https://americandreaming.substack.com/p/has-anyone-been-more-vindicated-than?r=28q7xt&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer
This is pretty long, so I didn't copy/paste it, but it does explain so much about how folx like Dan treat Islam.
I do disagree with the premise that there is a significant difference between Islam and Islamism because Islam is intended to be a conquering, all encompassing, political/social/cultural/religious governing system which even moderate Muslims support.
10 comments:
Dan,
It's amazing that you think that your comments are going to get out of moderation without you doing what I've asked you to do.
Strangely enough, you mention Art, Glenn, Stan, and I so often in your posts it almost like you're obsessed or something. But when you provide such a good example of how your tribe acts, it's hard not to take advantage of the example.
Too bad you're too stupid, obtuse, or arrogant to do what is needed to get your comments published.
Don't have time to read the whole piece, but I got this far and wanted to make a distinction:
"If liberals became unwilling to distinguish between defending Muslims from prejudice and defending Islamic doctrines from criticism, voters frightened by Islamist extremism would eventually look elsewhere. And waiting for them would be political actors perfectly willing not only to discuss the problem, but also to blame Muslims collectively, restrict immigration on religious grounds, abandon civil liberties, and exploit fear in pursuit of their own illiberal politics."
I think it's probably safe to say that Dan already puts me in this group. But it's not my position that anyone should be regarded as guilty simply by that one's association with dangerous group. My position is that the tenets of the "faith" doesn't give us that option. We know mosquitoes exist on the blood of others. If one lands on my arm and hasn't gotten to work, am I wise to wait until it starts feeding on my arm, or is it wisdom to know the probability for that is extremely high?
The history of islam suggests it isn't wise to wait to see if any given muslim will be the next one to blow himself up in a restaurant or school, or to rape our daughters or to team up with others to swarm through a village raping and pillaging ala Oct 7. And given their teachings, we can't even be assured that one who has claimed to have disavowed and renounced islam isn't straight up lying. While so many aren't rising up to put down their own at the risk of their lives in order to prove a desire to live in peace with us, I don't see how our government is wrong to deny them any association whatsoever.
Excellent article, but his use of the term "Islamism" seems to apply to just the Muslims who are actually causing harm at a particular time when the term should just be ISLAM! I really can't get my head wrapped around a culture or country which allows Islam to invade by slowing taking over the politics and culture of said countries.
I'm torn at this point, because I see the real world consequences of unfettered Muslim immigration in places like the UK and France, and obviously want to prevent that from happening here. Yet I also have problems excluding every single person who is a "member" of a particular religion/worldview. The problem I think that we have is that Islam is inherently expansionist and that even "moderate" Muslims would prefer that the US be ruled under Sharia, which is completely antithetical to US law and the US constitution.
It seems as though there is a tipping point where Muslims start to take over, in terms of percentage of the population. Could the solution be that Muslims would be limited to X% of the US population? We absolutely need a zero tolerance policy for any immigrant who engages in the kinds of fraud we've seen recently. Defraud the US taxpayers, and you are immediately deported. Likewise, When 80% of any given population is on some form or welfare after X number of years, then need to be gone. We hear of Muslim men leaving one wife and children to marry another, yet the first family is supported by the taxpayer and they remain married. It's taxpayer funded polygamy, and it's welfare fraud.
I do agree that one big part of the problem is that the "moderate" Muslims and their ASPL shills are not doing enough to deal with those within their group who cause problems.
In short, they need to assimilate and adopt US law and their own.
Again, I also am not partial to the notion of excluding everyone as if guilty by association. But I think it's obvious that this is a most unique situation which carries deadly consequences if the wrong choice is made. As a government duty bound to protect its citizens, it incumbent upon it to put the safety of its people above all others and taking chances with a group with the history of islam is to put its people at great risk. One need only look at Dearborn, Michigan to see that the worst is already in play. They're not Americans. They're muslims who have taken over an American city. And rather than assimilate, they've exploited our principles to their advantage and one has to be complete moron to suppose it will remain isolated to Dearborn alone.
So I insist we must have a true zero tolerance policy, and I don't care if anyone wants to pretend it's contrary to the 1st Amendment, for I don't believe anyone can suppose the founders considered something like islam to be an actual religion, regardless of their ritualistic practices. Any religion which promotes the notion that the religion should supplant a nation's culture, principles and form of government is not a religion which has any place here, even if one wishes to pretend it's an actual religion.
The task is to determine specifically what constitutes a religion. We made that more difficult when we gave The "Church" of Scientology" religious protections simply because they called themselves a "church". They're not a religion, either, and far more a cult. Indeed, any cult can be said to be a religion and how do we deny one if we allowed another?
Islam far more resembles the worst kind of cult and again, due to its tenets, it makes tolerating the presence of any single muslim a welcome to potential danger. I have no doubt there are muslims who wish to live in peace with all others who aren't muslims. I just don't know how we determine which of those who claim to be among them are sincere in their profession of peace and brotherhood. Such a profession has long been a tactic of the islamic goal of conquest.
In this country, we live by a principle of "innocent until proven guilty". This too is exploited by them. While true Christians who understand the reality of man's sin nature also abide that principle, we nonetheless don't ignore criminal histories of repeat offenders. Not if we care about our loved ones. Yet, we're expected by fools to ignore the 1400 year history of these people, as well as the many examples in current times of their bad behaviors and expect that, maybe this time, this particular muslim is one of the "good" ones. That's rather suicidal in my opinion and I don't see any argument for allowing it which is any more than wishful thinking.
Whatever the policy end up being, it's likely to be temporary. Personally, I think going back to the two questions that my grandfather had to answer (Are you a polygamist or member of a sect that promotes polygamy? Are you a member of a group that advocates the overthrow of the US?) would automatically exclude all Muslims.
I agree that the term is problematic at this point. The majority of Muslims support Sharia and Jihad, which makes them "Islamists" or Islamist sympathizers, so it's a distinction without a difference IMO.
Such questions should be a minimum for entry.
Coincidentally, I just read this:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/10/is-self-defense-against-islamists-wrong/
They'd certainly screen out Muslims.
We've got Muslims working on turning the metro into a free fire zone.
Post a Comment