https://x.com/lporiginalg/status/1875255851704852652?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
This is not wrong at all.
https://x.com/realmaalouf/status/1875602593206170018?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/realmaalouf/status/1875293513442865298?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Using the Twitter link because I can't pull the video out. But hey, y'all who make apologies for Muslims are silently letting crap like this go uncriticized.
https://x.com/radiogenoa/status/1875240261921755201?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
While I do not believe that immigration by Muslims as a whole should be banned, public statements like this absolutely should be grounds for deportation or a bar to immigrate. This is clearly a call for the overthrow of the government.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-40731035
Yup, this is the Sharia that so many Muslims want to impose on others.
https://x.com/bgatesisapyscho/status/1874969448442114259?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Words fail me.
Now, many on the left will simply brush this off as "extremist" language and assert that this does not represent Islam as a whole. Yet these extremists have millions of followers, and are in the process of increasing the number of rapes in Europe massively. Yet, the leftist/PC folx have made it a cancleable offense to even mention these things. These animals should be caught and executed, they don't deserve to get deported back to where they came from because they'll be heroes.
At this point, how can anyone argue that the left wing in Europe doesn't bear a large degree of culpability for every single rape committed by immigrants in general and Muslim immigrants specifically.
As for leftists in the US, who are busy marching in solidarity with Hamas (also rapists), your silence on this issue is telling. Your refusal to acknowledge that the US and Canada are headed down this path if we don't change things simply increases your culpability if/when we see this sort of thing.
10 comments:
I totally believe a total ban on immigration by muslims...particularly from middle eastern countries...is absolutely appropriate and necessary. So does the son of a Hamas founder (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJjyJFzkb7I). It is NOT appropriate to treat muslims as if they're in any way similar to us. They are not. Not at all. Why put our own people at risk just so we can pretend we're not judging books by their covers? That's absurd given how these books read. They are undeserving of such consideration based on 1400 years of history. The people of Europe know this well now. I think the people of Dearborn, MI do as well.
And keep in mind, I've known muslims most of my life. I know some good people will be denied entry. A legitimate immigration system (not what was turned to crap by Biden and the leftists) can possibly separate what little wheat exists among that most evil chaff. But it must be stupidly strict as regards this particular demographic because it's appropriate, logic and necessary.
I know you, and Glenn, do. Yet I believe that there are constitutional issues with basing a ban on followers one one specific religion. I have no problem preventing the immigration or deportation of specific individuals for advocating for the overthrow of the government, among other things.
I get that it's easier to ban Muslims, instead of individually vetting people, I think that it opens a door that should remain closed.
What happens, for example, in AOC's second term when she and her cronies decide to ban Christian immigration? I think that history shows that these sorts of easy answers open the door for consequences (the battle over the filibuster) that end up harming those who proposed them.
FWIW, "judging books by their covers" is exactly what I'm proposing. I'm proposing that we judge individuals by their individual actions. Unlike Dan, who regularly judges you for things that others have done, I believe that we don't judge everyone in a "group" based on the actions of others in that group.
I'd argue that the problems in both Europe and Dearborn are the result of failing to prosecute, deport, and properly vet immigrants as much as anything.
For example, would we be having this discussion about rape rings if the UK hadn't chosen not to prosecute and jail or deport these subhuman vermin? Seems like simply enforcing the existing laws would have gone a long way towards avoiding the current situation.
I agree that we need to get back to a legitimate immigration system, that properly vets individuals based on their actions and that prejudging people based on their religion would lead towards a different kind of illegitimate system.
Having said that, and noting that the disagreement is not huge, let's not have this conversation again.
It would be easy to "not have this conversation again", and the consequences would remain ready to harm yet again. This isn't truly religious discrimination, and I don't believe our Constitution denies prohibiting entry to any group known for the types of vile behavior so common to muslims. It's more a cultural distinction and their just doesn't mesh with ours, and we're under no obligation to allow them entry. It may come to pass that our immigration system is once again operated as it was intended to operate, and we can weed out the good ones from the bad (who are far greater in number than the good you don't want to put out).
It may also come to pass that our government denies any group like muslims to set up their neighborhoods under their own laws. They are not American Indians and are not so entitled.
And it may also come to pass that Christians become known for the vile practices common to muslims which would rationalize treating foreign Christians in the same manner (highly doubtful). There is no parallel by which one can just play "what if?" regarding Christians or any other religious group. muslims are unique to such a degree that unique treatment toward them is more than righteously justified if we're to show we truly care for our own. It's not our fault their own culture breeds such vile behaviors. It's theirs. They should bear the consequences for it. We're not obliged to take chances.
So even if we finally return to logic in immigration, we'd still be dealing with a unique people which puts their "religion" as a first mark against allowing them in. "But we don't do it to anyone else!" you might say. No one else is at all like islam. And should we decide we can take a chance on Ahmed, his behavior should deservedly be more scrutinized and monitored.
It would be pointless to have this conversation again. When the best you have is what you "believe" to be the case, and when I've been clear that I'm offering my beliefs as well.
Again, we seem to agree that the ultimate goal should be to "weed out the bad" individuals, and allow the "good" to enter.
The reality is that if such a policy was enacted, it would immediately be challenged in court and result in an injunction, and a lengthy court battle with an indeterminate outcome. Why not work for our shared goal of improving the system to more effectively vet individuals instead of engaging in a years long court battle?
I agree that no religious or ethnic group has the right or freedom to set up a neighborhood under an alternate legal system. If that happens, it should be dealt with appropriately, up to and including incarceration or deportation as necessary. But, again, that is an instance of dealing with individuals banding together to take specific action that is not legal, not imputing the innocent with the actions of the guilty.
Like it or not, our culture in increasingly hostile to Christians and to suggest that this "Muslim ban" would never be used against any other religious group is shortsighted.
You're right. "Ahmed" and his individual behavior should be investigated and taken into account. Yet, that doesn't mean that we automatically impute the actions of "Ahmed" to Muhammad and presume Muhammad guilty due to the actions of "Ahmed".
Let it be challenged. Let those who challenge is explain their disregard for the lives of our own. Let them assert their preference for posturing for the world as of greater value than preventing the harm which comes with taking this unnecessary risk.
I'm not at all suggesting improving our system should take a back seat. That's inane. I'm pretty sure we can do multiple things at the same time. In the meantime, where in the Constitution are we as a people or government required to allow ANYONE into the country? The muslim world constitutes a real and clear threat.
You want to make this a religious discrimination thing. It doesn't matter how stupidly the progressive left regards Christians. It ain't about muslim v Christians. It's about muslims v non-muslims...muslim culture v every other culture. Thus, to cite a muslim ban as an excuse to legitimize banning anyone else would require explaining a parallel between a 7th century barbaric culture of death and, say, Christianity, or Judaism or any other religion.
"Let it be challenged. Let those who challenge is explain their disregard for the lives of our own."
Great. Let's waste 5-10 years of bullshit legal wrangling, all the while with no actual changes, in the hopes that you can prove a point. Because we're guaranteed that SCOTUS will rule the way you think they should when it finally gets there.
Look, if you want to advocate for religious discrimination in violation of current US constitutional law, go ahead. It's no skin off my nose, but what you "cannot see" or what you "believe" aren't convincing arguments. That you "cannot see" any other option does not mean that no other option exists. That you "believe" this to be the best option, does not mean that it is.
Look, if you want to waste time, resources, and effort in a long drawn out legal fight to engage in religious discrimination, cool. Have at it.
The problem you seem to have is that you "believe" that your religious discrimination is rational and reasonable but that those who might like to apply your rules to Christians are not. It's two sides of the same coin. If/when your hypothetical "Muslim ban" law ever got used against you, you'd be screaming oppression and ignore the irony.
But, thanks for demonstrating the fruitlessness of arguing this again.
You assume legal wrangling. There wasn't all that much when Trump implemented a return to Obama's "muslim ban". What makes you think there will be if we do it again? And please, tell me where the Constitution demands our government is obliged to allow anyone in.
Also, again, this isn't a religious issue. It's a cultural issue, driven by an ideology too many regard as a religion, when those same people do not think their so-called religion can ever be subordinate to our laws. That means there will always be the "threat" of a "religious discrimination" battle in the courts, but as we know, that's part of their plan, too, so who cares.
Again with the BS "what you cannot see" or what I "believe" bullshit. Are you saying you don't believe that culture is totally anathema to ours? That is somehow can mesh perfectly as if no different than ours? Are you that absurd? I don't think so.
What makes this discussion fruitless is your insistence on treating an uniquely different culture as no different than any other, with no more or less potential for dangers and disruptions. You ASSERT constitutional issues without citing that part of the Constitution which applies in the manner you think it does.
This is NOT a "religious discrimination" issue. It's an issue of a barbaric people who wish to make the world (and our nation) like them and their "religion" doesn't enter into it except to understand their barbarism. There's no irony except that which harkens to another who likes to lump Christianity with islam in order to make a point.
Of course I assume legal challenges, that's how the left works with policies they don't like.
I've never said that the constitution demands we let everyone in. I've said that discriminating against people based on religion is constitutionally questionable, and that US law is that constitutional protections are not limited to citizens.
Unfortunately, it is a religious issue. The fact that this particular religion also has governmental aspirations makes it more difficult, but doesn't change the reality that Islam is a religion by any responsible definition.
When all you offer as your basis for advocating a significant and constitutionally questionable policy, is what you "believe" and what you "cannot see", it's possible that others won't find those to be convincing arguments. As in this case, when I believe that the same result can be accomplished by simply enforcing existing laws. Literally everything Muslim immigrants are doing that prompts these sorts of responses is already illegal. Enforce those laws, fix the border, then we can talk about next steps.
No, I'm saying that judging individuals based on your perception of their group is a problem for me. I'm saying that we deal with individual people based on their individual actions, not impute others actions to them. I'm saying that individuals can and do assimilate successfully, and the perfection (as you often remind me) is an unreasonable standard to expect. No, I'm simply advocating a different approach, surely you aren't so arrogant as to think that your simplistic, constitutionally questionable, discriminatory approach is the only possible option, can you?
What makes this discussion so fruitless is your inability to accept that your position isn't the only acceptable or effective solution for the problem. What makes this discussion so fruitless is your refusal to accept that I'm not persuaded by what you "believe". What makes this discussion fruitless is that you've resorted to making shit up and attributing it to me, with no evidence that I actually believe what you claim I do. I've written about the specifics of my constitutional concerns (note, that I'm not and never have claimed that these are anything more than concerns and that a reasonable explanation could ally those concerns) that I don't do so every time seems a silly complaint. Especially as you've never offered any specific reason why this ban based on a religion would be constitutional.
You keep repeating this as if doing so makes it True. Whatever barbarism exists in the Islamic world is justified and supported from The Quran, which is their religious text. These teachings are promulgated by their religious leaders in their places of worship.
But keep beating the horse if you want.
I say it's no religious discrimination because Islam is a religious belief alongside a political belief and practice. Their political stance violate our Constitution and laws and they should be banned on that fact alone.
Glenn, by all means choose to believe that. I have no desire to stop you, even though I disagree with you.
I find it interesting that you deny that it's "religious discrimination", while the first term you use to identify Islam is "religious belief". Their "political belief and practice" is 100% based on their "religious belief". Without their "religious belief" Islam would not exist.
I refer back to my grandfathers immigration documents from the early 1800's, in which he was required to renounce his prior political allegiance and swear that he was not a part of a group dedicated to the overthrow of the US government. I fail to see how a throughout vetting process (assuming a secure border) would not be able to screen out those who would be problematic.
What other demographic groups that hold views that "violate our constitution" are you advocating to expel?
Where in the constitution are offensive "views", thoughts, and speech not protected?
Where in US Penal/Legal/Civil code are "views", thoughts, and speech banned or worthy of expulsion?
I'll repeat myself. If y'all want to keep beating this dead horse, that's fine. I might play, I might not. But knock yourselves out.
Post a Comment