to Jackson, who believed that the right to emigrate is the most powerful among the human rights in certain respects: “if people could vote with their feet, governments would have to acknowledge that and governments would have to make for their citizens a life that would keep them there.”. . . The amendment denies most favored nation status to certain countries with non-market economies that restrict emigration, which is considered a human right.” There you have it. People around the world have a basic human right to emigrate, except for Palestinians who formerly lived where Israel is now. I guess that right to emigrate completely overrides the right of any country to control its borders.”

    Notice the role played by Richard Perle, then an aide to Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson and later one of the major architects of the Iraq War disaster.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    My cousin was a junior staffer on Senator Henry Jackson's staff back in the day. I'll have to ask him about Perle sometime.
    , @Drapetomaniac
    “right to emigrate”

    A right is made up and just another tool of government.
    , @syonredux

    As I stated in a message responding to one of your blogs back in October, the “right to emigrate” was the basis for the Jackson-Vanik Amendment in 1974:
     
    Of course, the right to emigrate is quite distinct from the right to immigrate.I.e., having the right to emigrate from country A does not mean that one has the right to immigrate to country B.
    , @Robert Hume
    Isn't this obvious? Plausibly everyone should have the right to leave their country, but they do not have the right to move into another country they would like to move into. If they are unappealing enough there may be no other country that will accept them.

    Feel free to leave your home but don't expect to move into mine.
    , @Big Bill
    The Right to Emigrate is the right to leave. I uphold the right of any scrofulous loser and malcontent to "emigrate" from his homeland. I deny him (or his baby mama or his sprogs) ANY right to "immigrate" to my country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. SFX says:

    What are the chances of this actually passing both houses?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. @Crank
    When you think about it, our actions in World War II were clearly a violation of the 14th Amendment since we discriminated against the Japanese and Germans on the basis of their national origin. Also a violation of the 1st amendment since we were bombing Shinto followers of the Emperor - their living God. Amirite?!

    You forget the Negative First Amendment of the 21st Century Living Constitution: “It’s A-OK to bomb the hell out of anybody the President feels like.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Dennis Dale says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    And the Zeroth Amendment is death to the First Amendment.
     
    The hypocrisy is off-putting. Can anyone point to where Steve has ever defended the First Amendment rights of his political enemies?

    No, Stephen. The question is: can you point to an instance where Steve’s political enemies have ever been denied their first amendment rights?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Stephen R. Diamond
    Freedom of religion is a First Amendment right. Trump proposes to abridge this right by allowing the security state to create opprobrious lists of American Muslims. [Of course this is an abridgement: would it not serve to dissuade citizens from practicing their Muslim religion if they know it will subject them to special scrutiny?]

    Steve hasn't opposed that measure; my guess is he supports it. Trump's proposal, if enacted, would not only violate the First Amendment; it also misdirects opponents of migration, to the advantage of the neocons and Zionists, to focus on security issues - sensationalized by the MSM - rather than economic and cultural issues.

    Views regarding history are also a clue (which you seem to want to discount). I didn't see any rightists here (exception noted: Priss Factory) objecting to Pat Buchanan's support of McCarthyism. If I may guess, I'd bet you retrospectively support it too. Yes or no?

    I’m not American, so I care very little for American issues except that the US is dragging the rest of Western Civilization down.

    As far as I know, almost all people accused by McCarthy later turned out to have been communists or on Soviet payroll or both, after all. It’s also difficult to feel sympathy for them knowing that they would have happily oppressed my rights to free speech, and in fact, that’s what their side – which, after all, won – has been trying to do ever since, and has actually largely succeeded in doing through extralegal means.

    So yeah, in retrospect, it would have been good if they would have been oppressed as much as people are oppressed by the SJW crowd at present. Please note that that was not the case: most of the people blacklisted in Hollywood could keep working there under various pseudonyms, because the lords of entertainment were on their side.

    Now I don’t know if I would have supported McCarthysm at the time, without the knowledge I have today. Probably I’d have found Mr. McCarthy at least distasteful, but who knows?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    "the US is dragging the rest of Western Civilization down. "

    Some ancestral genes creating globs of neurons that cause destructive behaviors to become dominant are dragging Western Civilization down.

    Those who are lacking in cerebral control: the humpers and thumpers, domestic and imported.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Realist
    This country has no need for immigrants from anywhere.

    Every immigrant should have a private sponsor who is responsible for their support. If said immigrant never becomes self-sufficient, the sponsor remains liable.

    Talk is cheap, actions can be dear.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Mandatory insurance on immigrants, just like you have to prove you have insurance when you buy a car.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Graham
    I find it interesting, and definitely worthy of note in this context, that the Green Card Lottery specifically excludes various nations. Those include Mexico, India, Bangladesh and Pakistan, which is probably of benefit to America. But Canada is also excluded, and so is part of my country, the UK, in rather an offensive way: although UK citizenship is unitary, the US makes a distinction between the Northern Irish (come on in!) and the English, Scots and Welsh (beat it, you damn limeys!).

    The Green Card Diversity Lottery was originally referred to in Congress as the Irish Bill for being yet another Ted Kennedy wardheeler push to get more Irish voters on the rolls to vote for Kennedys unto the seventh generation. Like 1965, it didn’t do much for Irish immigration while having massive unintended consequences.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel H
    Back in the day I followed this bill closely. As initially proposed this bill would have been that rare example of positive discrimination specifically benefitting white, European (Irish and others) descended constituents. But of course Chuck Schumer would have none of that and bowdlerized the bill so that for all practical purposes its positive effect on white European immigration has been close to nil. Chuck, all the while, vociferously advocating for Soviet Jewish affines of his own constituents.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @syonredux
    Syrian migration related:

    It seems that people are keen on using Steve Jobs as a symbol for the benefits of mass immigration from the Middle East-North Africa:

    http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/11/9891764/banksy-steve-jobs-syrian-refugee

    Of course, Jobs' mother was of Swiss-German ancestry.....and he identified completely with his adoptive parents:

    “Knowing I was adopted may have made me feel more independent, but I have never felt abandoned," said Steve Jobs.

    "I’ve always felt special. My parents made me feel special.”

    He hated it when anyone referred to Paul and Clara Jobs as his “adoptive” parents or implied that they were not his “real” parents: “They were my parents 1,000%,” he said.

    Of his biological parents, Jandali and Schieble, he was dismissive: “They were my sperm and egg bank. That’s not harsh, it’s just the way it was, a sperm bank thing, nothing more.”
     
    http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/apple/who-is-steve-jobs-syrian-immigrant-father-abdul-fattah-jandali-3624958/


    Also interesting to note that Jobs' very fair* biological father feels quite comfortable in the Occident:

    “I have never experienced any problem or discrimination in the United States because of my religion or race. Other than my accent, which might sometimes suggest that I’m from another country, I have completely integrated in society here," he is quoted as saying in a Lebanese news website.
     
    http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/apple/who-is-steve-jobs-syrian-immigrant-father-abdul-fattah-jandali-3624958/


    *http://cdn2.macworld.co.uk/cmsdata/features/3624958/steve-jobs-jandali-father_thumb800.jpg

    Jobs’ biological father was from the tippy-top elite of Syria: his father’s uncle was Syria’s ambassador to the UN, which is a quasi-aristocratic job.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    I think one of the great ironies of the Steve Jobs story is the fact that his natural mother objected to the adopting blue collar couple after she learned that neither had a college education and threatened to cancel the arranged adoption. As a result, the adopting father pledged to enroll in college and obtain a college degree, which he did despite the great strain on the couple's finances. By all accounts, including Steve Jobs', they were loving parents who did a first rate job in raising Steve Jobs. The irony is that iconic Steve Jobs, a billionaire and the directing force of Apple Corp., never obtained a college degree himself, although he briefly attended college. Imagine how many more billions he would earned had he gotten a college degree. I have been joking for many years that Bill Gates would be worth twice what he is now if only he had attended Harvard College for two more years and obtained a degree instead of dropping out and dabbling in the software business.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Dennis Dale says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond
    Should there be religious tests for migration? Steve has brought up the precedent of excluding Russian Christians. Shouldn't this be treated as a grievous error, on a par with interning the Japs, rather than as a righteous precedent?

    This is what I mean by the hypocrisy of rightists.

    It’s only treatment here has been to point out the hypocrisy of those denouncing Trump’s proposed Muslim ban. No one has suggested for a moment it’s a “righteous precedent”. I’m thinking Whiskey still has enough neocon in him to defend it. Whiskers? You out there?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. David says:

    I waited a few days expecting someone to discuss this good analysis of the Trump Method on the Dilbert blog. Very pertinent to your topic.

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/134791529391/risk-management-trump-persuasion-series

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. IA says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond
    Should there be religious tests for migration? Steve has brought up the precedent of excluding Russian Christians. Shouldn't this be treated as a grievous error, on a par with interning the Japs, rather than as a righteous precedent?

    This is what I mean by the hypocrisy of rightists.

    The biggest screw-up groups use human rights to shake down the most successful group, i.e., Europeans. Muslims have zero interest in “human rights” wherever they are dominant. So, it’s non-euros – using a map drawn by status-marking Eloi – who hypocritically exploit foolish infidels.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. tbraton says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    And the Zeroth Amendment is death to the First Amendment.
     
    The hypocrisy is off-putting. Can anyone point to where Steve has ever defended the First Amendment rights of his political enemies?

    “Can anyone point to where Steve has ever defended the First Amendment rights of his political enemies?”

    Well, I probably fall into that camp since I once disagreed with him about whether the housing bubble was nation-wide or restricted to a handful of states, as he erroneously contended. He went ahead and posted my messages, so I consider that as a strong defense of my right to speak my mind, just like Voltaire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. CJ says:

    Paging David Frum:

    Very good piece in the Atlantic this week, very well done:

    America’s Immigration Challenge: Coming to the United States would benefit millions—but policymakers seldom ask whether their arrival would benefit the United States.

    Excellent indeed, David, but now it is time for you to give generously to Steve’s fundraising drive, given that you have clearly benefited from reading his material.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    David Frum cited Ann Coulter in that piece (prompting the pointing and sputtering below), so I wouldn't think he'd be afraid to cite Sailer. It could be that the data in his article came from the sources he linked to instead though.
    https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/675372506514112512
    , @syonredux
    Yeah, Frum has been quite good on this topic. Some choice passages:

    However one assesses that chain and its consequences, it seems clear that the large majority of legal immigrants choose to come—or, more exactly, are chosen by their relatives—for their own reasons. They are not selected by the United States to advance some national interest.
     

    Donald Trump’s noisy complaints that immigration is out of control are literally true. Nobody is making conscious decisions about who is wanted and who is not, about how much immigration to accept and what kind to prioritize—not even for the portion of U.S. migration conducted according to law, much less for the larger portion that is not.
     

    Nervous about Syrian refugees in the wake of the Paris massacre? How dare you! Would you turn away Jews fleeing Hitler? Oh, you think that analogy is hyperbolic? Tell it to the mayor of New York City.

    This frequent invocation of the refugee trauma of the 1930s shuts down all discussion of anything that has happened since.

     

    Immigration advocates understandably prefer to focus on the contributions of the refugees from Nazism than on less successful and more recent experiences.

    Yet surely it is the more recent experiences that are more relevant. Pre-civil war Syria was no Somalia, but it was very far from a developed country. In 2010, the average Syrian had less than six years of schooling, less even than Egypt, according to the UN Development Index. Women were systematically subordinated: Only a quarter of Syrian women completed secondary education; only 13 percent participated in the workforce. Few Syrians will arrive with the skills of a modern economy, even apart from the language gap. Before the civil war, almost one-fifth of Syrians worked as agricultural laborers; about one-third worked in Syria’s notoriously inefficient public sector.
     

    The tens of thousands of youthful border-crossers who claimed asylum in the United States in the summer of 2014 were described by supporters as refugees from gang violence at home in Central America. Yet 2014 was a year in which gang violence dramatically abated in Honduras and Guatemala. The “push” was stronger two years earlier ... but the surge responded to the “pull” of perceived opportunity.
     

    When European border controls collapsed in the fall of 2015, Syrians and those claiming to be Syrian rushed, not to any European country at random, but very specifically to the countries with the strongest job opportunities and most generous welfare systems: Germany and Scandinavia. Every day, at the entrance to the Channel Tunnel, young men described as “refugees” risk their lives to reach Britain from ... France.
     

    The distinction between migration and asylum-seeking is grounded less in differences of motive, and more in an artifact of international law. Shamed by the exclusion of German and Austrian Jews in the 1930s, the post-World War II democracies signed treaties and conventions that conferred rights of asylum on persecuted people.
     

    For many decades to come, Latino families educationally lag well behind their non-Latino counterparts. The static snapshot is even more alarming: While 60 percent of Asian Americans over age 25 have at least a two-year diploma, as do 42 percent of non-Latino whites and 31 percent of African Americans, only 22 percent of Latino Americans do. Ironically, one of the biggest obstacles to Latino success is that so many attend schools taught by large numbers of only slightly less recently arrived Latinos: as the National Academy of Sciences report glancingly observes, one important cause of poor performance of Latino immigrant children is the weak English proficiency of the Latino immigrants often hired to teach them.
     

    The Immigration Act of 1965 did two things, one well understood, one not: It abolished national quotas that effectively disfavored non-European immigration—and it established family reunification as the supreme consideration of U.S. immigration law. That second element has surprisingly proven even more important than the first. A migrant could arrive illegally, regularize his status somewhere along the way—for example, by the immigration amnesty of 1986—and then call his family from home into the United States after him. The 1965 act widened the flow of post-1970 low-skilled illegal immigration into a secondary and tertiary surge of further rounds of low-skilled immigration that continues to this day.

     


    Americans talk a lot about the social difficulties caused by large-scale, low-skill immigration, but usually in a very elliptical way. Giant foundations—Pew, Ford—spend lavishly to study the problems of the new low-skill immigrant communities. Public policy desperately seeks to respond to the challenges presented by large-scale low-skill immigration. But the fundamental question—“should we be doing this at all?”—goes unvoiced by anyone in a position of responsibility.
     

    What seems to have changed Trump’s mind is a book: Adios America by Ann Coulter. The phrase “political book of the year” is a usually an empty compliment, but if the phrase ever described any book, Adios America is it. In its pages, Trump found the message that would convulse the Republican primary and upend the dynastic hopes of former-frontrunner Jeb Bush. Perhaps no single writer has had such immediate impact on a presidential election since Harriet Beecher Stowe.
     

    The UN High Commission on Refugees estimates that 60 million people have been displaced by war or natural disaster. Millions of them would wish to move to Europe or North America if they could. That population will only grow in the years ahead: Nigeria, a country of an estimated 137 million people today, is projected to reach 400 million within the next 35 years, overtaking the United States. How many of them will wish to leave behind their failed state for opportunities in the global North? Even in Mexico, a middle-income country by global standards, more than half of young people in their 20s would like to move to the United States if they could.
     
    Good stuff


    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/refugees/419976/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Ivy
    Any iSteve reading may pick up added meanings, such as when discussing the Ratchet Effect, to wit:

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ratchet

    I was going to bring up the Ratchet Effect of Immigration Politics a few weeks ago, but I got diverted by reading up on the new meaning of the word “rachet” and tried to come up with some clever wheeze combining the two, but was stumped.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Daniel H says:

    Related: We really are running out of water, not just in the West but the Midwest and East too. Just like you can’t print more qualified borrowers you can’t print more water. Do these immigrations boosters ever think?

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/environment/2015/12/10/pumped-beyond-limits-many-us-aquifers-decline/76570380/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. Corvinus says:

    “It is the sense of the Senate that the United States must not bar individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion, as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this Nation was founded.”

    According to the Leahy Amendment, any legislation that entails prohibiting future immigration can be on any grounds EXCEPT religion. There is no “extraordinarily dangerous precedent” being set. Congress has the liberty to decide what is and what is not immigration policy. Which, in effect is…the…political…process.

    Muslims can still be declared “undesirable” by law under criteria other than religion. Legislation could limit the number of people coming from Middle Eastern countries, which has precedent, given how Congress had banned immigrants from Asian countries (China/Japan), or even ban Muslims who come from certain Middle Eastern nations. So the immigration system remains intact regarding who is deemed beneficial and who is deemed detrimental. Count me in when restricting legal immigration. However, excluding an entire religion merely because some of its practitioners hate America and desire to blow it to hell—in part due to our own machinations—is in reality suicidal stupidity.

    Moreover, when the first immigration law was passed in 1790, there was no mention of religious tests. Why did not the Founding Fathers put that safeguard in place—only Christians need apply to gain entry?

    Now, a fair question is what about asylum applicants who are asked about their religion by immigration officials to determine if whether he or she is truly being persecuted? Americans in the past have found the oppression of people on the basis of religion to be immoral and unjust, and there have been efforts to protect those people who are threatened due to their beliefs. This inquiry, however, has been to ascertain whether they are being victimized solely because of their faith, and NOT to deem their religion as “compatible” to our society.

    Imagine had nativists in the 1840’s and 1850’s been successful in crafting legislation that barred Roman Catholic and Jewish practicioners from entering a “Protestant-founding” country. These two faiths were historically characterized by a number of American Protestants as a source of tyranny and therefore antithetical to liberty. Thus, the precedent would have been to deny anyone an opportunity to come to America merely because they practice a religion deemed “unacceptable”. What standards are involved here? How does one actually measure whether or not a particular faith is “acceptable” (or “better” or “dangerous”)? Exactly why the Leahy Amendment is in line with the Founding Fathers insistence that freedom of religion is a fundamental right on a human level AND a citizenship level. The Founding Fathers specifically articulated “freedom of religion” in the First Amendment, NOT “freedom to practice only Christianity”.

    I do acknowledge that restricting or banning immigration is under the purview of Congress, and in the end it could pass a law denying Muslim immigrants the right to enter the United States on the sole basis as having an “unacceptable” religion. However, using the rationale of the Founding Fathers, that designation would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "However, using the rationale of the Founding Fathers, that designation would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded."

    I hope you are aware that, at the time the Constitution was adopted, slavery was legal in a majority of the original 13 states and that the original Constitution contained a specific provision barring Congress for 20 years from passing any law barring the institution of slavery in any way. Art. I, Sec. 9. And that slavery remained legal in half the country until after the Civil War. And I am sure you are aware that the vote was restricted to a relatively small number of males. And, of course, I am sure you are aware that SSM did not exist as a legal right until the Massachusetts Supreme Court read such right into the 200+ year old Massachusetts Constitution. So, I am not sure what "fundamental principles on which this nation was founded." When I was growing up, I was taught that freedom speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment was a "fundamental principle upon which this nation was founded," the very same amendment upon which the freedom of religion is based, but increasingly I hear that there are many things you are not free to say. To create, out of thin air, not simply a right to practice the religion of your choice in the U.S., but the right of people around the world to have a right to emigrate to the U.S. regardless of their religion is just a lot of hogwash, as far as I am concerned.

    BTW the thrust of Sailer's message was "It’s been evident for some time that the the dominant ideological logic is trending toward making it inevitable that all 7 billion noncitizens on Earth be assumed to have civil rights to move to America." Apparently, you seem to be one of those who embraces the position that Sailer is criticizing.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Imagine had nativists in the 1840’s and 1850’s been successful in crafting legislation that barred Roman Catholic and Jewish practicioners from entering a “Protestant-founding” country.
     
    One difference: Catholics had been in the country since 1634, and Jews (albeit Sephardim) about as long. Calling them alien is a bit of a stretch. Or the alienness is cultural and racial rather than religious. Catholicism, too, had been the English way for a thousand years before Henry.

    Mohammedanism was another planet entirely.

    Also, Trump is being advised on immigration matters by Sen Sessions. So regardless of his podium bluster, the details and nuances of all this are being looked at behind the scenes.
    , @Wilkey
    "I do acknowledge that restricting or banning immigration is under the purview of Congress...However, using the rationale of the Founding Fathers, that designation would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded."

    "Fundamental principles" which were practiced pretty much never. In 1795, Congress - the same generation which gave us the Declaration and the Bill of Rights - passed an immigration law limiting naturalization to "free white persons."

    In 1882, Congress - the same generation which fought a massive, devastating, deadly war to free the slaves - gave us the Chinese Exclusion Act. That was four years before Emma Lazarus built for us the Statue of Open Borders.

    Real US policy has always always had a very healthy dose of pragmatism. What's truly contrary to our "fundamental principles" are policies which don't.

    , @Corvinus
    tbraton…

    “I hope you are aware that…I am not sure what “fundamental principles on which this nation was founded.”

    Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Separation of powers. Popular sovereignty. Should I continue?

    “When I was growing up, I was taught that freedom speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment was a “fundamental principle upon which this nation was founded,” the very same amendment upon which the freedom of religion is based, but increasingly I hear that there are many things you are not free to say.”

    You are “free” to say anything, it comes down to how one will respond to what you say. Furthermore, freedom of speech has never been “free”, there has always been restrictions regarding speech.

    “To create, out of thin air, not simply a right to practice the religion of your choice in the U.S., but the right of people around the world to have a right to emigrate to the U.S. regardless of their religion is just a lot of hogwash, as far as I am concerned.”

[Whoosh] You entirely missed the point of my post.

    “BTW the thrust of Sailer’s message was “It’s been evident for some time that the the dominant ideological logic is trending toward making it inevitable that all 7 billion noncitizens on Earth be assumed to have civil rights to move to America.”

    That trend is not “dominant” nor “inevitable”.

    “Apparently, you seem to be one of those who embraces the position that Sailer is criticizing.”

    Note that I stated Congress has the authority to restrict or even ban immigration. It always has the authority to provide the criteria by which immigrants may come to the United States.


    Reg Caesar—
    “One difference: Catholics had been in the country since 1634, and Jews (albeit Sephardim) about as long. Calling them alien is a bit of a stretch.”

    Hardly a stretch. Wikipedia —> Monsignor John Tracy Ellis wrote that a "universal anti-Catholic bias was brought to Jamestown in 1607 and vigorously cultivated in all the thirteen colonies from Massachusetts to Georgia”. Colonial charters and laws often contained specific proscriptions against Catholics. For example, the second Massachusetts charter of October 7, 1691 decreed "that forever hereafter there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God to all Christians, except Papists, inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within, such Province or Territory”.


    Wilkey—

    “Fundamental principles” which were practiced pretty much never.”

    That is observably false. Ever heard of the Bill Of Rights?

    “In 1795, Congress – the same generation which gave us the Declaration and the Bill of Rights – passed an immigration law limiting naturalization to “free white persons.”



    Which is not surprising given the time period and the mindset of people. Over time, philosophies evolve.

    “In 1882, Congress – the same generation which fought a massive, devastating, deadly war to free the slaves – gave us the Chinese Exclusion Act. That was four years before Emma Lazarus built for us the Statue of Open Borders.”

    A war that was fought for a moral purpose. Regarding the banning of Chinese, recall that they were recruited by whites to build the Transcontinental Railroad.

    “Or the alienness is cultural and racial rather than religious. Catholicism, too, had been the English way for a thousand years before Henry.”

    When Protestantism gained a foothold in England, the Catholic faith became “alien” to the practitioners of Protestants.

    “Mohammedanism was another planet entirely.”

    It’s a religion practiced by hundreds of millions of people. How is one able to qualify it as “bad” or “dangerous” or “undesirable”?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Drapetomaniac
    Every immigrant should have a private sponsor who is responsible for their support. If said immigrant never becomes self-sufficient, the sponsor remains liable.

    Talk is cheap, actions can be dear.

    Mandatory insurance on immigrants, just like you have to prove you have insurance when you buy a car.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    Great idea.

    A mostly market solution to a government created problem.
    , @Opting Out
    This is already officially on the books as part of the law governing immigrant visas. Since the vast majority of official immigrants are eligible via the family reunification provision of immigration law, immigrant visa applications are filed on their behalf by their relatives (i.e. their sponsors). Officially, those sponsors have to demonstrate sufficient financial resources to prevent their immigrant relatives from becoming a public charge (partaking of our benevolent welfare state).

    The problem here, as with most parts of the visa process, is human agency. The adjudicating officer (i.e. generally the newly-hatched State Dept. officer on his mandatory first tour as a consular officer) is supposed to check the provided documentation, ascertain it is legitimate, and determine the sponsor does genuinely have sufficient funds to sponsor whomever he is sponsoring. Most don't bother. I always did so; I recall one case where a woman came with a young child perhaps 4/5 years old and a newborn baby. Her sponsor -don't recall if it was a brother or husband - had proof of salary but it was only sufficient, per the poverty level charts, to allow me to issue an immigrant visa for one person. She unhesitatingly ignored her weeping and clinging daughter and made arrangements to leave both her and the newborn with friends.

    The additional issue is that even in those rare instances when the visa officer is honest and conscientious, there are no provisions in the law to then

    A) follow up to verify the immigrant is neither living in poverty nor utilizing public monies, or
    B) mandate withholding the sponsoring immigrant's pay or seizing his property to provide support for his indigent relatives.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Corvinus says:

    Buzz Mohawk—“This is an unbelievably scary development, one that goes right to the core of our sovereignty.”

    Breath in deeply, exhale, and think. The Leahy Amendment was developed in a committee by politicians who (supposedly) represent the interests of the people. It is NO different than those politicians who support the prohibition of immigrants who are of the Islamic faith and who crafted their proposal in a similar manner for their constituents.

    “Can similar moves against our freedom of speech be far behind?”



    Freedom of speech is not “free” in that there are restrictions to it.

    
“Do we still have a country? Or not?”

    

Yes, we still have a country.

    Big Bill..

    “You are wrong. Go read Vox Day. SJWs start with feeble things like “Codes of Conduct” (which is what the Leahy Amendment is) to set the tone. This is classic entryism.”

    [Laughs] there is observably no “entryism” here. These are elected politicians, not some female intern who was hired as a game designer and is incessantly, and wrongly, bitching about men developing games they want to create in their own “safe space”.

    “Hence, Open Source projects and teams are being pressured to agree to various codes of conduct regarding “women” and “inclusiveness” and “diversity” and “safe spaces”, etc.”

[Laughs] there is no “code of conduct” here, just a proposed revision to immigration law.

    “Once the Code is in place, (non binding as it is) it will be used to pressure men to shut up or leave the projects who disagree, in those typical feminist whiney “male oppressor” rants they go off on.”

    You are on the wrong thread.

    “The beta male girl-appeasers will go along with the various chastisements of other “bad” males untl the entire project turns into a WPA program for gurrrl empowerment.”

    Your alpha dog wreaks of solipsism. Go chase your tail on one of the manospherist blogs.

    “The Leahy Amendment “Code of Conduct” has teeth, when you realize that it is merely the first step in a lefty SJW campaign that will never end. Read Vox. Follow GamerGate.”

    As opposed to the always continuing Coalition of the Right Fringes coalition crusade to “save Western Civilization” because “vibrants” are the scourge of tradition. How niggardly of you.

    Stephen R. Diamond—“Steve has brought up the precedent of excluding Russian Christians.”

    Would not this action be considered “anti-white”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  87. @tbraton
    "It’s been evident for some time that the the dominant ideological logic is trending toward making it inevitable that all 7 billion noncitizens on Earth be assumed to have civil rights to move to America."

    As I stated in a message responding to one of your blogs back in October, the "right to emigrate" was the basis for the Jackson-Vanik Amendment in 1974:

    "Keep in mind that the basis for the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment, sponsored by the former socialist Henry “Scoop” Jackson, was the “right to emigrate.” According to Wikipedia, “Richard Perle, Jackson’s staffer who drafted the amendment in an interview said that the idea belongs to Jackson, who believed that the right to emigrate is the most powerful among the human rights in certain respects: “if people could vote with their feet, governments would have to acknowledge that and governments would have to make for their citizens a life that would keep them there.”. . . The amendment denies most favored nation status to certain countries with non-market economies that restrict emigration, which is considered a human right.” There you have it. People around the world have a basic human right to emigrate, except for Palestinians who formerly lived where Israel is now. I guess that right to emigrate completely overrides the right of any country to control its borders."

    Notice the role played by Richard Perle, then an aide to Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson and later one of the major architects of the Iraq War disaster.

    My cousin was a junior staffer on Senator Henry Jackson’s staff back in the day. I’ll have to ask him about Perle sometime.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Thea says:
    @SPMoore8
    The reason why this resolution is out there is because a lot of people don't like the idea of disallowing someone to come to the US simply on the basis of a religious test: it sounds too much like not allowing Jewish immigrants from Nazism, etc.

    But two points:

    a) As has been repeatedly said here, an immigration policy that is preferential to one group must necessarily discriminate against all other groups. If we accept the premise that some groups can be preferred, then it should follow that some groups can be actively not preferred.

    b) In this case, "religion" is just a criterion, like anything else: height, weight, skin color, ability to work in Silicon Valley, ability to harvest green onions, etc. Obviously we should have criteria for immigration -- because we do in fact have such criteria, and I'm not even talking about the quotas. This is particularly so since, in this case, the particular religion in question has a large intersection with terror attacks.

    c) I appreciate what Trump is doing WRT Overton window, but his billboard pronouncements, while getting a lot of attention, lack nuance and thus are easy prey for MSM misrepresentation. Should we have what is, in effect, a moratorium on Muslim immigration? Well, any such moratorium is going to have exceptions: that's the first point we should recognize. Second, a strictly religious test (i.e., "are you a Muslim?") is insufficient, since all a terrorist would need to do would be to declare himself/herself a Secular Humanist and they'd get in, no question.

    Overall, I think Trump would have better served if he had simply said that the Arab lands, including those Muslim countries adjacent to Arab lands (that would include Afghan, Pakistan, Iran, and the Caucasus) are in turmoil and are closely associated with terrorism, and for the sake of our own citizens we should temporarily suspend immigration from those countries until we can control the risk of allowing political radicals into the country. I mean, really, I don't think anyone is particularly concerned about, say, an immigrant from Djakarta. At least, not yet.

    I’m not sure the American public has ever really preferred nuance but Trump is doing it exactly right. Ask for more than you want then negotiate done. You win and look cooperative in the process.

    We probably can’t ban Muslims unless we close the border( which I want but won’t get.) we can severely restrict them and allow only a safer (hopefully) subset in the USA

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Stephen R. Diamond
    Freedom of religion is a First Amendment right. Trump proposes to abridge this right by allowing the security state to create opprobrious lists of American Muslims. [Of course this is an abridgement: would it not serve to dissuade citizens from practicing their Muslim religion if they know it will subject them to special scrutiny?]

    Steve hasn't opposed that measure; my guess is he supports it. Trump's proposal, if enacted, would not only violate the First Amendment; it also misdirects opponents of migration, to the advantage of the neocons and Zionists, to focus on security issues - sensationalized by the MSM - rather than economic and cultural issues.

    Views regarding history are also a clue (which you seem to want to discount). I didn't see any rightists here (exception noted: Priss Factory) objecting to Pat Buchanan's support of McCarthyism. If I may guess, I'd bet you retrospectively support it too. Yes or no?

    Trump proposes to abridge this right by allowing the security state to create opprobrious lists of American Muslims.

    Trump has proposed that the US Government keep track of Syrian refugees who will be allowed to immigrate.

    Surely the US Government already has a data base that includes all legal immigrants (every US resident who ever has been issued an Alien Registration Number ), and it’s easy to select from that data base all Syrians (or any other nationality) who immigrated in the refugee status.

    I suppose that Trump might intend for the Federal Government to keep track of those particular refugees’ address changes and criminal records over an extended period of time. I don’t think that is outrageous.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Daniel H says:
    @Steve Sailer
    The Green Card Diversity Lottery was originally referred to in Congress as the Irish Bill for being yet another Ted Kennedy wardheeler push to get more Irish voters on the rolls to vote for Kennedys unto the seventh generation. Like 1965, it didn't do much for Irish immigration while having massive unintended consequences.

    Back in the day I followed this bill closely. As initially proposed this bill would have been that rare example of positive discrimination specifically benefitting white, European (Irish and others) descended constituents. But of course Chuck Schumer would have none of that and bowdlerized the bill so that for all practical purposes its positive effect on white European immigration has been close to nil. Chuck, all the while, vociferously advocating for Soviet Jewish affines of his own constituents.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @reiner Tor
    I'm not American, so I care very little for American issues except that the US is dragging the rest of Western Civilization down.

    As far as I know, almost all people accused by McCarthy later turned out to have been communists or on Soviet payroll or both, after all. It's also difficult to feel sympathy for them knowing that they would have happily oppressed my rights to free speech, and in fact, that's what their side - which, after all, won - has been trying to do ever since, and has actually largely succeeded in doing through extralegal means.

    So yeah, in retrospect, it would have been good if they would have been oppressed as much as people are oppressed by the SJW crowd at present. Please note that that was not the case: most of the people blacklisted in Hollywood could keep working there under various pseudonyms, because the lords of entertainment were on their side.

    Now I don't know if I would have supported McCarthysm at the time, without the knowledge I have today. Probably I'd have found Mr. McCarthy at least distasteful, but who knows?

    “the US is dragging the rest of Western Civilization down. ”

    Some ancestral genes creating globs of neurons that cause destructive behaviors to become dominant are dragging Western Civilization down.

    Those who are lacking in cerebral control: the humpers and thumpers, domestic and imported.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Steve Sailer
    Mandatory insurance on immigrants, just like you have to prove you have insurance when you buy a car.

    Great idea.

    A mostly market solution to a government created problem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Chrisnonymous
    Here's an interesting and potentially enlightening if ultimately irrelevant question:
    If we didn't have Middle East wars and Islamic terrorism to worry about, what would our political system be focused on right now?
    Energy? Polygamy? Even more BLM?

    Transgender 24/7?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. tbraton says:

    I met him once and found him to be very arrogant and too full with himself. He thought he was much smarter than he was, and I concede he was pretty bright. I was not terribly impressed, and that was after I had read newspaper accounts that the Soviets were obsessed by him (in hindsight, probably as a result of his Jackson-Vanik work, where I was totally ignorant of his role until recently–I knew he had served on Jackson’s staff, but I associated him with national security matters) and regarded him as the political equivalent of Gary Kasperov (which subsequent developments have shown to be far off the mark).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  95. @Blah
    Took me a moment, but nice clip art rachet.

    Drawings have advantages over the photos I usually use to illustrate things.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. IHTG says:
    @Chrisnonymous
    Here's an interesting and potentially enlightening if ultimately irrelevant question:
    If we didn't have Middle East wars and Islamic terrorism to worry about, what would our political system be focused on right now?
    Energy? Polygamy? Even more BLM?

    I thought the Middle East stuff was a distraction from the regular schedule of BLM.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Steve Sailer
    Mandatory insurance on immigrants, just like you have to prove you have insurance when you buy a car.

    This is already officially on the books as part of the law governing immigrant visas. Since the vast majority of official immigrants are eligible via the family reunification provision of immigration law, immigrant visa applications are filed on their behalf by their relatives (i.e. their sponsors). Officially, those sponsors have to demonstrate sufficient financial resources to prevent their immigrant relatives from becoming a public charge (partaking of our benevolent welfare state).

    The problem here, as with most parts of the visa process, is human agency. The adjudicating officer (i.e. generally the newly-hatched State Dept. officer on his mandatory first tour as a consular officer) is supposed to check the provided documentation, ascertain it is legitimate, and determine the sponsor does genuinely have sufficient funds to sponsor whomever he is sponsoring. Most don’t bother. I always did so; I recall one case where a woman came with a young child perhaps 4/5 years old and a newborn baby. Her sponsor -don’t recall if it was a brother or husband – had proof of salary but it was only sufficient, per the poverty level charts, to allow me to issue an immigrant visa for one person. She unhesitatingly ignored her weeping and clinging daughter and made arrangements to leave both her and the newborn with friends.

    The additional issue is that even in those rare instances when the visa officer is honest and conscientious, there are no provisions in the law to then

    A) follow up to verify the immigrant is neither living in poverty nor utilizing public monies, or
    B) mandate withholding the sponsoring immigrant’s pay or seizing his property to provide support for his indigent relatives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Maybe we could get some Republican politicians onboard with the idea of creating a new industry for private enterprise: mandatory immigration insurance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Meanwhile, someone who outlawed profiling did a bit herself when she was mugged by reality:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/federal_judge_who_outlawed_racial_profiling_is_victim_of_black_mob_violence.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  99. @tbraton
    "It’s been evident for some time that the the dominant ideological logic is trending toward making it inevitable that all 7 billion noncitizens on Earth be assumed to have civil rights to move to America."

    As I stated in a message responding to one of your blogs back in October, the "right to emigrate" was the basis for the Jackson-Vanik Amendment in 1974:

    "Keep in mind that the basis for the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment, sponsored by the former socialist Henry “Scoop” Jackson, was the “right to emigrate.” According to Wikipedia, “Richard Perle, Jackson’s staffer who drafted the amendment in an interview said that the idea belongs to Jackson, who believed that the right to emigrate is the most powerful among the human rights in certain respects: “if people could vote with their feet, governments would have to acknowledge that and governments would have to make for their citizens a life that would keep them there.”. . . The amendment denies most favored nation status to certain countries with non-market economies that restrict emigration, which is considered a human right.” There you have it. People around the world have a basic human right to emigrate, except for Palestinians who formerly lived where Israel is now. I guess that right to emigrate completely overrides the right of any country to control its borders."

    Notice the role played by Richard Perle, then an aide to Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson and later one of the major architects of the Iraq War disaster.

    “right to emigrate”

    A right is made up and just another tool of government.

    Read More
    • Agree: tbraton
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Opting Out
    This is already officially on the books as part of the law governing immigrant visas. Since the vast majority of official immigrants are eligible via the family reunification provision of immigration law, immigrant visa applications are filed on their behalf by their relatives (i.e. their sponsors). Officially, those sponsors have to demonstrate sufficient financial resources to prevent their immigrant relatives from becoming a public charge (partaking of our benevolent welfare state).

    The problem here, as with most parts of the visa process, is human agency. The adjudicating officer (i.e. generally the newly-hatched State Dept. officer on his mandatory first tour as a consular officer) is supposed to check the provided documentation, ascertain it is legitimate, and determine the sponsor does genuinely have sufficient funds to sponsor whomever he is sponsoring. Most don't bother. I always did so; I recall one case where a woman came with a young child perhaps 4/5 years old and a newborn baby. Her sponsor -don't recall if it was a brother or husband - had proof of salary but it was only sufficient, per the poverty level charts, to allow me to issue an immigrant visa for one person. She unhesitatingly ignored her weeping and clinging daughter and made arrangements to leave both her and the newborn with friends.

    The additional issue is that even in those rare instances when the visa officer is honest and conscientious, there are no provisions in the law to then

    A) follow up to verify the immigrant is neither living in poverty nor utilizing public monies, or
    B) mandate withholding the sponsoring immigrant's pay or seizing his property to provide support for his indigent relatives.

    Maybe we could get some Republican politicians onboard with the idea of creating a new industry for private enterprise: mandatory immigration insurance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. For a taste of how this hits home…

    I don’t know if Steve is aware of this, but one victim in San Bernardino was the mother of a professional golfer in his neck of the woods:

    http://www.golfdigest.com/story/professional-golfers-mother-among-shooting-victims-in-san-bernardino-terrorist-attack

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. syonredux says:
    @tbraton
    "It’s been evident for some time that the the dominant ideological logic is trending toward making it inevitable that all 7 billion noncitizens on Earth be assumed to have civil rights to move to America."

    As I stated in a message responding to one of your blogs back in October, the "right to emigrate" was the basis for the Jackson-Vanik Amendment in 1974:

    "Keep in mind that the basis for the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment, sponsored by the former socialist Henry “Scoop” Jackson, was the “right to emigrate.” According to Wikipedia, “Richard Perle, Jackson’s staffer who drafted the amendment in an interview said that the idea belongs to Jackson, who believed that the right to emigrate is the most powerful among the human rights in certain respects: “if people could vote with their feet, governments would have to acknowledge that and governments would have to make for their citizens a life that would keep them there.”. . . The amendment denies most favored nation status to certain countries with non-market economies that restrict emigration, which is considered a human right.” There you have it. People around the world have a basic human right to emigrate, except for Palestinians who formerly lived where Israel is now. I guess that right to emigrate completely overrides the right of any country to control its borders."

    Notice the role played by Richard Perle, then an aide to Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson and later one of the major architects of the Iraq War disaster.

    As I stated in a message responding to one of your blogs back in October, the “right to emigrate” was the basis for the Jackson-Vanik Amendment in 1974:

    Of course, the right to emigrate is quite distinct from the right to immigrate.I.e., having the right to emigrate from country A does not mean that one has the right to immigrate to country B.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "Of course, the right to emigrate is quite distinct from the right to immigrate.I.e., having the right to emigrate from country A does not mean that one has the right to immigrate to country B."

    Logically, I would totally agree with you, but, apparently, that is not how the world works. Yes, there are two distinct sides of the equation, the right to emigrate and the right to immigrate. But, by recognizing a "right to emigrate," you put a lot of pressure on countries to allow immigration, otherwise the right to emigrate is rendered a nullity. That is why we have international treaties compelling countries to accept "asylum seekers." There is also the practical problem. For example, I am of the firm belief that the U.S.'s acceptance of the cream of Cuban society to obtain asylum in the U.S. worked to the great benefit of the dictator Fidel Castro. Had those bright and very able Cubans been forced to remain in Cuba, eventually they would have a way to assassinate Castro and restore normal government to Cuba. It probably would have happened many years ago, but we foolishly allowed Castro to use the relief valve of removing potential political opponents by opening the door to Cuban refugees. While our actions obviously worked to the benefit of the individual Cubans who obtained asylum in the U.S., Cuba, as a country, suffered from our well-meaning actions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Thea says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond
    Should there be religious tests for migration? Steve has brought up the precedent of excluding Russian Christians. Shouldn't this be treated as a grievous error, on a par with interning the Japs, rather than as a righteous precedent?

    This is what I mean by the hypocrisy of rightists.

    Really I don’t care if The right is hypocritical. I make no pretenses of pretending to be egalitarian. The left on the other hand wants to do to whites what is claims was wrong to do to blacks.

    The egalitarians are the ones who are hypocrites. Whites are no longer likely to be hired, accepted at elite schools, express unpopular opinions while minorities are treated like golden calves no matter how silly they are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @CJ
    Paging David Frum:

    Very good piece in the Atlantic this week, very well done:

    America's Immigration Challenge: Coming to the United States would benefit millions—but policymakers seldom ask whether their arrival would benefit the United States.

    Excellent indeed, David, but now it is time for you to give generously to Steve's fundraising drive, given that you have clearly benefited from reading his material.

    David Frum cited Ann Coulter in that piece (prompting the pointing and sputtering below), so I wouldn’t think he’d be afraid to cite Sailer. It could be that the data in his article came from the sources he linked to instead though.

    https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/675372506514112512

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. syonredux says:
    @CJ
    Paging David Frum:

    Very good piece in the Atlantic this week, very well done:

    America's Immigration Challenge: Coming to the United States would benefit millions—but policymakers seldom ask whether their arrival would benefit the United States.

    Excellent indeed, David, but now it is time for you to give generously to Steve's fundraising drive, given that you have clearly benefited from reading his material.

    Yeah, Frum has been quite good on this topic. Some choice passages:

    However one assesses that chain and its consequences, it seems clear that the large majority of legal immigrants choose to come—or, more exactly, are chosen by their relatives—for their own reasons. They are not selected by the United States to advance some national interest.

    Donald Trump’s noisy complaints that immigration is out of control are literally true. Nobody is making conscious decisions about who is wanted and who is not, about how much immigration to accept and what kind to prioritize—not even for the portion of U.S. migration conducted according to law, much less for the larger portion that is not.

    Nervous about Syrian refugees in the wake of the Paris massacre? How dare you! Would you turn away Jews fleeing Hitler? Oh, you think that analogy is hyperbolic? Tell it to the mayor of New York City.

    This frequent invocation of the refugee trauma of the 1930s shuts down all discussion of anything that has happened since.

    Immigration advocates understandably prefer to focus on the contributions of the refugees from Nazism than on less successful and more recent experiences.

    Yet surely it is the more recent experiences that are more relevant. Pre-civil war Syria was no Somalia, but it was very far from a developed country. In 2010, the average Syrian had less than six years of schooling, less even than Egypt, according to the UN Development Index. Women were systematically subordinated: Only a quarter of Syrian women completed secondary education; only 13 percent participated in the workforce. Few Syrians will arrive with the skills of a modern economy, even apart from the language gap. Before the civil war, almost one-fifth of Syrians worked as agricultural laborers; about one-third worked in Syria’s notoriously inefficient public sector.

    The tens of thousands of youthful border-crossers who claimed asylum in the United States in the summer of 2014 were described by supporters as refugees from gang violence at home in Central America. Yet 2014 was a year in which gang violence dramatically abated in Honduras and Guatemala. The “push” was stronger two years earlier … but the surge responded to the “pull” of perceived opportunity.

    When European border controls collapsed in the fall of 2015, Syrians and those claiming to be Syrian rushed, not to any European country at random, but very specifically to the countries with the strongest job opportunities and most generous welfare systems: Germany and Scandinavia. Every day, at the entrance to the Channel Tunnel, young men described as “refugees” risk their lives to reach Britain from … France.

    The distinction between migration and asylum-seeking is grounded less in differences of motive, and more in an artifact of international law. Shamed by the exclusion of German and Austrian Jews in the 1930s, the post-World War II democracies signed treaties and conventions that conferred rights of asylum on persecuted people.

    For many decades to come, Latino families educationally lag well behind their non-Latino counterparts. The static snapshot is even more alarming: While 60 percent of Asian Americans over age 25 have at least a two-year diploma, as do 42 percent of non-Latino whites and 31 percent of African Americans, only 22 percent of Latino Americans do. Ironically, one of the biggest obstacles to Latino success is that so many attend schools taught by large numbers of only slightly less recently arrived Latinos: as the National Academy of Sciences report glancingly observes, one important cause of poor performance of Latino immigrant children is the weak English proficiency of the Latino immigrants often hired to teach them.

    The Immigration Act of 1965 did two things, one well understood, one not: It abolished national quotas that effectively disfavored non-European immigration—and it established family reunification as the supreme consideration of U.S. immigration law. That second element has surprisingly proven even more important than the first. A migrant could arrive illegally, regularize his status somewhere along the way—for example, by the immigration amnesty of 1986—and then call his family from home into the United States after him. The 1965 act widened the flow of post-1970 low-skilled illegal immigration into a secondary and tertiary surge of further rounds of low-skilled immigration that continues to this day.

    Americans talk a lot about the social difficulties caused by large-scale, low-skill immigration, but usually in a very elliptical way. Giant foundations—Pew, Ford—spend lavishly to study the problems of the new low-skill immigrant communities. Public policy desperately seeks to respond to the challenges presented by large-scale low-skill immigration. But the fundamental question—“should we be doing this at all?”—goes unvoiced by anyone in a position of responsibility.

    What seems to have changed Trump’s mind is a book: Adios America by Ann Coulter. The phrase “political book of the year” is a usually an empty compliment, but if the phrase ever described any book, Adios America is it. In its pages, Trump found the message that would convulse the Republican primary and upend the dynastic hopes of former-frontrunner Jeb Bush. Perhaps no single writer has had such immediate impact on a presidential election since Harriet Beecher Stowe.

    The UN High Commission on Refugees estimates that 60 million people have been displaced by war or natural disaster. Millions of them would wish to move to Europe or North America if they could. That population will only grow in the years ahead: Nigeria, a country of an estimated 137 million people today, is projected to reach 400 million within the next 35 years, overtaking the United States. How many of them will wish to leave behind their failed state for opportunities in the global North? Even in Mexico, a middle-income country by global standards, more than half of young people in their 20s would like to move to the United States if they could.

    Good stuff

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/refugees/419976/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @tbraton
    "It’s been evident for some time that the the dominant ideological logic is trending toward making it inevitable that all 7 billion noncitizens on Earth be assumed to have civil rights to move to America."

    As I stated in a message responding to one of your blogs back in October, the "right to emigrate" was the basis for the Jackson-Vanik Amendment in 1974:

    "Keep in mind that the basis for the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment, sponsored by the former socialist Henry “Scoop” Jackson, was the “right to emigrate.” According to Wikipedia, “Richard Perle, Jackson’s staffer who drafted the amendment in an interview said that the idea belongs to Jackson, who believed that the right to emigrate is the most powerful among the human rights in certain respects: “if people could vote with their feet, governments would have to acknowledge that and governments would have to make for their citizens a life that would keep them there.”. . . The amendment denies most favored nation status to certain countries with non-market economies that restrict emigration, which is considered a human right.” There you have it. People around the world have a basic human right to emigrate, except for Palestinians who formerly lived where Israel is now. I guess that right to emigrate completely overrides the right of any country to control its borders."

    Notice the role played by Richard Perle, then an aide to Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson and later one of the major architects of the Iraq War disaster.

    Isn’t this obvious? Plausibly everyone should have the right to leave their country, but they do not have the right to move into another country they would like to move into. If they are unappealing enough there may be no other country that will accept them.

    Feel free to leave your home but don’t expect to move into mine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    If every other country has the right to refuse entry to anyone, which I firmly believe to be the case, then "the right to emigrate" is a rather empty right. It's like saying that every man has a right to screw a woman, but every woman has a right to say "no." That kind of renders the man's universal right to screw a woman of his choice somewhat empty, doesn't it?
    , @Anonymous
    In a similar way, absolutely no one has the 'right' for an employer to employ him.

    One cannot exist without income. Income, for the vast majority of people, can only come from employment. Yet, the absolute right of employers to deny employment - and by implication, the 'right to life', is upheld just about everywhere.

    This puts all the 'moral' caterwauling about the current 'migrant' crisis into perspective.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Stephen R. Diamond
    Should there be religious tests for migration? Steve has brought up the precedent of excluding Russian Christians. Shouldn't this be treated as a grievous error, on a par with interning the Japs, rather than as a righteous precedent?

    This is what I mean by the hypocrisy of rightists.

    Should there be religious tests for migration? Steve has brought up the precedent of excluding Russian Christians. Shouldn’t this be treated as a grievous error, on a par with interning the Japs, rather than as a righteous precedent?

    No. It’s not like we really need Russian Christians either. I’d be happy if they didn’t let ANYBODY immigrate. Since that’s not really going to happen, can’t we at least keep out the ones that cause the most problems?

    What is it with you people? Why are you so DETERMINED to cause more problems for America? Why do you hate this country so much?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @AndrewR
    I really fear that Trump will be assassinated.

    Of course that will not change the core roots of his popularity, but this may seem to be a trivial point to those who would kill him.

    A board member of the Colorado ACLU openly called for Trump to be assassinated.

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/10/colorado-aclu-board-member-shoot-trump-voters-before-election-day/

    When liberals in places of prestige and authority call for these things that bodes very poorly for the future.

    I have little doubt that mass violence would break out following a Trump assassination. That may be a feature, not a bug, to his foes though.

    Not quite, ((Loring Wirbel)) threatened to shoot “Trump voters”, rather than Trump himself. Which to me is worse.

    He has been made to resign from his position at the ACLU though

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/11/colorado-aclu-chairman-resigns-after-writing-about-shooting-trump-supporters/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @MLK
    I've long been fascinated by the disappearance of formerly common arguments, even as the course of events proves their efficacy. For example, what happened to warning about the "Chilling Effect" on Free Speech discourse? Indeed, in that case it first fell into disuse as it became more evident, and now it has been rolled out as a feature not a bug. Those quashing free expression tout their actions as producing a sanguine Chilling Effect on Hate Speech.

    I rehearsed the above because the Slippery Slope is running through a similar trajectory.

    I have done the relevant searches on these terms so I'm shooting from the hip. But I think my intuition is right. It's relevant here since that is the salient criticism of this Sense of the Senate resolution.

    I've long rejected the now common practice of applying a partisan or ideological prism out of the gate. It is anything but enlightening. Instead, consider two distinguishable but intertwined issues at the moment: Immigration and Firearms. Pretty much all of the arguments are the same. With minor adjustments you could permissively interchange one for the other.

    My message is hopeful, at least for those who favor (qualified or limited) Gun Rights and Immigration Restrictionism. Which position more closely qualifies as unAmerican, shutting down firearms possession or immigration?

    It wasn't just happenstance that I also mentioned Free Speech. It's a cardinal error to think as many do that an alternate exigent response to San Bernardino wasn't rolled out. This is downright strange given that it was made by the President and the Attorney General in each of their speeches. In short, (still) pedal to the metal Immigration, with it's actual and risks of harm ameliorated by Gun Rights and Free Speech (2nd and 1st A.) Restrictionism.

    Back when the Middle Class was driving the bus, at the height of its reign in the early 50s, common sense prevailed over dogmatism. Problems were dealt with. Troublemakers were sat on or if necessary subjected to a heavy hand. Slippery Slope warnings could be ignored because the American Middle Class was in charge and it abhorred extremism and orthodoxy.

    No more.

    the American Middle Class was in charge and it abhorred extremism and orthodoxy.

    Each conjunct is false. What Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex was in charge. And the era was one of extreme ideological conformism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    And the era was one of extreme ideological conformism.

    You have no idea what you're talking about. Back in the fifties, you could say things that would get you banned from public life today. And on the left, there isn't anything today that's to the left of what the Beats were talking about.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    No.

    Your assertions are false. It was the middle class that fought, and won, WW2. The aftermath of WW2 was the last period where the middle class had enough clout to keep America from derailing itself with the breathtaking idiocy we see today. But that period was so brief that it could go without notice.

    After all this is post Wickard v Filburn. In the postwar era Liberals already had the whip hand with their Supreme Court, State Department, Federal bureaucracy and academic pro-Communist, anti-Christian bigotry and public policies.

    The "hating-whitey" crew, nursing their country-club-exclusion slights, their prefer-the-'other' treachery and their asymmetric, damnable insistence on asserting supremacy for them and their preferred classes over the middle class has justly earned the contempt we hold them in. But your claim of ideological conformity has no merit when compared to the ideology we face now.

    A baker prefers not to participate in a 'wedding' farce that a thousand other bakers would be happy to exploit for profit. The 'betrothed' insist that the baker participate. The baker is unwilling and declines to particpate. The 'betrothed' recruit the State to destroy the baker.

    The State jumps at the chance to enforce ideological conformity through destruction. The unwilling baker is deprived not only of a means to earn a living through baking, but in addition the State fines the baker into poverty. The State goes on to effectively evict the baker from the baker's house, through the power to fine. And the State insists that all of this in an opportunity to 'educate' the baker. This is the power of ideological conformity.

    But you claim that the 1950's are a period of ideological conformity.

    Provide a 1950's example even remotely comparable to the foaming-at-the-mouth, rabid, vicious dogs that enforce conformity through the police power of the state. Just one comparable example, please.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @Great Again
    We shouldn't bar people based on their religion because you can never really prove who is a true Muslim or a true Christian. I don't want "Christian" Syrians admitted either because they could simply be Muslims lying to the immigration official.

    We should bar people based on their country of origin. Allow no immigration from nations with significant jihadist activity. That would included essentially all of the Middle East and North Africa, and parts of Central Asia. In fact, Trump should have phrased his proposal that way to eliminate all of this hand-wringing about religious persecution. Though, I suppose Trump intentionally phrased it his way so he can dominate the news cycle and troll the media intelligentsia.

    >We should bar people based on their country of origin. Allow no immigration from nations with significant jihadist activity.

    what israel does

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Anonym says:
    @LeftyLawyer
    Unfortunately, between Donald Trump's blustery delivery and the other side's "how dare you" response, there is little intelligent discussion of this between both sides anywhere (the discussion here is intelligent but regrettably one-sided.)

    So by way of intelligent discussion (not to sound too Socratic) - let's say we knew that there was a particular organization (not a religion) where 100% of the members were in favor of suicide bombing. I'm sure we would not let them in - in fact, Communist party membership is still technically a bar to admission to the US, so we do "discriminate" against members of certain organizations (I think Nazi membership is also still a bar.)

    How about if only 80%, 70%, 50%, or even 10% of the members of this mythical organization were in favor of suicide bombing? I suspect the organization would still be on the "do not bother applying" list."

    So lets change our hypothetical to reality - and look at Islam. There is a great study based on polling done by the Pew Research Center of Muslim attitudes around the world - http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf.

    They don't have figures for Syria, but they do have Jordan which is right next door - and, if anything, is more Western than Syria. So we'll use Jordan as a surrogate for Syria. 15% of Jordanians think suicide bombing is justified. 71% Think Sharia should be the law of the land (I suppose their land, not our land.) 41% are in favor of honor killings. And, 96% think homosexuality is morally wrong (and it's the left clamoring to let them in!?)

    Pakistani immigrants and their progeny have also been in the news recently. 13% in favor of suicide bombing, 84% want Sharia, 41% in favor of honor killing, and 90% think homosexuality is wrong.

    And, our old friend Afghanistan - 39% for suicide bombing, 99% for Sharia, 60% for honor killing - and apparently they didn't bother or were too scared to ask the homosexuality question there.

    So, the legitimate questions which is not being discussed - we have limited room for immigrants, and can pick among many worthy people that want to enter. "Vetting" will never tell us all that much - I'm sure that 99% of the 15% of Jordanians that think suicide bombings are just fine would come up clean even with the intensive investigation that we would never as a practical matter actually do. So, do we let in a population where 13%+ of the people think suicide bombing is OK, where 41%+ think honor killing is OK, where 90%+ think homosexuality is wrong - or do we let in people who are lower risk and who's values are closer to ours?

    I welcome you to the site.

    I think many posters here have long ago done that sort of analysis, which is part of the reason why they have come to their present world view. One can do a similar sort of analysis for others as well as Muslims. For example violent criminals, as exemplified by homicides.

    A map of the world homicides/capita and its relation to demographics gives strong evidence that homicides are not a gun thing, but a race and ethnicity thing. Sub-saharan Africa and Central/South Americans are the world’s most homicidally violent people. Thus it is no surprise that black capitals like Detroit and Baltimore are violent hell holes. If we ask the question – “Would our country benefit from the immigration of peoples who, in aggregate, will give us crime rates that overwhelm a precinct with an order of magnitude increase in crime?”, the answer is surely no.

    Unfortunately the left has made it impossible to debate such topics publicly. We are intellectually disarmed when it comes to analysis of different peoples and our own legitimate ethnic interest in maintaining a society of inter-compatible people, people like ourselves. Thus when we finally ask these sorts of questions, we fumble around like rank amateurs trying to learn the basics of a new sport, even when we are gifted in other intellectual pursuits.

    You can compare any two peoples, and the further they are ethnically and racially apart, the more likely that they are going to be incompatible in different ways. Even relatively non-(violently)-criminal East Asians will form their own insular groups. Corruptness is baked into their nature. Prostitution, and other means of using feminine wiles for financial gain are also much more common with females. They are often also more savvy and ruthless businessmen on average, and will tend to outcompete European labor. Until you have dealings with them you won’t run into all of these aspects.

    Due to the mental shackles of PC, the average person has been trained to recoil whenever anything negative has been said about other peoples, and to blurt out “sterotyping” or “bigot” etc in order to shut down discussion. They are uncomfortable with the thought that they might have a right to decide whether any other people have a right to enter their country, and certainly not that immigrants should be just like them.

    But really, this is a natural state of things and is the case in most countries. PC in European countries is a temporal and geographical anomaly. So, while Muslims are the current people of interest in terms of permissible immigration, you might find that the underlying axioms of your thought need questioning.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Bettega
    You can be sure that this unlimited "right of immigration" will not be extended to Swedish homeschoolers or Australian gun-owners. That makes it no more than a power grab. Previously, the power to decide who would move to a country rested upon it's respective government, according to the considerations that Sessions mentioned. Now, the power lies with left-wing intellectuals, only they can decide if a determined people has a "human right" to migration or if technical procedures should preclude it, and the criteria is basically "who is more likely to vote for left-wing parties?"

    Dude, for everyone of those groups we taken in we will take in 100 3rd world, collectivist voting, gun hating, killers of western civilization. Its not worth it

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. MLK says:
    @Road Warrior
    Immigrant chic and gun stigmatization are nothing alike. Even if both exemplify a ratchet effect the ratchets are turning in opposite directions. The cultural message is that guns are inherently schmutzig and vile and that no property right attains, however our adult masters will deign to let us have them, like a problematic toy, under certain ever-narrowing conditions. The pesky loophole nuisance of private guns keeps alive if only symbolically the competition for Ingsoc. By contrast the ethos holds up immigrants/noble savages as wonderful and angelic and beaming sunshine out of their asses, while strenuously censoring any evidence of Bad Behavior

    Immigrant chic and gun stigmatization are nothing alike.

    You misunderstand me. I suggesting these are opposites. All the moralizing and post-hoc reasoning aside, proponents of the status quo on Immigration are Laissez Faire. Just as imperfectly, we can understand proponents of the status quo on Gun Rights as arguing the efficacy of Laissez Faire, at least insofar as the Restrictionist changes proposed.

    I don’t at all disagree with the balance of your comment. It illustrates Elite/Establishment predilections. The Megaphone’s emanations as someone who I cannot recall put it.

    All of these arguments are undergirded by the same principles.. That in my view should bode ill for the Pedal-to-the-Metal Immigration crowd because it stands in contradistinction to the American Way. Their response to San Bernardino was to renew their jihad on Free Speech and Gun Rights. That is their salve for the immigrants that ail us, and that is a whole lot more troubling than their tongue-clucking about Trump’s insensitivity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. tbraton says:
    @syonredux

    As I stated in a message responding to one of your blogs back in October, the “right to emigrate” was the basis for the Jackson-Vanik Amendment in 1974:
     
    Of course, the right to emigrate is quite distinct from the right to immigrate.I.e., having the right to emigrate from country A does not mean that one has the right to immigrate to country B.

    “Of course, the right to emigrate is quite distinct from the right to immigrate.I.e., having the right to emigrate from country A does not mean that one has the right to immigrate to country B.”

    Logically, I would totally agree with you, but, apparently, that is not how the world works. Yes, there are two distinct sides of the equation, the right to emigrate and the right to immigrate. But, by recognizing a “right to emigrate,” you put a lot of pressure on countries to allow immigration, otherwise the right to emigrate is rendered a nullity. That is why we have international treaties compelling countries to accept “asylum seekers.” There is also the practical problem. For example, I am of the firm belief that the U.S.’s acceptance of the cream of Cuban society to obtain asylum in the U.S. worked to the great benefit of the dictator Fidel Castro. Had those bright and very able Cubans been forced to remain in Cuba, eventually they would have a way to assassinate Castro and restore normal government to Cuba. It probably would have happened many years ago, but we foolishly allowed Castro to use the relief valve of removing potential political opponents by opening the door to Cuban refugees. While our actions obviously worked to the benefit of the individual Cubans who obtained asylum in the U.S., Cuba, as a country, suffered from our well-meaning actions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Logically, I would totally agree with you, but, apparently, that is not how the world works. Yes, there are two distinct sides of the equation, the right to emigrate and the right to immigrate. But, by recognizing a “right to emigrate,” you put a lot of pressure on countries to allow immigration, otherwise the right to emigrate is rendered a nullity. That is why we have international treaties compelling countries to accept “asylum seekers.”
     
    Interesting how those treaties don't seem to have much power/influence where Israel is concerned.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Justin Trudeau personally welcomed some of the 25,000 Syrian refugees that he is sponsoring as they landed at Toronto’s airport. Toronto is 2 hours away from the border with the US.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  116. @Mike Sylwester
    Here are the bullet points of Ted Cruz's position on immigration.

    SECURE THE BORDER

    * Build a wall that works .... I will complete the wall.

    * Triple the number of Border Patrol agents.

    * Increase vital aerial surveillance and other technology along the border.

    * Finish the biometric tracking system at our nation’s ports of entry.

    RESTORE THE RULE OF LAW

    * End President Obama’s illegal amnesty. .... I will rescind each and every one ...

    * Increase deportations and end catch-and-release.

    * End sanctuary policies, sign Kate’s Law, and deport criminal immigrants.

    * Prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving financial benefits and strengthen E-Verify.

    REFORM LEGAL IMMIGRATION TO PROTECT AMERICANS

    * Suspend the issuance of all H-1B visas for 180 days to complete a comprehensive investigation and audit of pervasive allegations of abuse of the program.

    * Halt any increases in legal immigration so long as American unemployment remains unacceptably high.

    * Enforce the public-charge doctrine. Current law requires legal immigrants to certify that they will be economically self-sufficient. A Cruz Administration will ensure they do not receive government assistance, which defies the law and harms American taxpayers.

    * End birthright citizenship. .... I will take steps to pass legislation or a constitutional amendment to end it.

     

    The points are elaborated at the webpage.

    https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan-summary/

    Holy smoke! Sounds just like Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    Not quite, since until his recent flip-flop Cruz wanted to quintuple H-1Bs and triple legal immigration overall. Post flip-flop he's the second-best option by default, but I trust him even less than I trust Trump.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @snorlax

    It should be amended to read that the least diverse and most pro-immigration states have a special responsibility to take more of these “migrants” in. Get Sen Leahy’s comments on record.
     
    Vermont moonbats would be overjoyed to learn that 30,000 Somalis are moving next door. They might subsequently vote with their feet, but it would only be because they wouldn't want to be gentrifiers.

    Are there any “homegrown” moonbats in Vermont yet? Or are they all still relocated flatlanders, like Bernie Sanders and James F Loewen?

    I actually do live by 30,000 Somalis. They’re less annoying than white progs. But that’s damning with faint praise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    I'm not sure if there's been any newcomer vs. native polling in Vermont recently. But my sense is that the moonbats are still generally first or second-generation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. syonredux says:
    @tbraton
    "Of course, the right to emigrate is quite distinct from the right to immigrate.I.e., having the right to emigrate from country A does not mean that one has the right to immigrate to country B."

    Logically, I would totally agree with you, but, apparently, that is not how the world works. Yes, there are two distinct sides of the equation, the right to emigrate and the right to immigrate. But, by recognizing a "right to emigrate," you put a lot of pressure on countries to allow immigration, otherwise the right to emigrate is rendered a nullity. That is why we have international treaties compelling countries to accept "asylum seekers." There is also the practical problem. For example, I am of the firm belief that the U.S.'s acceptance of the cream of Cuban society to obtain asylum in the U.S. worked to the great benefit of the dictator Fidel Castro. Had those bright and very able Cubans been forced to remain in Cuba, eventually they would have a way to assassinate Castro and restore normal government to Cuba. It probably would have happened many years ago, but we foolishly allowed Castro to use the relief valve of removing potential political opponents by opening the door to Cuban refugees. While our actions obviously worked to the benefit of the individual Cubans who obtained asylum in the U.S., Cuba, as a country, suffered from our well-meaning actions.

    Logically, I would totally agree with you, but, apparently, that is not how the world works. Yes, there are two distinct sides of the equation, the right to emigrate and the right to immigrate. But, by recognizing a “right to emigrate,” you put a lot of pressure on countries to allow immigration, otherwise the right to emigrate is rendered a nullity. That is why we have international treaties compelling countries to accept “asylum seekers.”

    Interesting how those treaties don’t seem to have much power/influence where Israel is concerned…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Big Bill
    You are wrong. Go read Vox Day. SJWs start with feeble things like "Codes of Conduct" (which is what the Leahy Amendment is) to set the tone. This is classic entryism.

    Hence, Open Source projects and teams are being pressured to agree to various codes of conduct regarding "women" and "inclusiveness" and "diversity" and "safe spaces", etc.

    Once the Code is in place, (non binding as it is) it will be used to pressure men to shut up or leave the projects who disagree, in those typical feminist whiney "male oppressor" rants they go off on.

    The beta male girl-appeasers will go along with the various chastisements of other "bad" males untl the entire project turns into a WPA program for gurrrl empowerment.

    The Leahy Amendment "Code of Conduct" has teeth, when you realize that it is merely the first step in a lefty SJW campaign that will never end. Read Vox. Follow GamerGate.

    SJWs start with feeble things like “Codes of Conduct” (which is what the Leahy Amendment is) to set the tone. This is classic entryism.

    The question is not codes of conduct, which are necessary to civilized life, but who gets to write them.

    When they say you can’t legislate morality, what they mean is you can’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Crank
    "Now, the question is, how do we identify Muslims for this purpose? We can’t."

    Even if we could, it's irrelevant. They will have children, who will also have children, etc. So-called moderate muslims all to often seem to produce (to their dismay) not so moderate children, as your comment about "home grown" jihadis demonstrates.

    So-called moderate muslims all to often seem to produce (to their dismay) not so moderate children

    Liberal Parents, Radical Children– Midge Decter

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    the American Middle Class was in charge and it abhorred extremism and orthodoxy.
     
    Each conjunct is false. What Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex was in charge. And the era was one of extreme ideological conformism.

    And the era was one of extreme ideological conformism.

    You have no idea what you’re talking about. Back in the fifties, you could say things that would get you banned from public life today. And on the left, there isn’t anything today that’s to the left of what the Beats were talking about.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. tbraton says:
    @Corvinus
    “It is the sense of the Senate that the United States must not bar individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion, as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this Nation was founded.”

    According to the Leahy Amendment, any legislation that entails prohibiting future immigration can be on any grounds EXCEPT religion. There is no “extraordinarily dangerous precedent” being set. Congress has the liberty to decide what is and what is not immigration policy. Which, in effect is…the…political…process.

    Muslims can still be declared “undesirable” by law under criteria other than religion. Legislation could limit the number of people coming from Middle Eastern countries, which has precedent, given how Congress had banned immigrants from Asian countries (China/Japan), or even ban Muslims who come from certain Middle Eastern nations. So the immigration system remains intact regarding who is deemed beneficial and who is deemed detrimental. Count me in when restricting legal immigration. However, excluding an entire religion merely because some of its practitioners hate America and desire to blow it to hell—in part due to our own machinations—is in reality suicidal stupidity.

    Moreover, when the first immigration law was passed in 1790, there was no mention of religious tests. Why did not the Founding Fathers put that safeguard in place—only Christians need apply to gain entry?

    Now, a fair question is what about asylum applicants who are asked about their religion by immigration officials to determine if whether he or she is truly being persecuted? Americans in the past have found the oppression of people on the basis of religion to be immoral and unjust, and there have been efforts to protect those people who are threatened due to their beliefs. This inquiry, however, has been to ascertain whether they are being victimized solely because of their faith, and NOT to deem their religion as “compatible” to our society.

    Imagine had nativists in the 1840’s and 1850’s been successful in crafting legislation that barred Roman Catholic and Jewish practicioners from entering a “Protestant-founding” country. These two faiths were historically characterized by a number of American Protestants as a source of tyranny and therefore antithetical to liberty. Thus, the precedent would have been to deny anyone an opportunity to come to America merely because they practice a religion deemed “unacceptable”. What standards are involved here? How does one actually measure whether or not a particular faith is “acceptable” (or “better” or “dangerous”)? Exactly why the Leahy Amendment is in line with the Founding Fathers insistence that freedom of religion is a fundamental right on a human level AND a citizenship level. The Founding Fathers specifically articulated “freedom of religion” in the First Amendment, NOT “freedom to practice only Christianity”.

    I do acknowledge that restricting or banning immigration is under the purview of Congress, and in the end it could pass a law denying Muslim immigrants the right to enter the United States on the sole basis as having an “unacceptable” religion. However, using the rationale of the Founding Fathers, that designation would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded.

    “However, using the rationale of the Founding Fathers, that designation would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded.”

    I hope you are aware that, at the time the Constitution was adopted, slavery was legal in a majority of the original 13 states and that the original Constitution contained a specific provision barring Congress for 20 years from passing any law barring the institution of slavery in any way. Art. I, Sec. 9. And that slavery remained legal in half the country until after the Civil War. And I am sure you are aware that the vote was restricted to a relatively small number of males. And, of course, I am sure you are aware that SSM did not exist as a legal right until the Massachusetts Supreme Court read such right into the 200+ year old Massachusetts Constitution. So, I am not sure what “fundamental principles on which this nation was founded.” When I was growing up, I was taught that freedom speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment was a “fundamental principle upon which this nation was founded,” the very same amendment upon which the freedom of religion is based, but increasingly I hear that there are many things you are not free to say. To create, out of thin air, not simply a right to practice the religion of your choice in the U.S., but the right of people around the world to have a right to emigrate to the U.S. regardless of their religion is just a lot of hogwash, as far as I am concerned.

    BTW the thrust of Sailer’s message was “It’s been evident for some time that the the dominant ideological logic is trending toward making it inevitable that all 7 billion noncitizens on Earth be assumed to have civil rights to move to America.” Apparently, you seem to be one of those who embraces the position that Sailer is criticizing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. snorlax says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    Are there any "homegrown" moonbats in Vermont yet? Or are they all still relocated flatlanders, like Bernie Sanders and James F Loewen?

    I actually do live by 30,000 Somalis. They're less annoying than white progs. But that's damning with faint praise.

    I’m not sure if there’s been any newcomer vs. native polling in Vermont recently. But my sense is that the moonbats are still generally first or second-generation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @conatus
    You see all these Muslims worshiping at Mosques and they are all men. No women.
    It is a man's religion, the exact opposite of Christianity which is a woman's religion. Rodney Stark made the point in the Rise of Christianity(1997) that Christianity gained adherents by paying particular respect to women(and their ideal world) and taking care of the weak.What do some people call Jesus? The bearded woman.
    It's probably only due to the success and concomitant incursions of Islam into Europe that Christianity at least paid lip service to masculinity. Bill Whittle has called the Koran a 'manual for conquest.' And the Muslims did a damn good job of conquering the Mediterranean rim.
    Nowadays no more lip service from the pulpit.Things have changed and Christianity does not even nod its head to masculinity. Now Christians socially compete to womanize themselves and 'give' to the 'other'(the one with the beheading knife.)
    That Christian simpering smile is a sign of the Circumcellions(a Donatist sect) who went around getting themselves slaughtered by the Romans(so they would head straight to Heaven). Rather than carry steel blades they carried wooden clubs they called 'Israelites' while they taunted the Roman soldiers.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcellions
    We in the West are now governed by Circumcellions.

    Have you ever been to a mosque?

    It’s only men not because only men are attracted to worship but because of their rules. In Christian churches, there also used to be a distinction between men and women (viz, priests, fancy church hats for women, etc). The difference is that modern Christianity is a synthesis of Christianity and liberalism while modern Islam is still a medieval religion.

    If you think some of the changes Christianity made aren’t good, you should try watching people tortured to death or have your relatives killed by whim.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Whiskey says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond
    Should there be religious tests for migration? Steve has brought up the precedent of excluding Russian Christians. Shouldn't this be treated as a grievous error, on a par with interning the Japs, rather than as a righteous precedent?

    This is what I mean by the hypocrisy of rightists.

    No Stephen, our support for Trump’s excellent plan not to let Muslims in (I’d go further and deport ALL Muslims too) is because of the nature of multi-cultural societies. As Lee Kwan Yew noted, in a multicultural society, let alone a multi-racial one, you vote your ethnicity and skin color and religion. ALL that is left is to be either the dominant group that makes all the rules and controls everything, or the dominated group that is enslaved.

    I am not as a Straight White man big on myself being enslaved.

    EVERYTHING ELSE is a “nice to have” compared to avoiding ENSLAVEMENT.

    ALREADY I have to bow and scrape to every Lesbian, Gay, Black, Black Lesbian tranny, etc. I have less rights, and less people to back me, than a Black heroin dealer in Baltimore.

    No religious test, separation of Church and state, those are fine things for mono-ethnic societies where they can AFFORD principles. Me, as an average White man without money, power, and connections, I cannot LITERALLY afford that.

    So, no I don’t want to be enslaved by Sharia Law which if we don’t keep out Muslims is a slam dunk thing given that about 1 billion Muslims would move here by Tuesday if they could.

    Just to be clear, my priorities are sensibly: 1. My own personal survival; 2. Not being enslaved by Third world conquerors and their anti-White PC / Diversity enablers (ask the WHITE girls of Rotherham how that goes), 3. Everything else including religious tests and freedom of speech.

    To be fair, I like Putin’s idea of nuking ISIS. I’d like to keep all Muslims out, kick the ones we have out including Citizens (the Constitution is already a dead letter and only SUCKERS play with its dead concepts now — its all power and subjugation), and maybe nuke Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran on general principles, payback, and such. Just to make a few points about messing with us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Whiskey says: • Website

    Addendum, to those who say my attitude stinks, that it is racially based on being a White person, so what? By making me and every other Straight White man the boogey man for everyone else and subject to legal second class citizenship if that, and displacement as the majority, what else would you expect?

    I won’t be a sucker. Liberalism, Libertardianism, Leftism, Equalism, anything but White interest only, is a sucker bet for Whites without the money of Bill Gates and his harpy wife, the fame of George Clooney, or the connections of Bill Clinton. Since I don’t have any of that, I won’t play sucker.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  127. snorlax says:
    @Big Bill
    You are wrong. Go read Vox Day. SJWs start with feeble things like "Codes of Conduct" (which is what the Leahy Amendment is) to set the tone. This is classic entryism.

    Hence, Open Source projects and teams are being pressured to agree to various codes of conduct regarding "women" and "inclusiveness" and "diversity" and "safe spaces", etc.

    Once the Code is in place, (non binding as it is) it will be used to pressure men to shut up or leave the projects who disagree, in those typical feminist whiney "male oppressor" rants they go off on.

    The beta male girl-appeasers will go along with the various chastisements of other "bad" males untl the entire project turns into a WPA program for gurrrl empowerment.

    The Leahy Amendment "Code of Conduct" has teeth, when you realize that it is merely the first step in a lefty SJW campaign that will never end. Read Vox. Follow GamerGate.

    As a developer, of all the things SJWs do, having codes of conduct for open-source projects bothers me the least. Software development is inherently apolitical and open-source projects are inherently meritocratic. Just act like a mature adult, don’t name your variables bigTits, and you should be okay.

    If you have projects rejecting contributions because of what the contributor has said or done outside the project, then that would be another thing, but I haven’t heard of any significant cases of that happening.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    I haven’t heard of any significant cases of that happening
     
    Might want to ask Curt Yarvin about that...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. snorlax says:
    @International Jew
    Holy smoke! Sounds just like Trump.

    Not quite, since until his recent flip-flop Cruz wanted to quintuple H-1Bs and triple legal immigration overall. Post flip-flop he’s the second-best option by default, but I trust him even less than I trust Trump.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. tbraton says:
    @Robert Hume
    Isn't this obvious? Plausibly everyone should have the right to leave their country, but they do not have the right to move into another country they would like to move into. If they are unappealing enough there may be no other country that will accept them.

    Feel free to leave your home but don't expect to move into mine.

    If every other country has the right to refuse entry to anyone, which I firmly believe to be the case, then “the right to emigrate” is a rather empty right. It’s like saying that every man has a right to screw a woman, but every woman has a right to say “no.” That kind of renders the man’s universal right to screw a woman of his choice somewhat empty, doesn’t it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    No.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @tbraton
    If every other country has the right to refuse entry to anyone, which I firmly believe to be the case, then "the right to emigrate" is a rather empty right. It's like saying that every man has a right to screw a woman, but every woman has a right to say "no." That kind of renders the man's universal right to screw a woman of his choice somewhat empty, doesn't it?

    No.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @conatus
    You see all these Muslims worshiping at Mosques and they are all men. No women.
    It is a man's religion, the exact opposite of Christianity which is a woman's religion. Rodney Stark made the point in the Rise of Christianity(1997) that Christianity gained adherents by paying particular respect to women(and their ideal world) and taking care of the weak.What do some people call Jesus? The bearded woman.
    It's probably only due to the success and concomitant incursions of Islam into Europe that Christianity at least paid lip service to masculinity. Bill Whittle has called the Koran a 'manual for conquest.' And the Muslims did a damn good job of conquering the Mediterranean rim.
    Nowadays no more lip service from the pulpit.Things have changed and Christianity does not even nod its head to masculinity. Now Christians socially compete to womanize themselves and 'give' to the 'other'(the one with the beheading knife.)
    That Christian simpering smile is a sign of the Circumcellions(a Donatist sect) who went around getting themselves slaughtered by the Romans(so they would head straight to Heaven). Rather than carry steel blades they carried wooden clubs they called 'Israelites' while they taunted the Roman soldiers.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcellions
    We in the West are now governed by Circumcellions.

    It is a man’s religion, the exact opposite of Christianity which is a woman’s religion.

    I’ll take it you’ve never heard of Charles Martel, Charlemagne, Jan Sobieski, Ivan IV of Russia, or Peter the Great (to mention just a few)? Education is a good thing, you should try it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    I'm not sure what conatus means, but it sure sounds like intercourse with a rabbit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Stephen R. Diamond
    Should there be religious tests for migration? Steve has brought up the precedent of excluding Russian Christians. Shouldn't this be treated as a grievous error, on a par with interning the Japs, rather than as a righteous precedent?

    This is what I mean by the hypocrisy of rightists.

    Steve has brought up the precedent of excluding Russian Christians. Shouldn’t this be treated as a grievous error, on a par with interning the Japs, rather than as a righteous precedent?

    Why? The internees were citizens of this country, deprived of their rights. Russians are Russians, and have no such rights.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Foreign Expert

    Why? The internees were citizens of this country, deprived of their rights. Russians are Russians, and have no such rights.
     
    In 1941 any child of a Japanese father was a Japanese citizens automatically, whether registered or not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Big Bill says:
    @tbraton
    "It’s been evident for some time that the the dominant ideological logic is trending toward making it inevitable that all 7 billion noncitizens on Earth be assumed to have civil rights to move to America."

    As I stated in a message responding to one of your blogs back in October, the "right to emigrate" was the basis for the Jackson-Vanik Amendment in 1974:

    "Keep in mind that the basis for the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment, sponsored by the former socialist Henry “Scoop” Jackson, was the “right to emigrate.” According to Wikipedia, “Richard Perle, Jackson’s staffer who drafted the amendment in an interview said that the idea belongs to Jackson, who believed that the right to emigrate is the most powerful among the human rights in certain respects: “if people could vote with their feet, governments would have to acknowledge that and governments would have to make for their citizens a life that would keep them there.”. . . The amendment denies most favored nation status to certain countries with non-market economies that restrict emigration, which is considered a human right.” There you have it. People around the world have a basic human right to emigrate, except for Palestinians who formerly lived where Israel is now. I guess that right to emigrate completely overrides the right of any country to control its borders."

    Notice the role played by Richard Perle, then an aide to Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson and later one of the major architects of the Iraq War disaster.

    The Right to Emigrate is the right to leave. I uphold the right of any scrofulous loser and malcontent to “emigrate” from his homeland. I deny him (or his baby mama or his sprogs) ANY right to “immigrate” to my country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. tbraton says:
    @Mike Sylwester
    Here are the bullet points of Ted Cruz's position on immigration.

    SECURE THE BORDER

    * Build a wall that works .... I will complete the wall.

    * Triple the number of Border Patrol agents.

    * Increase vital aerial surveillance and other technology along the border.

    * Finish the biometric tracking system at our nation’s ports of entry.

    RESTORE THE RULE OF LAW

    * End President Obama’s illegal amnesty. .... I will rescind each and every one ...

    * Increase deportations and end catch-and-release.

    * End sanctuary policies, sign Kate’s Law, and deport criminal immigrants.

    * Prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving financial benefits and strengthen E-Verify.

    REFORM LEGAL IMMIGRATION TO PROTECT AMERICANS

    * Suspend the issuance of all H-1B visas for 180 days to complete a comprehensive investigation and audit of pervasive allegations of abuse of the program.

    * Halt any increases in legal immigration so long as American unemployment remains unacceptably high.

    * Enforce the public-charge doctrine. Current law requires legal immigrants to certify that they will be economically self-sufficient. A Cruz Administration will ensure they do not receive government assistance, which defies the law and harms American taxpayers.

    * End birthright citizenship. .... I will take steps to pass legislation or a constitutional amendment to end it.

     

    The points are elaborated at the webpage.

    https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan-summary/

    Sounds very much like The Donald without the popular appeal. Sort of like the high school nerd who thinks that, if he dresses like the BMOC and apes his mannerisms, he will be just as popular as the BMOC. I sense he is beginning to get on Trump’s nerves, so he can say good-bye to that Supreme Court appointment. I cannot imagine that either he or Rubio is near the top of Trump’s list of potential VPs, but damn if I can figure out who would be a good running mate if Trump were to secure the nomination, which appears rather certain at this point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    The donor class are setting up Cruz as a back up plan in case Rubio-Graham doesn't cut it.
    , @nglaer
    I was talking over the veep issue with the Mrs. this morning. My thought is that a not too ideological woman Republican senator would work the best, reassuring the GOP establishment a little bit and cutting into Hillary's main raison d'être. The one from New Hampshire? Are there others? Susan Collins almost as old as Donald? But the main or only point would be to win the election, and let the chips fall where they may. Did you catch his national spokesperson on CNN tonight? Attractive angular, heavily made up woman, about 40. Many like her work at his country clubs--it's a look.
    She voted for Obama 08, worked for Ted Cruz senate campaign, dropped him for Donald. Tea Party activist. Shoplifting arrest when she was 20. Single Mom. Perfectly good (composed, self-assured ) on TV arguing for Trump.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Psychologically speaking the Lazarus poem has trumped the constitution so Trump should call for the 1st and 2nd amendments to be written on the statue of Liberty to trump the Lazarus poem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  136. @Paco Wové

    Steve has brought up the precedent of excluding Russian Christians. Shouldn’t this be treated as a grievous error, on a par with interning the Japs, rather than as a righteous precedent?
     
    Why? The internees were citizens of this country, deprived of their rights. Russians are Russians, and have no such rights.

    Why? The internees were citizens of this country, deprived of their rights. Russians are Russians, and have no such rights.

    In 1941 any child of a Japanese father was a Japanese citizens automatically, whether registered or not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Chrisnonymous
    Here's an interesting and potentially enlightening if ultimately irrelevant question:
    If we didn't have Middle East wars and Islamic terrorism to worry about, what would our political system be focused on right now?
    Energy? Polygamy? Even more BLM?

    Depends, if it wasn’t happening because the current media had been overthrown then we wouldn’t have the transgender, BLM etc stuff either.

    So in a world without the current media i’d say
    - stamping out child abuse
    - hbd and genetic engineering
    - increasing prosperity the sensible way
    – which would either require a lot of sustainable technology
    — or space mining
    basically what 1950s scifi predicted before the 60s pushed everything off course.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The principles on which this nation:

    - Moslems were only allowed to enter one state and it was either Pennsylvania or Rhode Island.
    - Jews could enter two states and it was both above.
    - Roman Catholics, the two above plus Maryland.

    Roman Catholics and Jews were not even attacking us and killing Americans.
    However, Islamic terrorists (pirates) were capturing American ships and killing Americans.

    BTW: Trump only suggested halting Moslem immigration “until we figure out what is going on”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Branch, you're generally right but maybe a little fuzzy on the details. I believe some Jews went to all 3 of the religiously tolerant colonies plus New York and South Carolina as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. midtown says:
    @pyrrhus
    Criminal and even suicidal stupidity is what the Fedgov and MSM do so well....

    I would call it homicidal stupidity, but I see your point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Buzz Mohawk
    This is an unbelievably scary development, one that goes right to the core of our sovereignty.

    Can similar moves against our freedom of speech be far behind?

    Do we still have a country? Or not?

    Do we still have a country? Or not?

    Yes, such as it is.

    What we no longer have is a nation.

    Leahy and gang have an empire, to which we are now subject.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. anon says: • Disclaimer

    There’s a much larger but quieter layer below terrorism.

    https://kafircrusaders.wordpress.com/muslim-grooming-paedo-map/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  142. @snorlax
    As a developer, of all the things SJWs do, having codes of conduct for open-source projects bothers me the least. Software development is inherently apolitical and open-source projects are inherently meritocratic. Just act like a mature adult, don't name your variables bigTits, and you should be okay.

    If you have projects rejecting contributions because of what the contributor has said or done outside the project, then that would be another thing, but I haven't heard of any significant cases of that happening.

    I haven’t heard of any significant cases of that happening

    Might want to ask Curt Yarvin about that…

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    He was disinvited from the StrangeLoop conference, which I certainly disagree with, being a Moldbuggian Neoreactionary myself. But AFAIK nobody's rejected his code contributions to open-source projects (although I'm not sure if he's contributed to anything besides his own Urbit project recently).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @tbraton
    Sounds very much like The Donald without the popular appeal. Sort of like the high school nerd who thinks that, if he dresses like the BMOC and apes his mannerisms, he will be just as popular as the BMOC. I sense he is beginning to get on Trump's nerves, so he can say good-bye to that Supreme Court appointment. I cannot imagine that either he or Rubio is near the top of Trump's list of potential VPs, but damn if I can figure out who would be a good running mate if Trump were to secure the nomination, which appears rather certain at this point.

    The donor class are setting up Cruz as a back up plan in case Rubio-Graham doesn’t cut it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    Well, the donor class might want to try getting their poll numbers up real soon. Even if Cruz does eke out a victory in Iowa, that state has demonstrated its irrelevance in Republican politics by now. Huckabee won there in 2008, and that didn't prevent McCain from getting the nomination that year. Santorum edged out Romney in 2012, but Romney got the nomination. He's not polling high in N.H. or S.C. which follow Iowa. Graham is getting 2% in S.C., his home state,
    which is about 2% higher than he is getting in other states. I was listening to Fox last night, and someone said Graham was the only candidate with military experience, as if service as a lawyer in the Judge Advocate General Corps counts as military experience. Standing next to John McCain, the phony "war hero," for all those years does not constitute military experience, especially when both have been wrong so many times.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Ragno

    Notice how much of the reaction to Donald Trump’s proposal that we call an immigration time-out for Muslims until we can figure out how better not to let in jihadis is to respond: We can’t even talk about that because that makes the Muslims who are already here even madder, and then they’ll really kill us!
     
    When the details of the Rotherham nightmare, and Blighty's meek acquiescence to no-go sharia zones in their own homeland, began to emerge in US media - granted we're still waiting for 80% of that media to get around to acknowledging any of it - it became easy to whistle past the graveyard and recall Archie Bunker's long-ago dismissal of our cousins across the pond with England is a fag country.

    Easier to laugh in disbelief than begin to grasp that this most distressing/repulsive of realities: a native population cowed into lickspittle servility out of fear of its unstable and unwanted immigrants - a condition encouraged and enforced by its own quisling elites - becomes, over time, the natural order of things.

    Look! We've already begun! Just as Rotherham was enabled by the fear of being labelled and prosecuted as 'racist', so the dead of San Berdoo came about partly because the Americans who knew, or strongly suspected, were too terrified of Loretta Lynch clapping the darbies on them to blow even a warning whistle.... and with Salon, HuffPo - and sooner rather than later, the NYT and WaPo - screeching for the harshest possible punishment the better to 'send a message', it's hard to blame them.

    The next stage - law enforcement declining to wear any sort of identifying garments out of the fear of death - is no longer an IF proposition, but a WHEN.

    Don't believe me? Go back a few days to the point where the identity of the shooters became known, and count up the articles appearing questioning what sort of knuckle-dragging white racism had prompted the massacre. When you start to see headlines - as I did - shouting "Victims had made fun of killer's beard", you can woof and bark all you like, because so long as it's backed up by knock-kneed parliamentary cowardice, it's all shadow-boxing in empty rooms. You can save yourselves a lot of time and just blow out the pilot light right now.

    You can save yourselves a lot of time and just blow out the pilot light right now.

    Blow out your own pilot light Spanky. But before you do see if you can get the rest of the idiotic defeatist block (calling all Private Hudson/Bill Paxtons of Aliens fame) to do the same. The rest of us are too busy working to correct the imbecility of the Democrats/Liberal/Leftist/Lib-republicans.

    It is better to die trying than to succumb to the despair advocated by you nitwits.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ragno
    If you actually read my comment and took 'defeatism' as its message, perhaps you should quit making tough-guy faces in the mirror and read it again. (Maybe if your first reflex wasn't to refer to imaginary characters in Hollywood blockbusters, your myopia would clear up.)

    Rotherham, Paris, Fort Hood, San Berdoo, and the countless under-reported similar incidents since 9/11....all these, unfortunately, are very real. To even hope to turn this around, we require a renaissance of spirit and defiance - which can't happen until we acknowledge the depth of the problem, and learn to identify ourselves proudly as white men - without the conditioned flinching.

    It's far easier to point a finger outwards and squawk "leftist!" than it is to point it at ourselves and say "white, thank God". But that's what it's going to take. Like it or not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Bob says:
    @Cloudbuster
    Here are the names of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary that voted in favor of the Leahy amendment and against the people of the United States. Make sure they hear from you, especially if you live in their state:

    Chuck Grassley, (R-IA)
    Orrin G. Hatch0 (R - UT)
    Lindsey Graham (R - SC)
    John Cornyn (R - TX)
    Michael S. Lee (R - UT)
    Jeff Flake (R - AZ)
    David Perdue (R - GA)

    David Purdue elected in 2014 … what a coincidence!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Hepp
    OT, but just wow

    http://www.infowars.com/transgender-father-abandons-7-children-to-become-6-year-old-girl/

    That this individual sired seven children before going off the deep end is alarming in itself. Canada looks to be more dysgenic even than we are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @TomSchmidt
    Actually getting that amendment out to the states would be useful. One wonders if it would pass? You need only 13 no votes to stop it. The process might remind the states that they have the power to bring the Federal Hegemon to heel. An amendment repealing or strictly defining Congress' power to "regulate" Interstate Commerce could work wonders.

    We can dream.

    We can dream.

    That dream can become reality. We need new political alignments and institutions to match an orientation to the interests of American citizens. Once the citizenry understands the orientation, the momentum will be unstoppable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. snorlax says:
    @Desiderius

    I haven’t heard of any significant cases of that happening
     
    Might want to ask Curt Yarvin about that...

    He was disinvited from the StrangeLoop conference, which I certainly disagree with, being a Moldbuggian Neoreactionary myself. But AFAIK nobody’s rejected his code contributions to open-source projects (although I’m not sure if he’s contributed to anything besides his own Urbit project recently).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @Reg Cæsar
    1. They should call this the Leaky Amendment.

    2. It should be amended to read that the least diverse and most pro-immigration states have a special responsibility to take more of these "migrants" in. Get Sen Leahy's comments on record.

    3. This doesn't have the force of law, but never mind. Pretend it does. Independent actors should hang this around the head of every Democrat in 2016. That party has to own it and eat it. Non-Democrats will prosper in proportion to how strongly they oppose it-- squishies a little, firebreathers a lot. So the incentives are right for a change.

    2. It should be amended to read that the least diverse and most pro-immigration states have a special responsibility to take more of these “migrants” in. Get Sen Leahy’s comments on record.

    Placing the consequences on the morons that voted for the moonbats advocating the policy would poetic justice. No, it would be cosmic justice. If that principle were enshrined in law the mindless stupidity that we fight against would dissipate in a New York minute.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Corvinus
    “It is the sense of the Senate that the United States must not bar individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion, as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this Nation was founded.”

    According to the Leahy Amendment, any legislation that entails prohibiting future immigration can be on any grounds EXCEPT religion. There is no “extraordinarily dangerous precedent” being set. Congress has the liberty to decide what is and what is not immigration policy. Which, in effect is…the…political…process.

    Muslims can still be declared “undesirable” by law under criteria other than religion. Legislation could limit the number of people coming from Middle Eastern countries, which has precedent, given how Congress had banned immigrants from Asian countries (China/Japan), or even ban Muslims who come from certain Middle Eastern nations. So the immigration system remains intact regarding who is deemed beneficial and who is deemed detrimental. Count me in when restricting legal immigration. However, excluding an entire religion merely because some of its practitioners hate America and desire to blow it to hell—in part due to our own machinations—is in reality suicidal stupidity.

    Moreover, when the first immigration law was passed in 1790, there was no mention of religious tests. Why did not the Founding Fathers put that safeguard in place—only Christians need apply to gain entry?

    Now, a fair question is what about asylum applicants who are asked about their religion by immigration officials to determine if whether he or she is truly being persecuted? Americans in the past have found the oppression of people on the basis of religion to be immoral and unjust, and there have been efforts to protect those people who are threatened due to their beliefs. This inquiry, however, has been to ascertain whether they are being victimized solely because of their faith, and NOT to deem their religion as “compatible” to our society.

    Imagine had nativists in the 1840’s and 1850’s been successful in crafting legislation that barred Roman Catholic and Jewish practicioners from entering a “Protestant-founding” country. These two faiths were historically characterized by a number of American Protestants as a source of tyranny and therefore antithetical to liberty. Thus, the precedent would have been to deny anyone an opportunity to come to America merely because they practice a religion deemed “unacceptable”. What standards are involved here? How does one actually measure whether or not a particular faith is “acceptable” (or “better” or “dangerous”)? Exactly why the Leahy Amendment is in line with the Founding Fathers insistence that freedom of religion is a fundamental right on a human level AND a citizenship level. The Founding Fathers specifically articulated “freedom of religion” in the First Amendment, NOT “freedom to practice only Christianity”.

    I do acknowledge that restricting or banning immigration is under the purview of Congress, and in the end it could pass a law denying Muslim immigrants the right to enter the United States on the sole basis as having an “unacceptable” religion. However, using the rationale of the Founding Fathers, that designation would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded.

    Imagine had nativists in the 1840’s and 1850’s been successful in crafting legislation that barred Roman Catholic and Jewish practicioners from entering a “Protestant-founding” country.

    One difference: Catholics had been in the country since 1634, and Jews (albeit Sephardim) about as long. Calling them alien is a bit of a stretch. Or the alienness is cultural and racial rather than religious. Catholicism, too, had been the English way for a thousand years before Henry.

    Mohammedanism was another planet entirely.

    Also, Trump is being advised on immigration matters by Sen Sessions. So regardless of his podium bluster, the details and nuances of all this are being looked at behind the scenes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. nglaer says:
    @tbraton
    Sounds very much like The Donald without the popular appeal. Sort of like the high school nerd who thinks that, if he dresses like the BMOC and apes his mannerisms, he will be just as popular as the BMOC. I sense he is beginning to get on Trump's nerves, so he can say good-bye to that Supreme Court appointment. I cannot imagine that either he or Rubio is near the top of Trump's list of potential VPs, but damn if I can figure out who would be a good running mate if Trump were to secure the nomination, which appears rather certain at this point.

    I was talking over the veep issue with the Mrs. this morning. My thought is that a not too ideological woman Republican senator would work the best, reassuring the GOP establishment a little bit and cutting into Hillary’s main raison d’être. The one from New Hampshire? Are there others? Susan Collins almost as old as Donald? But the main or only point would be to win the election, and let the chips fall where they may. Did you catch his national spokesperson on CNN tonight? Attractive angular, heavily made up woman, about 40. Many like her work at his country clubs–it’s a look.
    She voted for Obama 08, worked for Ted Cruz senate campaign, dropped him for Donald. Tea Party activist. Shoplifting arrest when she was 20. Single Mom. Perfectly good (composed, self-assured ) on TV arguing for Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    I don't think Trump should consider identity politics at all when choosing the veep.
    , @snorlax
    Katrina Pierson? She's a rather dim bulb. And if he picked her the speculation would immediately be that he was having another affair with her.
    , @tbraton
    " The one from New Hampshire?"

    Kelly Ayotte? The close buddy of John McCain and Lindsey Graham? I sure hope not. That would not reassure me at all. I don't think he would go in that direction. Besides, she's up for reelection in 2016 and facing a tough battle to retain her senate seat. I don't think anyone in the Republican Party would want to further endanger the chances of keeping that seat in Republican hands. As I said, I am having a hard time figuring out who Trump would select.
    , @Jim Don Bob
    I'd hit it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @Cloudbuster
    Here are the names of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary that voted in favor of the Leahy amendment and against the people of the United States. Make sure they hear from you, especially if you live in their state:

    Chuck Grassley, (R-IA)
    Orrin G. Hatch0 (R - UT)
    Lindsey Graham (R - SC)
    John Cornyn (R - TX)
    Michael S. Lee (R - UT)
    Jeff Flake (R - AZ)
    David Perdue (R - GA)

    Four Westerners and three Southerners (Cornyn counting as both). What’s going on here? Do they think evangelicals and Mormons were offended?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    "Four Westerners and three Southerners (Cornyn counting as both). What’s going on here? Do they think evangelicals and Mormons were offended?"

    The Mormon Church issued a press release opposing Trump's proposal, hence the votes of Flake, Hatch, and Lee for the Leahy Amendment. The Mormon Church has turned into a huge whore for the open borders/cheap labor lobby. If I hadn't already left it over a decade ago I would be submitting my resignation presently.

    Opposition to gay marriage is the political policy most people connect the Mormon (aka LDS) Church with, but they have been waging a fairly nasty, less visible, and less honest war for open borders for over a decade. There were times when the Church-owned newspaper, the Deseret News, was averaging 2-3 pro-open borders editorials per month. It did so through multiple editors and publishers, suggesting that the policy was coming straight from Church leadership.

    The Mormon Church is still in many ways a small, insular, incestuous church, and most of its leaders trace their lineage back to pioneer days. They maintain very close ties with the small group of billionaire Mormon businessmen - families like the Marriotts, Holdings, Huntsmans, Fultons, etc. - many of whose fortunes are especially reliant on stoop labor.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @LeftyLawyer
    Unfortunately, between Donald Trump's blustery delivery and the other side's "how dare you" response, there is little intelligent discussion of this between both sides anywhere (the discussion here is intelligent but regrettably one-sided.)

    So by way of intelligent discussion (not to sound too Socratic) - let's say we knew that there was a particular organization (not a religion) where 100% of the members were in favor of suicide bombing. I'm sure we would not let them in - in fact, Communist party membership is still technically a bar to admission to the US, so we do "discriminate" against members of certain organizations (I think Nazi membership is also still a bar.)

    How about if only 80%, 70%, 50%, or even 10% of the members of this mythical organization were in favor of suicide bombing? I suspect the organization would still be on the "do not bother applying" list."

    So lets change our hypothetical to reality - and look at Islam. There is a great study based on polling done by the Pew Research Center of Muslim attitudes around the world - http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf.

    They don't have figures for Syria, but they do have Jordan which is right next door - and, if anything, is more Western than Syria. So we'll use Jordan as a surrogate for Syria. 15% of Jordanians think suicide bombing is justified. 71% Think Sharia should be the law of the land (I suppose their land, not our land.) 41% are in favor of honor killings. And, 96% think homosexuality is morally wrong (and it's the left clamoring to let them in!?)

    Pakistani immigrants and their progeny have also been in the news recently. 13% in favor of suicide bombing, 84% want Sharia, 41% in favor of honor killing, and 90% think homosexuality is wrong.

    And, our old friend Afghanistan - 39% for suicide bombing, 99% for Sharia, 60% for honor killing - and apparently they didn't bother or were too scared to ask the homosexuality question there.

    So, the legitimate questions which is not being discussed - we have limited room for immigrants, and can pick among many worthy people that want to enter. "Vetting" will never tell us all that much - I'm sure that 99% of the 15% of Jordanians that think suicide bombings are just fine would come up clean even with the intensive investigation that we would never as a practical matter actually do. So, do we let in a population where 13%+ of the people think suicide bombing is OK, where 41%+ think honor killing is OK, where 90%+ think homosexuality is wrong - or do we let in people who are lower risk and who's values are closer to ours?

    If you are a Leftist what are you doing here?

    Virtually all readers here already know that inviting adherents to a violent, supremacist, political ideology to America is so far beyond stupid that any comparisons to fence posts (wooden, steel or composite) is an insult to the fence post. Islam is that political ideology

    The energy, institutions and political power enabling the idiots that run this country are all generated from the Left. Get thee to the Leftist sites and persuade that collective ship of fools to reverse course.

    I do not think you will succeed. But you should try. If you do try, you will be able to live with yourself when the denouement arrives. If you don’t you will wrestle forever with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s choices, errors and warnings. That is, assuming you are there when the gathering storm has run its course.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @nglaer
    I was talking over the veep issue with the Mrs. this morning. My thought is that a not too ideological woman Republican senator would work the best, reassuring the GOP establishment a little bit and cutting into Hillary's main raison d'être. The one from New Hampshire? Are there others? Susan Collins almost as old as Donald? But the main or only point would be to win the election, and let the chips fall where they may. Did you catch his national spokesperson on CNN tonight? Attractive angular, heavily made up woman, about 40. Many like her work at his country clubs--it's a look.
    She voted for Obama 08, worked for Ted Cruz senate campaign, dropped him for Donald. Tea Party activist. Shoplifting arrest when she was 20. Single Mom. Perfectly good (composed, self-assured ) on TV arguing for Trump.

    I don’t think Trump should consider identity politics at all when choosing the veep.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @SPMoore8
    The reason why this resolution is out there is because a lot of people don't like the idea of disallowing someone to come to the US simply on the basis of a religious test: it sounds too much like not allowing Jewish immigrants from Nazism, etc.

    But two points:

    a) As has been repeatedly said here, an immigration policy that is preferential to one group must necessarily discriminate against all other groups. If we accept the premise that some groups can be preferred, then it should follow that some groups can be actively not preferred.

    b) In this case, "religion" is just a criterion, like anything else: height, weight, skin color, ability to work in Silicon Valley, ability to harvest green onions, etc. Obviously we should have criteria for immigration -- because we do in fact have such criteria, and I'm not even talking about the quotas. This is particularly so since, in this case, the particular religion in question has a large intersection with terror attacks.

    c) I appreciate what Trump is doing WRT Overton window, but his billboard pronouncements, while getting a lot of attention, lack nuance and thus are easy prey for MSM misrepresentation. Should we have what is, in effect, a moratorium on Muslim immigration? Well, any such moratorium is going to have exceptions: that's the first point we should recognize. Second, a strictly religious test (i.e., "are you a Muslim?") is insufficient, since all a terrorist would need to do would be to declare himself/herself a Secular Humanist and they'd get in, no question.

    Overall, I think Trump would have better served if he had simply said that the Arab lands, including those Muslim countries adjacent to Arab lands (that would include Afghan, Pakistan, Iran, and the Caucasus) are in turmoil and are closely associated with terrorism, and for the sake of our own citizens we should temporarily suspend immigration from those countries until we can control the risk of allowing political radicals into the country. I mean, really, I don't think anyone is particularly concerned about, say, an immigrant from Djakarta. At least, not yet.

    “Overall, I think Trump would have better served if he had simply said that the Arab lands”

    Trump should say that we shouldn’t accept immigrants from countries that don’t accept Americans as immigrants. He should seize this issue to expose liberal hypocrisy and rub it in their faces. The argument I just presented is basically idiot proof – no way they could spin that as being bad or unfair even to morons.

    Read More
    • Agree: Harold
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Stephen R. Diamond

    the American Middle Class was in charge and it abhorred extremism and orthodoxy.
     
    Each conjunct is false. What Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex was in charge. And the era was one of extreme ideological conformism.

    No.

    Your assertions are false. It was the middle class that fought, and won, WW2. The aftermath of WW2 was the last period where the middle class had enough clout to keep America from derailing itself with the breathtaking idiocy we see today. But that period was so brief that it could go without notice.

    After all this is post Wickard v Filburn. In the postwar era Liberals already had the whip hand with their Supreme Court, State Department, Federal bureaucracy and academic pro-Communist, anti-Christian bigotry and public policies.

    The “hating-whitey” crew, nursing their country-club-exclusion slights, their prefer-the-’other’ treachery and their asymmetric, damnable insistence on asserting supremacy for them and their preferred classes over the middle class has justly earned the contempt we hold them in. But your claim of ideological conformity has no merit when compared to the ideology we face now.

    A baker prefers not to participate in a ‘wedding’ farce that a thousand other bakers would be happy to exploit for profit. The ‘betrothed’ insist that the baker participate. The baker is unwilling and declines to particpate. The ‘betrothed’ recruit the State to destroy the baker.

    The State jumps at the chance to enforce ideological conformity through destruction. The unwilling baker is deprived not only of a means to earn a living through baking, but in addition the State fines the baker into poverty. The State goes on to effectively evict the baker from the baker’s house, through the power to fine. And the State insists that all of this in an opportunity to ‘educate’ the baker. This is the power of ideological conformity.

    But you claim that the 1950′s are a period of ideological conformity.

    Provide a 1950′s example even remotely comparable to the foaming-at-the-mouth, rabid, vicious dogs that enforce conformity through the police power of the state. Just one comparable example, please.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "But you claim that the 1950′s are a period of ideological conformity. Provide a 1950′s example even remotely comparable to the foaming-at-the-mouth, rabid, vicious dogs that enforce conformity through the police power of the state. Just one comparable example, please."

    Seriously, do you even know what you are talking about? Congressional hearings over communist influence in government and the media is one such noted example.
    , @Sean the Neon Caucasian
    Nope. The American middle class formed after WW2.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Wilkey says:
    @Corvinus
    “It is the sense of the Senate that the United States must not bar individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion, as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this Nation was founded.”

    According to the Leahy Amendment, any legislation that entails prohibiting future immigration can be on any grounds EXCEPT religion. There is no “extraordinarily dangerous precedent” being set. Congress has the liberty to decide what is and what is not immigration policy. Which, in effect is…the…political…process.

    Muslims can still be declared “undesirable” by law under criteria other than religion. Legislation could limit the number of people coming from Middle Eastern countries, which has precedent, given how Congress had banned immigrants from Asian countries (China/Japan), or even ban Muslims who come from certain Middle Eastern nations. So the immigration system remains intact regarding who is deemed beneficial and who is deemed detrimental. Count me in when restricting legal immigration. However, excluding an entire religion merely because some of its practitioners hate America and desire to blow it to hell—in part due to our own machinations—is in reality suicidal stupidity.

    Moreover, when the first immigration law was passed in 1790, there was no mention of religious tests. Why did not the Founding Fathers put that safeguard in place—only Christians need apply to gain entry?

    Now, a fair question is what about asylum applicants who are asked about their religion by immigration officials to determine if whether he or she is truly being persecuted? Americans in the past have found the oppression of people on the basis of religion to be immoral and unjust, and there have been efforts to protect those people who are threatened due to their beliefs. This inquiry, however, has been to ascertain whether they are being victimized solely because of their faith, and NOT to deem their religion as “compatible” to our society.

    Imagine had nativists in the 1840’s and 1850’s been successful in crafting legislation that barred Roman Catholic and Jewish practicioners from entering a “Protestant-founding” country. These two faiths were historically characterized by a number of American Protestants as a source of tyranny and therefore antithetical to liberty. Thus, the precedent would have been to deny anyone an opportunity to come to America merely because they practice a religion deemed “unacceptable”. What standards are involved here? How does one actually measure whether or not a particular faith is “acceptable” (or “better” or “dangerous”)? Exactly why the Leahy Amendment is in line with the Founding Fathers insistence that freedom of religion is a fundamental right on a human level AND a citizenship level. The Founding Fathers specifically articulated “freedom of religion” in the First Amendment, NOT “freedom to practice only Christianity”.

    I do acknowledge that restricting or banning immigration is under the purview of Congress, and in the end it could pass a law denying Muslim immigrants the right to enter the United States on the sole basis as having an “unacceptable” religion. However, using the rationale of the Founding Fathers, that designation would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded.

    “I do acknowledge that restricting or banning immigration is under the purview of Congress…However, using the rationale of the Founding Fathers, that designation would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded.”

    “Fundamental principles” which were practiced pretty much never. In 1795, Congress – the same generation which gave us the Declaration and the Bill of Rights – passed an immigration law limiting naturalization to “free white persons.”

    In 1882, Congress – the same generation which fought a massive, devastating, deadly war to free the slaves – gave us the Chinese Exclusion Act. That was four years before Emma Lazarus built for us the Statue of Open Borders.

    Real US policy has always always had a very healthy dose of pragmatism. What’s truly contrary to our “fundamental principles” are policies which don’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Wilkey says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    Four Westerners and three Southerners (Cornyn counting as both). What's going on here? Do they think evangelicals and Mormons were offended?

    “Four Westerners and three Southerners (Cornyn counting as both). What’s going on here? Do they think evangelicals and Mormons were offended?”

    The Mormon Church issued a press release opposing Trump’s proposal, hence the votes of Flake, Hatch, and Lee for the Leahy Amendment. The Mormon Church has turned into a huge whore for the open borders/cheap labor lobby. If I hadn’t already left it over a decade ago I would be submitting my resignation presently.

    Opposition to gay marriage is the political policy most people connect the Mormon (aka LDS) Church with, but they have been waging a fairly nasty, less visible, and less honest war for open borders for over a decade. There were times when the Church-owned newspaper, the Deseret News, was averaging 2-3 pro-open borders editorials per month. It did so through multiple editors and publishers, suggesting that the policy was coming straight from Church leadership.

    The Mormon Church is still in many ways a small, insular, incestuous church, and most of its leaders trace their lineage back to pioneer days. They maintain very close ties with the small group of billionaire Mormon businessmen – families like the Marriotts, Holdings, Huntsmans, Fultons, etc. – many of whose fortunes are especially reliant on stoop labor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. tbraton says:
    @anon
    The donor class are setting up Cruz as a back up plan in case Rubio-Graham doesn't cut it.

    Well, the donor class might want to try getting their poll numbers up real soon. Even if Cruz does eke out a victory in Iowa, that state has demonstrated its irrelevance in Republican politics by now. Huckabee won there in 2008, and that didn’t prevent McCain from getting the nomination that year. Santorum edged out Romney in 2012, but Romney got the nomination. He’s not polling high in N.H. or S.C. which follow Iowa. Graham is getting 2% in S.C., his home state,
    which is about 2% higher than he is getting in other states. I was listening to Fox last night, and someone said Graham was the only candidate with military experience, as if service as a lawyer in the Judge Advocate General Corps counts as military experience. Standing next to John McCain, the phony “war hero,” for all those years does not constitute military experience, especially when both have been wrong so many times.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Robert Hume
    Isn't this obvious? Plausibly everyone should have the right to leave their country, but they do not have the right to move into another country they would like to move into. If they are unappealing enough there may be no other country that will accept them.

    Feel free to leave your home but don't expect to move into mine.

    In a similar way, absolutely no one has the ‘right’ for an employer to employ him.

    One cannot exist without income. Income, for the vast majority of people, can only come from employment. Yet, the absolute right of employers to deny employment – and by implication, the ‘right to life’, is upheld just about everywhere.

    This puts all the ‘moral’ caterwauling about the current ‘migrant’ crisis into perspective.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Way back in 1973, the Israelis basically ‘handed the asses’ of the entirety of the military might of the Arab world.

    In retaliation, the Arabs, or Muslims, or whatever decided to give a Trump style massive collective punishment upon the peoples of the western world, in a desire to lash out and seek revenge for wounded pride.
    Thus the oil crisis which more or less permanently destroyed postwar western prosperity.

    Now, as far as I can recall none of the opprobrium that Economist-style tossers are dumping on Trump was ever dumped on the heads of state of the oil producing Muslim world for imposing a capricious, mass collective ‘punishment’ on hundreds of millions of ordinary citizens.

    On another note, notice how quick the Arab world was to avenge the military humiliation by Israel by taking swift, judicious and decisive action against the people of the west, but in the present crisis, they cannot give an absolute shit about their coreligionists and coracialists in Syria.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  162. snorlax says:
    @nglaer
    I was talking over the veep issue with the Mrs. this morning. My thought is that a not too ideological woman Republican senator would work the best, reassuring the GOP establishment a little bit and cutting into Hillary's main raison d'être. The one from New Hampshire? Are there others? Susan Collins almost as old as Donald? But the main or only point would be to win the election, and let the chips fall where they may. Did you catch his national spokesperson on CNN tonight? Attractive angular, heavily made up woman, about 40. Many like her work at his country clubs--it's a look.
    She voted for Obama 08, worked for Ted Cruz senate campaign, dropped him for Donald. Tea Party activist. Shoplifting arrest when she was 20. Single Mom. Perfectly good (composed, self-assured ) on TV arguing for Trump.

    Katrina Pierson? She’s a rather dim bulb. And if he picked her the speculation would immediately be that he was having another affair with her.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nglaer
    Oh, I didn't mean considering her for veep!
    I just noticed her on the tube, and was struck by the physical similarity to a lot of women who work at Trump's golf club. And the rapid transition from Obama supporter, to Cruz, to Trump. How nice to be young, when life changes so dramatically but doesn't go by so quickly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. nglaer says:
    @snorlax
    Katrina Pierson? She's a rather dim bulb. And if he picked her the speculation would immediately be that he was having another affair with her.

    Oh, I didn’t mean considering her for veep!
    I just noticed her on the tube, and was struck by the physical similarity to a lot of women who work at Trump’s golf club. And the rapid transition from Obama supporter, to Cruz, to Trump. How nice to be young, when life changes so dramatically but doesn’t go by so quickly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. tbraton says:
    @nglaer
    I was talking over the veep issue with the Mrs. this morning. My thought is that a not too ideological woman Republican senator would work the best, reassuring the GOP establishment a little bit and cutting into Hillary's main raison d'être. The one from New Hampshire? Are there others? Susan Collins almost as old as Donald? But the main or only point would be to win the election, and let the chips fall where they may. Did you catch his national spokesperson on CNN tonight? Attractive angular, heavily made up woman, about 40. Many like her work at his country clubs--it's a look.
    She voted for Obama 08, worked for Ted Cruz senate campaign, dropped him for Donald. Tea Party activist. Shoplifting arrest when she was 20. Single Mom. Perfectly good (composed, self-assured ) on TV arguing for Trump.

    ” The one from New Hampshire?”

    Kelly Ayotte? The close buddy of John McCain and Lindsey Graham? I sure hope not. That would not reassure me at all. I don’t think he would go in that direction. Besides, she’s up for reelection in 2016 and facing a tough battle to retain her senate seat. I don’t think anyone in the Republican Party would want to further endanger the chances of keeping that seat in Republican hands. As I said, I am having a hard time figuring out who Trump would select.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Ragno says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    You can save yourselves a lot of time and just blow out the pilot light right now.
     
    Blow out your own pilot light Spanky. But before you do see if you can get the rest of the idiotic defeatist block (calling all Private Hudson/Bill Paxtons of Aliens fame) to do the same. The rest of us are too busy working to correct the imbecility of the Democrats/Liberal/Leftist/Lib-republicans.

    It is better to die trying than to succumb to the despair advocated by you nitwits.

    If you actually read my comment and took ‘defeatism’ as its message, perhaps you should quit making tough-guy faces in the mirror and read it again. (Maybe if your first reflex wasn’t to refer to imaginary characters in Hollywood blockbusters, your myopia would clear up.)

    Rotherham, Paris, Fort Hood, San Berdoo, and the countless under-reported similar incidents since 9/11….all these, unfortunately, are very real. To even hope to turn this around, we require a renaissance of spirit and defiance – which can’t happen until we acknowledge the depth of the problem, and learn to identify ourselves proudly as white men – without the conditioned flinching.

    It’s far easier to point a finger outwards and squawk “leftist!” than it is to point it at ourselves and say “white, thank God“. But that’s what it’s going to take. Like it or not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Dirk Dagger says: • Website
    @Mike Sylwester
    Here are the bullet points of Ted Cruz's position on immigration.

    SECURE THE BORDER

    * Build a wall that works .... I will complete the wall.

    * Triple the number of Border Patrol agents.

    * Increase vital aerial surveillance and other technology along the border.

    * Finish the biometric tracking system at our nation’s ports of entry.

    RESTORE THE RULE OF LAW

    * End President Obama’s illegal amnesty. .... I will rescind each and every one ...

    * Increase deportations and end catch-and-release.

    * End sanctuary policies, sign Kate’s Law, and deport criminal immigrants.

    * Prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving financial benefits and strengthen E-Verify.

    REFORM LEGAL IMMIGRATION TO PROTECT AMERICANS

    * Suspend the issuance of all H-1B visas for 180 days to complete a comprehensive investigation and audit of pervasive allegations of abuse of the program.

    * Halt any increases in legal immigration so long as American unemployment remains unacceptably high.

    * Enforce the public-charge doctrine. Current law requires legal immigrants to certify that they will be economically self-sufficient. A Cruz Administration will ensure they do not receive government assistance, which defies the law and harms American taxpayers.

    * End birthright citizenship. .... I will take steps to pass legislation or a constitutional amendment to end it.

     

    The points are elaborated at the webpage.

    https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan-summary/

    Overton and such …

    ISIS and related Islamic terrorists are already here. More are coming. We must stop them. Until FBI director James Comey gives us the green light, I say seal the borders. — Larry Kudlow in NRO

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Hibernian says:
    @Anonymous
    Look, prior to 1965, all 'Asiatics' were more or less prohibited from immigrating to the USA on the grounds of 'national origin', but which everyone really understood to mean 'race', if not 'religion'.

    Despite intermittently whipped-up hysteria about 'civil rights abuses' in the southern USA concerning blacks, virtually no serious commentator at that time regarded the USA as a 'moral pariah' or even a 'tyrannical "human rights" abusing regime'. In fact the common perception of the USA was around the globe at that time, was of the final, ultimate guarantor of 'freedom, democracy and liberty'.

    And this was only in the memory of a good number of people still living.

    “And this was only in the memory of a good number of people still living.”

    I remember it and I’m only 61.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. tbraton says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Jobs' biological father was from the tippy-top elite of Syria: his father's uncle was Syria's ambassador to the UN, which is a quasi-aristocratic job.

    I think one of the great ironies of the Steve Jobs story is the fact that his natural mother objected to the adopting blue collar couple after she learned that neither had a college education and threatened to cancel the arranged adoption. As a result, the adopting father pledged to enroll in college and obtain a college degree, which he did despite the great strain on the couple’s finances. By all accounts, including Steve Jobs’, they were loving parents who did a first rate job in raising Steve Jobs. The irony is that iconic Steve Jobs, a billionaire and the directing force of Apple Corp., never obtained a college degree himself, although he briefly attended college. Imagine how many more billions he would earned had he gotten a college degree. I have been joking for many years that Bill Gates would be worth twice what he is now if only he had attended Harvard College for two more years and obtained a degree instead of dropping out and dabbling in the software business.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @nglaer
    I was talking over the veep issue with the Mrs. this morning. My thought is that a not too ideological woman Republican senator would work the best, reassuring the GOP establishment a little bit and cutting into Hillary's main raison d'être. The one from New Hampshire? Are there others? Susan Collins almost as old as Donald? But the main or only point would be to win the election, and let the chips fall where they may. Did you catch his national spokesperson on CNN tonight? Attractive angular, heavily made up woman, about 40. Many like her work at his country clubs--it's a look.
    She voted for Obama 08, worked for Ted Cruz senate campaign, dropped him for Donald. Tea Party activist. Shoplifting arrest when she was 20. Single Mom. Perfectly good (composed, self-assured ) on TV arguing for Trump.

    I’d hit it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Hibernian says:
    @Anonymous
    The principles on which this nation:

    - Moslems were only allowed to enter one state and it was either Pennsylvania or Rhode Island.
    - Jews could enter two states and it was both above.
    - Roman Catholics, the two above plus Maryland.

    Roman Catholics and Jews were not even attacking us and killing Americans.
    However, Islamic terrorists (pirates) were capturing American ships and killing Americans.

    BTW: Trump only suggested halting Moslem immigration "until we figure out what is going on".

    Branch, you’re generally right but maybe a little fuzzy on the details. I believe some Jews went to all 3 of the religiously tolerant colonies plus New York and South Carolina as well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Corvinus says:
    @Corvinus
    “It is the sense of the Senate that the United States must not bar individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion, as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this Nation was founded.”

    According to the Leahy Amendment, any legislation that entails prohibiting future immigration can be on any grounds EXCEPT religion. There is no “extraordinarily dangerous precedent” being set. Congress has the liberty to decide what is and what is not immigration policy. Which, in effect is…the…political…process.

    Muslims can still be declared “undesirable” by law under criteria other than religion. Legislation could limit the number of people coming from Middle Eastern countries, which has precedent, given how Congress had banned immigrants from Asian countries (China/Japan), or even ban Muslims who come from certain Middle Eastern nations. So the immigration system remains intact regarding who is deemed beneficial and who is deemed detrimental. Count me in when restricting legal immigration. However, excluding an entire religion merely because some of its practitioners hate America and desire to blow it to hell—in part due to our own machinations—is in reality suicidal stupidity.

    Moreover, when the first immigration law was passed in 1790, there was no mention of religious tests. Why did not the Founding Fathers put that safeguard in place—only Christians need apply to gain entry?

    Now, a fair question is what about asylum applicants who are asked about their religion by immigration officials to determine if whether he or she is truly being persecuted? Americans in the past have found the oppression of people on the basis of religion to be immoral and unjust, and there have been efforts to protect those people who are threatened due to their beliefs. This inquiry, however, has been to ascertain whether they are being victimized solely because of their faith, and NOT to deem their religion as “compatible” to our society.

    Imagine had nativists in the 1840’s and 1850’s been successful in crafting legislation that barred Roman Catholic and Jewish practicioners from entering a “Protestant-founding” country. These two faiths were historically characterized by a number of American Protestants as a source of tyranny and therefore antithetical to liberty. Thus, the precedent would have been to deny anyone an opportunity to come to America merely because they practice a religion deemed “unacceptable”. What standards are involved here? How does one actually measure whether or not a particular faith is “acceptable” (or “better” or “dangerous”)? Exactly why the Leahy Amendment is in line with the Founding Fathers insistence that freedom of religion is a fundamental right on a human level AND a citizenship level. The Founding Fathers specifically articulated “freedom of religion” in the First Amendment, NOT “freedom to practice only Christianity”.

    I do acknowledge that restricting or banning immigration is under the purview of Congress, and in the end it could pass a law denying Muslim immigrants the right to enter the United States on the sole basis as having an “unacceptable” religion. However, using the rationale of the Founding Fathers, that designation would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded.

    tbraton…

    “I hope you are aware that…I am not sure what “fundamental principles on which this nation was founded.”

    Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Separation of powers. Popular sovereignty. Should I continue?

    “When I was growing up, I was taught that freedom speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment was a “fundamental principle upon which this nation was founded,” the very same amendment upon which the freedom of religion is based, but increasingly I hear that there are many things you are not free to say.”

    You are “free” to say anything, it comes down to how one will respond to what you say. Furthermore, freedom of speech has never been “free”, there has always been restrictions regarding speech.

    “To create, out of thin air, not simply a right to practice the religion of your choice in the U.S., but the right of people around the world to have a right to emigrate to the U.S. regardless of their religion is just a lot of hogwash, as far as I am concerned.”

[Whoosh] You entirely missed the point of my post.

    “BTW the thrust of Sailer’s message was “It’s been evident for some time that the the dominant ideological logic is trending toward making it inevitable that all 7 billion noncitizens on Earth be assumed to have civil rights to move to America.”

    That trend is not “dominant” nor “inevitable”.

    “Apparently, you seem to be one of those who embraces the position that Sailer is criticizing.”

    Note that I stated Congress has the authority to restrict or even ban immigration. It always has the authority to provide the criteria by which immigrants may come to the United States.

    Reg Caesar—
    “One difference: Catholics had been in the country since 1634, and Jews (albeit Sephardim) about as long. Calling them alien is a bit of a stretch.”

    Hardly a stretch. Wikipedia —> Monsignor John Tracy Ellis wrote that a “universal anti-Catholic bias was brought to Jamestown in 1607 and vigorously cultivated in all the thirteen colonies from Massachusetts to Georgia”. Colonial charters and laws often contained specific proscriptions against Catholics. For example, the second Massachusetts charter of October 7, 1691 decreed “that forever hereafter there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God to all Christians, except Papists, inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within, such Province or Territory”.

    Wilkey—

    “Fundamental principles” which were practiced pretty much never.”

    That is observably false. Ever heard of the Bill Of Rights?

    “In 1795, Congress – the same generation which gave us the Declaration and the Bill of Rights – passed an immigration law limiting naturalization to “free white persons.”



    Which is not surprising given the time period and the mindset of people. Over time, philosophies evolve.

    “In 1882, Congress – the same generation which fought a massive, devastating, deadly war to free the slaves – gave us the Chinese Exclusion Act. That was four years before Emma Lazarus built for us the Statue of Open Borders.”

    A war that was fought for a moral purpose. Regarding the banning of Chinese, recall that they were recruited by whites to build the Transcontinental Railroad.

    “Or the alienness is cultural and racial rather than religious. Catholicism, too, had been the English way for a thousand years before Henry.”

    When Protestantism gained a foothold in England, the Catholic faith became “alien” to the practitioners of Protestants.

    “Mohammedanism was another planet entirely.”

    It’s a religion practiced by hundreds of millions of people. How is one able to qualify it as “bad” or “dangerous” or “undesirable”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    Despite all the criticisms directed at your post, by me and others, I truly like the fact that you stand by your original premise that barring Muslims from emigrating to the U.S. would bar the "timeless principles" which the U.S. stands for, while conceding those "timeless principles" have changed dramatically over time. For example, you state in your specific response to me: "Note that I stated Congress has the authority to restrict or even ban immigration. It always has the authority to provide the criteria by which immigrants may come to the United States." Thank you for your concession, which amounts to an admission that your original premise was totally wrong. In fact, just as you admitted in that quote, that is exactly what Congress did between 1924 and 1965 when it severely restricted the countries of origin of immigration into the U.S. and severely limited the total numbers of immigrants. As a result, imo, we achieved a great deal of assimilation in this country, and, as I noted earlier, our population still grew from 106 million in 1920 to 203 million in 1970, despite the loss of more than 400,000 men in WWII.

    In response to my argument re freedom of speech under the First Amendment, the same amendment btw which guarantees freedom of religion which, for some reason, you believe should be extended to foreigners seeking to emigrate to the U.S., you say: "You are “free” to say anything, it comes down to how one will respond to what you say. Furthermore, freedom of speech has never been “free”, there has always been restrictions regarding speech." You appear to be more comfortable with restrictions on speech than you are with restrictions on religion. With me, it's the other way around. Both principles are important, but, if I had to choose between one or the other, I would definitely favor freedom of speech, since I strongly believe that a society of ordered liberty cannot survive without unfettered freedom of speech. That would seem to provide at least partial cover for religious beliefs, but, unless we have a completely totalitarian country as in "1984," everybody is free to practice his religion and think his religious thoughts in the privacy of his home. Speech really serves little purpose unless you can exercise it in public. Talking just to yourself doesn't benefit society at all.

    BTW I strongly disagree with your response to Wilkey re the benign nature of Islam. I believe that the principles of Islam are totally antithetical to those "enduring principles" underlying Western Civilization and expressed in our Constitution and other governing documents. That's why I am totally opposed to the admission of any Muslims into the U.S. It seems that there are many Muslim countries around the world, but, for some reason, Muslims always want to emigrate to Christian countries. I find it a very odd religion which seems to raise the prophet, Mohammed, to an elevated status above the one God he was proclaiming. Based on what I read recently, saying something bad about the prophet can get you beheaded by ISIS while saying something bad about God will merely get you dismissed as a crank.
    , @anon
    It’s a religion practiced by hundreds of millions of people. How is one able to qualify it as “bad” or “dangerous” or “undesirable”?

    All the terrorism, combined with the complete lack of any benefits to its host societies makes it something that people don't desire, and hence, "undesirable". As you know perfectly well.

    Look, Confucianism and Hinduism are practiced by billions of people. They, along with Buddhism, are even more alien to westerners than Islam. I don't know if you've noticed or not, but nobody has as much of a problem with Buddhist temples going up as they do with mosques.

    You know why? Because, if the French government were to bust into a bunch of Buddhist temples, they wouldn't find any AK-47s.

    I don't get know for sure why you keep pretending not to realize this, but I can guess. You seem to me to be the kind of person who has made it through life by making pseudointellectual arguments and passing it off as being a deep thinker. I congratulate you on your past successes at fooling people with this, but it's not working here and now.
    , @Foreign Expert

    Regarding the banning of Chinese, recall that they were recruited by whites to build the Transcontinental Railroad.
     
    Surprisingly, most of the Chinese who worked on the railroad were born in America.
    , @Wilkey
    I used historical evidence to prove that the Founding Fathers did not actually believe in the "fundamental principles" of this country in the way in which you state. Feel free to try disproving that. You can't, because they never believed in such things. Our immigration laws as practiced one way or another for 170 years run contrary to your claims.

    Until 1965 we always had a healthy dose of pragmatism in our immigration laws, and as an American descended from this country's earliest settlers I don't feel such pragmatism is contrary to the principles in the Declaration or the Bill of Rights. Those principles apply to "ourselves and our posterity" - words actually used in the Constitution - and not to every fracking person on earth.

    , @Wilkey
    It’s a religion practiced by hundreds of millions of people. How is one able to qualify it as “bad” or “dangerous” or “undesirable”?

    Well, let's start with the fact that practically no American would ever want to live in an Islamic-majority country and go from there.

    The Left likes to play this game where Islamic countries are bad or good based on whatever argument they need to make at the time. We have to let millions of Muslims move to the West because their countries suck, but we can't acknowledge that those countries suck because of the people who live there because that we mean refusing to allow Muslims to move here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. tbraton says:
    @Corvinus
    tbraton…

    “I hope you are aware that…I am not sure what “fundamental principles on which this nation was founded.”

    Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Separation of powers. Popular sovereignty. Should I continue?

    “When I was growing up, I was taught that freedom speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment was a “fundamental principle upon which this nation was founded,” the very same amendment upon which the freedom of religion is based, but increasingly I hear that there are many things you are not free to say.”

    You are “free” to say anything, it comes down to how one will respond to what you say. Furthermore, freedom of speech has never been “free”, there has always been restrictions regarding speech.

    “To create, out of thin air, not simply a right to practice the religion of your choice in the U.S., but the right of people around the world to have a right to emigrate to the U.S. regardless of their religion is just a lot of hogwash, as far as I am concerned.”

[Whoosh] You entirely missed the point of my post.

    “BTW the thrust of Sailer’s message was “It’s been evident for some time that the the dominant ideological logic is trending toward making it inevitable that all 7 billion noncitizens on Earth be assumed to have civil rights to move to America.”

    That trend is not “dominant” nor “inevitable”.

    “Apparently, you seem to be one of those who embraces the position that Sailer is criticizing.”

    Note that I stated Congress has the authority to restrict or even ban immigration. It always has the authority to provide the criteria by which immigrants may come to the United States.


    Reg Caesar—
    “One difference: Catholics had been in the country since 1634, and Jews (albeit Sephardim) about as long. Calling them alien is a bit of a stretch.”

    Hardly a stretch. Wikipedia —> Monsignor John Tracy Ellis wrote that a "universal anti-Catholic bias was brought to Jamestown in 1607 and vigorously cultivated in all the thirteen colonies from Massachusetts to Georgia”. Colonial charters and laws often contained specific proscriptions against Catholics. For example, the second Massachusetts charter of October 7, 1691 decreed "that forever hereafter there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God to all Christians, except Papists, inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within, such Province or Territory”.


    Wilkey—

    “Fundamental principles” which were practiced pretty much never.”

    That is observably false. Ever heard of the Bill Of Rights?

    “In 1795, Congress – the same generation which gave us the Declaration and the Bill of Rights – passed an immigration law limiting naturalization to “free white persons.”



    Which is not surprising given the time period and the mindset of people. Over time, philosophies evolve.

    “In 1882, Congress – the same generation which fought a massive, devastating, deadly war to free the slaves – gave us the Chinese Exclusion Act. That was four years before Emma Lazarus built for us the Statue of Open Borders.”

    A war that was fought for a moral purpose. Regarding the banning of Chinese, recall that they were recruited by whites to build the Transcontinental Railroad.

    “Or the alienness is cultural and racial rather than religious. Catholicism, too, had been the English way for a thousand years before Henry.”

    When Protestantism gained a foothold in England, the Catholic faith became “alien” to the practitioners of Protestants.

    “Mohammedanism was another planet entirely.”

    It’s a religion practiced by hundreds of millions of people. How is one able to qualify it as “bad” or “dangerous” or “undesirable”?

    Despite all the criticisms directed at your post, by me and others, I truly like the fact that you stand by your original premise that barring Muslims from emigrating to the U.S. would bar the “timeless principles” which the U.S. stands for, while conceding those “timeless principles” have changed dramatically over time. For example, you state in your specific response to me: “Note that I stated Congress has the authority to restrict or even ban immigration. It always has the authority to provide the criteria by which immigrants may come to the United States.” Thank you for your concession, which amounts to an admission that your original premise was totally wrong. In fact, just as you admitted in that quote, that is exactly what Congress did between 1924 and 1965 when it severely restricted the countries of origin of immigration into the U.S. and severely limited the total numbers of immigrants. As a result, imo, we achieved a great deal of assimilation in this country, and, as I noted earlier, our population still grew from 106 million in 1920 to 203 million in 1970, despite the loss of more than 400,000 men in WWII.

    In response to my argument re freedom of speech under the First Amendment, the same amendment btw which guarantees freedom of religion which, for some reason, you believe should be extended to foreigners seeking to emigrate to the U.S., you say: “You are “free” to say anything, it comes down to how one will respond to what you say. Furthermore, freedom of speech has never been “free”, there has always been restrictions regarding speech.” You appear to be more comfortable with restrictions on speech than you are with restrictions on religion. With me, it’s the other way around. Both principles are important, but, if I had to choose between one or the other, I would definitely favor freedom of speech, since I strongly believe that a society of ordered liberty cannot survive without unfettered freedom of speech. That would seem to provide at least partial cover for religious beliefs, but, unless we have a completely totalitarian country as in “1984,” everybody is free to practice his religion and think his religious thoughts in the privacy of his home. Speech really serves little purpose unless you can exercise it in public. Talking just to yourself doesn’t benefit society at all.

    BTW I strongly disagree with your response to Wilkey re the benign nature of Islam. I believe that the principles of Islam are totally antithetical to those “enduring principles” underlying Western Civilization and expressed in our Constitution and other governing documents. That’s why I am totally opposed to the admission of any Muslims into the U.S. It seems that there are many Muslim countries around the world, but, for some reason, Muslims always want to emigrate to Christian countries. I find it a very odd religion which seems to raise the prophet, Mohammed, to an elevated status above the one God he was proclaiming. Based on what I read recently, saying something bad about the prophet can get you beheaded by ISIS while saying something bad about God will merely get you dismissed as a crank.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    “I truly like the fact that you stand by your original premise that barring Muslims from emigrating to the U.S. would bar the “timeless principles” which the U.S. stands for, while conceding those “timeless principles” have changed dramatically over time.”

    Let me make it simple for you because it’s going right over your head. Congress has the authority to increase or decrease immigration by establishing criteria. To my recollection, there has not been a standard by which certain immigrants are summarily dismissed on the basis of faith. In fact, Americans during the immigration process have made it a point to ask immigrants whether or not they are coming into our country if they are being persecuted due to their faith. These are the “timeless principles”. The Leahy Amendment states that “religious tests” for immigrants are NOT part of the criteria, which is well under the purview of Congress. This policy does not grant immigrant “rights”, because there are still hoops in place for immigrants to jump through before they earn citizenship. Now, should Congress decide to have a religious test for immigrants by declaring one religion as “null and void”, then that law, while constitutional, contradicts our “timeless principle” that America supports freedom of religion.

    “Thank you for your concession, which amounts to an admission that your original premise was totally wrong.”

    
No, it decidedly does not admit to anything of the sort. Kudos for trying.

    “In fact, just as you admitted in that quote, that is exactly what Congress did between 1924 and 1965 when it severely restricted the countries of origin of immigration into the U.S. and severely limited the total numbers of immigrants.”

    Restrictions for grounds other than religion. That is, decisions regarding the status of immigrants were made that did not automatically exclude them merely for practicing a particular faith. Recall that Nativists in the 1840’s and 1850’s were not keen on the idea that Roman Catholics and Jews were entering our shores. Would you have preferred that Congress denied them access simply because Protestants found their faiths “alien” or “strange”?

    Many countries have severe restrictions, but not outright bans, regarding immigrants and religion. North Korea views Christian missionaries with extreme suspicion (sometimes arresting those it accuses of proselytizing), yet does not prohibit Christians from settling. Arab countries may refuse entry to those with Israeli passports, but the restriction is based on nationality.

    “In response to my argument re freedom of speech under the First Amendment, the same amendment btw which guarantees freedom of religion which, for some reason, you believe should be extended to foreigners seeking to emigrate to the U.S.”

    I never made that claim explicitly or implicitly. Foreigners who emigrate to the United States are granted the opportunity to stay and gain citizenship should they meet specific criteria...and yet are NOT provided "American rights" until they earn that citizenship.

    “It seems that there are many Muslim countries around the world, but, for some reason, Muslims always want to emigrate to Christian countries.”

    Their reasons are multiple in nature. And, I would imagine that Buddhists, Jews, and Sikhs also have similar considerations. Perhaps Muslims are seeking religious refuge. Huh, imagine that! You do realize that Muslims, just like Jews and Christians, have different interpretations of their holy book, right?

    “I find it a very odd religion which seems to raise the prophet, Mohammed, to an elevated status above the one God he was proclaiming.”

    Would this be the exact criteria used to bar potential Muslim immigrants, rather than take into account a myriad of factors?
    For a number of people find religions other than the one they practice as “odd”.

    “BTW I strongly disagree with your response to Wilkey re the benign nature of Islam.”

    I did not realize that hundreds of millions of Indonesian Muslims openly seek to behead American Christians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Anon
    "In short, the whole point of an intelligent immigration system is to discriminate between beneficial and detrimental would-be immigrants. But intelligence is discrimination, so intelligence is racist."

    Paradoxically, an intelligent immigration policy should sometimes discriminate AGAINST intelligence.

    Jews are more intelligent, so Jewish immigration led them to taking over elite institutions.
    With their great power, Jews promote minoritarianism, of which homos, angry blacks, and Muslims are a part.

    Soros and NYT say we need to take in more Muslims.

    "Even when hundreds of millions of pious followers of a faith believe that waging jihad against Christians, Jews, and unbelievers is a sacred duty."

    Lots of Muslims have enraged attitudes.

    But is it less so with Jews?

    In polls, many Jews say they prefer Muslims over Evangelicals.
    European Jews call for open borders and abolish-ment of Europe.
    The Newsweek cover of commander Obama was done by Jews.
    Jews gloat that whites are demographically finished.
    Tim Wise and his tick tick tick. No wonder Jews love clock boy.

    Muslims may want to kill some whites, but many Jews wanna destroy the white race.

    Muslims see whites as infidels.
    Jews see whites as the race that oppressed and mass-murdered Jews.
    Both groups are in revenge mode.

    Btw, given American attitudes about Muslims -- invade their lands, bomb them, take their oil, cheer when Israel occupies and destroys Palestinians, starve them through sanctions, etc -- , it would even more sense for Muslims to ban all Americans.

    Jews see whites as the race that oppressed and mass-murdered Jews.

    This absurdity is treated by a fraction here as axiom. The Jews who identify as Jews (as opposed to mere racial Jews) overwhelming support the Zionist project, which depends completely on the power of America. American negroes aren’t sympathetic; Muslims, obviously, even less. The most frothing Israel boosters are gentile, the Republican who can’t stop bragging that they met “Bibi.” They are part of the very white (and practically Jewless) Tea Party movement.

    [How do you know that policy would change if Jews didn't command so many elite posts? Political correctness comes more from "white" Puritanism than from the international Jewry. Public shaming isn't a Jewish ritual.]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Corvinus says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson
    No.

    Your assertions are false. It was the middle class that fought, and won, WW2. The aftermath of WW2 was the last period where the middle class had enough clout to keep America from derailing itself with the breathtaking idiocy we see today. But that period was so brief that it could go without notice.

    After all this is post Wickard v Filburn. In the postwar era Liberals already had the whip hand with their Supreme Court, State Department, Federal bureaucracy and academic pro-Communist, anti-Christian bigotry and public policies.

    The "hating-whitey" crew, nursing their country-club-exclusion slights, their prefer-the-'other' treachery and their asymmetric, damnable insistence on asserting supremacy for them and their preferred classes over the middle class has justly earned the contempt we hold them in. But your claim of ideological conformity has no merit when compared to the ideology we face now.

    A baker prefers not to participate in a 'wedding' farce that a thousand other bakers would be happy to exploit for profit. The 'betrothed' insist that the baker participate. The baker is unwilling and declines to particpate. The 'betrothed' recruit the State to destroy the baker.

    The State jumps at the chance to enforce ideological conformity through destruction. The unwilling baker is deprived not only of a means to earn a living through baking, but in addition the State fines the baker into poverty. The State goes on to effectively evict the baker from the baker's house, through the power to fine. And the State insists that all of this in an opportunity to 'educate' the baker. This is the power of ideological conformity.

    But you claim that the 1950's are a period of ideological conformity.

    Provide a 1950's example even remotely comparable to the foaming-at-the-mouth, rabid, vicious dogs that enforce conformity through the police power of the state. Just one comparable example, please.

    “But you claim that the 1950′s are a period of ideological conformity. Provide a 1950′s example even remotely comparable to the foaming-at-the-mouth, rabid, vicious dogs that enforce conformity through the police power of the state. Just one comparable example, please.”

    Seriously, do you even know what you are talking about? Congressional hearings over communist influence in government and the media is one such noted example.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stephen R. Diamond
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Seriously, do you even know what you are talking about? Congressional hearings over communist influence in government and the media is one such noted example.
     
    Wow. Some people still think Alger Hiss was railroaded.
    , @Hibernian
    Those hearings did nothing to stop and very little to slow down the march of the Left. Leftwingers learned that card-carrying CPUSA membership was dangerous. It took only 8 years for the campuses to explode after McCarthy was censured.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  176. Corvinus says:
    @tbraton
    Despite all the criticisms directed at your post, by me and others, I truly like the fact that you stand by your original premise that barring Muslims from emigrating to the U.S. would bar the "timeless principles" which the U.S. stands for, while conceding those "timeless principles" have changed dramatically over time. For example, you state in your specific response to me: "Note that I stated Congress has the authority to restrict or even ban immigration. It always has the authority to provide the criteria by which immigrants may come to the United States." Thank you for your concession, which amounts to an admission that your original premise was totally wrong. In fact, just as you admitted in that quote, that is exactly what Congress did between 1924 and 1965 when it severely restricted the countries of origin of immigration into the U.S. and severely limited the total numbers of immigrants. As a result, imo, we achieved a great deal of assimilation in this country, and, as I noted earlier, our population still grew from 106 million in 1920 to 203 million in 1970, despite the loss of more than 400,000 men in WWII.

    In response to my argument re freedom of speech under the First Amendment, the same amendment btw which guarantees freedom of religion which, for some reason, you believe should be extended to foreigners seeking to emigrate to the U.S., you say: "You are “free” to say anything, it comes down to how one will respond to what you say. Furthermore, freedom of speech has never been “free”, there has always been restrictions regarding speech." You appear to be more comfortable with restrictions on speech than you are with restrictions on religion. With me, it's the other way around. Both principles are important, but, if I had to choose between one or the other, I would definitely favor freedom of speech, since I strongly believe that a society of ordered liberty cannot survive without unfettered freedom of speech. That would seem to provide at least partial cover for religious beliefs, but, unless we have a completely totalitarian country as in "1984," everybody is free to practice his religion and think his religious thoughts in the privacy of his home. Speech really serves little purpose unless you can exercise it in public. Talking just to yourself doesn't benefit society at all.

    BTW I strongly disagree with your response to Wilkey re the benign nature of Islam. I believe that the principles of Islam are totally antithetical to those "enduring principles" underlying Western Civilization and expressed in our Constitution and other governing documents. That's why I am totally opposed to the admission of any Muslims into the U.S. It seems that there are many Muslim countries around the world, but, for some reason, Muslims always want to emigrate to Christian countries. I find it a very odd religion which seems to raise the prophet, Mohammed, to an elevated status above the one God he was proclaiming. Based on what I read recently, saying something bad about the prophet can get you beheaded by ISIS while saying something bad about God will merely get you dismissed as a crank.

    “I truly like the fact that you stand by your original premise that barring Muslims from emigrating to the U.S. would bar the “timeless principles” which the U.S. stands for, while conceding those “timeless principles” have changed dramatically over time.”

    Let me make it simple for you because it’s going right over your head. Congress has the authority to increase or decrease immigration by establishing criteria. To my recollection, there has not been a standard by which certain immigrants are summarily dismissed on the basis of faith. In fact, Americans during the immigration process have made it a point to ask immigrants whether or not they are coming into our country if they are being persecuted due to their faith. These are the “timeless principles”. The Leahy Amendment states that “religious tests” for immigrants are NOT part of the criteria, which is well under the purview of Congress. This policy does not grant immigrant “rights”, because there are still hoops in place for immigrants to jump through before they earn citizenship. Now, should Congress decide to have a religious test for immigrants by declaring one religion as “null and void”, then that law, while constitutional, contradicts our “timeless principle” that America supports freedom of religion.

    “Thank you for your concession, which amounts to an admission that your original premise was totally wrong.”

    
No, it decidedly does not admit to anything of the sort. Kudos for trying.

    “In fact, just as you admitted in that quote, that is exactly what Congress did between 1924 and 1965 when it severely restricted the countries of origin of immigration into the U.S. and severely limited the total numbers of immigrants.”

    Restrictions for grounds other than religion. That is, decisions regarding the status of immigrants were made that did not automatically exclude them merely for practicing a particular faith. Recall that Nativists in the 1840’s and 1850’s were not keen on the idea that Roman Catholics and Jews were entering our shores. Would you have preferred that Congress denied them access simply because Protestants found their faiths “alien” or “strange”?

    Many countries have severe restrictions, but not outright bans, regarding immigrants and religion. North Korea views Christian missionaries with extreme suspicion (sometimes arresting those it accuses of proselytizing), yet does not prohibit Christians from settling. Arab countries may refuse entry to those with Israeli passports, but the restriction is based on nationality.

    “In response to my argument re freedom of speech under the First Amendment, the same amendment btw which guarantees freedom of religion which, for some reason, you believe should be extended to foreigners seeking to emigrate to the U.S.”

    I never made that claim explicitly or implicitly. Foreigners who emigrate to the United States are granted the opportunity to stay and gain citizenship should they meet specific criteria…and yet are NOT provided “American rights” until they earn that citizenship.

    “It seems that there are many Muslim countries around the world, but, for some reason, Muslims always want to emigrate to Christian countries.”

    Their reasons are multiple in nature. And, I would imagine that Buddhists, Jews, and Sikhs also have similar considerations. Perhaps Muslims are seeking religious refuge. Huh, imagine that! You do realize that Muslims, just like Jews and Christians, have different interpretations of their holy book, right?

    “I find it a very odd religion which seems to raise the prophet, Mohammed, to an elevated status above the one God he was proclaiming.”

    Would this be the exact criteria used to bar potential Muslim immigrants, rather than take into account a myriad of factors?
    For a number of people find religions other than the one they practice as “odd”.

    “BTW I strongly disagree with your response to Wilkey re the benign nature of Islam.”

    I did not realize that hundreds of millions of Indonesian Muslims openly seek to behead American Christians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    I did not realize that hundreds of millions of Indonesian Muslims openly seek to behead American Christians.

    Perhaps not, but the 30% of them that support the death penalty for apostasy make them seem somewhat less-than-benign.

    , @Reg Cæsar

    I did not realize that hundreds of millions of Indonesian Muslims openly seek to behead American Christians.

     

    Ask them what they think of their own Chinese!

    And what the Timorese think of them!

    Nevertheless, Indonesians are by far my favorite Moslems-- because they're the ones most content to stay home.
    , @tbraton
    "Now, should Congress decide to have a religious test for immigrants by declaring one religion as “null and void”, then that law, while constitutional, contradicts our “timeless principle” that America supports freedom of religion."

    You seem to have a much different definition of "timeless" than I do. Are you aware that the U.S. has only been required to grant someone "political asylum" since 1951? "The United States is obliged to recognize valid claims for asylum under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol." That's why FDR was able to turn away that shipload of Jews fleeing Germany in 1939. "Timeless" since 1951. You sound like Geraldo Rivera on Fox, who was mouthing the same mushy platitudes the other day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Mark Eugenikos

    It is a man’s religion, the exact opposite of Christianity which is a woman’s religion.
     
    I'll take it you've never heard of Charles Martel, Charlemagne, Jan Sobieski, Ivan IV of Russia, or Peter the Great (to mention just a few)? Education is a good thing, you should try it.

    I’m not sure what conatus means, but it sure sounds like intercourse with a rabbit.

    Read More
    • Agree: SPMoore8
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Corvinus
    "But you claim that the 1950′s are a period of ideological conformity. Provide a 1950′s example even remotely comparable to the foaming-at-the-mouth, rabid, vicious dogs that enforce conformity through the police power of the state. Just one comparable example, please."

    Seriously, do you even know what you are talking about? Congressional hearings over communist influence in government and the media is one such noted example.

    Seriously, do you even know what you are talking about? Congressional hearings over communist influence in government and the media is one such noted example.

    Wow. Some people still think Alger Hiss was railroaded.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    I was generally familiar with the Alger Hiss case, but I was too young to understand it when the case occupied the headlines. Then in the late 70's or early 80's I was browsing in a great used book store in Washington, D.C. on H Street between 17th and 18th Streets that was packed floor to ceiling with used books. I happened to come across the 1978 book by Allen Weinstein entitled "Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case." I decided to buy the hard-back book for a couple of bucks and read it in order to better familiarize myself with the famous case. Well, after finishing the 400+ page book, I was left with no doubt whatever that Hiss had lied all along and was guilty as charged. Weinstein's detailed analysis of the complicated case was devastating. And that was before the later unveiling of the Venona Project in 1995, a compilation of electronic surveillance, which conclusively established that Hiss, the long-time hero of left wing activists, was a Soviet agent and guilty as charged. We now with certainty that there was extensive Communist infiltration of the Roosevelt Administration at the highest levels. I am amazed that anyone challenges that fact today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Corvinus
    tbraton…

    “I hope you are aware that…I am not sure what “fundamental principles on which this nation was founded.”

    Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Separation of powers. Popular sovereignty. Should I continue?

    “When I was growing up, I was taught that freedom speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment was a “fundamental principle upon which this nation was founded,” the very same amendment upon which the freedom of religion is based, but increasingly I hear that there are many things you are not free to say.”

    You are “free” to say anything, it comes down to how one will respond to what you say. Furthermore, freedom of speech has never been “free”, there has always been restrictions regarding speech.

    “To create, out of thin air, not simply a right to practice the religion of your choice in the U.S., but the right of people around the world to have a right to emigrate to the U.S. regardless of their religion is just a lot of hogwash, as far as I am concerned.”

[Whoosh] You entirely missed the point of my post.

    “BTW the thrust of Sailer’s message was “It’s been evident for some time that the the dominant ideological logic is trending toward making it inevitable that all 7 billion noncitizens on Earth be assumed to have civil rights to move to America.”

    That trend is not “dominant” nor “inevitable”.

    “Apparently, you seem to be one of those who embraces the position that Sailer is criticizing.”

    Note that I stated Congress has the authority to restrict or even ban immigration. It always has the authority to provide the criteria by which immigrants may come to the United States.


    Reg Caesar—
    “One difference: Catholics had been in the country since 1634, and Jews (albeit Sephardim) about as long. Calling them alien is a bit of a stretch.”

    Hardly a stretch. Wikipedia —> Monsignor John Tracy Ellis wrote that a "universal anti-Catholic bias was brought to Jamestown in 1607 and vigorously cultivated in all the thirteen colonies from Massachusetts to Georgia”. Colonial charters and laws often contained specific proscriptions against Catholics. For example, the second Massachusetts charter of October 7, 1691 decreed "that forever hereafter there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God to all Christians, except Papists, inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within, such Province or Territory”.


    Wilkey—

    “Fundamental principles” which were practiced pretty much never.”

    That is observably false. Ever heard of the Bill Of Rights?

    “In 1795, Congress – the same generation which gave us the Declaration and the Bill of Rights – passed an immigration law limiting naturalization to “free white persons.”



    Which is not surprising given the time period and the mindset of people. Over time, philosophies evolve.

    “In 1882, Congress – the same generation which fought a massive, devastating, deadly war to free the slaves – gave us the Chinese Exclusion Act. That was four years before Emma Lazarus built for us the Statue of Open Borders.”

    A war that was fought for a moral purpose. Regarding the banning of Chinese, recall that they were recruited by whites to build the Transcontinental Railroad.

    “Or the alienness is cultural and racial rather than religious. Catholicism, too, had been the English way for a thousand years before Henry.”

    When Protestantism gained a foothold in England, the Catholic faith became “alien” to the practitioners of Protestants.

    “Mohammedanism was another planet entirely.”

    It’s a religion practiced by hundreds of millions of people. How is one able to qualify it as “bad” or “dangerous” or “undesirable”?

    It’s a religion practiced by hundreds of millions of people. How is one able to qualify it as “bad” or “dangerous” or “undesirable”?

    All the terrorism, combined with the complete lack of any benefits to its host societies makes it something that people don’t desire, and hence, “undesirable”. As you know perfectly well.

    Look, Confucianism and Hinduism are practiced by billions of people. They, along with Buddhism, are even more alien to westerners than Islam. I don’t know if you’ve noticed or not, but nobody has as much of a problem with Buddhist temples going up as they do with mosques.

    You know why? Because, if the French government were to bust into a bunch of Buddhist temples, they wouldn’t find any AK-47s.

    I don’t get know for sure why you keep pretending not to realize this, but I can guess. You seem to me to be the kind of person who has made it through life by making pseudointellectual arguments and passing it off as being a deep thinker. I congratulate you on your past successes at fooling people with this, but it’s not working here and now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    No.

    Your assertions are false. It was the middle class that fought, and won, WW2. The aftermath of WW2 was the last period where the middle class had enough clout to keep America from derailing itself with the breathtaking idiocy we see today. But that period was so brief that it could go without notice.

    After all this is post Wickard v Filburn. In the postwar era Liberals already had the whip hand with their Supreme Court, State Department, Federal bureaucracy and academic pro-Communist, anti-Christian bigotry and public policies.

    The "hating-whitey" crew, nursing their country-club-exclusion slights, their prefer-the-'other' treachery and their asymmetric, damnable insistence on asserting supremacy for them and their preferred classes over the middle class has justly earned the contempt we hold them in. But your claim of ideological conformity has no merit when compared to the ideology we face now.

    A baker prefers not to participate in a 'wedding' farce that a thousand other bakers would be happy to exploit for profit. The 'betrothed' insist that the baker participate. The baker is unwilling and declines to particpate. The 'betrothed' recruit the State to destroy the baker.

    The State jumps at the chance to enforce ideological conformity through destruction. The unwilling baker is deprived not only of a means to earn a living through baking, but in addition the State fines the baker into poverty. The State goes on to effectively evict the baker from the baker's house, through the power to fine. And the State insists that all of this in an opportunity to 'educate' the baker. This is the power of ideological conformity.

    But you claim that the 1950's are a period of ideological conformity.

    Provide a 1950's example even remotely comparable to the foaming-at-the-mouth, rabid, vicious dogs that enforce conformity through the police power of the state. Just one comparable example, please.

    Nope. The American middle class formed after WW2.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Hibernian says:
    @Corvinus
    "But you claim that the 1950′s are a period of ideological conformity. Provide a 1950′s example even remotely comparable to the foaming-at-the-mouth, rabid, vicious dogs that enforce conformity through the police power of the state. Just one comparable example, please."

    Seriously, do you even know what you are talking about? Congressional hearings over communist influence in government and the media is one such noted example.

    Those hearings did nothing to stop and very little to slow down the march of the Left. Leftwingers learned that card-carrying CPUSA membership was dangerous. It took only 8 years for the campuses to explode after McCarthy was censured.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Corvinus
    “I truly like the fact that you stand by your original premise that barring Muslims from emigrating to the U.S. would bar the “timeless principles” which the U.S. stands for, while conceding those “timeless principles” have changed dramatically over time.”

    Let me make it simple for you because it’s going right over your head. Congress has the authority to increase or decrease immigration by establishing criteria. To my recollection, there has not been a standard by which certain immigrants are summarily dismissed on the basis of faith. In fact, Americans during the immigration process have made it a point to ask immigrants whether or not they are coming into our country if they are being persecuted due to their faith. These are the “timeless principles”. The Leahy Amendment states that “religious tests” for immigrants are NOT part of the criteria, which is well under the purview of Congress. This policy does not grant immigrant “rights”, because there are still hoops in place for immigrants to jump through before they earn citizenship. Now, should Congress decide to have a religious test for immigrants by declaring one religion as “null and void”, then that law, while constitutional, contradicts our “timeless principle” that America supports freedom of religion.

    “Thank you for your concession, which amounts to an admission that your original premise was totally wrong.”

    
No, it decidedly does not admit to anything of the sort. Kudos for trying.

    “In fact, just as you admitted in that quote, that is exactly what Congress did between 1924 and 1965 when it severely restricted the countries of origin of immigration into the U.S. and severely limited the total numbers of immigrants.”

    Restrictions for grounds other than religion. That is, decisions regarding the status of immigrants were made that did not automatically exclude them merely for practicing a particular faith. Recall that Nativists in the 1840’s and 1850’s were not keen on the idea that Roman Catholics and Jews were entering our shores. Would you have preferred that Congress denied them access simply because Protestants found their faiths “alien” or “strange”?

    Many countries have severe restrictions, but not outright bans, regarding immigrants and religion. North Korea views Christian missionaries with extreme suspicion (sometimes arresting those it accuses of proselytizing), yet does not prohibit Christians from settling. Arab countries may refuse entry to those with Israeli passports, but the restriction is based on nationality.

    “In response to my argument re freedom of speech under the First Amendment, the same amendment btw which guarantees freedom of religion which, for some reason, you believe should be extended to foreigners seeking to emigrate to the U.S.”

    I never made that claim explicitly or implicitly. Foreigners who emigrate to the United States are granted the opportunity to stay and gain citizenship should they meet specific criteria...and yet are NOT provided "American rights" until they earn that citizenship.

    “It seems that there are many Muslim countries around the world, but, for some reason, Muslims always want to emigrate to Christian countries.”

    Their reasons are multiple in nature. And, I would imagine that Buddhists, Jews, and Sikhs also have similar considerations. Perhaps Muslims are seeking religious refuge. Huh, imagine that! You do realize that Muslims, just like Jews and Christians, have different interpretations of their holy book, right?

    “I find it a very odd religion which seems to raise the prophet, Mohammed, to an elevated status above the one God he was proclaiming.”

    Would this be the exact criteria used to bar potential Muslim immigrants, rather than take into account a myriad of factors?
    For a number of people find religions other than the one they practice as “odd”.

    “BTW I strongly disagree with your response to Wilkey re the benign nature of Islam.”

    I did not realize that hundreds of millions of Indonesian Muslims openly seek to behead American Christians.

    I did not realize that hundreds of millions of Indonesian Muslims openly seek to behead American Christians.

    Perhaps not, but the 30% of them that support the death penalty for apostasy make them seem somewhat less-than-benign.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "Perhaps not, but the 30% of them that support the death penalty for apostasy make them seem somewhat less-than-benign."

    Apostasy means a Muslim abandoning and betraying his own faith.

    It has nothing to do with people who are not Muslim to begin with.

    So, it doesn't apply to most Americans and Europeans.

    Apostasy is to Muslims what being a race-traitor is to white nationalists or black nationalists or Jewish nationalists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Corvinus
    “I truly like the fact that you stand by your original premise that barring Muslims from emigrating to the U.S. would bar the “timeless principles” which the U.S. stands for, while conceding those “timeless principles” have changed dramatically over time.”

    Let me make it simple for you because it’s going right over your head. Congress has the authority to increase or decrease immigration by establishing criteria. To my recollection, there has not been a standard by which certain immigrants are summarily dismissed on the basis of faith. In fact, Americans during the immigration process have made it a point to ask immigrants whether or not they are coming into our country if they are being persecuted due to their faith. These are the “timeless principles”. The Leahy Amendment states that “religious tests” for immigrants are NOT part of the criteria, which is well under the purview of Congress. This policy does not grant immigrant “rights”, because there are still hoops in place for immigrants to jump through before they earn citizenship. Now, should Congress decide to have a religious test for immigrants by declaring one religion as “null and void”, then that law, while constitutional, contradicts our “timeless principle” that America supports freedom of religion.

    “Thank you for your concession, which amounts to an admission that your original premise was totally wrong.”

    
No, it decidedly does not admit to anything of the sort. Kudos for trying.

    “In fact, just as you admitted in that quote, that is exactly what Congress did between 1924 and 1965 when it severely restricted the countries of origin of immigration into the U.S. and severely limited the total numbers of immigrants.”

    Restrictions for grounds other than religion. That is, decisions regarding the status of immigrants were made that did not automatically exclude them merely for practicing a particular faith. Recall that Nativists in the 1840’s and 1850’s were not keen on the idea that Roman Catholics and Jews were entering our shores. Would you have preferred that Congress denied them access simply because Protestants found their faiths “alien” or “strange”?

    Many countries have severe restrictions, but not outright bans, regarding immigrants and religion. North Korea views Christian missionaries with extreme suspicion (sometimes arresting those it accuses of proselytizing), yet does not prohibit Christians from settling. Arab countries may refuse entry to those with Israeli passports, but the restriction is based on nationality.

    “In response to my argument re freedom of speech under the First Amendment, the same amendment btw which guarantees freedom of religion which, for some reason, you believe should be extended to foreigners seeking to emigrate to the U.S.”

    I never made that claim explicitly or implicitly. Foreigners who emigrate to the United States are granted the opportunity to stay and gain citizenship should they meet specific criteria...and yet are NOT provided "American rights" until they earn that citizenship.

    “It seems that there are many Muslim countries around the world, but, for some reason, Muslims always want to emigrate to Christian countries.”

    Their reasons are multiple in nature. And, I would imagine that Buddhists, Jews, and Sikhs also have similar considerations. Perhaps Muslims are seeking religious refuge. Huh, imagine that! You do realize that Muslims, just like Jews and Christians, have different interpretations of their holy book, right?

    “I find it a very odd religion which seems to raise the prophet, Mohammed, to an elevated status above the one God he was proclaiming.”

    Would this be the exact criteria used to bar potential Muslim immigrants, rather than take into account a myriad of factors?
    For a number of people find religions other than the one they practice as “odd”.

    “BTW I strongly disagree with your response to Wilkey re the benign nature of Islam.”

    I did not realize that hundreds of millions of Indonesian Muslims openly seek to behead American Christians.

    I did not realize that hundreds of millions of Indonesian Muslims openly seek to behead American Christians.

    Ask them what they think of their own Chinese!

    And what the Timorese think of them!

    Nevertheless, Indonesians are by far my favorite Moslems– because they’re the ones most content to stay home.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Foreign Expert
    And many Indonesians on the smaller eastern islands are christian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. tbraton says:
    @Corvinus
    “I truly like the fact that you stand by your original premise that barring Muslims from emigrating to the U.S. would bar the “timeless principles” which the U.S. stands for, while conceding those “timeless principles” have changed dramatically over time.”

    Let me make it simple for you because it’s going right over your head. Congress has the authority to increase or decrease immigration by establishing criteria. To my recollection, there has not been a standard by which certain immigrants are summarily dismissed on the basis of faith. In fact, Americans during the immigration process have made it a point to ask immigrants whether or not they are coming into our country if they are being persecuted due to their faith. These are the “timeless principles”. The Leahy Amendment states that “religious tests” for immigrants are NOT part of the criteria, which is well under the purview of Congress. This policy does not grant immigrant “rights”, because there are still hoops in place for immigrants to jump through before they earn citizenship. Now, should Congress decide to have a religious test for immigrants by declaring one religion as “null and void”, then that law, while constitutional, contradicts our “timeless principle” that America supports freedom of religion.

    “Thank you for your concession, which amounts to an admission that your original premise was totally wrong.”

    
No, it decidedly does not admit to anything of the sort. Kudos for trying.

    “In fact, just as you admitted in that quote, that is exactly what Congress did between 1924 and 1965 when it severely restricted the countries of origin of immigration into the U.S. and severely limited the total numbers of immigrants.”

    Restrictions for grounds other than religion. That is, decisions regarding the status of immigrants were made that did not automatically exclude them merely for practicing a particular faith. Recall that Nativists in the 1840’s and 1850’s were not keen on the idea that Roman Catholics and Jews were entering our shores. Would you have preferred that Congress denied them access simply because Protestants found their faiths “alien” or “strange”?

    Many countries have severe restrictions, but not outright bans, regarding immigrants and religion. North Korea views Christian missionaries with extreme suspicion (sometimes arresting those it accuses of proselytizing), yet does not prohibit Christians from settling. Arab countries may refuse entry to those with Israeli passports, but the restriction is based on nationality.

    “In response to my argument re freedom of speech under the First Amendment, the same amendment btw which guarantees freedom of religion which, for some reason, you believe should be extended to foreigners seeking to emigrate to the U.S.”

    I never made that claim explicitly or implicitly. Foreigners who emigrate to the United States are granted the opportunity to stay and gain citizenship should they meet specific criteria...and yet are NOT provided "American rights" until they earn that citizenship.

    “It seems that there are many Muslim countries around the world, but, for some reason, Muslims always want to emigrate to Christian countries.”

    Their reasons are multiple in nature. And, I would imagine that Buddhists, Jews, and Sikhs also have similar considerations. Perhaps Muslims are seeking religious refuge. Huh, imagine that! You do realize that Muslims, just like Jews and Christians, have different interpretations of their holy book, right?

    “I find it a very odd religion which seems to raise the prophet, Mohammed, to an elevated status above the one God he was proclaiming.”

    Would this be the exact criteria used to bar potential Muslim immigrants, rather than take into account a myriad of factors?
    For a number of people find religions other than the one they practice as “odd”.

    “BTW I strongly disagree with your response to Wilkey re the benign nature of Islam.”

    I did not realize that hundreds of millions of Indonesian Muslims openly seek to behead American Christians.

    “Now, should Congress decide to have a religious test for immigrants by declaring one religion as “null and void”, then that law, while constitutional, contradicts our “timeless principle” that America supports freedom of religion.”

    You seem to have a much different definition of “timeless” than I do. Are you aware that the U.S. has only been required to grant someone “political asylum” since 1951? “The United States is obliged to recognize valid claims for asylum under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.” That’s why FDR was able to turn away that shipload of Jews fleeing Germany in 1939. “Timeless” since 1951. You sound like Geraldo Rivera on Fox, who was mouthing the same mushy platitudes the other day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. tbraton says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Seriously, do you even know what you are talking about? Congressional hearings over communist influence in government and the media is one such noted example.
     
    Wow. Some people still think Alger Hiss was railroaded.

    I was generally familiar with the Alger Hiss case, but I was too young to understand it when the case occupied the headlines. Then in the late 70′s or early 80′s I was browsing in a great used book store in Washington, D.C. on H Street between 17th and 18th Streets that was packed floor to ceiling with used books. I happened to come across the 1978 book by Allen Weinstein entitled “Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case.” I decided to buy the hard-back book for a couple of bucks and read it in order to better familiarize myself with the famous case. Well, after finishing the 400+ page book, I was left with no doubt whatever that Hiss had lied all along and was guilty as charged. Weinstein’s detailed analysis of the complicated case was devastating. And that was before the later unveiling of the Venona Project in 1995, a compilation of electronic surveillance, which conclusively established that Hiss, the long-time hero of left wing activists, was a Soviet agent and guilty as charged. We now with certainty that there was extensive Communist infiltration of the Roosevelt Administration at the highest levels. I am amazed that anyone challenges that fact today.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mike Sylwester
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    Has anyone here argued Hiss wasn't a spy? The context is the justification of McCarthyism and American ideological conformism during the 50s. Sounds like you rightists want to justify McCarthyite witchhunts against the left. [There's no real left today, but when it comes, you'll be ready.]
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @Reg Cæsar

    I did not realize that hundreds of millions of Indonesian Muslims openly seek to behead American Christians.

     

    Ask them what they think of their own Chinese!

    And what the Timorese think of them!

    Nevertheless, Indonesians are by far my favorite Moslems-- because they're the ones most content to stay home.

    And many Indonesians on the smaller eastern islands are christian.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @Corvinus
    tbraton…

    “I hope you are aware that…I am not sure what “fundamental principles on which this nation was founded.”

    Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Separation of powers. Popular sovereignty. Should I continue?

    “When I was growing up, I was taught that freedom speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment was a “fundamental principle upon which this nation was founded,” the very same amendment upon which the freedom of religion is based, but increasingly I hear that there are many things you are not free to say.”

    You are “free” to say anything, it comes down to how one will respond to what you say. Furthermore, freedom of speech has never been “free”, there has always been restrictions regarding speech.

    “To create, out of thin air, not simply a right to practice the religion of your choice in the U.S., but the right of people around the world to have a right to emigrate to the U.S. regardless of their religion is just a lot of hogwash, as far as I am concerned.”

[Whoosh] You entirely missed the point of my post.

    “BTW the thrust of Sailer’s message was “It’s been evident for some time that the the dominant ideological logic is trending toward making it inevitable that all 7 billion noncitizens on Earth be assumed to have civil rights to move to America.”

    That trend is not “dominant” nor “inevitable”.

    “Apparently, you seem to be one of those who embraces the position that Sailer is criticizing.”

    Note that I stated Congress has the authority to restrict or even ban immigration. It always has the authority to provide the criteria by which immigrants may come to the United States.


    Reg Caesar—
    “One difference: Catholics had been in the country since 1634, and Jews (albeit Sephardim) about as long. Calling them alien is a bit of a stretch.”

    Hardly a stretch. Wikipedia —> Monsignor John Tracy Ellis wrote that a "universal anti-Catholic bias was brought to Jamestown in 1607 and vigorously cultivated in all the thirteen colonies from Massachusetts to Georgia”. Colonial charters and laws often contained specific proscriptions against Catholics. For example, the second Massachusetts charter of October 7, 1691 decreed "that forever hereafter there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God to all Christians, except Papists, inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within, such Province or Territory”.


    Wilkey—

    “Fundamental principles” which were practiced pretty much never.”

    That is observably false. Ever heard of the Bill Of Rights?

    “In 1795, Congress – the same generation which gave us the Declaration and the Bill of Rights – passed an immigration law limiting naturalization to “free white persons.”



    Which is not surprising given the time period and the mindset of people. Over time, philosophies evolve.

    “In 1882, Congress – the same generation which fought a massive, devastating, deadly war to free the slaves – gave us the Chinese Exclusion Act. That was four years before Emma Lazarus built for us the Statue of Open Borders.”

    A war that was fought for a moral purpose. Regarding the banning of Chinese, recall that they were recruited by whites to build the Transcontinental Railroad.

    “Or the alienness is cultural and racial rather than religious. Catholicism, too, had been the English way for a thousand years before Henry.”

    When Protestantism gained a foothold in England, the Catholic faith became “alien” to the practitioners of Protestants.

    “Mohammedanism was another planet entirely.”

    It’s a religion practiced by hundreds of millions of people. How is one able to qualify it as “bad” or “dangerous” or “undesirable”?

    Regarding the banning of Chinese, recall that they were recruited by whites to build the Transcontinental Railroad.

    Surprisingly, most of the Chinese who worked on the railroad were born in America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Corvinus says:

    Anon…

    “Perhaps not, but the 30% of them that support the death penalty for apostasy make them seem somewhat less-than-benign.”

    
Source?

    And, there is no “perhaps not”.


    So, how many Indonesian Muslims currently desire to kill Americans?

    “All the terrorism, combined with the complete lack of any benefits to its host societies makes it something that people don’t desire…”

    
Again, assuming that all Muslims are potential terrorists and assuming that all Muslims do not benefit in some way, shape, or form our society. You have an interesting fetish with absolutes.

    “They, along with Buddhism, are even more alien to westerners than Islam.”

    
No, adherents to Hinduism and Buddhism are not “alien”, they’re human.

    “Because, if the French government were to bust into a bunch of Buddhist temples, they wouldn’t find any AK-47s.”


    Assuming that, indeed, that French mosques have those guns. Now, how many American mosques within the past decade have been found to store automatic weapons by law enforcement?


    “You seem to me to be the kind of person who has made it through life by making pseudointellectual arguments and passing it off as being a deep thinker. I congratulate you on your past successes at fooling people with this, but it’s not working here and now.”

    More projection. You ought to try your hand on working for a cinema.

    Reg Caesar…

    
“Nevertheless, Indonesians are by far my favorite Moslems– because they’re the ones most content to stay home.”

    Meaning they’re no observable threat to American Christians, whether or not they immigrate to the United States.

    tbraton…

    “You seem to have a much different definition of “timeless” than I do.”

    Ever since America’s inception in 1607 have immigrants come here to escape political and religious persecution.

    “Are you aware that the U.S. has only been required to grant someone “political asylum” since 1951?”



    It’s not any surprise that Congress, under their proper authority, codified what has been “timeless principles”.

    “That’s why FDR was able to turn away that shipload of Jews fleeing Germany in 1939.”

    The situation was more complex that you make it out to be. Please educate yourself.

    http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/19/9760060/refugees-history-holocaust

    Now, how about actually commenting on the merits of my rebuttal…

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Source?

    A survey I found, but can't find now. According to Wikipedia, it's 13%.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

    Still too many.

    So, how many Indonesian Muslims currently desire to kill Americans?

    Who knows? How many Indonesians do we need? Zero.

    Again, assuming that all Muslims are potential terrorists and assuming that all Muslims do not benefit in some way, shape, or form our society. You have an interesting fetish with absolutes.

    When you can tell me one single way we do benefit from having Muslims here, I'll take you seriously. You've been at this for a week and haven't come up with a single thing. I can tell you ways in which they have presented problems for civilized society, though.

    No, adherents to Hinduism and Buddhism are not “alien”, they’re human.

    I didn't say the adherents. I said the religions themselves. Why did you pretend not to know that?

    Assuming that, indeed, that French mosques have those guns.

    They do.

    https://www.rt.com/news/324354-france-close-radical-mosques/

    Buddhist temples don't have them, because Buddhism is a good religion, while Islam is a bad one. Which you know perfectly well.

    More projection. You ought to try your hand on working for a cinema.

    I'm actually quite certain. You were the one who asked if home-schooling Christians were more civilized, because they weren't chopping people's heads off. I pointed out that, of course, people who DON'T chop heads off are more civilized than people who DO. You didn't have an argument, but just said something stupid about "context" and told me to "ponder" it. You must have thought this was an actual argument, which is evidence that this moronic strategy has worked for you in the past.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @anon
    I did not realize that hundreds of millions of Indonesian Muslims openly seek to behead American Christians.

    Perhaps not, but the 30% of them that support the death penalty for apostasy make them seem somewhat less-than-benign.

    “Perhaps not, but the 30% of them that support the death penalty for apostasy make them seem somewhat less-than-benign.”

    Apostasy means a Muslim abandoning and betraying his own faith.

    It has nothing to do with people who are not Muslim to begin with.

    So, it doesn’t apply to most Americans and Europeans.

    Apostasy is to Muslims what being a race-traitor is to white nationalists or black nationalists or Jewish nationalists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Apostasy means a Muslim abandoning and betraying his own faith.

    I am aware of that.

    It has nothing to do with people who are not Muslim to begin with.

    It has a lot to do with people who decide to become non-Muslims later in life.

    So, it doesn’t apply to most Americans and Europeans.

    It shouldn't, because they shouldn't be living in America or Europe, but it does, because we are responsible for keeping some semblance of civilization around here.
    , @reiner Tor
    Actually, I'd think support for the the death penalty against apostates correlates nicely with support for jihadism. Also, you seem to be willing to allow people into theWest who support death penalty for those who are trying to leave their community presumably to join the Western religious communities or ideologies, including atheism. Such a community which prevents its members from leaving is not and cannot ever be part of the free marketplace of ideas, it's the antithesis of it. Such a community can only coexist with other communities if it already is in a dominant position.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Wilkey says:
    @Corvinus
    tbraton…

    “I hope you are aware that…I am not sure what “fundamental principles on which this nation was founded.”

    Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Separation of powers. Popular sovereignty. Should I continue?

    “When I was growing up, I was taught that freedom speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment was a “fundamental principle upon which this nation was founded,” the very same amendment upon which the freedom of religion is based, but increasingly I hear that there are many things you are not free to say.”

    You are “free” to say anything, it comes down to how one will respond to what you say. Furthermore, freedom of speech has never been “free”, there has always been restrictions regarding speech.

    “To create, out of thin air, not simply a right to practice the religion of your choice in the U.S., but the right of people around the world to have a right to emigrate to the U.S. regardless of their religion is just a lot of hogwash, as far as I am concerned.”

[Whoosh] You entirely missed the point of my post.

    “BTW the thrust of Sailer’s message was “It’s been evident for some time that the the dominant ideological logic is trending toward making it inevitable that all 7 billion noncitizens on Earth be assumed to have civil rights to move to America.”

    That trend is not “dominant” nor “inevitable”.

    “Apparently, you seem to be one of those who embraces the position that Sailer is criticizing.”

    Note that I stated Congress has the authority to restrict or even ban immigration. It always has the authority to provide the criteria by which immigrants may come to the United States.


    Reg Caesar—
    “One difference: Catholics had been in the country since 1634, and Jews (albeit Sephardim) about as long. Calling them alien is a bit of a stretch.”

    Hardly a stretch. Wikipedia —> Monsignor John Tracy Ellis wrote that a "universal anti-Catholic bias was brought to Jamestown in 1607 and vigorously cultivated in all the thirteen colonies from Massachusetts to Georgia”. Colonial charters and laws often contained specific proscriptions against Catholics. For example, the second Massachusetts charter of October 7, 1691 decreed "that forever hereafter there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God to all Christians, except Papists, inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within, such Province or Territory”.


    Wilkey—

    “Fundamental principles” which were practiced pretty much never.”

    That is observably false. Ever heard of the Bill Of Rights?

    “In 1795, Congress – the same generation which gave us the Declaration and the Bill of Rights – passed an immigration law limiting naturalization to “free white persons.”



    Which is not surprising given the time period and the mindset of people. Over time, philosophies evolve.

    “In 1882, Congress – the same generation which fought a massive, devastating, deadly war to free the slaves – gave us the Chinese Exclusion Act. That was four years before Emma Lazarus built for us the Statue of Open Borders.”

    A war that was fought for a moral purpose. Regarding the banning of Chinese, recall that they were recruited by whites to build the Transcontinental Railroad.

    “Or the alienness is cultural and racial rather than religious. Catholicism, too, had been the English way for a thousand years before Henry.”

    When Protestantism gained a foothold in England, the Catholic faith became “alien” to the practitioners of Protestants.

    “Mohammedanism was another planet entirely.”

    It’s a religion practiced by hundreds of millions of people. How is one able to qualify it as “bad” or “dangerous” or “undesirable”?

    I used historical evidence to prove that the Founding Fathers did not actually believe in the “fundamental principles” of this country in the way in which you state. Feel free to try disproving that. You can’t, because they never believed in such things. Our immigration laws as practiced one way or another for 170 years run contrary to your claims.

    Until 1965 we always had a healthy dose of pragmatism in our immigration laws, and as an American descended from this country’s earliest settlers I don’t feel such pragmatism is contrary to the principles in the Declaration or the Bill of Rights. Those principles apply to “ourselves and our posterity” – words actually used in the Constitution – and not to every fracking person on earth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Wilkey says:
    @Corvinus
    tbraton…

    “I hope you are aware that…I am not sure what “fundamental principles on which this nation was founded.”

    Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Separation of powers. Popular sovereignty. Should I continue?

    “When I was growing up, I was taught that freedom speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment was a “fundamental principle upon which this nation was founded,” the very same amendment upon which the freedom of religion is based, but increasingly I hear that there are many things you are not free to say.”

    You are “free” to say anything, it comes down to how one will respond to what you say. Furthermore, freedom of speech has never been “free”, there has always been restrictions regarding speech.

    “To create, out of thin air, not simply a right to practice the religion of your choice in the U.S., but the right of people around the world to have a right to emigrate to the U.S. regardless of their religion is just a lot of hogwash, as far as I am concerned.”

[Whoosh] You entirely missed the point of my post.

    “BTW the thrust of Sailer’s message was “It’s been evident for some time that the the dominant ideological logic is trending toward making it inevitable that all 7 billion noncitizens on Earth be assumed to have civil rights to move to America.”

    That trend is not “dominant” nor “inevitable”.

    “Apparently, you seem to be one of those who embraces the position that Sailer is criticizing.”

    Note that I stated Congress has the authority to restrict or even ban immigration. It always has the authority to provide the criteria by which immigrants may come to the United States.


    Reg Caesar—
    “One difference: Catholics had been in the country since 1634, and Jews (albeit Sephardim) about as long. Calling them alien is a bit of a stretch.”

    Hardly a stretch. Wikipedia —> Monsignor John Tracy Ellis wrote that a "universal anti-Catholic bias was brought to Jamestown in 1607 and vigorously cultivated in all the thirteen colonies from Massachusetts to Georgia”. Colonial charters and laws often contained specific proscriptions against Catholics. For example, the second Massachusetts charter of October 7, 1691 decreed "that forever hereafter there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God to all Christians, except Papists, inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within, such Province or Territory”.


    Wilkey—

    “Fundamental principles” which were practiced pretty much never.”

    That is observably false. Ever heard of the Bill Of Rights?

    “In 1795, Congress – the same generation which gave us the Declaration and the Bill of Rights – passed an immigration law limiting naturalization to “free white persons.”



    Which is not surprising given the time period and the mindset of people. Over time, philosophies evolve.

    “In 1882, Congress – the same generation which fought a massive, devastating, deadly war to free the slaves – gave us the Chinese Exclusion Act. That was four years before Emma Lazarus built for us the Statue of Open Borders.”

    A war that was fought for a moral purpose. Regarding the banning of Chinese, recall that they were recruited by whites to build the Transcontinental Railroad.

    “Or the alienness is cultural and racial rather than religious. Catholicism, too, had been the English way for a thousand years before Henry.”

    When Protestantism gained a foothold in England, the Catholic faith became “alien” to the practitioners of Protestants.

    “Mohammedanism was another planet entirely.”

    It’s a religion practiced by hundreds of millions of people. How is one able to qualify it as “bad” or “dangerous” or “undesirable”?

    It’s a religion practiced by hundreds of millions of people. How is one able to qualify it as “bad” or “dangerous” or “undesirable”?

    Well, let’s start with the fact that practically no American would ever want to live in an Islamic-majority country and go from there.

    The Left likes to play this game where Islamic countries are bad or good based on whatever argument they need to make at the time. We have to let millions of Muslims move to the West because their countries suck, but we can’t acknowledge that those countries suck because of the people who live there because that we mean refusing to allow Muslims to move here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @tbraton
    I was generally familiar with the Alger Hiss case, but I was too young to understand it when the case occupied the headlines. Then in the late 70's or early 80's I was browsing in a great used book store in Washington, D.C. on H Street between 17th and 18th Streets that was packed floor to ceiling with used books. I happened to come across the 1978 book by Allen Weinstein entitled "Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case." I decided to buy the hard-back book for a couple of bucks and read it in order to better familiarize myself with the famous case. Well, after finishing the 400+ page book, I was left with no doubt whatever that Hiss had lied all along and was guilty as charged. Weinstein's detailed analysis of the complicated case was devastating. And that was before the later unveiling of the Venona Project in 1995, a compilation of electronic surveillance, which conclusively established that Hiss, the long-time hero of left wing activists, was a Soviet agent and guilty as charged. We now with certainty that there was extensive Communist infiltration of the Roosevelt Administration at the highest levels. I am amazed that anyone challenges that fact today.

    Has anyone here argued Hiss wasn’t a spy? The context is the justification of McCarthyism and American ideological conformism during the 50s. Sounds like you rightists want to justify McCarthyite witchhunts against the left. [There's no real left today, but when it comes, you'll be ready.]

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Considering that we live in a time when people like you send death threats to tiny, family-owned pizza restaurants in towns nobody has ever heard of, all because they say they wouldn't cater a gay wedding (even though they never catered any weddings anyway), your attempts at guilt-tripping us over supposed "witch hunts" are kind of silly.
    , @Stephen R. Diamond
    So, I see that the rightists are solidly behind McCarthyism. I'll just call you McCarthyites. You witchhunted the real left and now hypocritically whine about the pseudo-leftist monster your evisceration of the trade union movement by anticommunist witchhunts has wrought.

    Of course, you're rather have the crybabies and homos acting out than unionized communist workers. You're on the side of the ruling class.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    There’s no real left today, but when it comes, you’ll be ready.

    So, what is the spectrum then? Up and down? Center and hard left?

    Please let us know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  194. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Stephen R. Diamond
    Has anyone here argued Hiss wasn't a spy? The context is the justification of McCarthyism and American ideological conformism during the 50s. Sounds like you rightists want to justify McCarthyite witchhunts against the left. [There's no real left today, but when it comes, you'll be ready.]

    Considering that we live in a time when people like you send death threats to tiny, family-owned pizza restaurants in towns nobody has ever heard of, all because they say they wouldn’t cater a gay wedding (even though they never catered any weddings anyway), your attempts at guilt-tripping us over supposed “witch hunts” are kind of silly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    Considering that we live in a time when people like you send death threats to tiny, family-owned pizza restaurants in towns nobody has ever heard of
     
    And anonymous fools like you make blind accusations.

    If people were like me, they would oppose "gay" marriage. You're creating a false amalgam, like rightist nincompoops frequently do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    "Perhaps not, but the 30% of them that support the death penalty for apostasy make them seem somewhat less-than-benign."

    Apostasy means a Muslim abandoning and betraying his own faith.

    It has nothing to do with people who are not Muslim to begin with.

    So, it doesn't apply to most Americans and Europeans.

    Apostasy is to Muslims what being a race-traitor is to white nationalists or black nationalists or Jewish nationalists.

    Apostasy means a Muslim abandoning and betraying his own faith.

    I am aware of that.

    It has nothing to do with people who are not Muslim to begin with.

    It has a lot to do with people who decide to become non-Muslims later in life.

    So, it doesn’t apply to most Americans and Europeans.

    It shouldn’t, because they shouldn’t be living in America or Europe, but it does, because we are responsible for keeping some semblance of civilization around here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Svigor says:

    Freedom of religion is a First Amendment right.

    The biggest threat to Freedom of Religion in contemporary America is the gov’t’s ability to decide what is and is not a religion for tax purposes. What you’re talking about isn’t a threat to Americans’ Freedom of Religion at all.

    The Left ignores the former and trumpets the latter, which is about par for the course, I suppose.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  197. @Anon
    "Perhaps not, but the 30% of them that support the death penalty for apostasy make them seem somewhat less-than-benign."

    Apostasy means a Muslim abandoning and betraying his own faith.

    It has nothing to do with people who are not Muslim to begin with.

    So, it doesn't apply to most Americans and Europeans.

    Apostasy is to Muslims what being a race-traitor is to white nationalists or black nationalists or Jewish nationalists.

    Actually, I’d think support for the the death penalty against apostates correlates nicely with support for jihadism. Also, you seem to be willing to allow people into theWest who support death penalty for those who are trying to leave their community presumably to join the Western religious communities or ideologies, including atheism. Such a community which prevents its members from leaving is not and cannot ever be part of the free marketplace of ideas, it’s the antithesis of it. Such a community can only coexist with other communities if it already is in a dominant position.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Corvinus
    Anon...

    “Perhaps not, but the 30% of them that support the death penalty for apostasy make them seem somewhat less-than-benign.”

    
Source?

    And, there is no “perhaps not”.


    So, how many Indonesian Muslims currently desire to kill Americans?

    “All the terrorism, combined with the complete lack of any benefits to its host societies makes it something that people don’t desire...”

    
Again, assuming that all Muslims are potential terrorists and assuming that all Muslims do not benefit in some way, shape, or form our society. You have an interesting fetish with absolutes.

    “They, along with Buddhism, are even more alien to westerners than Islam.”

    
No, adherents to Hinduism and Buddhism are not “alien”, they’re human.

    “Because, if the French government were to bust into a bunch of Buddhist temples, they wouldn’t find any AK-47s.”


    Assuming that, indeed, that French mosques have those guns. Now, how many American mosques within the past decade have been found to store automatic weapons by law enforcement?


    “You seem to me to be the kind of person who has made it through life by making pseudointellectual arguments and passing it off as being a deep thinker. I congratulate you on your past successes at fooling people with this, but it’s not working here and now.”

    More projection. You ought to try your hand on working for a cinema.

    Reg Caesar...

    
“Nevertheless, Indonesians are by far my favorite Moslems– because they’re the ones most content to stay home.”

    Meaning they’re no observable threat to American Christians, whether or not they immigrate to the United States.

    tbraton...

    “You seem to have a much different definition of “timeless” than I do.”

    Ever since America’s inception in 1607 have immigrants come here to escape political and religious persecution.

    “Are you aware that the U.S. has only been required to grant someone “political asylum” since 1951?”



    It’s not any surprise that Congress, under their proper authority, codified what has been “timeless principles”.

    “That’s why FDR was able to turn away that shipload of Jews fleeing Germany in 1939.”

    The situation was more complex that you make it out to be. Please educate yourself.

    http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/19/9760060/refugees-history-holocaust

    Now, how about actually commenting on the merits of my rebuttal...

    Source?

    A survey I found, but can’t find now. According to Wikipedia, it’s 13%.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

    Still too many.

    So, how many Indonesian Muslims currently desire to kill Americans?

    Who knows? How many Indonesians do we need? Zero.

    Again, assuming that all Muslims are potential terrorists and assuming that all Muslims do not benefit in some way, shape, or form our society. You have an interesting fetish with absolutes.

    When you can tell me one single way we do benefit from having Muslims here, I’ll take you seriously. You’ve been at this for a week and haven’t come up with a single thing. I can tell you ways in which they have presented problems for civilized society, though.

    No, adherents to Hinduism and Buddhism are not “alien”, they’re human.

    I didn’t say the adherents. I said the religions themselves. Why did you pretend not to know that?

    Assuming that, indeed, that French mosques have those guns.

    They do.

    https://www.rt.com/news/324354-france-close-radical-mosques/

    Buddhist temples don’t have them, because Buddhism is a good religion, while Islam is a bad one. Which you know perfectly well.

    More projection. You ought to try your hand on working for a cinema.

    I’m actually quite certain. You were the one who asked if home-schooling Christians were more civilized, because they weren’t chopping people’s heads off. I pointed out that, of course, people who DON’T chop heads off are more civilized than people who DO. You didn’t have an argument, but just said something stupid about “context” and told me to “ponder” it. You must have thought this was an actual argument, which is evidence that this moronic strategy has worked for you in the past.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Svigor says:

    Considering that we live in a time when people like you send death threats to tiny, family-owned pizza restaurants in towns nobody has ever heard of, all because they say they wouldn’t cater a gay wedding (even though they never catered any weddings anyway), your attempts at guilt-tripping us over supposed “witch hunts” are kind of silly.

    I don’t think they’re silly at all. On the contrary, they’re quite illustrative of his character.

    There’s no real left today, but when it comes, you’ll be ready.

    But National Socialism was definitely on the Right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  200. @anon
    Considering that we live in a time when people like you send death threats to tiny, family-owned pizza restaurants in towns nobody has ever heard of, all because they say they wouldn't cater a gay wedding (even though they never catered any weddings anyway), your attempts at guilt-tripping us over supposed "witch hunts" are kind of silly.

    Considering that we live in a time when people like you send death threats to tiny, family-owned pizza restaurants in towns nobody has ever heard of

    And anonymous fools like you make blind accusations.

    If people were like me, they would oppose “gay” marriage. You’re creating a false amalgam, like rightist nincompoops frequently do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    If people were like me, they would oppose “gay” marriage. You’re creating a false amalgam, like rightist nincompoops frequently do.

    And if you hadn't spent the past couple of days calling everyone on the right a McCarthyite, I might care.

    The fact remains. It isn't the right that attacks people for having the wrong opinions today. They're not the ones boycotting Chick-fil-A or getting people fired for stupid jokes they make on Twitter. That would be the left. Pretending that the right is the problem is asinine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @Stephen R. Diamond
    Has anyone here argued Hiss wasn't a spy? The context is the justification of McCarthyism and American ideological conformism during the 50s. Sounds like you rightists want to justify McCarthyite witchhunts against the left. [There's no real left today, but when it comes, you'll be ready.]

    So, I see that the rightists are solidly behind McCarthyism. I’ll just call you McCarthyites. You witchhunted the real left and now hypocritically whine about the pseudo-leftist monster your evisceration of the trade union movement by anticommunist witchhunts has wrought.

    Of course, you’re rather have the crybabies and homos acting out than unionized communist workers. You’re on the side of the ruling class.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Does Stephen R. Diamond appreciate the irony of the fact that Stephen R. Diamond complains about "witchhunts" and "ideological conformity", while Stephen R. Diamond feels free to advocate Communism under Stephen R. Diamond's real name, while the rest of us use pseodonyms or remain anonymous?
    , @reiner Tor
    But McCarthyism wasn't a witchhunt. Witches don't exist. Communists and Soviet spies did exist, the two were largely interchangeable, in fact, the CPUSA was an arm of the Soviet intelligence services, communists ran a frightful totalitarian dictatorship that just had murdered several millions in the preceding decades and was intent on creating such dictatorships across the globe, and the large majority of people accused by McCarthy really were communists and/or Soviet spies.

    Moreover, it wasn't McCarthy who destroyed or weakened the trade unions in the US. If he did this, I'd disagree with it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. iffen says:

    You witchhunted the real left and now hypocritically whine about the pseudo-leftist monster your evisceration of the trade union movement by anticommunist witchhunts has wrought.

    Of course, you’re rather have the crybabies and homos acting out than unionized communist workers.

    McCarthyism destroyed the labor movement? What universe do you live in?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    McCarthyism destroyed the labor movement? What universe do you live in?

    The leftist one, in which none of their failures could ever possibly be their own fault.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Considering that we live in a time when people like you send death threats to tiny, family-owned pizza restaurants in towns nobody has ever heard of
     
    And anonymous fools like you make blind accusations.

    If people were like me, they would oppose "gay" marriage. You're creating a false amalgam, like rightist nincompoops frequently do.

    If people were like me, they would oppose “gay” marriage. You’re creating a false amalgam, like rightist nincompoops frequently do.

    And if you hadn’t spent the past couple of days calling everyone on the right a McCarthyite, I might care.

    The fact remains. It isn’t the right that attacks people for having the wrong opinions today. They’re not the ones boycotting Chick-fil-A or getting people fired for stupid jokes they make on Twitter. That would be the left. Pretending that the right is the problem is asinine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @iffen
    You witchhunted the real left and now hypocritically whine about the pseudo-leftist monster your evisceration of the trade union movement by anticommunist witchhunts has wrought.

    Of course, you’re rather have the crybabies and homos acting out than unionized communist workers.


    McCarthyism destroyed the labor movement? What universe do you live in?

    McCarthyism destroyed the labor movement? What universe do you live in?

    The leftist one, in which none of their failures could ever possibly be their own fault.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    This is not accurate. I think of my political views as being on the left, but I do try to touch ground every now and then.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. iffen says:
    @anon
    McCarthyism destroyed the labor movement? What universe do you live in?

    The leftist one, in which none of their failures could ever possibly be their own fault.

    This is not accurate. I think of my political views as being on the left, but I do try to touch ground every now and then.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Stephen R. Diamond
    So, I see that the rightists are solidly behind McCarthyism. I'll just call you McCarthyites. You witchhunted the real left and now hypocritically whine about the pseudo-leftist monster your evisceration of the trade union movement by anticommunist witchhunts has wrought.

    Of course, you're rather have the crybabies and homos acting out than unionized communist workers. You're on the side of the ruling class.

    Does Stephen R. Diamond appreciate the irony of the fact that Stephen R. Diamond complains about “witchhunts” and “ideological conformity”, while Stephen R. Diamond feels free to advocate Communism under Stephen R. Diamond’s real name, while the rest of us use pseodonyms or remain anonymous?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Corvinus says:

    Anon…

    “Who knows? How many Indonesians do we need? Zero.”

    Here is that “we” again, which you neglected to clearly define. So, are “white” Americans able to make decisions on their own regarding who or who is able enter the United States, or must they exclusively follow your advice, lest they lose their “whiteness”?

    “When you can tell me one single way we do benefit from having Muslims here, I’ll take you seriously.”

    I already gave you examples, you summarily dismissed them. You’re mind is already made up, anyways.

    “I didn’t say the adherents. I said the religions themselves.”

    There is observably no difference in this regard. You find the religions and their adherents to be “alien”. Why even deny it.

    “It isn’t the right that attacks people for having the wrong opinions today.”

    Apparently you haven’t read John Derbyshire. Or Anne Coulter. Or Steve Sailor.

    “They do.”

    Yes, three, in light of the recent attacks there. The first time such action was ever taken.
    French officials stated such measures as mosque closures on radicalization charges had “never been implemented by any government before.”

    “You were the one who asked if home-schooling Christians were more civilized.”

    You still haven’t learned the lesson. Here, I’ll help. When a radical religious parent–Islam, Jew, Christian–”teaches” their child that other religions are “false” or “demon” or “unholy”, they are indeed chopping people’s heads off. That is, little Bobby or little Sue learns how to be uncivilized. Again, you think there is an observable difference between the phyisical act and the intellectual/philosophical act?

    “…because Buddhism is a good religion, while Islam is a bad one. Which you know perfectly well.”

    You just lopped off a head. How uncivilized. Pray tell, how are you able to determine how religion is “good” or “bad”? What criteria do you employ? Please enlighten me.

    “It shouldn’t, because they shouldn’t be living in America or Europe, but it does, because we are responsible for keeping some semblance of civilization around here.”

    Define “civilization”. What standards are you using here?

    “Apostasy means a Muslim abandoning and betraying his own faith. It has nothing to do with people who are not Muslim to begin with. So, it doesn’t apply to most Americans and Europeans.”

    Apostasy also applies in other contexts; the term is just different. “Anti-white” means a “white person” abandoning and betraying his “own kind”. “Real Christians/Jews” refers a person who practices Christianity or Judaism in a manner deemed “untrue”. “Cuckservative” refers to a conservative who abandoned and betrayed its principles. In each case, subjective criteria is being used.

    Wilkey…

    ”Well, let’s start with the fact that practically no American would ever want to live in an Islamic-majority country and go from there.”

    You’re being purposely evasive. How is a person able to qualify a religion as “bad” or “dangerous” or “undesirable”.

    Furthermore, you stated an opinion. How do you propose to back it up?

    “I used historical evidence to prove that the Founding Fathers did not actually believe in the “fundamental principles” of this country in the way in which you state. Feel free to try disproving that. You can’t, because they never believed in such things.”

    That 1795 immigration law was never meant to be the “gold standard” or “universally applied”. The time period dictated the terms. In 1790, George Washington received a letter of greeting from the Jewish congregation of Newport. He responded, “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support…May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

    “Our immigration laws as practiced one way or another for 170 years run contrary to your claims.”

    Millions of “undesirables” entered our shores, from Jews to the Irish to the Italians to the Chinese to the Japanese to the Mexicans to the Middle Easterners. They have fared fairly well. Congress has the authority to set the criteria to determine who is and who is not allowed to come into America. Pretty neat thing for our Founding Fathers to do. Your ancestors invariable thanked them.

    “Those principles apply to “ourselves and our posterity” – words actually used in the Constitution.”

    Popular sovereignty enables citizens of our country to create laws and elect officials that reflect their demands and needs. Those laws include citizenship. “Ourselves and our posterity” does NOT mean “only white people”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Here is that “we” again, which you neglected to clearly define. So, are “white” Americans able to make decisions on their own regarding who or who is able enter the United States, or must they exclusively follow your advice, lest they lose their “whiteness”?

    "We" meaning the citizens of the United States. Who do not need any Indonesian Muslims. If you think we do, then what do you think we need them for?

    I already gave you examples, you summarily dismissed them. You’re mind is already made up, anyways.

    No, you never did. You just said that Muslim immigrants have roughly the same educational levels as Americans who are already here. Which isn't a benefit. A benefit would be if they were MORE highly educated. And they would have to be a LOT more educated to overcome the problems that they cause.

    So, no. After a week of pretending that there is a good reason for Muslims to be here, you have failed utterly to provide any evidence.

    There is observably no difference in this regard. You find the religions and their adherents to be “alien”. Why even deny it.

    Well, I don't deny that their religions are more alien to most westerners than Islam, because at least Islam has some of the same founders and basic ideas as Christianity, whereas Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism do not. This is a very simple and obvious point, which you chose to avoid by arguing about the adherents being "human", which I never denied. This is because you are a liberal and are therefore incapable of being intellectually honest.

    Apparently you haven’t read John Derbyshire. Or Anne Coulter. Or Steve Sailor.

    They verbally say things about people, which everyone, on all sides, does. This is not the same thing as trying to get people fired from their jobs.

    Yes, three, in light of the recent attacks there. The first time such action was ever taken.
    French officials stated such measures as mosque closures on radicalization charges had “never been implemented by any government before.”

    Right. The very first time they do it, and they find military-grade weapons. If they had come up empty, you would have something like a point. But you seem to be metaphysically incapable of ever having a point.

    Here, I’ll help. When a radical religious parent–Islam, Jew, Christian–”teaches” their child that other religions are “false” or “demon” or “unholy”, they are indeed chopping people’s heads off.

    That would be helpful if that was true, but since it isn't, it is very stupid. And what you actually said was that it was wrong to think they were uncivilized just because they DIDN'T lop people's heads off. Which means that, when you said "lopping off heads", you meant it literally, and not in the silly rhetorical fashion you are using now in a very lame attempt to walk back your incredibly stupid statement.

    Again, you think there is an observable difference between the phyisical act and the intellectual/philosophical act?

    Yes. Obviously. As you know perfectly well. The civilized home-schoolers don't actually kill anyone by calling them "demonic". Whereas the physical act does result in a person dying.

    Which you know. Why do you think it makes you look even reasonably intelligent to pretend not to realize this?

    If you wanted an example of the way you make pseudointellectual arguments that don't stand up under the slightest scrutiny, and pretending that it's because you are a deep thinker, here it is.

    You just lopped off a head.

    Sure, except I didn't. I stated my opinion, which is what civilized people do, as opposed to chopping off people's heads, which is uncivilized. You know. The way 13% of Indonesian Muslims think should be done to apostates.

    Pray tell, how are you able to determine how religion is “good” or “bad”? What criteria do you employ? Please enlighten me.

    That would take a long time to get into completely, but a good place to start would be that a bad religion is one started by an actual mass murderer, who the religion encourages its followers to use as an example in their lives.

    Of course, a bad religion could become a better religion if it STOPPED using mass murder, but since Islam hasn't, it remains bad.

    This is a waste of time. You still don't have a point, and you're becoming increasingly disingenuous.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Corvinus
    Anon...

    “Who knows? How many Indonesians do we need? Zero.”

    Here is that "we" again, which you neglected to clearly define. So, are “white” Americans able to make decisions on their own regarding who or who is able enter the United States, or must they exclusively follow your advice, lest they lose their “whiteness”?

    “When you can tell me one single way we do benefit from having Muslims here, I’ll take you seriously.”

    I already gave you examples, you summarily dismissed them. You’re mind is already made up, anyways.

    “I didn’t say the adherents. I said the religions themselves.”

    There is observably no difference in this regard. You find the religions and their adherents to be “alien”. Why even deny it.

    “It isn’t the right that attacks people for having the wrong opinions today.”

    Apparently you haven’t read John Derbyshire. Or Anne Coulter. Or Steve Sailor.

    “They do.”

    Yes, three, in light of the recent attacks there. The first time such action was ever taken.
    French officials stated such measures as mosque closures on radicalization charges had “never been implemented by any government before.”

    “You were the one who asked if home-schooling Christians were more civilized.”

    You still haven’t learned the lesson. Here, I’ll help. When a radical religious parent--Islam, Jew, Christian--”teaches” their child that other religions are “false” or “demon” or “unholy”, they are indeed chopping people’s heads off. That is, little Bobby or little Sue learns how to be uncivilized. Again, you think there is an observable difference between the phyisical act and the intellectual/philosophical act?

    “...because Buddhism is a good religion, while Islam is a bad one. Which you know perfectly well.”

    You just lopped off a head. How uncivilized. Pray tell, how are you able to determine how religion is “good” or “bad”? What criteria do you employ? Please enlighten me.

    “It shouldn’t, because they shouldn’t be living in America or Europe, but it does, because we are responsible for keeping some semblance of civilization around here.”

    Define “civilization”. What standards are you using here?

    “Apostasy means a Muslim abandoning and betraying his own faith. It has nothing to do with people who are not Muslim to begin with. So, it doesn’t apply to most Americans and Europeans.”

    Apostasy also applies in other contexts; the term is just different. “Anti-white” means a “white person” abandoning and betraying his “own kind”. “Real Christians/Jews” refers a person who practices Christianity or Judaism in a manner deemed “untrue”. “Cuckservative” refers to a conservative who abandoned and betrayed its principles. In each case, subjective criteria is being used.

    Wilkey...

    ”Well, let’s start with the fact that practically no American would ever want to live in an Islamic-majority country and go from there.”

    You’re being purposely evasive. How is a person able to qualify a religion as “bad” or “dangerous” or “undesirable”.

    Furthermore, you stated an opinion. How do you propose to back it up?

    “I used historical evidence to prove that the Founding Fathers did not actually believe in the “fundamental principles” of this country in the way in which you state. Feel free to try disproving that. You can’t, because they never believed in such things.”

    That 1795 immigration law was never meant to be the “gold standard” or “universally applied”. The time period dictated the terms. In 1790, George Washington received a letter of greeting from the Jewish congregation of Newport. He responded, “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support...May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

    “Our immigration laws as practiced one way or another for 170 years run contrary to your claims.”

    Millions of “undesirables” entered our shores, from Jews to the Irish to the Italians to the Chinese to the Japanese to the Mexicans to the Middle Easterners. They have fared fairly well. Congress has the authority to set the criteria to determine who is and who is not allowed to come into America. Pretty neat thing for our Founding Fathers to do. Your ancestors invariable thanked them.

    “Those principles apply to “ourselves and our posterity” – words actually used in the Constitution.”

    Popular sovereignty enables citizens of our country to create laws and elect officials that reflect their demands and needs. Those laws include citizenship. "Ourselves and our posterity" does NOT mean "only white people".

    Here is that “we” again, which you neglected to clearly define. So, are “white” Americans able to make decisions on their own regarding who or who is able enter the United States, or must they exclusively follow your advice, lest they lose their “whiteness”?

    “We” meaning the citizens of the United States. Who do not need any Indonesian Muslims. If you think we do, then what do you think we need them for?

    I already gave you examples, you summarily dismissed them. You’re mind is already made up, anyways.

    No, you never did. You just said that Muslim immigrants have roughly the same educational levels as Americans who are already here. Which isn’t a benefit. A benefit would be if they were MORE highly educated. And they would have to be a LOT more educated to overcome the problems that they cause.

    So, no. After a week of pretending that there is a good reason for Muslims to be here, you have failed utterly to provide any evidence.

    There is observably no difference in this regard. You find the religions and their adherents to be “alien”. Why even deny it.

    Well, I don’t deny that their religions are more alien to most westerners than Islam, because at least Islam has some of the same founders and basic ideas as Christianity, whereas Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism do not. This is a very simple and obvious point, which you chose to avoid by arguing about the adherents being “human”, which I never denied. This is because you are a liberal and are therefore incapable of being intellectually honest.

    Apparently you haven’t read John Derbyshire. Or Anne Coulter. Or Steve Sailor.

    They verbally say things about people, which everyone, on all sides, does. This is not the same thing as trying to get people fired from their jobs.

    Yes, three, in light of the recent attacks there. The first time such action was ever taken.
    French officials stated such measures as mosque closures on radicalization charges had “never been implemented by any government before.”

    Right. The very first time they do it, and they find military-grade weapons. If they had come up empty, you would have something like a point. But you seem to be metaphysically incapable of ever having a point.

    Here, I’ll help. When a radical religious parent–Islam, Jew, Christian–”teaches” their child that other religions are “false” or “demon” or “unholy”, they are indeed chopping people’s heads off.

    That would be helpful if that was true, but since it isn’t, it is very stupid. And what you actually said was that it was wrong to think they were uncivilized just because they DIDN’T lop people’s heads off. Which means that, when you said “lopping off heads”, you meant it literally, and not in the silly rhetorical fashion you are using now in a very lame attempt to walk back your incredibly stupid statement.

    Again, you think there is an observable difference between the phyisical act and the intellectual/philosophical act?

    Yes. Obviously. As you know perfectly well. The civilized home-schoolers don’t actually kill anyone by calling them “demonic”. Whereas the physical act does result in a person dying.

    Which you know. Why do you think it makes you look even reasonably intelligent to pretend not to realize this?

    If you wanted an example of the way you make pseudointellectual arguments that don’t stand up under the slightest scrutiny, and pretending that it’s because you are a deep thinker, here it is.

    You just lopped off a head.

    Sure, except I didn’t. I stated my opinion, which is what civilized people do, as opposed to chopping off people’s heads, which is uncivilized. You know. The way 13% of Indonesian Muslims think should be done to apostates.

    Pray tell, how are you able to determine how religion is “good” or “bad”? What criteria do you employ? Please enlighten me.

    That would take a long time to get into completely, but a good place to start would be that a bad religion is one started by an actual mass murderer, who the religion encourages its followers to use as an example in their lives.

    Of course, a bad religion could become a better religion if it STOPPED using mass murder, but since Islam hasn’t, it remains bad.

    This is a waste of time. You still don’t have a point, and you’re becoming increasingly disingenuous.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. @Stephen R. Diamond
    So, I see that the rightists are solidly behind McCarthyism. I'll just call you McCarthyites. You witchhunted the real left and now hypocritically whine about the pseudo-leftist monster your evisceration of the trade union movement by anticommunist witchhunts has wrought.

    Of course, you're rather have the crybabies and homos acting out than unionized communist workers. You're on the side of the ruling class.

    But McCarthyism wasn’t a witchhunt. Witches don’t exist. Communists and Soviet spies did exist, the two were largely interchangeable, in fact, the CPUSA was an arm of the Soviet intelligence services, communists ran a frightful totalitarian dictatorship that just had murdered several millions in the preceding decades and was intent on creating such dictatorships across the globe, and the large majority of people accused by McCarthy really were communists and/or Soviet spies.

    Moreover, it wasn’t McCarthy who destroyed or weakened the trade unions in the US. If he did this, I’d disagree with it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. Corvinus says:

    “and the large majority of people accused by McCarthy really were communists and/or Soviet spies.”

    It’s not a lie, unless you believe it to be.

    Anon…

    ““We” meaning the citizens of the United States. Who do not need any Indonesian Muslims. If you think we do, then what do you think we need them for?”

    And we, American citizens have the liberty to decide who and who does not enter our shores, considering we are a land of migrants. I suggest you run for office and tout your plan. You will have your supporters, as well as detractors.


    “No, you never did. You just said that Muslim immigrants have roughly the same educational levels as Americans who are already here. Which isn’t a benefit.”

    Benefit —> To receive an advantage; profit; gain. It is what Muslims do with their schooling that enable them to positively contribute to the United States.

    “After a week of pretending that there is a good reason for Muslims to be here, you have failed utterly to provide any evidence.”

    Again, you dismissed the evidence entirely. That’s really on you.

    http://www.chicagonow.com/midwestern-muslim/2014/01/muslims-dont-contribute-to-america-think-again/

    “And they would have to be a LOT more educated to overcome the problems that they cause.”

    I am certain you have several, particular examples in which Muslims, since their arrival to the United States, has engaged in significant, perpetual actions that cause a host of problems. Looking forward to it.

    “This is because you are a liberal and are therefore incapable of being intellectually honest.”

    Sorry, not a liberal nor a conservative. Just a person who tries to look at each side of an argument and crafts a position accordingly.

    “Right. The very first time they do it, and they find military-grade weapons.”
    
Is it not their liberty to possess such firepower?

    “That would be helpful if that was true, but since it isn’t, it is very stupid.”

    [Sigh] Lopping someone’s head off is metaphorical in the context I provided; that is, someone being brainwashed into thinking that a particular religion is “good” or “bad”? Again, how do YOU make this determination? What criteria do you employ? Please enlighten me.

    “The civilized home-schoolers don’t actually kill anyone by calling them “demonic”.

    They murder one’s mind and soul by claiming a religion other than their own is “demonic”. Do you even pay attention?

    “That would take a long time to get into completely, but a good place to start would be that a bad religion is one started by an actual mass murderer.”

    How do rectify the fact that Christianity and Judaism in particular had their faith spread through violent means? Pro tip –> Moralizing which religion is “better” or “worse” based on the work of religious scholars who oppose that religion for a host of reasons is an exercise in futility.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  211. anon says: • Disclaimer

    
Is it not their liberty to possess such firepower?

    Not in France, it isn’t. And this is just you dodging the issue. The way you ALWAYS dodge issues. Buddhists don’t have that kind of firepower because Buddhism is a good religion. They are not terrorists, like Muslims are.

    The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that this is a problem is why it is pointless to talk to you. You are a liberal, and therefore cannot be intellectually honest.

    To wit:

    Lopping someone’s head off is metaphorical in the context I provided; that is, someone being brainwashed into thinking that a particular religion is “good” or “bad”?

    But what you actually SAID was:

    Again, you think there is an observable difference between the phyisical act and the intellectual/philosophical act?

    Let’s test what you said, shall we?

    I hereby declare that all Muslims are demonic.

    There. According to you, there is no “observable difference” between what I did, and actually lopping the heads off of Muslims.

    So, after having said that, the heads of all Muslims should have leapt from their necks, meaning that there are no living Muslims anywhere in the world.

    Now. Is that the case? Or is there, in fact, an “observable difference” between calling someone demonic and lopping off someone’s head?

    If you admit that you were simply wrong, and that you said something stupid, you will be worth talking to again. If not, you will not.

    Because you CANNOT deal with this subject in a straightforward manner. All you do is say stupid things, and try to squirm out of them, and avoid obvious points that you don’t want to acknowledge. It’s stupid.

    For example:

    Pro tip –> Moralizing which religion is “better” or “worse” based on the work of religious scholars who oppose that religion for a host of reasons is an exercise in futility.

    Which, of course, is not what I said. I said that Muhammad himself was a mass murdered (which no one denies), and that Islam tells people to look at him as an example (which, again, no one denies). I didn’t say anything ABOUT religious scholars. You put words in my mouth, and then used the cutesy little “Pro tip” thing, as though you are, somehow an expert on making arguments, which you are obviously not. All you are is a liberal. Somehow, unfortunately, you have been surrounded by people who think that making completely fatuous arguments makes you look smarter than the people who shoot down those arguments. It is too bad for you that this does not work here, but it doesn’t.

    So. I think I’m done.

    One last thing, though:

    And we, American citizens have the liberty to decide who and who does not enter our shores, considering we are a land of migrants.

    Yep!

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/december_2015/voters_like_trump_s_proposed_muslim_ban

    “Among all voters, 46% favor a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States, while 40% are opposed. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    “Buddhists don’t have that kind of firepower because Buddhism is a good religion. They are not terrorists, like Muslims are.”

    You are not offering any substantive criteria when judging religion. You merely state “it’s bad” and blindly state all Muslims = terrorists. All you have is an uninformed opinion.

    “You are a liberal, and therefore cannot be intellectually honest.”

    It’s not surprising you are resorting back your old tricks again. One more time, I am not a conservative nor a liberal. I can think for myself on matters.


    “Lopping someone’s head off is metaphorical in the context I provided; that is, someone being brainwashed into thinking that a particular religion is “good” or “bad”? But what you actually SAID was: Again, you think there is an observable difference between the phyisical act and the intellectual/philosophical act?”

These are two separate statements and two separate points made.

    When you lop someone’s head off, that’s the end of the physicality. Nothing more needs to be done.

    When someone is brainwashed, that person perpetuates the lies they were taught. This intellectual dishonesty is observably different than than the one physical act since it spreads, which invariable leads to some people engaging in uncivilized behavior. Inherently more powerfully dangerous collectively than the singular act of lopping someone's head off.

    “I hereby declare that all Muslims are demonic. There. According to you, there is no “observable difference” between what I did, and actually lopping the heads off of Muslims.”



    When you teach someone this utter lie, it becomes embedded into a person’s mindset. Their actions perpetuate the stereotype. You are no different than the murdering Muslim. In each case, the actions resulted in significant damage; one is psychological and one is physical. Now, you can argue that the damage is a loss of a life. I get that part. However, that damage magnifies itself when uttered mindlessly and repeatedly. I understand these matters require more than your head is able to comprehend.

    “I said that Muhammad himself was a mass murdered (which no one denies)...”

You have a penchant for absolutes. Is it a nervous tick?

    “Among all voters, 46% favor a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States...”
    
Here is the actual question--”Do you favor or oppose a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the United States until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here?”

    Moreover, when thinking about immigration policy in general, 59% also feel that the United States should treat all potential immigrants equally.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. Corvinus says:
    @anon
    
Is it not their liberty to possess such firepower?

    Not in France, it isn't. And this is just you dodging the issue. The way you ALWAYS dodge issues. Buddhists don't have that kind of firepower because Buddhism is a good religion. They are not terrorists, like Muslims are.

    The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that this is a problem is why it is pointless to talk to you. You are a liberal, and therefore cannot be intellectually honest.

    To wit:

    Lopping someone’s head off is metaphorical in the context I provided; that is, someone being brainwashed into thinking that a particular religion is “good” or “bad”?

    But what you actually SAID was:

    Again, you think there is an observable difference between the phyisical act and the intellectual/philosophical act?

    Let's test what you said, shall we?

    I hereby declare that all Muslims are demonic.

    There. According to you, there is no "observable difference" between what I did, and actually lopping the heads off of Muslims.

    So, after having said that, the heads of all Muslims should have leapt from their necks, meaning that there are no living Muslims anywhere in the world.

    Now. Is that the case? Or is there, in fact, an "observable difference" between calling someone demonic and lopping off someone's head?

    If you admit that you were simply wrong, and that you said something stupid, you will be worth talking to again. If not, you will not.

    Because you CANNOT deal with this subject in a straightforward manner. All you do is say stupid things, and try to squirm out of them, and avoid obvious points that you don't want to acknowledge. It's stupid.

    For example:

    Pro tip –> Moralizing which religion is “better” or “worse” based on the work of religious scholars who oppose that religion for a host of reasons is an exercise in futility.

    Which, of course, is not what I said. I said that Muhammad himself was a mass murdered (which no one denies), and that Islam tells people to look at him as an example (which, again, no one denies). I didn't say anything ABOUT religious scholars. You put words in my mouth, and then used the cutesy little "Pro tip" thing, as though you are, somehow an expert on making arguments, which you are obviously not. All you are is a liberal. Somehow, unfortunately, you have been surrounded by people who think that making completely fatuous arguments makes you look smarter than the people who shoot down those arguments. It is too bad for you that this does not work here, but it doesn't.

    So. I think I'm done.

    One last thing, though:

    And we, American citizens have the liberty to decide who and who does not enter our shores, considering we are a land of migrants.

    Yep!

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/december_2015/voters_like_trump_s_proposed_muslim_ban

    "Among all voters, 46% favor a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States, while 40% are opposed. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided."

    “Buddhists don’t have that kind of firepower because Buddhism is a good religion. They are not terrorists, like Muslims are.”

    You are not offering any substantive criteria when judging religion. You merely state “it’s bad” and blindly state all Muslims = terrorists. All you have is an uninformed opinion.

    “You are a liberal, and therefore cannot be intellectually honest.”

    It’s not surprising you are resorting back your old tricks again. One more time, I am not a conservative nor a liberal. I can think for myself on matters.


    “Lopping someone’s head off is metaphorical in the context I provided; that is, someone being brainwashed into thinking that a particular religion is “good” or “bad”? But what you actually SAID was: Again, you think there is an observable difference between the phyisical act and the intellectual/philosophical act?”

These are two separate statements and two separate points made.

    When you lop someone’s head off, that’s the end of the physicality. Nothing more needs to be done.

    When someone is brainwashed, that person perpetuates the lies they were taught. This intellectual dishonesty is observably different than than the one physical act since it spreads, which invariable leads to some people engaging in uncivilized behavior. Inherently more powerfully dangerous collectively than the singular act of lopping someone’s head off.

    “I hereby declare that all Muslims are demonic. There. According to you, there is no “observable difference” between what I did, and actually lopping the heads off of Muslims.”



    When you teach someone this utter lie, it becomes embedded into a person’s mindset. Their actions perpetuate the stereotype. You are no different than the murdering Muslim. In each case, the actions resulted in significant damage; one is psychological and one is physical. Now, you can argue that the damage is a loss of a life. I get that part. However, that damage magnifies itself when uttered mindlessly and repeatedly. I understand these matters require more than your head is able to comprehend.

    “I said that Muhammad himself was a mass murdered (which no one denies)…”

You have a penchant for absolutes. Is it a nervous tick?

    “Among all voters, 46% favor a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States…”
    
Here is the actual question–”Do you favor or oppose a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the United States until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here?”

    Moreover, when thinking about immigration policy in general, 59% also feel that the United States should treat all potential immigrants equally.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. anon says: • Disclaimer

    When you teach someone this utter lie, it becomes embedded into a person’s mindset. Their actions perpetuate the stereotype. You are no different than the murdering Muslim. In each case, the actions resulted in significant damage; one is psychological and one is physical. Now, you can argue that the damage is a loss of a life. I get that part. However, that damage magnifies itself when uttered mindlessly and repeatedly. I understand these matters require more than your head is able to comprehend.

    Is there an observable difference between saying that Islam is a bad religion (which it is) and lopping off someone’s head? Yes or no?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    You have proved my point. You are brainwashed. It bears worth repeating. When someone is brainwashed, that person perpetuates the lies they were taught. This intellectual dishonesty is observably different than than the one physical act since it spreads, which invariable leads to some people engaging in uncivilized behavior. Inherently more powerfully dangerous collectively than the singular act of lopping someone’s head off.

    Be prepared when the same argument is used by someone who labels the religion you practice as "bad". It is a misinformed opinion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. Corvinus says:
    @anon
    When you teach someone this utter lie, it becomes embedded into a person’s mindset. Their actions perpetuate the stereotype. You are no different than the murdering Muslim. In each case, the actions resulted in significant damage; one is psychological and one is physical. Now, you can argue that the damage is a loss of a life. I get that part. However, that damage magnifies itself when uttered mindlessly and repeatedly. I understand these matters require more than your head is able to comprehend.

    Is there an observable difference between saying that Islam is a bad religion (which it is) and lopping off someone's head? Yes or no?

    You have proved my point. You are brainwashed. It bears worth repeating. When someone is brainwashed, that person perpetuates the lies they were taught. This intellectual dishonesty is observably different than than the one physical act since it spreads, which invariable leads to some people engaging in uncivilized behavior. Inherently more powerfully dangerous collectively than the singular act of lopping someone’s head off.

    Be prepared when the same argument is used by someone who labels the religion you practice as “bad”. It is a misinformed opinion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    At first I thought you were defending Islam. But now I see that you are supporting Trump by demonstrating the moral obtuseness of the defenders of Islam. That whole "saying that Islam is a bad religion" being "more powerfully dangerous" than the "singular act of lopping someone’s head off" really does it well. That kind of boundless evil will get even the least engaged to wake up.

    If you could get your posts to a wider readership it seems likely that you will be able to stop Muslim immigration.

    Of course, you should be careful because you may create a climate that ensures that the Muslim flows will not just be stopped, but reversed.

    But your subterfuge is devious, subtle and, well, scary smart.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @Corvinus
    You have proved my point. You are brainwashed. It bears worth repeating. When someone is brainwashed, that person perpetuates the lies they were taught. This intellectual dishonesty is observably different than than the one physical act since it spreads, which invariable leads to some people engaging in uncivilized behavior. Inherently more powerfully dangerous collectively than the singular act of lopping someone’s head off.

    Be prepared when the same argument is used by someone who labels the religion you practice as "bad". It is a misinformed opinion.

    At first I thought you were defending Islam. But now I see that you are supporting Trump by demonstrating the moral obtuseness of the defenders of Islam. That whole “saying that Islam is a bad religion” being “more powerfully dangerous” than the “singular act of lopping someone’s head off” really does it well. That kind of boundless evil will get even the least engaged to wake up.

    If you could get your posts to a wider readership it seems likely that you will be able to stop Muslim immigration.

    Of course, you should be careful because you may create a climate that ensures that the Muslim flows will not just be stopped, but reversed.

    But your subterfuge is devious, subtle and, well, scary smart.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. ano says:

    Be prepared when the same argument is used by someone who labels the religion you practice as “bad”. It is a misinformed opinion.

    I’m an atheist, so do you know who already DID call it bad? Muhammad, that’s who.

    He also said that everyone ELSE who didn’t recognize him as a prophet was bad.

    And all believing Muslims agree with him.

    So, by your own tortured logic (which you yourself probably don’t even really believe in, but you would rather cling to your fatuous arguments than admit that you said something moronic) Islam is even WORSE than I said it was.

    After all, according to you, saying that someone else’s beliefs are bad is even WORSE than killing them. This is incredibly stupid, of course, but if that’s what you want to go with, fine.

    So. We’ve established that ALL Muslims are indeed WORSE than terrorists. Therefore, they should not be allowed into the country.

    Case closed, and I win.

    Thank you.

    Thank you, also, for giving me a glimpse into the dark, twisted mind of a typical Democratic voter. It’s not often that they open up like you did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Anon...

    "I’m an atheist..."

    As I correctly stated, a misinformed opinion.

    "So. We’ve established that ALL Muslims are indeed WORSE than terrorists. Therefore, they should not be allowed into the country."

    Nothing of the sort has been established.

    "Case closed, and I win."

    Temper tantrums do not count as evidence.

    "Thank you, also, for giving me a glimpse into the dark, twisted mind of a typical Democratic voter."

    I hear the local theatre needs a projectionist. I would give you a solid recommendation. Do you have transportation to get there? I do suppose you can ride the train, which is fine by the way.

    Charles...

    "That whole “saying that Islam is a bad religion” being “more powerfully dangerous” than the “singular act of lopping someone’s head off” really does it well."

    You are doing a poor job of paraphrasing what I said. Here, once again, is what I stated--You have proved my point. You are brainwashed. It bears worth repeating. When someone is brainwashed, that person perpetuates the lies they were taught. This intellectual dishonesty is observably different than than the one physical act since it spreads, which invariable leads to some people engaging in uncivilized behavior. Inherently more powerfully dangerous collectively than the singular act of lopping someone’s head off.

    Hitler brainwashed the German masses by stating da Joos were, in essence, evil personified. Little German boys and girls read this book for "fun".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Giftpilz

    It didn't take long for millions of "civilized" Germans to claim that Judaism was "bad". No, not at all "more powerfully dangerous".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. Corvinus says:
    @ano
    Be prepared when the same argument is used by someone who labels the religion you practice as “bad”. It is a misinformed opinion.

    I'm an atheist, so do you know who already DID call it bad? Muhammad, that's who.

    He also said that everyone ELSE who didn't recognize him as a prophet was bad.

    And all believing Muslims agree with him.

    So, by your own tortured logic (which you yourself probably don't even really believe in, but you would rather cling to your fatuous arguments than admit that you said something moronic) Islam is even WORSE than I said it was.

    After all, according to you, saying that someone else's beliefs are bad is even WORSE than killing them. This is incredibly stupid, of course, but if that's what you want to go with, fine.

    So. We've established that ALL Muslims are indeed WORSE than terrorists. Therefore, they should not be allowed into the country.

    Case closed, and I win.

    Thank you.

    Thank you, also, for giving me a glimpse into the dark, twisted mind of a typical Democratic voter. It's not often that they open up like you did.

    Anon…

    “I’m an atheist…”

    As I correctly stated, a misinformed opinion.

    “So. We’ve established that ALL Muslims are indeed WORSE than terrorists. Therefore, they should not be allowed into the country.”

    Nothing of the sort has been established.

    “Case closed, and I win.”

    Temper tantrums do not count as evidence.

    “Thank you, also, for giving me a glimpse into the dark, twisted mind of a typical Democratic voter.”

    I hear the local theatre needs a projectionist. I would give you a solid recommendation. Do you have transportation to get there? I do suppose you can ride the train, which is fine by the way.

    Charles…

    “That whole “saying that Islam is a bad religion” being “more powerfully dangerous” than the “singular act of lopping someone’s head off” really does it well.”

    You are doing a poor job of paraphrasing what I said. Here, once again, is what I stated–You have proved my point. You are brainwashed. It bears worth repeating. When someone is brainwashed, that person perpetuates the lies they were taught. This intellectual dishonesty is observably different than than the one physical act since it spreads, which invariable leads to some people engaging in uncivilized behavior. Inherently more powerfully dangerous collectively than the singular act of lopping someone’s head off.

    Hitler brainwashed the German masses by stating da Joos were, in essence, evil personified. Little German boys and girls read this book for “fun”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Giftpilz

    It didn’t take long for millions of “civilized” Germans to claim that Judaism was “bad”. No, not at all “more powerfully dangerous”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    As I correctly stated, a misinformed opinion.

    Oh, so now YOU'RE chopping my head off too! Jeez. Is there nowhere I can go to escape from evil terrorists like you?

    Nothing of the sort has been established.

    Oh, but it has! I've read your moronic comments and been enlightened! Calling someone else's religious beliefs bad is even WORSE than chopping their heads off.

    All that I said was that Islam promotes terrorism. According to you, every single Muslim has done something far, FAR worse. Expressed a negative opinion about my religious beliefs!

    They have to go. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

    Begone now, vile head-lopper.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Corvinus
    Anon...

    "I’m an atheist..."

    As I correctly stated, a misinformed opinion.

    "So. We’ve established that ALL Muslims are indeed WORSE than terrorists. Therefore, they should not be allowed into the country."

    Nothing of the sort has been established.

    "Case closed, and I win."

    Temper tantrums do not count as evidence.

    "Thank you, also, for giving me a glimpse into the dark, twisted mind of a typical Democratic voter."

    I hear the local theatre needs a projectionist. I would give you a solid recommendation. Do you have transportation to get there? I do suppose you can ride the train, which is fine by the way.

    Charles...

    "That whole “saying that Islam is a bad religion” being “more powerfully dangerous” than the “singular act of lopping someone’s head off” really does it well."

    You are doing a poor job of paraphrasing what I said. Here, once again, is what I stated--You have proved my point. You are brainwashed. It bears worth repeating. When someone is brainwashed, that person perpetuates the lies they were taught. This intellectual dishonesty is observably different than than the one physical act since it spreads, which invariable leads to some people engaging in uncivilized behavior. Inherently more powerfully dangerous collectively than the singular act of lopping someone’s head off.

    Hitler brainwashed the German masses by stating da Joos were, in essence, evil personified. Little German boys and girls read this book for "fun".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Giftpilz

    It didn't take long for millions of "civilized" Germans to claim that Judaism was "bad". No, not at all "more powerfully dangerous".

    As I correctly stated, a misinformed opinion.

    Oh, so now YOU’RE chopping my head off too! Jeez. Is there nowhere I can go to escape from evil terrorists like you?

    Nothing of the sort has been established.

    Oh, but it has! I’ve read your moronic comments and been enlightened! Calling someone else’s religious beliefs bad is even WORSE than chopping their heads off.

    All that I said was that Islam promotes terrorism. According to you, every single Muslim has done something far, FAR worse. Expressed a negative opinion about my religious beliefs!

    They have to go. Sorry, but that’s the way it is.

    Begone now, vile head-lopper.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. […] Source: Will the Zeroth Amendment trump the First Amendment? – The Unz Review […]

    Read More
  220. […] other Sailer piece actually linked to a different Sailer piece, but that piece featured this great phrase: “the dominant ideological logic is trending […]

    Read More
  221. […] than, say, cracking your skull open with an axe. A conscious homage to Sailer’s very apt Zeroth Amendment, the zeroth rule says that demographics precedes all other social and policy […]

    Read More
  222. […] draught for quite some time. During its larval stage, the great Steve Sailer coined the term “Zeroth Ammendment.” I could never have written anything […]

    Read More
  223. […] The romanticism of Emma Lazarus’ New Colossus—“Give me your tired, your poor . . .”—has such a stranglehold on the public imagination that Steve Sailer has dubbed it the Zeroth Amendment. […]

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation