Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Democrats choose to run as allies of Islam.

    Posted by Michael Kennedy on November 22nd, 2015 (All posts by )

    Hillary

    UPDATE: More White House spin.

    It can only hope to make us so afraid that we do something stupid that either helps it or hurts us. ISIS can only succeed if, blinded by rage and terror, we achieve its goals for it. There are at least two ways that might happen — and one of them is already happening.

    Klein listed as “stupid” the refusal to accept Syrian refugees and “resurgent sentiment in America that the West is locked in a war not just with ISIS but with ‘radical Islam'”

    I think they expect an attack and are preparing their excuses.

    The Meet the Press program on November 22 seemed to set a new theme for the Democrats. First, Hillary this week declared, “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

    Then, Chuck Todd had a Muslim activist “American international human rights lawyer, Arsalan Iftikhar,” who bemoaned the Republicans “Islamophobia.”

    Arsalan has also been an adjunct professor of religious studies at DePaul University and he is also a member of the Asian American Journalists Association –

    He seems to be a professional Muslim. A few months ago, they had former basketball player Lew Alcindor, now named “Kareem Abdul Jabbar,” to make the same point about peaceful Muslims.

    Abdul-Jabbar told host Chuck Todd that terrorists “do not represent the teachings of Islam” and that this misconception makes it “impossible for real Muslims to be understood.”

    He continued by saying that he believes the majority of terrorists are a product of their environment, not their religion:

    What is their environment ? What does the Koran say ? Another essay on Islam says something quite different.

    The avoidance of analysis of Islam contrasts sharply with the excoriation accorded Christianity, Israel, and Western Civilization. The Catholic Church sex abuse crisis has received saturation coverage. Distinguished history professor Philip Jenkins, in a book published by Oxford University Press, claims that media coverage distorts the crisis and contributes to anti-Catholic bigotry. Israel’s very right to exist is questioned and, in high profile media, at times denied. Western Civilization is depicted as imperialist, racist, and Orientalist. This politically-correct selective outrage that lambastes the Judeo-Christian tradition and Western Civilization while emphasizing positive images of Muslims only serves further to inoculate Islam from critique.

    I agree. The alleged “Glory period of Islam” is mostly a myth. The “Translation Period” of Harun al Rashid was mostly done by Greeks who had “converted to Islam” in order to keep their heads.

    It was under Harun ar-Rashid that Baghdad flourished into the most splendid city of its period. Tribute was paid by many rulers to the caliph, and these funds were used on architecture, the arts and a luxurious life at court.

    In 796, Harun decided to move his court and the government to Ar Raqqah at the middle Euphrates. Here he spent 12 years, most of his reign. Only once did he return to Baghdad for a short visit. Several reasons might have influenced the decision to move to ar-Raqqa. It was close to the Byzantine border. The communication lines via the Euphrates to Baghdad and via the Balikh river to the north and via Palmyra to Damascus were excellent. The agriculture was flourishing to support the new Imperial center. And from Raqqa any rebellion in Syria and the middle Euphrates area could be controlled. Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani pictures in his anthology of poems the splendid life in his court. In ar-Raqqah the Barmekids managed the fate of the empire, and there both heirs, al-Amin and al-Ma’mun grew up.

    Ar Raqqah is of course the present capital of ISIS. I wonder why ?

    Objective realities do mark Islam as different from other religions. Among the five major world faiths, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam, Islam is unique in its doctrine of jihad, stated clearly in this hadith, attributed to Mohammed: “I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me.” This hadith is echoed by over a hundred jihad verses in the Koran, a book that is a fraction of the size of the Bible.

    Jihad is established not only in Islamic texts. It is exemplified by action. Mohammed ordered at least forty-three assassinations and participated in at least one hundred militarized expeditions. Mohammed is the “perfect example worthy of emulation.”

    Islam spread by war, warfare that began in Mohammed’s lifetime, and that has continued in the Muslim world, without significant relief, for 1,400 years. Mohammed died in 632. Muslims reached the Indian Subcontinent by 664 and Spain by 711. Islam’s expansion was stopped only at the Battle of Vienna, September 12, 1683.

    Democrats seem determined to make “Islamophobia” a major focus of their campaign. I wonder how that will work ?

    Richard Fernandez thinks the “Vietnam Syndrome” is at the center of their concerns.

    “Don’t do stupid shit” was a synonym for “I’m not going to get trapped in a Vietnam”. However Rothkopf observed that the most important Red Line in Obama’s world could be crossed the other way around. You could get into Vietnam by backing into it. The administration’s greatest weakness was failing to realize that inaction was also policy. Not doing something could also be “stupid shit” and passivity was no protection from landing ass backwards in a quagmire.

    Matthew Yglesias writing in Vox, describes the administration strategy to avoid awakening the spirits which destroyed Lyndon B. Johnson. It essentially involved telling everyone to shut up and cool their jets. After all there ain’t no ghosts and until recently there weren’t no ISIS neither, unless you counted a JV team tricked out in a Lakers uniform. No point making any Republican noises which might attract them.

    It really isn’t Republicans that are afraid of ISIS.

    the core group of real “Obama people” has a surprisingly dovish self-conception, where they see themselves operating in a world in which demands for military intervention are constant and endless— from the media, from congressional Republicans, from foreign governments and their allies in Washington, and from the permanent security bureaucracy itself — but America’s actual ability to engage in non-counterproductive interventions is quite limited. …
    Foreign conflicts are likely counterproductive on many levels — creating new generations of widows and orphans who resent the West, deepening ideological polarization between Islamists and liberals, and opening up new venues for jihad.

    Doing anything is a bad idea. The first Obama ambassador to Iraq, Christopher Hill, said to Meet the Press that”We have no interests in Iraq.” That was the Obama foreign policy. He left in 2010. Matt Yglesias puts the matter succinctly;

    If there were any ideas for countering it that the White House thought made sense, the administration would be executing them already. But an actual attack on US soil would, on an emotional level, demand that we “do something” — something that would already have been rejected as unworkable or counterproductive. A land invasion of ISIS territory in Syria and Iraq would be costly and only serve to further roil the waters of the region. Yet the idea of a president going on television in the wake of an attack and not vowing further punitive measures is inconceivable.
    In this way, the hardest problem in US counterterrorism policy is in some ways as much a speechwriting challenge as anything else. The next time something goes wrong and an attack hits the United States, how do you sell the American people on the idea of not really doing anything about it?

    Doing nothing is so much cheaper; until it isn’t.

     

    53 Responses to “Democrats choose to run as allies of Islam.”

    1. Sgt. Mom Says:

      When it comes to fashion, I can’t help thinking how nice she would look in orange.

      Prison jumpsuit orange. With matching metal bracelets.

    2. Tyouth Says:

      I may be Islamophobic but that doesn’t mean they’re not out to get me.

    3. Robert Schwartz Says:

      ISIS is not a phenomenon independent of Islam. Spengler explains Islam in a nutshell:

      “Jihad and Self-Sacrifice in Islam” By David P. Goldman February 16, 2015
      https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2015/02/16/jihad-and-self-sacrifice-in-islam/

      “There is no Grace in Islam, no miracle, no expiatory sacrifice, no expression of love for mankind such that each Muslim need not be a sacrifice. On the contrary, the concept of jihad, in which the congregation of Islam is also the army, states that every single Muslim must sacrifice himself personally. Jihad is the precise equivalent of the Lord’s Supper in Christianity and the Jewish Sabbath, the defining expression of sacrifice that opens the prospect of eternity to the mortal believer. To ask Islam to become moderate, to reform, to become a peaceful religion of personal conscience is the precise equivalent of asking Catholics to abolish Mass.”

      * * *

      “Revolt against usurpation, the revenge of the pure life of traditional society against the corrupt mores of the metropole, is the heart of Islam. … Islam summons the tribes to unite against the oppressive empires to its West, to march out together and fight until their enemies, the Dar-al-Harb, exist no more.”

      “In proud defiance of revealed religion, the destroyer of the tribes, Islam holds to the primal demand of self-sacrifice. The jihadi’s self-immolation in war, symbolized by the drawing of blood and the bleeding of nature itself, is the fundamental act of worship. The immortality of the individual, put at risk by the encroachment of the metropole upon the life of the tribe, is regained through the revolt of the endangered tribes against the usurpation of the empire that forms its motivation.”

    4. Robert Schwartz Says:

      “Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

      She could not be more wrong. Muslims are at war with all who will not submit. They do not tolerate any religion other than their own sect of their religion. They will allow Jews and Christians to live, but only if they are constantly humiliated and accept their humiliation. A world with Islam in it will never be a peaceful world.

      If they conquered the entire world and made everyone convert, they would declare any little variation in belief or practice among them to be a heresy, and launch wars to kill the heretics. The natural end state of a Muslim civilization is tribes wandering the wilderness and killing anyone they come across.

      Thomas Hobbes of Malmsbury described such a world 450 years ago:

      “In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.”

    5. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      Of course the Democrats are running as allies of Islam. Even their own sycophants cannot credibly deny it. Every attack by Muslims on the West is justified by Democrats. Every accusation against the very individual perpetrators of the attack afterwards is defended against by Democrats. And at no point will a Democrat say or do anything for the benefit of the United States or of Western Culture. And the media that is controlled by the Left buries the truth. It only MIGHT change if the attacks start taking out some of the Democrat/Leftist/Beautiful People elites along with the rank and file of the citizenry.

      They hope that they have muddied the waters enough that treason is considered normal. They may have. We shall see, in whatever form politics takes in the future.

      SGT. Mom, y’all missed the rest of ensemble; matching metal anklets, and a chain metal belt connecting to the chains of the bracelets. Not to mention the stylish black cloth bag over the head after she is seated for the final time.

      Subotai Bahadur

    6. TMLutas Says:

      Unless Madam Clinton has some sort of theological qualification I am unaware of, she is utterly unqualified to determine who is, or is not a muslim and a non muslim presidential candidate (much less a president) trying to read people out of the Islamic faith is, at best, distasteful and at worst a betrayal of the american principle of religious neutrality. My understanding is that the vast majority of muslim opinion is that ISIS is made up of muslims, but not very good muslims. That is their business but once they take that line it also makes ISIS their responsibility. They fail in that responsibility with every successful attack by ISIS. Our responsibility is to protect our own and to aid our allies among the muslims in fulfilling their responsibility by fighting ISIS. We aid them because that is what allies do.

      It is a muslim theological responsibility to resolve the conundrum of jihad, that the greater jihad is spiritual self improvement, an internal, spiritual battle. If you can’t handle that, then the alternative is the lesser jihad which is going out and conquering land for islam and killing infidels. I wish them well in resolving that conundrum and am encouraged by President Sisi’s call to address such obvious danger points but as a Catholic, my only spiritual interest in these affairs is evangelical.

      There is a muslim faction called Kharjite. One of its major distinguishing features is its excessive willingness to cast muslims out of the communion of Islam. There are two major forces globally doing this today, ISIS, and the secular western Left. This is disgusting.

    7. Robert Schwartz Says:

      Subotai: Oh come on, her crimes only deserve consecutive sentences of about 180 years.

    8. Robert Schwartz Says:

      Faisal Saeed Al Mutar on Facebook:

      “My friend Joseph from the United States wrote this on my wall after hearing my discussion with Dave Rubin and he gave me a FULL permission and copyright to share it under my name without any attribution” :

      “It must be incredibly frustrating as an Islamic terrorist not to have your views and motives taken seriously by the societies you terrorize, even after you have explicitly and repeatedly stated them.

      “Even worse, those on the regressive left, in their endless capacity for masochism and self-loathing, have attempted to shift blame inwardly on themselves, denying the terrorists even the satisfaction of claiming responsibility.

      “It’s like a bad Monty Python sketch:

      “We did this because our holy texts exhort us to to do it.”

      “No you didn’t.”

      “Wait, what? Yes we did…”

      “No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons.”

      “WHAT!? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad, a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers.”

      “No, this is definitely not a Muslim thing. You guys are not true Muslims, and you defame a great religion by saying so.”

      “Huh!? Who are you to tell us we’re not true Muslims!? Islam is literally at the core of everything we do, and we have implemented the truest most literal and honest interpretation of its founding texts. It is our very reason for being.”

      “Nope. We created you. We installed a social and economic system that alienates and disenfranchises you, and that’s why you did this. We’re sorry.”

      “What? Why are you apologizing? We just slaughtered you mercilessly in the streets. We targeted unwitting civilians – disenfranchisement doesn’t even enter into it!”

      “Listen, it’s our fault. We don’t blame you for feeling unwelcome and lashing out.”

      “Seriously, stop taking credit for this! We worked really hard to pull this off, and we’re not going to let you take it away from us.”

      “No, we nourished your extremism. We accept full blame.”

      “OMG, how many people do we have to kill around here to finally get our message across?”

    9. dearieme Says:

      “Unless Madam Clinton has some sort of theological qualification I am unaware of …” Then ask Al Gore instead; he has the distinction of having failed on two different goes at earning a Masters degree in Theology. By the standards of politics that’s qualification enough.

    10. Grurray Says:

      Why So Few Syrian Christian Refugees?

      Because they aren’t safe inside the camps with all these (supposedly) poor and oppressed refugees, and the countries that control the camps have no interest in protecting Christians. In fact, it’s just the opposite.

      I see a lot of analogies to Jesus, Mary, and Joseph fleeing to Egypt, WWII Jewish refugees being denied asylum, what would Jesus do, etc.
      That’s all missing the point. We’ve already sent billions of dollars over there to protect and house and feed Muslims and relocated more that we’ve probably should. All the while the religious test has been in full force. Only it’s Christians that are being shut out.

    11. TM Lutas Says:

      Dearieme – I’m sure that Al Gore has not stepped out of line with Democratic party orthodoxy too much but a quick search yielded no statements on ISIS one way or the other. What do you have?

    12. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      Like the Leftist politicos of Europe, the Democrats see muslims as a fast growing demographic that votes reliably Left. By importing them into the USA, as they have in Europe, they hope to sow the seeds of a permanent political power base for Democrats. It’s that simple. Power and money, for them. If they destroy the United States in the process, and they will, who cares?

    13. Ken Hoop Says:

      US policy played the chief role in causing the migration flood and European governments long since should have adopted a policy of transparent neutrality and detachment from US war aims which are little more than to buy out as many Arab-Muslim regimes as possible while helping Israel steal more land, which of course involves blunting any Israel-critical policies of the said regimes. Naturally this policy is doomed long if not medium term and the wiser Europeans have sought to free themselves from US bondage as they themselves have sought to maintain a cultural Christian dominance in their own lands. They should have also tried to construct a loyal Euro-Islam while doing so, even as Putin has amicably enabled a loyal Russian Islamic clergy.

    14. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      Shorter Ken: Obama and Hillary are just tools of the Zionists.
      Even Shorter Ken: Hello from the insane asylum…

    15. dearieme Says:

      “no statements on ISIS”: well there you are; I did suggest you “ask Al Gore instead”. If you’re really lucky he’ll blame Climate Change.

    16. Grurray Says:

      Two important events were the catalyst for the Syrian Civil War, neither having to do with Israel:

      A severe drought that forced hundreds of thousands of rural Syrians to move to urban areas which destabilized the balance of power in their oppressive, totalitarian system (caused by bad water management not global warming)

      and

      Central bank manipulation of interest rates combined with corn to ethanol conversion and speculation

      Add in apocalyptic Islamic Jihadists and you get what we have today. Speaking of which, we can thank Al Gore too.

    17. Michael Kennedy Says:

      “the Democrats see muslims as a fast growing demographic that votes reliably Left.”

      Yes and England (as opposed to “Britain” ) will be dealing with that for decades. There are entire Pakistani villages that have relocated to the midlands while English are moving south east unless they have to work in London.

    18. Michael Kennedy Says:

      “hundreds of thousands of rural Syrians to move to urban areas ”

      In addition to poor water management, the same phenomenon is going on in Egypt with the population going up by orders of magnitude.

      Israel is exporting water. Desalination which is the civilized way to cope with water requirements when you live next to an unlimited source. California should learn this but not until the Democrats crater the state.

    19. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      Somewhat related: Trump posts video of Clinton laughing over Benghazi attack
      http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-posts-video-of-clinton-laughing-over-benghazi-attack/article/2576988

    20. TM Lutas Says:

      Grurray – Chasing down your bad water management link led to some really nice information, including a mea culpa on ethanol from Al Gore in 2010 which is a nice walk back from earlier advocacy in favor.

    21. dearieme Says:

      Shorter shorter Ken: Obama and Hillary are just tools.

    22. Grurray Says:

      “Israel is exporting water”

      Meanwhile Arabs are incapable of managing their own water. Up to one third of water in Arab cities in the West Bank is wasted from leaky pipes alone. In Amman, Jordan water is only supplied to private homes once every two weeks.

      Without Israel’s so-called occupation, the southern Levant wouldn’t be very occupied at all. It was barren and sparsely inhabited before the 20th century. Mark Twain visited Israel in 1867 and said this:

      “A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds-a silent mournful expanse. A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.”

      And back then he visited the Sanjuk of Jeruslalem. There was no entity called Palestine, and the land was mostly owned by a few rich Greek, Syrian, and Egyptian families who sold it piecemeal to Jewish settlers.

    23. PenGun Says:

      dearieme:
      “Shorter shorter Ken: Obama and Hillary are just tools.”

      This is true, although you should include the Republicans as well. It’s just a tool box ;)

      . If you keep this in mind, everything makes quite a bit more sense.

    24. Mike K Says:

      “everything makes quite a bit more sense”

      I hate to think what “sense” means to you.

      Israel has really made the land bloom and, if the Palestinians had any sense at all. they would partner with the Israelis and work to make that area a paradise. The rest of the Arab world is a desert with no useful vegetation away from a few water sources, like the Nile and the Euphrates.

    25. TM Lutas Says:

      Mike K – To make the land bloom does not require Israeli partnership. It requires a strong work ethic and good business sense. If you desalinate water and grow crops at a profit, you can make the desert bloom. If you desalinate water and grow crops at a loss, your ability to do so is limited by the excess money thrown off by some other profitable enterprise, like drilling for oil. The arabs are fine on business sense. It is the work ethic that seems to be trouble there. They can grow at a profit when the water’s at $100 an acre foot which you can get from river water but can’t seem to do it at the desalination cost of $1000 an acre foot which is a much harder task.

      There are plenty of people besides the Israelis who can bring in the appropriate technology but finding crops that are profitable when water’s that expensive takes a lot of sweat equity because there’s not a lot of margin left when water’s that expensive no matter what it is being used for. You can’t afford to hire everything out to others to do.

    26. Mike K Says:

      “You can’t afford to hire everything out to others to do.”

      Especially if they work for the UN or another NGO.

      The Palestinians have a unique situation. They live near a people who possess high intelligence and the drive to succeed that few people share.

      The Germans, and Europe as a whole, are experiencing the loss of the Jews, as described by James Bennett in an essay I can’t find at the moment. He suggests that Europe’s current stagnation is a result of the expulsion of the Jews after the Holocaust made living in Germany impossible. They are stagnant as a result and the Palestinians have a unique opportunity but they will not take it. Some of it is Muslim mythology but some of it is NGO anti-Semitism left over from Europe. A golden opportunity was lost in 2000 and, as has been aid about the Palestinians manumits, “They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

      Israel will eventually have to expel them from the West Bank by force. They are the Indians who impeded the progress of the Union Pacific Railroad. William T Sherman was up to the test.

    27. Tyouth Says:

      I recall that the movie “Lawrence of Arabia” depicts (in a number of the final scenes) Lawrence and Arab leaders attempting to repair and maintain the ciy they’ve taken from the Turks in WWI. The cultural failure of the Arabs to work together and to look beyond “today” results in infrastructure failure, specifically with regards to the water system.

      An extraordinary movie. It’s on Netflix at the moment and, having seen it twenty some years ago, will have to watch again.

    28. Jim Says:

      To Mike K. – In comparing Israeli Jews with pre-Holocaust German Jews one should keep in mind that the latter were nearly all Ashkenazi whereas Israel has substantial populations of Oriental Jews. The average IQ of the Ashkenazi is 112 whereas it is 101 for Sephardim and 93 for Mizrahim. The average IQ of Ethiopian Jews is 71 and they show no genetic markers in common with other Jews. Ashkenazi are genetically about 60% Southern European and 40% Middle Eastern.

      I would be cautious about long-term extrapolations of Israeli performance based on the performance of pre-Holocaust German Jews.

    29. TMLutas Says:

      Jim – By all means let us not rely on pre Holocaust German jew comparisons with Israel today. Using Israeli performance is obviously much better. We’ve certainly got enough data.

    30. brer rabbit Says:

      Islam is NOT a religion.

      Islam is a form of government just like Communism and Nazi-ism are forms of government. All three have sacred books written by their founders. All three have a the equivalent of a priesthood and confession. All three have believers who will swear they seek peace but are forced to fight for truth and justice. All three work best when they dominate the world, by force if needed.

      Americans should not treat Islam as though it is a religion.

    31. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      Agreed. Islam is a backward, barbaric, totalitarian ideology from the 7th century. It is incompatible with Western Civilization. It’s practice should be outlawed in the United States and every place that wants to maintain a free and advanced society.

    32. Jim Says:

      Brer Rabbit – Obviously Islam is, among other things, a religion. It is closely related to both Judaism and Christianity in their original forms, but Christianity has been greatly modified by European peoples so it is now very different from its original form.

      I’m a little puzzled by what you are referring to in regard to “confession” as a practice of Islam, Communism, and Nazism. Although one can no doubt find resemblances between any two belief systems, say Buddhism and Scientology for example, I think the supposed relationships between Islam, Communism and Nazism you talk of are very superficial. Communism and Nazism are Western belief systems.

      Michael Hiteshew – I do believe that Westerners and North Africans/Middle Easterners are incompatible. But the fundamental incompatibility is genetic. Belief systems such as Islam and Christianity are epi-phenomena.

    33. Jonathan Says:

      Islam differs from modern Christianity in being both a political ideology and a religion.

      Bernard Lewis said that what’s happened with Islam is like what might have happened with Christianity if groups such as the KKK and Aryan Nations had acquired great oil wealth and built a system of religious academies and proselytizing churches to spread their beliefs as the Wahhabis and Persian mullahs have done.

      Islam has a serious problem but not all Muslims are part of it. Most of the problems come from Muslims in a few countries. Many more Muslims would side with the West against the Islamists if we 1) made clear that we believed in ourselves and 2) consistently drew distinctions between friendly and hostile Muslims and consistently supported our friends. Regrettably our political class mostly pretends that Islam is monolithic and benign, so nobody takes what they say seriously and moderate Muslims are afraid to trust us. Americans are more inclined to wash their hands of anything Muslim than they would be if our public figures spoke the truth instead of PC lies like what comes out of Hillary’s mouth (W was guilty of this too, though I give him credit for decent intentions).

      I think American conservatives go too far in broad-brushing Islam as uniformly malign. Prohibiting religions is un-American. We should cut out the PC nonsense, control our borders (if this means being cautious about Muslim immigrants who might have Islamist sympathies, so be it), be more vigilant against local attempts to insinuate sharia into our legal system, and defeat Islamism by force wherever we need to. However, we should also welcome Muslims who want to live within our rules and should support such Muslims against the Islamists.

    34. Mike K Says:

      “I think American conservatives go too far in broad-brushing Islam as uniformly malign.”

      I am willing to learn but would want more evidence than we have seen thus far.

      If they did not go to 98% welfare on admission, it would help.

    35. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      Islam differs from modern Christianity in being both a political ideology and a religion.
      I think American conservatives go too far in broad-brushing Islam as uniformly malign. Prohibiting religions is un-American.

      I think your contradictory statements sum it up perfectly. Were they practicing a peaceful religion, no matter how weird, that would be a different manner. However, islam is not just a spiritual belief system, is a complete social/legal/belief system. It is by its own definition backward, violent, and totalitarian. Therefore, this is not about opposing someone’s religious belief at all. That’s incidental. It is about opposing the backward, violent, and totalitarian ideology that is its other manifestation. We have every right and every responsibility to delegitimize it and outlaw its practice. The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact. Islam is a poison in the bloodstream of a free society. It should be eradicated from our society.

    36. Jonathan Says:

      98% welfare on admission

      Isn’t this more an outcome of having a welfare state and unrestricted immigration simultaneously?

    37. Jonathan Says:

      It is by its own definition backward, violent, and totalitarian.

      Many Muslims are none of the above.

      It should be eradicated from our society.

      How could you do this in a way that’s consistent with the Constitution?

    38. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      Jonathan Says:
      November 26th, 2015 at 11:21 pm

      How could you do this in a way that’s consistent with the Constitution?

      Not saying this as a recommendation, but merely noting a question that must be asked.

      We live under a functional one-party regime that has made both the rule of law and the Constitution moot. That is not a good thing, but it is a factual thing. If neither the law nor the Constitution protect anyone who is not specifically protected by the power of the State on the basis of connections, what basis is there for those not so protected to be restricted by the law and the Constitution?

      One of the consequences of the destruction wrought by our political class, is the removal of the tolerance that was a consequence of the rule of law and the Constitution. If the only restriction on conduct is the threat of coercive force by the State, and not the consent of the governed; then eventually coercive force will be applied by other than the State, if only in self-defense.

      It is going to get most untidy.

    39. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      How could you do this in a way that’s consistent with the Constitution?

      I thought I answered that, but I assume I’m not being clear. Our constitution requires us to allow the free practice of religion. Islam is more than a religion in that it is an entire social and legal system. Islam is violent to those who do not adhere to it. It exhorts its followers to kill them. It exhorts its followers to lie to unbelievers. It exhorts its followers to remain quiet in a society until such time as there are sufficient numbers to overcome them and convert or kill them. What part of our constitution requires us to accept that into our society?

    40. Jonathan Says:

      We allow people to hold all kinds of beliefs, including beliefs in religions and political/social/legal systems that are hostile to our own. Do you want to prohibit Nazis or communists or Fred Phelps too? If not, why not? And how could we prohibit Islam in a way that would be consistent with the Constitution?

    41. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      This seems appropriate:
      18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy – https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

    42. Mike K Says:

      Isn’t this more an outcome of having a welfare state and unrestricted immigration simultaneously?

      Yes, exactly. Milton Friedman warned against this years ago.

      In California, Pete Wilson as Governor supported Proposition 187 which was passed by voters by 60% and immediately declared unconstitutional by a federal judge.

      The day after Proposition 187 was approved by the state’s voters, several groups filed federal lawsuits against it, including the Mexican-American Legal Defense/Education Fund (MALDEF), the League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and the ACLU.

      Three days after Proposition 187 was approved, on November 11, federal district court judge Matthew Byrne issued a temporary injunction against the state of California, forbidding the enforcement of Prop 187. Federal judge Marianna Pfaelzer then issued a permanent injunction, pending a trial. The state of California asked in 1997 for the case to be dismissed and the injunction dropped, on the grounds that federal immigration law had changed in the meantime. The federal court denied the request that the case be dismissed. The state of California never appealed that decision, so the permanent injunction stands, and the case has never proceeded to trial.

      The state did not defend the proposition and the state is now 30% illegal aliens.

      Arizona tried to enforce federal law with SB 1070 which would have enforced federal law which the Obama Administration had declined to enforce.

      U.S. federal law requires all aliens over the age of 14 who remain in the United States for longer than 30 days[5] to register with the U.S. government,[6] and to have registration documents in their possession at all times; violation of this requirement is a federal misdemeanor crime.[7] The Arizona act additionally made it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying the required documents,[8] required that state law enforcement officers attempt to determine an individual’s immigration status during a “lawful stop, detention or arrest”, when there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is an illegal immigrant.[9][10] The law barred state or local officials or agencies from restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws,

      It was immediately blocked by the Obama DoJ and then by federal judges.

      The day before the law was to take effect, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction that blocked the law’s most controversial provisions. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the case Arizona v. United States, upholding the provision requiring immigration status checks during law enforcement stops but striking down three other provisions as violations of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

      This is why I think we will have a revolution before this is all resolved.

    43. Jim Says:

      It is not Islam as such that is the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is that Westerners and North Africans/Middle Easterners are genetically incompatible.

      Ashkenazi Jews and Europeans are less incompatible than Europeans and North Africans/Middle Easterners but as the long history of anti-Semitism culminating in the Holocaust shows there is a lot of incompatibility there as well.

      Different human groups are the result of different paths of genetic-cultural coevolution. When very different groups are placed together the result is often violent conflict.

    44. Jim Says:

      Fortunately for the US Mestizos are not quite as bad a fit with whites and blacks as North Africans/Middle Easterners are with Europeans. But that’s not to say that there isn’t a lot of incompatibility there as well.

    45. Jonathan Says:

      18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy –

      -We already have laws against bad behavior.

      -Very few Muslims in the USA engage in seditious conspiracies, terrorism or other bad behaviors that are already illegal. What would be the benefits of making Islam illegal?

      -The costs of making Islam illegal are substantial. I think it would be unconstitutional to do so. Whether it is unconstitutional or not, many people would believe it unconstitutional and there would be a great deal of political controversy and litigation that would tie up action, possibly for years. Also, once you make one religion illegal it becomes easier to do the same for other religions. I think this would be a terrible precedent. Assuming for argument’s sake that you are right about the inherent evil of Islam, aren’t there already enough laws to deal with bad behavior without risking this slippery slope?

      -Prohibiting Islam kills many if not most of the incentives that law-abiding Muslims in this country have to oppose Islamists and to support and work within our system. We should be supporting such people, not lumping them with the terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.

    46. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      You see this as a political problem to be managed. I see it as a war for the survival of our civilization. We are allowing the enemy to organize and operate in our rear. We cannot present an organized opposition while our lines are in disarray. I am willing to take more drastic measures to protect our civilization than you. If we aren’t willing to undertake sensible measures to protect ourselves, many millions will die before it is all over.

      (And yes, I would add in Nazis and communists. I consider both those ideologies seditious. And we shouldn’t apologize for protecting our society from them.)

    47. Mike K Says:

      “law-abiding Muslims in this country have to oppose Islamists and to support and work within our system. ”

      I wish there was more evidence of good will. One thing I WOULD advocate is banning foreign contributions to religious organizations. I don’t know how it could be done but the Saudis have radicalized all the mosques that I am aware of.

    48. Jim Says:

      To Jonathan – To begin with we could simply cease to allow immigration of Moslems. We could also deport any non-citizen Moslems. Fortunately in the US we do not as yet have the magnitude of the problem that France has.

    49. Tyouth Says:

      Jonathon said, “Bernard Lewis said that what’s happened with Islam is like what might have happened with Christianity if groups such as the KKK and Aryan Nations had acquired great oil wealth and built a system of religious academies and proselytizing churches to spread their beliefs as the Wahhabis and Persian mullahs have done.”

      Poppycock. The religion is called Christianity – what Christ taught. It’s strongest precepts and ideas are based predominately on the life of a man who believed in treating all men as brothers, turning the other cheek, acting humanely, etc. Conversely the guidebook for Islam (a book much slimmer than the bible) counsels jihad a hundred times; it suggests, not that every man is your brother, but rather, quite the opposite.

    50. Jim Says:

      To Tyouth – In a conflict between Christianity and Islam as you describe them, Islam is highly favored to win. Historically Christianity survived in the West in part because it discarded in practice “turning the other cheek”, etc. Its survival was also due to the fact that until quite recently in history the West had a strong numerical advantage vs. Islam.

    51. Mike K Says:

      “Islam is highly favored to win.”

      Islam doesn’t work as a political system. Since the Turks took over from the Arabs a thousand years ago, they have required others, usually Greek Christians, to run their political and financial institutions. The Arabs knew nothing but pillage and raiding. After a while, the Turks took Christian Serbian boys as slaves and made them soldiers called “Janissaries” but the Janissaries took over as rulers eventually.

      If the West were so incompetent as to lose this coming war, there would be no Muslim caliphate but only chaos and life would become “nasty, brutish and short.”

      Before that could happen, those ignorant white men hated by the left would take over and build a new society. They’ve done it before.

    52. brer Says:

      Soviet/Chinese Communism and German NAZIism are forms of socialism where Socialist economic principles create a totalitarian government. Arab Islam is a totalitarian government married to socialist economics.

      All three systems demand that guilty people confess their crimes against the state before they are punished. Also they require their subjects to regularly examine their consciences and confess in regular meetings counter-revolutionary thoughts.

      Through out history, primitive tribes assign tasks to tribe members according to the rule “from each according to his/her ability, to each acording to his/her need”. This is a rule that gives birth to the 7 cardinal sins. This rule prevents technological development except for war making.

    53. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      >>Also they require their subjects to regularly examine their consciences and confess in regular meetings counter-revolutionary thoughts.

      You see this happening on campuses now. I expect the metric for what constitutes hate speech or microagression is whether it constitutes counter-revolutionary thoughts or alienates a need ally like blacks or moslems. It’s not about hate as you or I or any normal person would define it, that’s for sure.