Senator Jeff Flake: The Most Balanced View I've Seen On Trump's Executive Order (Blocking Entry To U.S. From Seven Muslim Countries)
I love this country for being a nation of immigrants and for taking in people from around the world and giving them refuge. Many of the people who've done great things in this country -- in fact, probably most of them who have -- are children of immigrants.
However, never before have we had a group of people trying to come to this country who may have among them people who believe that they are doing something righteous -- and will get an express path to salvation -- if they murder those of us who don't believe as they do.
I don't know how we can meaningfully vet people for whether they are among those who think that way -- in fact, I don't propose to have any good answer. I just do know that it is not unreasonable to expect that merely crossing our fingers and hope we aren't admitting people who have plans of jihad will get some or many Americans killed.
Senator @JeffFlake, of Arizona, whom I was impressed by when I heard him speak at Reason magazine's 30th anniversary a few years back, wrote this at Medium:
President Trump and his administration are right to be concerned about national security, but it's unacceptable when even legal permanent residents are being detained or turned away at airports and ports of entry. Enhancing long term national security requires that we have a clear-eyed view of radical Islamic terrorism without ascribing radical Islamic terrorist views to all Muslims.
From The New York Times Editorial Board:
The order lacks any logic. It invokes the attacks of Sept. 11 as a rationale, while exempting the countries of origin of all the hijackers who carried out that plot and also, perhaps not coincidentally, several countries where the Trump family does business. The document does not explicitly mention any religion, yet it sets a blatantly unconstitutional standard by excluding Muslims while giving government officials the discretion to admit people of other faiths.
And as this very smart Lawfare piece by Brookings Fellow Benjamin Wittes notes, "But come now, how could Pakistan not be on a list guided by current threat perception?"
Put simply, I don't believe that the stated purpose is the real purpose. This is the first policy the United States has adopted in the post-9/11 era about which I have ever said this. It's a grave charge, I know, and I'm not making it lightly. But in the rational pursuit of security objectives, you don't marginalize your expert security agencies and fail to vet your ideas through a normal interagency process. You don't target the wrong people in nutty ways when you're rationally pursuing real security objectives.When do you do these things? You do these things when you're elevating the symbolic politics of bashing Islam over any actual security interest. You do them when you've made a deliberate decision to burden human lives to make a public point. In other words, this is not a document that will cause hardship and misery because of regrettable incidental impacts on people injured in the pursuit of a public good. It will cause hardship and misery for tens or hundreds of thousands of people because that is precisely what it is intended to do.
To be sure, the executive order does not say anything as crass as: "Sec. 14. Burdening Muslim Lives to Make Political Point." It doesn't need to. There's simply no reason in reading it to ignore everything Trump said during the campaign, during which he repeatedly called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States.
Even while he was preparing to sign the order itself, he declared, "This is the 'Protection of the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.' We all know what that means." Indeed, we do. This document is the implementation of a campaign promise to keep out Muslims moderated only by the fact that certain allied Muslim countries are left out because the diplomatic repercussions of including them would be too detrimental.
P.S. Sara Harvard at mic says that list of countries was compiled by the Obama admin. Harvard writes, "in a nutshell, Obama restricted visa waivers for those seven Muslim-majority countries -- Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen -- and now, Trump is looking to bar immigration and visitors from the same list of countries."
While we're discussing keeping people out, it's important to understand that there's a difference between Islam and Islamism. Ex-Islamist Ammar Anwer explains explains at IPT (The Investigative Project on Terrorism)
Islam is a religion and Muslims are the people who follow it. Islamism is the political and totalitarian interpretation of Islam. Unlike most Muslims, an Islamist believes that his faith assigns him political and social responsibilities. Not all Muslims are Islamists, but every Islamist is a Muslim. Islamism presents Islam as a deen (way of life) and not just a madhab (religion). It does not just apply only to an individual, but is a set of guidelines that must be implemented all over the world.Jihad is central to this interpretation. The very purpose of jihad, according to this school of thought, is to spread Islam's dominance over the world.
"It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its laws on all nations and to extend its power to the entire world," Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna famously said.
Similarly, Sayyid Qutb, another famous Muslim Brotherhood ideologue, wrote in his book, Milestones:
"The abolition of man-made laws cannot be achieved only through preaching. Those who have usurped the authority of God and are oppressing God's creatures are not going to give up their power merely through preaching." [Pointing towards an armed struggle].
Many Muslims, along with the political far-left, are in denial about radical Islam. Anyone who dares to use the term "radical Islam" is immediately labeled as an "Islamophobe." They deny reality.
When ISIS beheads innocent people or attacks Paris and Brussels, it believes that such acts are a religious obligation. When Islamist terrorists mistreat and enslave women and persecute homosexuals, it is because they interpret verses such as 4:24 and 7:80-84 that seem to justify it. This is a theological issue that I have discussed on various media outlets. It is the reason I support reformist scholars, like Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, who are highly critical of radical Islam. Ghamidi is a modernist Islamic scholar who has vehemently criticized religious fundamentalism. He also spoke against the Pakistan's blasphemy law which is often used to harm and mistreat religious minorities. His modern views almost cost him his life, while his closest associate, Muhammad Farooq Khan, was killed by the Taliban.
Oh, and let's cut the ridiculous comparison to Anne Frank and others trying to flee the Holocaust. Their "ideology," if any, was remaining alive, not murdering people of other religions so they could cut the line to get into heaven.
As a start, we need to stop denying reality and pretending that Islam is "a religion of peace." It is anything but. Whether an individual Muslim practices it that way or according to the violence against the rest of us that it commands, is the question. How we answer that question -- balancing the need to remain the nation we have been, of laws and rights and opennes to immigration -- while protecting the population against evildoers dressed up as asylum seekers, I really have no idea.
I guess, in order for America to remain America, the tradeoff is that some of us will probably end up dying -- perhaps horribly.
Your thoughts?
via @NickMartin
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444370/donald-trump-refugee-executive-order-no-muslim-ban-separating-fact-hysteria
Trust at January 28, 2017 10:40 PM
1) The executive order cites US Code, chapter and verse.
2) Jimmy Carter did this, but apparently snowflakes hadn't been invented yet.
"The order lacks any logic."? Really, idiot? How about enforcing existing law, which you and your ilk are apparently uninterested in so long as you can get little brown people to work off the books you mandate for the rest of us?
You're out of money in California, airhead, and exporting/continuing the policies California installed will bring the rest of the country down. It's just a matter of time, and people who aren't millionaires are seeing all the services they've been promised sucked dry by the lie that everybody can come here to get something for free.
Radwaste at January 28, 2017 10:44 PM
From that National Review article:
However, there are reports that the ban is being applied even to green-card holders. This is madness. The plain language of the order doesn’t apply to legal permanent residents of the U.S., and green-card holders have been through round after round of vetting and security checks. The administration should intervene, immediately, to stop misapplication. If, however, the Trump administration continues to apply the order to legal permanent residents, it should indeed be condemned.
And this:
To be sure, however, the ban is deeply problematic as applied to legal residents of the U.S. and to interpreters and other allies seeking refuge in the United States after demonstrated (and courageous) service to the United States.
"Deeply problematic" to ban legal residents of the U.S. from entering into the U.S.?
Well, that's one way of putting it. I'm no David French, but I recognize a good chin-stroker when I see it.
Kevin at January 28, 2017 11:17 PM
So, Amy, just to be clear about this...
You would not reject immigration by any of the one-point-five BILLION other immigrants not described in these orders, right?
Right?
Need to know, because your insights about Islam are so oracular and sophistimicated.
Crid at January 29, 2017 12:11 AM
I meant Muslims, not immigrants.
Sorry, it's a night for typos. Specifically, I'm told that this passage has the wrong cites:
Anyway. A billion and a half non-refugee Muslims are still presumably welcome to immigrate to our nation, and everyone's cool with that, right?Crid at January 29, 2017 1:19 AM
" A billion and a half non-refugee Muslims are still presumably welcome to immigrate to our nation, and everyone's cool with that, right?"
Had you read the law the EO cites, you'd note that it provides for this and has for decades. Yes, we get to choose who can come here.
Radical notion: you can deny a stranger access to your home, or allow it when you see fit.
Radwaste at January 29, 2017 2:35 AM
Nope, I want Amy to tell us which Moozlims are permitted to come to our country, what with her being so proudly principled and deeply informed and all.
Or is this like Potter Stewart and pornography?
Awaiting explication!
Crid at January 29, 2017 2:46 AM
you're out of money in California, airhead,
Radwaste, you might want reconsider your rude language.
And Crid, read Ex-Islamist Ammar Anwer's explanation of Islamism to perhaps crack through your confirmation bias and your desperate need to demean my knowledge of Islam -- about which I've been reading almost daily since 9/11.
It's mystifying that you take this mean girl approach of sneering at me instead of trying to understand Islam yourself--like by reading in it and becoming informed.
I used to be ignorant about Islam, which is why I -- pre-9/11 -- thought it was just another religion rather than what it is: a political system demanding the violent totalitarian takeover of the globe for Islam, and the subjugation of non-Muslims to Islam (or slavery, sex-slavery, or death).
Amy Alkon at January 29, 2017 3:29 AM
Oh, and as I note in the piece, I don't know how you meaningfully vet whether someone is a believer in a Christmas Christian version of Islam or the violence it demands of followers.
I don't have the solution, but I understand the problem, and I understand Islam pretty well, having spent so much time studying it. If only Crid could put all that energy he puts into mocking me for my knowledge into actually reading in and understanding why I think Islam, as a belief system, can be so pernicious.
If you'd lost a leg in the Boston Marathon bombing -- or a loved one -- would you still be mocking me like this, Crid, or would you maybe get reading?
Amy Alkon at January 29, 2017 3:32 AM
> If you'd lost a leg in the
> Boston Marathon bombing
It's not just that this rhetoric is in such spectacularly bad taste, but it's silly as well. And we discussed the Tsarnaev's background and motives at the time... Though in that crisis too, you declined to reflect on anything not affirming your posture as a heroic [though unlearned] thinker. "Airhead" is over the top, but you're out of your depth.
> I don't have the solution, but
> I understand the problem
Bogus humility isn't appropriate. You've completely unprepared to discuss the factionalism, geography, history, economics, politics, practice, or competitors of Islam. You've never mentioned speaking to a Muslim. You don't "understand the problem." Were someone of your detachment similarly inclined to pontificate on race relations, feminism or gay rights, they'd be laughed out of the town square and of every barroom out to the farmland.
C'mon. C'mon. This is like Orion on the airplane.
Are the 1.5 billion Muslims not described in this order welcome to immigrate to America?
Crid at January 29, 2017 3:58 AM
All observant Muslims are Islamists. The majority may be 'Christmas Jihadi' but they share an imperialistic, totalitarian mindset, of one degree of virulence or another.
Comment Monster at January 29, 2017 4:10 AM
Back in the day, and probably still, avowed communists were barred from entry to the US.
Why? Because communists advocated the violent overthrow of the US government and the global imposition of communism.
Devout muslims, by definition, hope for the same thing. And Islamists actively seek to accomplish it.
Islam is incompatible with Enlightenment notions of individualism, and freedom of conscience (among a great many other things).
So, crid, how about telling us which muslims should be allowed into the US, and why they should be welcome here.
Why Americans should happily welcome people who, by definition, believe apostates should be killed is a singular mystery to me.
Jeff Guinn at January 29, 2017 4:10 AM
"I guess, in order for America to remain America, the tradeoff is that some of us will probably end up dying -- perhaps horribly.
Your thoughts?"
There is a one hundred percent chance that all of us will die, and a certain percentage will die horribly ( as in slowly suffocating to death in a hospital bed)
I do have fears about importing such a large number or refugees that they overwhelm American culture. People who are comfortable with authoritarian socialist governments scare me.
And I am equally scared by white progressives from Connecticut and commie California as by refugees from Kosovo and Syria. I dont want any of these groups moving into my state in large numbers.
Isab at January 29, 2017 5:27 AM
It's not a question of numbers as Europe is finding out. It's a question of culture.
Germans/Czechoslovakia citizens came to Texas and build exact duplicates of their home towns. They produced newspapers in their own language. They created meals/beer (God bless them) using their own recipes and our meat. The parents spoke their own language.
The difference between this being a bad thing is that they wanted their children to become AMERICANS. Go to the schools that they built as quickly as they could. Learn the language. Do better than they (their parents) were doing.
This was their nature. Counting their blessings that this new country was there for them.
The question "Do you want to become French/German/etc.?" is there in Europe and the answer is being worked out.
We can take our time and proceed with caution. At the moment it is OUR COUNTRY.
Bob in Texas at January 29, 2017 5:52 AM
> Why?
Don't do that. This is not a talk show, and you are not gracefully accepting queries from, or presenting them as, Charlie Rose.
> how about telling us which
> muslims should be allowed
> into the US, and why
We've probably covered it somewhere back there, but you can't just whimsically swap the burden-of-proof/rhetoric like that anyway. The question is mine, and it's for Amy.
(But I'm tickled pinko to think you want my leadership in your thinking. It's like when Raddy assumed that I should of course be judged [if only by a silly metric] by my fitness for the Presidency of the United State. Well, of course, Crid should be measured for the gig....)
> ...people who, by definition,
> believe...
That definition is not yours to compose.
It's weird, and pointless, when second parties try to tell third parties what their religion is supposed to mean to them, and to describe its purest practice. It's goofy.
Crid at January 29, 2017 6:39 AM
I note that this is not unprecedented in U.S. history. The Chinese Exclusion Act, for instance, disallowed Chinese subjects from becoming U.S. citizens. Those who were in the country legally were allowed to stay, though they could never become citizens. And if they ever left, they would need permission to return.
This isn't to say that this makes Trump's policy right or wrong (so calm down, Silly Raddy). Only noting that we've done this before. (Watch Rad go off the deep end, anyway, and insist I'm using the logical fallacy of appeal to precedent. For the record, I haven't said where I stand on the issue, so no one has any way of knowing where I stand. Maybe I just haven't made up my mind yet, and would like to hear people discuss this more.)
Such a policy nearly claimed a person who was born to Chinese parents while in the U.S., Wong Kim Ark. However, the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the U.S., even to aliens, is a natural born citizen. (If I got any of the details wrong, I'm sure Isab, JD or someone else will correct me.)
And I also note that the list hardly suggests that this was a decision without Trump's self-interests in mind. Why, for instance, isn't Saudi Arabia on the list, when all 19 of the 9/11 bombers were Saudi?
The only other question I have is this: How do you know that the proposed immigrant that we're allowing is a Muslim? Do we have ways of checking their membership in a mosque?
What if he professes to be a Christian? Do we have any way of determining this? What if he's a Muslim who wants to convert to Christianity, but will not do this in his own country for fear of religious persecution? As I recall, lying to advance jihad (known as taqquiya?) is perfectly acceptable. So, why wouldn't Muslim jihadis simply pretend to be Christians in order to bypass Trump's order?
Patrick at January 29, 2017 7:51 AM
Here is the text of the executive order. The only nation mentioned specifically in it that I can find is Syria.
People, we've done this before, with little to no public outcry..
Remember the outrage when Barack Obama's state Department stopped processing the applications of Iraqi refugees for six months after the discovery of two al Qaeda terrorists living in Kentucky?
Remember the outrage when Jimmy Carter temporarily invalidated the visas issued to Iranians for future entry into the US?
Conan the Grammarian at January 29, 2017 8:39 AM
That would be because the list of countries of concern referenced in the order was signed into law by the Obama Administration in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act signed in December 2015.
Also, The Atlantic notes that this is not a "Muslim ban" since "The ban includes seven majority Muslim countries, but by no means are these states the most populous Muslim countries, nor are they among the top sources of Muslim immigration to the U.S., nor have they produced terrorists in the same numbers as other Muslim countries not on the list."
Conan the Grammarian at January 29, 2017 8:48 AM
'And I also note that the list hardly suggests that this was a decision without Trump's self-interests in mind. Why, for instance, isn't Saudi Arabia on the list, when all 19 of the 9/11 bombers were Saudi?"
I believe the list was actually worked ip by the Obama administration.
While I am obviously not privy to all the criteria used to work up the lists, I think there were two very important concerns.
First was failed states and regions with no real governments at all which have become defacto havens for Isis and other terrorist groups.
The second concern is document verification and forgery.
Most of the world's global commerrce, and freedom of movement rest on you being able to verify your identity and origins with legitimate documents.
A number of these failed states have become hotbeds of document forgery, and provide fake passports and visas to anyone with the cash to pay for them.
There is no perfect way to sort these people out, but suspeding all immigration and entry of refugees from these areas until you can get a handle on it, is a good start.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/04/africa/fake-american-embassy-ghana/index.html
Isab at January 29, 2017 8:57 AM
Is there any reason to believe this administration is trying to 'get a handle' on anything at all?
Ever?
Does the vibe of this Administration strike you as investigative?
Crid at January 29, 2017 9:10 AM
Conan:
Isab:
Forgive my ignorance, but so what? Is there no reason Trump can't add names of other countries to his executive orders?
Why not Saudi Arabia? Why not Pakistan?
Patrick at January 29, 2017 9:19 AM
Is there any reason to believe this administration is trying to 'get a handle' on anything at all?
Ever?
Does the vibe of this Administration strike you as investigative?
Crid at January 29, 2017 9:10 AM
Yes there is. I think the cabinet appointments so far indicate that a lot of things will be analyzied a lot more carefully than just trying to figure out what might be the most popular course of action with the EU, and the Iranian mullahs, and winning the next election.
Getting on the *right side of history* is what characterized most of the knee jerk destructive policies pursued by the Obama administration.
I remember Progressives screaming and tearing their hair out over every utterance of Ronnie Reagan too. It gets old after a while. Most of us have tuned it out.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/obama-right-side-of-history/420462/
Isab at January 29, 2017 9:27 AM
Forgive my ignorance, but so what? Is there no reason Trump can't add names of other countries to his executive orders?
That's my question. If the Obama administration got it wrong, isn't it even more incumbent on the Trump administration to fix it and get it right?
Kevin at January 29, 2017 10:05 AM
That's my question. If the Obama administration got it wrong, isn't it even more incumbent on the Trump administration to fix it and get it right?
Kevin at January 29, 2017 10:05 AM
I think assuming that this is a right/wrong black or white issue is your first mistake.
Assuming that there is some obligation to correct or mitigate your predecessors poor decisions is the second,
Isab at January 29, 2017 10:16 AM
I think assuming that this is a right/wrong black or white issue is your first mistake. Assuming that there is some obligation to correct or mitigate your predecessors poor decisions is the second,
I'm not assuming anything about right or wrong. I'm just wondering why adding Saudi Arabia et al. to the list wasn't done when it could have been achieved with a stroke of the executive order pen.
Kevin at January 29, 2017 10:25 AM
I'm not assuming anything about right or wrong. I'm just wondering why adding Saudi Arabia et al. to the list wasn't done when it could have been achieved with a stroke of the executive order pen.
Kevin at January 29, 2017 10:25 AM
If you assume the countries on the list got there through a knee jerk dart board selection process I guess it makes sense to question why other majority muslim countries didnt land on the list through equally arbitrary criteria.
How about because we have diplomatic and military ties to Saudi Arabia, and an Air Base there among other things?
They aren't a failed state. They are an American ally, and a big counter to Iran in the Middle East.
Isab at January 29, 2017 10:47 AM
I didn't say they were a failed state. They are, however, one of the globe's leading exporter of terrorism — along with Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Kevin at January 29, 2017 10:55 AM
Islamism presents Islam as a deen (way of life) and not just a madhab (religion).
I prefer Islam as Paula Madhab.
JD at January 29, 2017 10:58 AM
I didn't say they were a failed state. They are, however, one of the globe's leading exporter of terrorism — along with Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Kevin at January 29, 2017 10:55 AM
Possibly by some metrics. But this whole exercise has never been about putting some country on some kind of permenent bad boys list.
It has always been about who and where get heightened scruitiny because of their fake document mills.
Isab at January 29, 2017 11:16 AM
Why are we letting in ANY immigrants when it's already so hard to find a decent-paying job?
Labor is subject to the laws of supply and demand, and wages are low because there are already too many people and not enough jobs, a situation that has gotten progressively worse every single year since 2000.
The younger generation is getting hit the hardest, since they don't have work experience. How is it going to help if we allow even more immigrants to come in, when there are already not enough jobs to go around?
Pirate Jo at January 29, 2017 12:06 PM
The list worked up by a previous administration is the result of (one hopes) careful balancing of alliances and whether the governments provide adequate vetting of their emigrants. The governments on the list are ones that provide poor vetting and for which there are no ramifications for not playing nice with them.
Also, this is step one. Right now, you use the list your opponents already approved. Later, you add more countries to it.
Why aren't we teaching our own children the skills and work ethic so they can fill these jobs?
Why do we have to import Indians to do our coding and database administration? We spend more per student than almost any country in the world and get less for it. Why is that?
Conan the Grammarian at January 29, 2017 12:37 PM
Why aren't we teaching our own children the skills and work ethic so they can fill these jobs?
We are, but someone still has to hire them.
Why do we have to import Indians to do our coding and database administration?
We don't have to.
We spend more per student than almost any country in the world and get less for it. Why is that?
Because schools spend too much trying to provide social services for kids with shitty parents.
Pirate Jo at January 29, 2017 1:37 PM
There are thousands of unfilled manufacturing jobs in this country. Manufacturers are complaining about the lack of qualified applicants. It's not your grandfather's manufacturing anymore; a high school diploma and the ability to fog a mirror aren't enough.
But we're still graduating non-college-bound seniors with little to no numeracy, little ability to communicate both in writing and in speech, and no work ethic.
That is definitely part of the problem. But is it the entirety of it?
Conan the Grammarian at January 29, 2017 2:01 PM
That isn't even level-zero trolling, crid. That is the squalling of a colicky 45-year old who has never once had anything useful to say on this subject. It is stupid practically beyond measure.
Do you really mean to say third parties can't say what Catholicism, says about itself? Or Scientology? Really? If so, that makes you even more useless than you have been, because you have given up all critical faculties in favor of pounding your fists on the floor while you chew up the rug.
Islam, by its own definition, demands death for apostates. Go look it up yourself.
Then, once you have done that, and re-confirmed what Amy, I and others have told you about many other claims Islam makes for itself, then how about getting back to us and explaining why any devout muslims should be allowed into the West.
You owe it to yourself. Otherwise, with your self-willed ignorance, you can join Europe in its creeping dhimmitude.
Jeff Guinn at January 29, 2017 2:34 PM
First things first:
Amy: I did not intend to address you as the airhead, but Senator Flake (shouldn't he be representing California in some way with that handle?). We have our differences, but I have never considered you thoughtless.
Patrick: what is it with logic that you have such trouble? Law is based on the application of precedent and has checks and balances to reshape it to protect society better when needed. The whole idea of law is to codify rules that everybody obeys until enough of a difference is obvious that a change is needed.
Crid: the actual point was and is that success, which can be measured by money, is a fine meter of leadership potential. That I pointed out a great difference between you and Mr. Trump without loudly including myself hurt, no doubt, but the point still stands. I leave you now to the careful ministrations of the chicks who dig you, who are no doubt finer than Melania in every way.
Radwaste at January 29, 2017 3:30 PM
"Senator Flake (shouldn't he be representing California in some way with that handle?)."
Reagan was a flake?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 29, 2017 3:36 PM
"Then, once you have done that, and re-confirmed what Amy, I and others have told you about many other claims Islam makes for itself, then how about getting back to us and explaining why any devout muslims should be allowed into the West."
Because the western idea of freedom of concience is a one of the foundations of western civilization and the American republic.
In general civilized socieities and people tolerate all sorts of crazy beliefs that don't mesh with theirs. It is when those crazy beliefs move into criminal acts that most of us get concerned.
Islam makes no claims for itself. Anymore than Christianity or Judaism makes claims for itself. The bible, the Torah, and the Koran are books, and not particularly interesting ones.
When the prohibition against abortion for example is interepted by a civilized individal, they refrain from killing fetuses.
When it is interperted by a radical crackpot, they go out, and start shooting doctors who provide abortions, and bombing abortion clinics.
The Christian bible may claim that witches should be killed, and the Koran may claim that apostates should be killed.
But all of those beliefs are a far cry from actually doing the killing yourself as an adherent of either of those philosophies.
We have enough trouble figuring out when people are criminals or terrorists wtihout the impossible burden of getting into their minds and discerning what their motivations and propensity might be to act on any of their beliefs or which tenants of their faith they take literally and which they do not.
Im for accepting people at face value. I am also for enforcing the immigration laws against everyone exactly the same regardless of their race, creed, color or country of origin.
Which doesnt mean that it wouldn't be a good idea to look closely at single young men and women who come from countries in such chaos that we can't readily determine who they are, or where they are actually from, never mind what they believe or their propensity for violence.
I am also for letting in few enough immigrints and refugees so there is little chance for them to ghettoize themselves into neighborhoods dependent on government handouts, and form pockets of isolated seething resentment for everything western the way they have done in Paris, London, Birmingham and other major European cities.
BUT
This foaming at the mouth anti Muslim shit you and Amy spew is frankly, as bat shit crazy as the neo Nazi skinheads.
Isab at January 29, 2017 3:44 PM
Bollocks. Nonsense on stilts. Winner of the stupidest thing said on the internet today, and most ignorant.
I suppose Scientology doesn't make any claims for itself, either?
Do you know anything about religion, or are you new to Earth?
Jeff Guinn at January 29, 2017 5:41 PM
> Yes there is. I think the cabinet
> appointments so far indicate that
> a lot of things will be analyzied
For fuck's sake... Reagan had a QUARTER CENTURY of (often libertarian) political writing, speaking, broadcasting and governance when he took office, and a decade or so of union activism besides. This motherfucker is NOT Ronald Reagan. Trump's last gig was Dancing with the Stars.
I think this baboon had no idea he'd have to even hire a cabinet. I cannot understand how people attribute all these intellectual intentions to a man who's spent thirty years convincing us that he's as shallow as a dime. He certainly didn't investigate the impacts of the immigration EO before publishing it... None of the affected agencies had a chance to even proofread it.
This isn't broad strategic thinking: This is a child spazzing.
Crid at January 30, 2017 4:55 AM
I can't keep up with all the ways Amy and you guys are wrong about this.
Crid at January 30, 2017 4:56 AM
How desperate are you guys to identify with this idiot celebrity that you could regard him as a thoughtful and proficient ideological presence?
Sheezus Christ, your emperor isn't *even* naked.
Reaganesque? AYFKM?
Crid at January 30, 2017 7:19 AM
"And I also note that the list hardly suggests that this was a decision without Trump's self-interests in mind. Why, for instance, isn't Saudi Arabia on the list, when all 19 of the 9/11 bombers were Saudi?"
That's a good question. The quip answer is, "because it wasn't on the Obama Administration's list", but that's not a very satisfying explanation. I think the answer is that there is some realpolitik at play, and it's being forced on specifically by European fecklessness. To wit: North America is on the cusp of energy independence. If that's all there was to it, we could tell the Saudis to go pound sand. But western Europe is not. Not only have they not achieved energy independence, but they're moving further in the wrong direction. They have banned fracking, and they are busy shutting down reliable sources of electricity generation (mostly nuclear) in favor of unreliable solar and wind. That's forcing them to have to go further in the direction of oil and gas for baseline generation. Hence the Saudis. We have to be nice to them so they will continue to do business with Europe, because if they don't, that leaves western Europe to the tender mercies of Putin.
That situation is going to come to a head in a few more years. I don't know how it's going to come out. It's a Faustian bargain: either continue to provide funding to Saudi Arabia that they can use to further Wahabbism, or leave the western European nations to become satellites of a new Soviet Union. (The preferable outcome would be for Europe to suck it up and become self-sufficient, but I don't think that's going to happen.)
Cousin Dave at January 30, 2017 7:20 AM
> Do you really mean to say third
> parties can't say what Catholicism,
> says about itself?
1. Extra comma.
2. What I really meant to say is what I said: Individuals will choose their own expression of religious belief, even as Amy pathologically insists they're not being authentically violent enough for her taste.
> the actual point was and is that...
Now, don't take it back. A position was to become available in the Big Office. Early on, you thought of me... Flattering!
Flattering as Hell.
Crid at January 30, 2017 8:09 AM
No, they don't. They choose, to a greater or lesser extent, their own expression of religious belief from what is on offer. Christians do not choose Scientology or Islamic assumptions for their expressions of religious belief, and Sunni do not choose Shia precepts.
That may be what you meant to say, but it doesn't indicate even a glancing familiarity with religious belief.
This means most Muslims take something of a pragmatic, cafeteria approach to their own religion, but that doesn't mean that the foul aspects of Islam don't exist, or that what constitutes "pragmatic" doesn't change.
Pragmatic in Europe is far worse than pragmatic in the US, but not nearly as bad as in Indonesia.
A direct quote here would go a great way to eliminating the impression you are making things up.
Jeff Guinn at January 30, 2017 9:06 AM
Here is what a Muslim reformer has to say.
Jeff Guinn at January 30, 2017 9:41 AM
> They choose, to a greater or lesser
> extent, their own expression of
> religious belief from what is on
> offer.
You often improvise arguments with suspiciously precious wordings, and they seem kinda goofy, and I would describe this as one such instance. "Greater or lesser" makes me wonder which you think I'd choose for the heart of your argument, and then I wonder if I'm expected to ask who's making "offers." Given that Amy's arguments are fundamentally unlearned, scholarship-averse and self-abnegating, it's probably not worth getting into.
Our planet is crawling with new opportunities. "Offers." As Barnett has discussed, these crises appear at the intersection of modernity and isolated primitivism... They portend the success of the project, not its failure.
> A direct quote here would go
> a great way to eliminating the
> impression you are making
> things up.
Well, Fuckballs, Jeff-er-rino... Her rhetoric over the years has been inert and unchanging, which is one way we know she's not an actual student of these matters. (Another is her cometlike interval for affirmations of her [imaginary] expertise.)
This offends me on a personal level, because having invested so many hundreds (thousands?) of hours quibbling with her and her guests about everything under the sun, it's embarrassing to think she was never interested in anything more than a middleschooler's pretense of superiority to those around her, e.g., 'You guys are sooooo immature...!' Such children have EARNED their bra-snaps.
There were certain commandments baked into this century's early embrace of blogging. The first was No Godwin Violations. The second was We Can Fact-Check Your Ass.
The third was No Sheeple-ism. You make your case or you don't... But if you don't, don't then be pretending you're too hip for the room. You have all time time and space in the world and links to essentially all of human thinking throughout history to make your point. Don't whine that you've been misunderstood.
And don't repeat yourself... Never say the same thing twice.
But if after all these years you simply must see this expostulation presented anew, consider the first words of the first post for January 30, 2017:
Now, she's never met a Muslim.But it's "said to be," Guinnster! So...
Done deal!
Crid at January 30, 2017 9:05 PM
Christ I'm good at this.
Crid at January 30, 2017 9:06 PM
And this makes me certain you are either incapable of even basic reading comprehension, involving simple concepts.
If you think "on offer" somehow ends up with "who's making 'offers.' then you are well and truly at sea.
Christ, you are hopeless at this. No wonder that, despite hundreds of your posts, you haven't conveyed anything more useful than would someone suffering a particularly vicious combination of ADD and Tourettes.
Amy is a beacon of scholarly insight compared to your sulfurous emanations, and sheer making shit up. Like here.
You don't. Never have. It is the same empty rant, dressed up in different syllables.
Interesting facts about Islam I have learned from you?
Not one.
It's a pity you don't apply your own standards to yourself.
Jeff Guinn at January 31, 2017 4:18 AM
"Interesting facts about Islam I have learned from you?
Not one."
Maybe you ought to stop looking for interesting *facts* about Islam ( an ephemeral target if there ever was one ) and start learning some universal truths about human nature and primitive tribal cultures.
That's all we are asking. Just a bit more humility, a little more focus on history and culture, and a few less articles by hysterical j school back benchers who claim to know *all about Muslims* from a cursory reading of the Koran.
Isab at January 31, 2017 6:31 AM
So you'll only take note of facts which are "interesting."
A shame then that so many difficult or merely mundane truths will escape your attention... As any undergraduate will explain to you, that's where they keep the candy.
Crid at January 31, 2017 10:58 AM
If you had ever, even once, provided any universal truths etc, then I would have had a chance to learn them.
You haven't. And when you have trotted something out, it has been either irrelevant, or wrong; either way, useless.
Once again, I am left wishing you would follow your own advice.
(BTW, I'll take my extraneous comma over your pretentious royal-we any day.)
Done, already. Shame about your reading comprehension, but that's not really my problem.
Oh, and here's a pro-tip: the very first sign of a bankrupt argument is ad hominem attack. (And it is a stupid bankrupt argument when it is ad hominem, and wrong.)
Jeff Guinn at January 31, 2017 1:30 PM
P.S.
Of all the "points" you think you are making, this is the most transparently thoughtless.
If Amy and I (and others) were criticizing Islamic societies in particular for the universal behaviors, then you would be on to something.
But we aren't, and you aren't.
All societies are built upon human nature. A great many cultures are poor, oppressed, ignorant, deprived.
But only one kind of culture produces adherents that hope to slaughter as many people as possible with the goal of extending their culture as far as possible.
Hindus, Sikhs, Confucians, and Jains don't. Nor do Christians, Yazidis, and Jews that live side by side (well, until their muslim neighbors killed or drove them out) with Muslims whose primitive culture you insist I know nothing about.
In your world, those Muslims are primitive and without moral agency, while those Christians, Jews and Yazidis are, well, what exactly?
They are all equally "primitive", yet their primitivism, or lack thereof, has no explanatory value whatsoever.
That you can't suss this, obvious as it should be, means you are the one who should be loading up on the humility.
Jeff Guinn at January 31, 2017 1:56 PM
"Hindus, Sikhs, Confucians, and Jains don't. Nor do Christians, Yazidis, and Jews that live side by side (well, until their muslim neighbors killed or drove them out) with Muslims whose primitive culture you insist I know nothing about."
This claim is laughable. Genocidal cultures have been the norm in human history, not the exception.
Isab at January 31, 2017 3:46 PM
A book for you on the secular motivations for Jihad in Pakistan.
http://amzn.to/2jw9aH2
Isab at January 31, 2017 3:49 PM
A book for you on the secular motivations for Jihad in Pakistan.
"Jihad as Grand Strategy: Islamist Militancy, National Security, and the Pakistani State"
Isab at January 31, 2017 3:51 PM
Pro-tip, Isab. We aren't talking history, we are talking in the here and now.
How many Wahabbists should we allow into the US?
Jeff Guinn at January 31, 2017 4:54 PM
Isab:
Just in case your reading comprehension is as impaired as Crid's, "do", "do not", "live" are present tense.
So if you are going to talk about genocidal cultures, please do so in the present tense.
Jeff Guinn at January 31, 2017 4:57 PM
We can talk about whatever we want.
Your/Amy's inability to consider temporal/development factors (along with geography, econ etc) is why you're having such problems with this.
Instructing us "Please don't mention the gaping holes in my consideration of these topics" is weird.
Crid at February 1, 2017 1:01 AM
No, the problem here is your inability to provide useful temporal/development ad nauseum factors.
At the risk of repeating myself, these factors, whatever they might be, only have explanatory value if they are unique to, and coincident with, Islam.
Many societies are very poor, ignorant and cutoff from the modern world; only Islam engages in slaughter outreach.
So, please, by all means, help Amy and I consider these super powerful factors that vitiate Islam.
Otherwise, and I'm betting on otherwise, you are just blowing it out your hat.
Jeff Guinn at February 1, 2017 4:03 AM
> Otherwise
Always a darling new standard of proof, always disregarding every word written heretofore.
This does not entertain.
Crid at February 1, 2017 6:59 PM
A wise choice, so far.
(Your response is level zero trolling.)
Jeff Guinn at February 2, 2017 4:04 AM
But motherfucker, you apparently can't resist pretending to take part.
What do you want?
Keep your distance, silently. Everybody wins.
Crid at February 2, 2017 3:53 PM
When you say I can't resist pretending, then I can only conclude that one of us is delusional.
As it happens, I have kept the links to, oh, I dunno, something like a half-dozen or so of these discussions. Of course I am a biased observer, but while I will have to plead guilty to pedantry, I sure as hell wasn't pretending.
What's your excuse?
For starters: for you to have an actual point, and make it. And stop making shit up. And stop it with the trolling.
Back at you.
Jeff Guinn at February 2, 2017 6:11 PM
Leave a comment