ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, December 08, 2015

Kicking the cuckroaches

Donald Trump knows what the American people want a lot better than the cuckroaches in the media who claim to be "opinion leaders" do:
Donald Trump acknowledged Monday during a raucous South Carolina rally that his call for barring all Muslim foreigners from entering the United States is "probably not politically correct."

But he had three words for his critics: "I don't care."

And if his South Carolina rally -- with its whoops and cheers -- was any indication, that support will stick.

Six of eight Trump supporters at the rally who spoke with CNN said they supported the Muslim travel ban, which has drawn swift criticism from other Republican and Democratic presidential contenders alike who slammed the proposal as contrary to American values of religious tolerance. And the two supporters at the rally who disagreed said they were still likely to vote for Trump.
By contrast, here is the Littlest Chickenhawk's take on what he calls Trump's desperation, which is only one of the many cuckservative hissy fits being thrown in response to Trump's moderate proposal.
Desperate Trump Drops Ugly Policy Bomb: Ban All The Muslims Abroad

That can mean only one thing: it’s time to trot out a headline-grabbing, nonsensical policy proposal.

To that end, Trump released a statement today calling for a ban on entry to the country for all Muslims. He said this would include Muslim servicepeople serving overseas, as well as Americans traveling abroad. He did not create a timetable, or a list of requirements to be met at which point such a ban would be lifted. Instead, he explained, “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred [of Americans by members of the Muslim world] is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it faces, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

Asked about what prompted the statement, Trump said simply, “death.”

In other words, Trump believes the only way to stop terror attacks like those that happened in San Bernardino would be to ban Muslims from entering the country. That’s idiotic, for at least three reasons.

American Citizens Have Citizenship. Trump is not referring only to foreign Muslims. He says his ban applies to “everyone.” If that’s the case, why would he quash the rights of millions of Muslim Americans, many of whom serve in the police and armed services? How would he propose to take away rights without due process? And why in the world would he? This is truly frightening  and disgusting stuff. Up until now, it's been the left calling for Americans to give up their rights. Not anymore.

There Is A Difference Between Profiling And A Religious Ban. Looking at religious practice as one component of Islamic terrorism makes sense, given the association between religious practice and Islamic terror. But Islamic practice is necessary, not sufficient, for Islamic terrorism – in other words, there are lots of Muslims who aren’t terrorists, obviously. Being Muslim should not be an outright disqualifier for entering the country if we are actually capable of vetting you. That’s why Ted Cruz’s suggestion of a moratorium on Muslim immigration from countries like Syria makes sense, but Trump’s global ban makes no sense. Our security services will have to be much better than a total Muslim ban if we hope to keep Americans safe anyway, considering the threat of homegrown terrorism – we’ll have to discriminate between Muslims who are a threat, and those that aren’t. There are a billion Muslims on planet earth. Banning all of them is simply impractical, as well as immoral.

Kiss Our Intelligence Apparatus Goodnight. We need to work with Muslims both foreign and domestic. It’s one thing to label Islamic terrorism and radical Islam a problem. It’s another to label all individual Muslims a problem. That’s what this policy does. It’s factually wrong and ethically incomprehensible. Donald Trump has just transformed into the strawman President Obama abused on Sunday night.

So no, this isn’t a good idea. It’s a rotten idea all the way around: legally, ethically, practically. Trump’s supporters need to realize at some point that knee-jerk extreme reactions to events of the day don’t substitute for good judgment. It’s ugly when it’s President Obama looking to grab guns from American citizens without due process, and it’s ugly from Donald Trump. Given the poll numbers, it’s not clear whether Americans will get wise to that truth.
It's a bit disappointing to see that Ben Shapiro, who has admittedly grown up a bit since his Littlest Chickenhawk days when he was all keen on sending all young male Americans who weren't Ben Shapiro to war in the Middle East, falling back into generic #cuckservatism here. Ben wasn't in my league back in our mutual WND days, and he still isn't today. Allow me to demonstrate:
  1.  Trump isn't "desperate". It is his critics, like Shapiro, who are growing increasingly desperate. Ben is projecting. "The latest Rasmussen Reports (Dec. 4) weekly Trump Change survey finds that 68% of Likely Republican Voters believe Trump is likely to be their party’s nominee next year, up from 53% two weeks ago." And recent events in San Bernardino only helped Trump's cause.
  2. It is not "idiotic" to say that banning Muslims from entering the country is the only way to stop terror attacks like the one that occurred in San Bernardino because doing so would have stopped the terror attack in San Bernardino. That being said, it's true, that won't stop all Muslim terror attacks; the only way to do that will be to repatriate all Muslims to the Dar al-Islam. Which, sooner or later, is exactly what will eventually happen across all the parts of the West that stay West.
  3. The Preamble to the Constitution trumps both the Constitution and the Amendments. The citizenship that can be granted by the stroke of a government pen, can be taken away by the stroke of a government pen as well. Citizens are not nationals and the Nation trumps the State.
  4. There are a billion Muslims on Earth. None of them have to live in the West. It is neither immoral nor impractical to suggest that Muslims should live in the House of Submission and to refuse to permit them to bring war to the House of War. Furthermore, it is not only impractical, it is both ahistorical and utterly impossible, to expect large quantities of Muslims to live in the West in peace. They will not. They never have. Shapiro is demanding the Muslims stop being Muslims, a much greater offense to them and their religion than not permitting them to colonize the West.
  5. Our foreign intelligence apparatus in the Muslim world is practically nonexistent anyhow. And it obviously escapes Shapiro that we will not need a domestic intelligence apparatus spying on Muslims if there are no domestic Muslims on whom to spy.
Speaking of cuckservatives and their propensity for betraying the American national interest, Cuckservative: How "Conservatives" Betrayed America has risen to #134 on Amazon, and after surpassing the 2015 nonfiction National Book Award winner by Ta-Nehesi Coates, is now the #1 bestseller in all Politics & Social Sciences. It is also the #1 hot new Nonfiction release.

Labels: ,

216 Comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 216 of 216
Blogger wrf3 December 08, 2015 6:57 PM  

Markku @199, @198 The relationship between the citizenship of Heaven and the citizenship of a nation is similar to that of allegiance to a nation, and its particular municipal authority.

Ok, in case of a conflict, where does your allegiance go? Where is your primary allegiance? Christ, or Caesar?

In your case, Markku, you can consider this a rhetorical question. But everyone is slamming Muslims for where they place their primary allegiance, yet it isn't any different for Christians. Good grief, they got it from us in the first place.

Blogger Markku December 08, 2015 7:06 PM  

Christ, as you know.

The Muslims' are to Satan. I don't fault the principle, I fault the target of the allegiance. Our allegiance, then requires us to take unpalatable action. It's just war as it ever was.

And they are already acting consistently with their allegiance in the Middle East that they control. We must do the same. We are not being faithful to our Master.

Blogger wrf3 December 08, 2015 7:25 PM  

Markku @201, I fault the target of the allegiance.

Sure. So do I. "No King but Jesus!"

A long time ago, Caesar faulted the target of our allegiance. For the most part, we would not swear to the genius of Caesar. Trying to suppress us just made us stronger. One would hope that we would learn from history.

Our allegiance, then requires us to take unpalatable action.
As long as it's in line with "... overcome evil with good."

Blogger SciVo December 08, 2015 7:56 PM  

@ belatuc: The American elite shouldn't be afraid of Trump.
They should be afraid of every white, heterosexual citizen.


In a sense, police are not so much there to protect us as to civilize justice -- to protect criminals from the alternative. I think our "elites" have forgotten what democracy is for.

Blogger SciVo December 08, 2015 8:13 PM  

To clarify and expand, my thesis has two parts:

1. Regime changes can be delayed or civilized, but not both, and democracy is for hastening and civilizing them.

2. Rich people are as self-centered and short-sighted as everyone else, or close enough.

By using lobbyists to co-opt our elected representatives, they are each serving their own interests against each other. At the same time, they are collectively delegitimizing the government and delaying meaningful regime change -- which is to say, ensuring that it will be uncivilized.

Blogger SciVo December 08, 2015 8:24 PM  

@ Hammerli280: And one has to wonder just how much of the opposition to him is purely class snobbery.

It's been some years since I was a guest at Trump National, but I would expect to find the members still reminiscing about when it was Lowe's Island and bemoaning the tacky sculpture Trump put in the roundabout, not to mention adding his coat of arms over a certain door.

Anonymous Type 5 December 08, 2015 8:42 PM  

Cail Corishev wrote: "You might as well ask, "What are these 'electrolytes'? Do you even know?" They're what plants crave, duh."

Diversity. It's what plants crave.

Anonymous Discard December 08, 2015 10:17 PM  

Trump's a rich man. Does he have a private polling company that ferrets out the closely held opinions of normal Americans? He says things that nobody else would dare say, yet his approval grows every day. Or does he just have a supernatural grasp of the coming zeitgeist?

Blogger Danby December 08, 2015 10:32 PM  

@207 Discard
Maybe Trump is, unlike the press and the political class, an American.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 08, 2015 11:58 PM  

@208 That's what I'm hoping.

Blogger CM December 09, 2015 2:55 AM  

But everyone is slamming Muslims for where they place their primary allegiance, yet it isn't any different for Christians. Good grief, they got it from us in the first place.

They "got it from us"?

Islam is an authoritarian Theocracy. A lot like Pentateuch Judaism.

The Muslim pledging allegiance to an Islamic State IS pledging allegiance to Allah.

Christianity is not a theocracy. In fact, Christ teaches us to obey earthly authority. In cases where our Faith contradicts the State, historically (and in other parts of the world today) Christians have been punished with no expectation of special treatment.

Compare that to what Muslims expect.

Also, America was designed to specifically make it possible for Christians to practice their faith freely WITHOUT fear of contradicting the laws of their land (The government shall not make any laws prohibiting the free exercise...)

Islamic fealty to Shariah law (that is part and parcel with their faith) directly contradicts our Constitution.

Blogger wrf3 December 09, 2015 10:03 AM  

CM @210: They "got it from us"?

One theory about the formation of Islam was that it was due to Mohammed's rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity. By that theory, Islam is a Christian heresy, much like Mormonism is a Christian heresy.

Islam is an authoritarian Theocracy. A lot like Pentateuch Judaism.

Which is different from Christianity, how, exactly? "If you confess with your lips that Jesus _is Lord_ ..." What does "Jesus is Lord" mean?

In fact, Christ teaches us to obey earthly authority.

Only when it does not conflict with the heavenly authority. "We ought to obey God rather than any human authority" [Acts 5:29]

Christians have been punished with no expectation of special treatment.

Sure. But in places where the government is supposed to follow the will of the people, we expect to change that government.

Compare that to what Muslims expect.

Which is what, exactly? That (their version) of God's will will be done throughout the earth? Just like Christians who pray, "your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven"?

Also, America was designed to specifically make it possible for Christians to practice their faith freely WITHOUT fear of contradicting the laws of their land.

So religious freedom only applies to Christians?

Too, there are a number of instances where sharing my faith would get me into trouble for which the "free exercise" and "free speech" clauses would offer no protection.

Islamic fealty to Shariah law (that is part and parcel with their faith) directly contradicts our Constitution.

So? Have you ever read our Declaration of Independence?

Also, I’m more concerned with the Left and their constant erosion of Constitutional freedoms. Will you be consistent and advocate for the same policies concerning them as your do for Muslims?

Or will you realize that the problem with any body of law is that nobody lives by that body of law? It's a universal problem, whether that law came from Sinai, the continental congress, or Mecca. There is one, and only one, solution to this problem.

Blogger JaimeInTexas December 09, 2015 10:12 AM  

@195. wrf3

My allegiance is to Christ. My uSA citizenship, like the Colonialists' British citizenship, is temporary.

In conflicts of conscience, whether informed by Christian beliefs or something other, conscience wins and, potentially, pay a price.

When I talk of dual citizenship I am referring to the temporal. We do not have a Christian passport, issued in heaven that we can carry and hand over to the FedGov to report as a foreign resident or in application for the Green Card. The way to travel to our heavenly home is to either die or be around when our despot King sets up His government upon Earth. There will be no other governments and, therefore, no other citizenships.

Blogger JaimeInTexas December 09, 2015 10:23 AM  

wrf

Christianity, in the now, is not a theocracy. The New Testament does not lay down the legal framework for an Earthly government, the way that it was done through Moses in the Old Testament.

Our High Priest was also our sacrifice. Jesus intercedes on our behalf in Heaven, before the Father. No need for a high priest, a temple and sacrifices today. Jesus is also our Prophet and Paraclete, who came bringing the very Words of God, being deity Himself and the perfect representative of God to the people.

But, Jesus has not seen fit to return yet an claim the rightful title of King in the Earthly realm. Then, it will be a theocracy because there will be no alternative on this side of creation.

Until then, we muddle and strive in whatever circumstance or nationality/citizenship we are placed under.

Blogger CM December 09, 2015 12:04 PM  

By that theory, Islam is a Christian heresy, much like Mormonism is a Christian heresy.

They saw Christ as a prophet. And not as important of one as Muhammad. They would be more accurately described as a Judaic Heresy.

Which is different from Christianity, how, exactly?

Not a theocracy. I'd think that difference would be patently obvious.

Only when it does not conflict with the heavenly authority.

I said that.

Which is what, exactly?
If they beat their wife for talking to an unrelated male, do they expect to be punished for wife-beating or do they expect the US to change their laws to accomodate their religious proscription for wife beating?

No such expectation exists in Christianity. In fact, Paul teaches us to endure our persecution with joy and perseverance. It is part of choosing to do what's right to accept it is worth the fallout.

So religious freedom only applies to Christians?

It applies to faiths that don't infringe on the rights of others. See, that wife beating thing infringes on the rights of the wife for equal treatment under US laws. Its also a right not to be murdered... so no Aztecans can come offer sacrifice. Yes, ridiculous example. Who does human sacrifice anymore? I wonder how come that is? Should we just let the muslim wife be beaten?

Have you ever read our Declaration of Independence?

Freedom of expression for Islam directly contradicts our constitution.

Freedom of Expression for Islam = embracing Sharia law

Sharia Law goes against our constitution.

You can not have Sharia with US constitution.

If you just say "fine, no sharia", we do not bar them from voting. And *anyone has a constitutional right to vote with their conscience. Muslims will vote for Sharia... go check those stats that keep being published on % of muslims who support sharia law. Look at England and France.

I wouldn't count on the courts' help like they "helped" with Prop 8 and similar measures.

Or would you be ammenable to changing our voting laws?

Blogger wrf3 December 09, 2015 2:05 PM  

CM @215: They would be more accurately described as a Judaic Heresy.

So is Christianity. But, historically, Mohammed formed Islam because of his rejection of the Trinity. So Islam really is a Christian heresy.

Not a theocracy. I'd think that difference would be patently obvious.

It clearly isn't obvious, since "Jesus is Lord" and "He has ... made us a kingdom, priests serving His God and Father..." [Rev 1:6] makes us a theocracy.

America is not a theocracy, sure, but are we Americans first and Christians second, or Christians first and Americans second?

If they beat their wife for talking to an unrelated male, do they expect to be punished for wife-beating or do they expect the US to change their laws to accomodate their religious proscription for wife beating?

It's not an either-or question. It's both-and. It's no different than the first apostles being beaten for proclaiming the gospel, and not stopping until the laws were changed. It's no different than refusing to swear by the genius of Caesar until the laws were changed.

Should we just let the muslim wife be beaten?

According to their rules, yes. According to Christian rules, and American rules, no. But if we're not going to grant citizenship to wife beaters, then we're going to have to deport a number of existing American citizens.

Sharia Law goes against our constitution.

Nobody is arguing that it doesn't. But a number of groups go against our Constitution. See Vox's "Molon Labe" post today. Are you willing to expel the Left?

Or would you be ammenable to changing our voting laws?

Theoretically, yes. We are a government of the people. And "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."

Practically, I'm a Covenantal Monarchist who prefers to live in a system where it's easier to live as a covenantal monarchist and that means I prefer democracy to other forms of government. Preferably a democracy that somehow manages to prevent the "tyranny of the majority".

Be very careful about putting systems into place where one day the rules will be turned on you and end up biting you in the ass.

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 216 of 216

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts