Friday, March 29, AD 2024 12:29am

Trump Freakout Number 999

No doubt jealous that President Obama was getting all the attention for his latest inane speech, and worried that Ted Cruz had passed him in the polls in Iowa, Donald Trump offered his latest off-the-cuff, incendiary policy proposal: prohibiting Muslim immigration and foreign travel to the United States. There are five key points to make about this and the reaction to it.

1. It’s stupid and unworkable. A blanket ban on all Muslim immigration fits in well with Trump’s basic approach to politics, which is to use a jackhammer to screw in a nail. Not only does the proposal cast all Muslims together as the enemy, it could have potentially adverse foreign policy implications, as Ben Shapiro explains:

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.

It’s unworkable for all of the reasons Reihan Salan suggests:

So I understand Trump’s anxiousness, and I share in it. Where we part company is on how the United States ought to treat people who identify as Muslims going forward. I use this awkward locution (“people who identify as Muslims”) advisedly, because the screening mechanism Trump seems to have settled on is to ask travelers if they are Muslim and to turn away those who say yes. There is something almost quaint about this approach, as if we should expect that people who are trying to do us harm will play by the rules Trump has laid out and openly profess their religious beliefs, knowing all the while that it would lead to their exclusion from the country. Granted, there are many Muslims who would never deny their faith, even if it meant that they wouldn’t be allowed into the country. Indeed, I can imagine such professions sparking a social media campaign designed to discredit the exclusion of Muslims, and to celebrate principled resistance to it. The trouble is that terrorists rely on deceit to achieve their objectives, while the kind of people who’d never dream of lying about their religious convictions generally fall in a different category.

<br>

As usual, Trump is speaking off the cuff. Perhaps he is not entirely serious about simply asking people if they are Muslims or not, in which case he could rely on country of origin. Shall we exclude travelers from Muslim-majority countries? This approach would exclude Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, animists, and other religious minorities, and it would ignore the Muslim citizens of non-Muslim-majority countries, like India, Britain, or France. We might instead exclude people with Arabic surnames, as this is generally a good marker of Muslim ancestry, though not a perfect one: this approach would exclude some nontrivial number of non-practicing Muslims, converts to other faiths, atheists, and agnostics, not to mention a large number of Muslims who reject Islamism and Islamist violence.

Now I can already here the Trumpeteers shouting: aha, so that means you’re with Obama and just want unfettered Islamic immigration. Trump supporters and sympathizers have an unusually Manichean worldview: if you don’t support Trump that means you must support Jeb, if you disagree with banning Muslim immigration you’re for open borders, etc. On the contrary, it’s quite possible to disagree with the proposal to ban all Muslim immigration while simultaneously viewing President Obama and the left as dangerously naive when it comes to the problem of Islamic radicalism.

2. Trump doesn’t even mean it. As I wrote elsewhere, if Donald Trump became dictator tomorrow this ban would never occur, just as most of his over-the-top immigration proposals would never see the light of day. Trump offers up this red meat in the hopes of getting his supporters riled up while also getting his opponents to lash out in over-reaction. As usual, he accomplished both missions, and so in that respect Eric Erickson is correct in calling this a brilliant political move.

If you truly believe that this is a well thought out proposal, here’s the Donald explaining how it would work:

Willie Geist: Donald, a customs agent would ask the person his or her religion?

Donald Trump: They would be probably, they would say, ‘are you Muslim?’

Geist: And if they said, ‘yes,’ they would not be allowed in the country?

Trump: That is correct.

Wow, that’s almost as foolproof as asking immigrants if they are terrorists. This will certainly ensnare any would-be evil doers.

3. No, this will not help Isis. It has became all the rage to denounce all unpopular policy ideas as things that would be recruiting tools for ISIS. We were told that the refusal to allow Syrian refugees into the country would be used as a recruiting tool, and now we’re hearing that Donald’s proposal will only create more terrorists. I suggest we turn this idea around: I think that using the no-fly list as an excuse to deprive people of their second amendment rights without due process will only enable the terrorists, and will clearly create more jihadists.*

*No, I don’t actually think that, but it’s no less absurd.

You know what fuels the terrorists: our very existence. Some damned fool idea by a loud-mouthed American is not pushing anyone over the edge to jihad.

4. No, this is not unconstitutional. There seems to be an insistence in some quarters that all bad policy ideas are ipso facto unconstitutional. Jim Geraghty, for one, has been banging the drum on the proposal’s lack of constitutionality. Sorry to say bu the US government can pretty much restrict immigration to whoever the hell it wants. There is no constitutional right to emigrate here, and neither the first amendment or the ban on religious tests for public office speak to this issue. Unconstitutional does not mean “icky ideas.”

Now there has been some confusion as to whether Trump has lumped American citizens into this blanket ban, but it seems at the moment that this is confined to non-citizens overseas.

5. Only one person has not taken the bait. Like night follows day, the denouncements came in from all sides. Twitter quickly filled up with angry tweets, and presidential candidates giddily joined the fray. Jeb Bush, Lindsay Graham, Marco Rubio and pretty much the rest of the remaining GOP field quickly jumped in to declare how horrible a person Trump was.

Jeb Bush getting on twitter to denounce Trump might be the most tone-deaf political maneuver one can imagine. Donald Trump’s position as the lead horse in the GOP field is almost entirely due to Jeb Bush’s existence in the race. Bush’s continued delusional run – and lump Graham, Kasich, and most of the others in there – is what is keeping Trump atop the polls. Narrow the field to three candidates, or even four, and suddenly Trump’s 25 percent doesn’t look so impressive. Yet not only does Bush persist, he does the one thing Trump desires most: he gave him negative attention.

Only one GOP candidate didn’t take the bait, and it’s the one person who seems to know what the hell he’s doing. Ted Cruz didn’t denounce Trump, but instead chose a softer way to distance himself from the Donald:

“I do not agree with his proposals. I do not think it is the right solution,” Cruz said in the Capitol. “The right solution I believe is the legislation that I have introduced.”

More on what Cruz has proposed here.

So not only did Cruz refuse to poke the bear, he made his own policy proposal the centerpiece.

Amazingly Cruz is being roundly denounced himself by some for refusing to do his own denouncing. While it’s certainly possible that this is a cynical ploy not to anger Trump’s supporters for fear of alienating them down the road, it also happens to be the proper strategy, and one that other Republican candidates would be well advised to employ. Yet only Cruz seems to have the wits to understand this. That almost in and of itself is why Cruz is now in position to surpass Trump sooner or later.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
92 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Penguins Fan
Penguins Fan
Tuesday, December 8, AD 2015 7:54pm

Given that the United States Government virtually banned immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe after WWI, I don’t want to hear that Muslim immigration can’t be stopped.

if Cruz passes Trump, great. Cruz is smart and he is no ass-kisser of the GOP Establishment. If he doesn’t pass Trump, I’ll vote for Trump in a heartbeat to keep the Hildebeast out of the White House.

I respect Mr. Zummo, but I have grown to like Trump because he tells off the people who need being told off. To hell with political niceties.To hell with the GOP Establishment and their K Street electioneers who shove losers like Dole, McCain, Romney and Jeb down our throats.

David Spaulding
David Spaulding
Tuesday, December 8, AD 2015 7:55pm

If Trump is the GOP nominee, I will not be voting for a president. I sincerely hope Cruz gets the nod and can be persuaded to vote for the dunderhead, Rubio.

Your post is spot on and I hadn’t thought about the wisdom of NOT denouncing. That is a smart idea that hadn’t occurred to me.

Donald R. McClarey
Reply to  Dante alighieri
Tuesday, December 8, AD 2015 8:12pm

I could never vote for Trump, but a large part of his popularity is due to the obvious fact that our political class simply will not address many of the issues that need to be addressed. Political cowardice and blindness ever paves the way for demagogues. I agree however that Trump will not be the nominee.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Tuesday, December 8, AD 2015 8:26pm

I’m thinking Trump is a liberal plant. That statement took the negative attention away from Baghdad Bob/Sergeant Schultz Obama and Hillary.
.
If the USA were not a dictatorship disguised as a democracy, she would be in prison in 2016. But, Hillary will not disappoint me, as any of the GOP establishment picks will. I’m prepared for the apocalypse.

Foxfier
Admin
Tuesday, December 8, AD 2015 10:39pm

Cruz keeps doing stuff to make me like him. 😀

.Anzlyne
.Anzlyne
Tuesday, December 8, AD 2015 10:39pm

Not voting for the republican nominee would be a mistake.
.
As a start, the U.S. could restrict immigration from Muslim countries.

Steve D.
Steve D.
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 12:31am

You are mistaken if you don’t think all Muslims are the problem. Their goal is to establish sharia law wherever they can claim a majority. Don’t think it can happen in a democracy? Think again. It’s a ‘religion” of jihad and they want to either enslave or destroy you.

Michael Dowd
Michael Dowd
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 3:11am

If the Republican establishment really wants to rid itself of the Trump “menace” they should convince five or six of his competitors to leave the race forthwith. The fact that they probably will not just shows the level of their own selfishness and lack of candor about what they say about “the Donald”. If we want a real horse race lets get rid of the horses asses.

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 3:44am

Steve D wrote, “You are mistaken if you don’t think all Muslims are the problem. Their goal is to establish sharia law wherever they can claim a majority…”
So why did the Turkish Republic, with an overwhelming Muslim majority, abolish Sharia law in 1926 and replace it with the Swiss Civil Code, the German Commercial Code and the Italian Penal Code?
Why have not Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan – all Muslim majority countries – replaced their Soviet era civil, commercial or criminal codes with Sharia law?
Why has not Albania or Kosovo done so?

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 3:57am

Lord Macaulay showed a sound understanding of human nature, when he wrote:

“If, indeed, all men reasoned in the same manner on the same data, and always did what they thought it their duty to do, this mode of dispensing punishment might be extremely judicious. But as people who agree about premises often disagree about conclusions, and as no man in the world acts up to his own standard of right, there are two enormous gaps in the logic by which alone penalties for opinions can be defended….
“We do not believe that every Englishman who was reconciled to the Catholic Church would, as a necessary consequence, have thought himself justified in deposing or assassinating Elizabeth. It is not sufficient to say that the convert must have acknowledged the authority of the Pope, and that the Pope had issued a bull against the Queen. We know through what strange loopholes the human mind contrives to escape, when it wishes to avoid a disagreeable inference from an admitted proposition. We know how long the Jansenists contrived to believe the Pope infallible in matters of doctrine, and at the same time to believe doctrines which he pronounced to be heretical. Let it pass, however, that every Catholic in the kingdom thought that Elizabeth might he lawfully murdered. Still the old maxim, that what is the business of everybody is the business of nobody, is particularly likely to hold good in a case in which a cruel death is the almost inevitable consequence of making any attempt.
Of the ten thousand clergymen of the Church of England, there is scarcely one who would not say that a man who should leave his country and friends to preach the Gospel among savages, and who should, after labouring indefatigably without any hope of reward, terminate his life by martyrdom, would deserve the warmest admiration. Yet, we can doubt whether ten of the ten thousand ever thought of going on such an expedition. Why should we suppose that conscientious motives, feeble as they are constantly found to be in a good cause, should be omnipotent for evil?”

Donald R. McClarey
Reply to  Michael Paterson-Seymour
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 5:19am

“So why did the Turkish Republic, with an overwhelming Muslim majority, abolish Sharia law in 1926 and replace it with the Swiss Civil Code, the German Commercial Code and the Italian Penal Code?”

Because of Kemal Ataturk whose legacy is under siege in Turkey.

“Why have not Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan – all Muslim majority countries – replaced their Soviet era civil, commercial or criminal codes with Sharia law?”

Largely because they are ruled by oppressive authoritarian regimes reminiscent of the old Soviet regimes they replaced. Life in these lands is not a happy one for most of the inhabitants, a sure recipe for the growth of Islamic radicalism.

“Why has not Albania or Kosovo done so?”

Albania largely because only 58% of the population is Islamic, rising prosperity, a large percentage of the population leaving Albania and because most of the Muslims are nondenominational, following no sect of Islam, and the legacy of the years of Enver Hoxha’s rule which saw an attempt to eliminate all religious identity in Albania. The UN created state of Kosovo has not embraced Sharia and seems to be doing well as a democracy. The moral I guess is that Islamic majority countries, other than Indonesia, can resist radical Islam if their regimes are authoritarian or they are in Europe with small populations.

DJ Hesselius
DJ Hesselius
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 5:50am

“Why have not Azerbaijan…Why has not Albania…” They have not done so…yet. They may well do so in the future. Turkey replaced her Islamic laws some years back, but has been drifting back to them.

Nate Winchester
Nate Winchester
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 6:40am

The fact that they probably will not just shows the level of their own selfishness and lack of candor about what they say about “the Donald”.

Or it is proof that the “establishment” is a lot less powerful than a lot of frustrated people believe. Maybe it all really is just a bunch of people making it all up as they go along.

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 7:14am

I can think of another reason why Trump’s proposal is a bad idea: if it were ever made permanent U.S. policy it could easily be turned against Catholics, Jews, evangelical Protestants, or other religions based on some teaching of theirs that was deemed contrary to American values or rights. I could easily imagine some future far-leftist administration deciding, for example, that conservative Catholics were too “intolerant” of women’s rights (abortion) and gay rights to be allowed into the country. Let’s not forget that in the 1850s there was a bona fide popular political party, the Know Nothings, devoted to the idea that Catholic immigration was a dire threat to national security — even though, AFAIK, there was not any kind of “Catholic terrorism” going on at the time.

Yes, I know that today’s militant Islamists are far more of a threat than the most “militant” Catholics of today are (the one group that could possibly be classified as “Catholic” terrorists, the IRA, were entirely political in their aims; they just wanted the Brits out of Northern Ireland, not to force people to convert to Catholicsm or to establish a worldwide Vatican State ruled by the Pope). Still, one can’t underestimate the potential for a religion-based immigration policy to be grossly misused.

Donald R. McClarey
Reply to  Elaine Krewer
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 7:27am

“it could easily be turned against Catholics, Jews, evangelical Protestants, or other religions based on some teaching of theirs that was deemed contrary to American values or rights.”

If such a regime were in power they would make such an attempt notwithstanding what is done in regard to Muslim immigration today. Of course throughout the history of the US, up until 65, immigrants from Europe were favored and immigration from other areas was disfavored. In regard to the current administration it could be argued that when it comes to the Middle East Christian immigrants are disfavored.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/228670-no-room-in-america-for-christian-refugees

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 7:39am

There is a good article by Fr Longenecker about Donald Trump:
.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/12/ten-ways-donald-trump-reflects-america-today.html
.
It would be entirely possibe for the next election to be between a blowhard caricature of a businessman on the right and a murderous crook or commie pinko on the left.

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 7:49am

Donald R. McClarey wrote, “Because of Kemal Ataturk whose legacy is under siege in Turkey”

Of course, but why? Why would Ataturk wish to antagonize the country’s overwhelming Muslim majority, if, indeed, it was likely to do so? Is not the real answer that he believed it would be popular with a significant and influential section of the public, Muslim to a man?

“Rising prosperity”

Indeed. Thus, Fadela Amara, herself a Muslim, when she was French Secretary of State for Urban Policies described fundamentalism as something clung to by some people through ignorance and isolation in ghetto communities that will vanish when they are given better opportunities of intellectual enlightenment and of acquiring elementary knowledge in history and the sciences.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 7:51am

A 1950’s Rock song had lines: “Don’t know much about History . . .”

“it could easily be turned against Catholics, Jews, evangelical Protestants, or other religions based on some teaching of theirs that was deemed contrary to American values or rights.”

Also, Dear Leader Obama has a de fact ban on Middle East Christians who are in danger of genocide by peace-loving Muslims.

Donald R. McClarey
Reply to  Michael Paterson-Seymour
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 8:21am

“Of course, but why? Why would Ataturk wish to antagonize the country’s overwhelming Muslim majority, if, indeed, it was likely to do so?”

Because Ataturk was a Turkish nationalist who viewed Islam as a cause of his nation’s weakness and backwardness. He was very much in the Peter the Great mode of modernizers and could care less whether the reforms he was sponsoring were popular with the masses, which is why Turkey was effectively a one party state under his rule.

Donald R. McClarey
Reply to  Michael Paterson-Seymour
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 9:36am

“Thus, Fadela Amara, herself a Muslim, when she was French Secretary of State for Urban Policies described fundamentalism as something clung to by some people through ignorance and isolation in ghetto communities that will vanish when they are given better opportunities of intellectual enlightenment and of acquiring elementary knowledge in history and the sciences.”

This statement is a gem of miscomprehension of human motivations based upon a materialist view of history. Actually the jihadis are disproportionately from well to do or middle class families. Farook of San Bernardino infamy was a graduate of California State and was earning 70K a year inspecting restaurants.

Pinky
Pinky
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 9:49am

Amazingly?? Our modern society is built on denouncements. To fail to denounce is the gravest of crimes.

Pinky
Pinky
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 9:53am

Let me expand on that. If you’re a good guy, you’re denouncing bad guys. That’s the defining characteristic of good guys. If you’re a bad guy, you exist to be denounced. If you’re someone who doesn’t denounce, then you’re hard to classify. You have to be denounced for not denouncing, because the only merit the good guy has is the quality of his denouncements.

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 9:57am

Pinky has just described liberal progressivism – the politics of dragging everyone else down flat on his face in the mud and lifting up no one to proudly stand free and independent on his own two feet.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 10:02am

It’s unworkable

There’s a list of 25 or 30 problem countries to whose passport holders you can close the door. You can apply an algorithm to applicants from other countries. (Danish citizen named Mohammed… hmm). Hermetic sealing is not possible, but closing the valve most of the way is. (Not that its a capital idea).

See R.M. Kaus on this point: a way to defang Trump is to take his issue away from him. The only one who has made an effort to do that is R. Santorum. Maybe it’s donor pressure or maybe its just the way the GOP elite is in our time. My policy is anyone but Hellary.
==
Memo to Tito Edwards: the site’s gotten hopelessly buggy.

Patricia
Patricia
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 11:03am

‘… ban on Middle East Christians who are in danger of genocide by peace-loving Muslims’
.
Yes, all this talk is happening while specifically Christian Syrian families who sought refuge in the US are being returned to the place they left ( due to brutal, unspeakable torture ) by some branch of the Federal Government.
As I learned this last night during an impassioned prayer request for these families from Fr. Pacwa on EWTN, I thought about how great their struggle for Hope becomes when no Christian leader in the mix is able or willing to choose these families scheduled for return to Syria for sanctuary. More sick world news as cathedral doors open.

Ernst Schreiber
Ernst Schreiber
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 11:22am

It would be entirely possibe for the next election to be between a blowhard caricature of a businessman on the right of the center-left and a murderous crook or commie pinko on the left.

.
FTFY as they say. Trump may be to the right of Bloomberg, but I’m not sure he’s to the right of Giuliani.
.
Personally, I find it hard to argue with Ed Driscoll.

Phillip
Phillip
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 11:35am
.Anzlyne
.Anzlyne
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 12:48pm

It doesn’t look like Fr Longenecker likes/repsects us any better than Trump or Obama does.
.
I admit we have been gullible – very gullible! but I think that is over.
.
and I think Fr Longenecker’s estimation of us can be shown false.

Phillip
Phillip
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 1:16pm

“It doesn’t look like Fr Longenecker likes/repsects us any better than Trump or Obama does.”

Can we add “simplistic” for the good Father.

Don L
Don L
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 1:33pm

Hey, even loose cannons hit their targets a day, or something like that….
Seriously, Trump represents the failure of rational responses to our nation’s corruption at the highest political levels. The political system so corrupted it no longer works. I don’t believe many of his “supporters” really like the man.

Michael Dowd
Michael Dowd
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 1:45pm

Re: Don L.

I find that my really orthodox Catholic friends really like Donald Trump. Trump stands for a the new CEO who inspires confidence and enthusiasm in the company’s employees. I remember the very first meeting Lee Iacocca had with the top 300 execs. You could feel the change in the air as he talked, from depression to jubilation. When he finished I think every one thought we had a real chance of making it. That’s Donald Trump.

paul coffey
paul coffey
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 3:26pm

Penguins fan – spot on. Elaine; not so much from my view MHO. I applaud Trumps position purely because it is an aggressive, reasonable forward step toward a national recognition and conversation that the real battle here is with Islam,; we call these characters ‘ terrorists’ – they don’t. they refer to themselves as good fundamental, traditional, Q’ran thumping muzzis. When is the last time you saw a traffic jam caused by Islamists protesting Islamist treatment of Christians in Mosul. or the yizzi’s , or the tragic kurds………
Put another way – jerusalem @700A.D- vienna @1500 Rome 2XXX – These folks are continuing their war against us…… and won’t stop or rest nor stop ; not with standing those attaturk – ottoman genocidal anatoli greek armenian slewing “capitalists”.
Choose between Communist law and Sharia law. you say….??/ that’s cute, like there is a difference…….Heavy water or deuterium, make a choice,

and you would not vote for a Trump? if he is the best [ theory of relativity ] this pagan, zombie loving ,baby killing elderly punishing ,bankrupt, sick,evil mediocore cultural morass can put forward, you simply won’t play the hand you are dealt? is that how you render to Caesar? and let the obamatites continue- ?? just when our congress has finally voted to gut PP Federation and the Affordable care abomination? really- that is how you see your civic duty? that shakes me to my core…… Tactical play is so crucial in this war – you recall Morgan and the cowpens – Trump is not an end game. WE ARE AT WAR! read the bishop primate of syria, again. and again….
Trump is one tactical step back toward a presbyterian/ protestant based , defined borders national identity, albeit a very long road …..

I say warn their civilians, drop the booklets and launch the squadron[S] . i’m flexible on the warning aspect… then let [ fund$’s ]the Israeli’s bringing in their housing construction teams. and put the saudi’s on notice.

We back shale oil big time and define a national policy to get us off oil and onto methane or electric or hydrogen……. [ see dept. of energy 1972; the myth] Trump is a point in time. James k. Polk,anyone? #11 – 1845-1849. the point man for a new nation, right or wrong.

David Spaulding
David Spaulding
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 3:54pm

I get Trump’s appeal. When led by the feckless, decisiveness is attractive.

Trump is unhinged and unreliable though. What does he stand for? I don’t know and I’ll warrant that those who think they do are in for a surprise if he becomes president. He is pure populist and loves controversy. He says that thing no one else does. He’s that guy you’d be embarrassed to bring home to Mama’s for dinner but roar about when you hear his antics.

He has the potential to be quite dangerous as a world leader, our own little despot.

No thanks.

Leave the first true despot to Progressives, vote Cruz.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 4:01pm

Trump’s main talent is his ability to annoy liberals and GOP losers, er, establishment types.
.
On TV this morning, an economist made a metaphor/statement on the Muslim immigration issue. He said something like, If you were offered a bowl of m&m’s and knew that ten of them were poison, would you eat any from the bowl?
.
It seems the people calling Trump, “Hitler” believe scores or hundreds more dead Americans are acceptable losses (“They Were Expendable”) so long as we don’t anger any more Muslims or add, as if already they don’t have enough men and women to cause us harm, more recruits to ISIS.

David Spaulding
David Spaulding
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 4:22pm

In a sense, T. Shaw, I agree.

I despise the GOP Establishment and find it to be only distinguishable from the Dem Establishment on some, narrow culture issues. Even there, Boehner, Ryan, McConnell and Company left their backbones in their other suitcases.

My problem with Trump’s hateful remarks come from two quarters: 1) they are, essentially trolling, intended to get press. They surely do this so his aim to keep the spotlight on him IS good politics. And, 2) if he doesn’t mean them, he is just another liar, masquerading as a principled champion. If he DOES mean them, he is either terribly naive or outright dangerous.

Turning the engine of the State on a group is dangerous as hell. That dog, once unleashed, WILL turn on the one who thinks he is its master. The pragmatist in me rebels against the hubris-laden claim to be able to control mob rule with personality alone. The Framers knew better and we should heed their warnings.

No, Islam is an ideology and loosely a religion crafted by a diabolical pedophile with a violent streak as wide as the road to hell. I fundamentally disagree with the Church on how to deal with the menace. BUT, Trump would feed the patient an deadly dose of poison to rid us of the virus. There is more Jim Jones than Hitler to Trump and I, for one, will not drink from his Dixie Cup.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 7:03pm

“. . . .Boehner, Ryan, McConnell and Company left their backbones in their other suitcases.” My take is the same but a bit different. Each needs to request from her gynecologist two testicles.
.
Agreed. However, unlike Obama I believe President Trump will not rule by executive order and will not ignore the Constitution or create laws and regulations out of his whims. We live under a dictatorship disguised as a democracy. It’s just that it is so ineffective being run by halfwits and useless scum, i.e., Democrats. .

Ernst Schreiber
Ernst Schreiber
Wednesday, December 9, AD 2015 8:36pm

Trump is unhinged and unreliable

Is he? I thought that was just a character he just played that on TV.

Greg Mockeridge
Greg Mockeridge
Thursday, December 10, AD 2015 1:16am

If Trump is so clearly playing people for fools (and I believe he is) why haven’t the GOP candidates (Rubio, Cruz et al) been able to effectively expose it. The fecklessness of the GOP establishment and the the presidential candidates are a big reason why the fraud that is DaDonald candidacy is still gaining ground.

Barbara Gordon
Barbara Gordon
Thursday, December 10, AD 2015 1:52am

“if Cruz passes Trump, great. Cruz is smart and he is no ass-kisser of the GOP Establishment”

The Republican establishment despises Cruz–mainly because he won’t play their games in relation to giving Obama everything Obama wants. There are a myriad of examples. Here is one.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/24/cruz-on-senate-floor-accuses-gop-leader-mcconnell-lying.html

Also, Cruz is absolutely brilliant.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/09/dershowitz-tex-cruz-one-of-harvard-laws-smartest-students/

“n private practice in Houston, Ted spent five years as a partner at one of the nation’s largest law firms, where he led the firm’s U.S. Supreme Court and national Appellate Litigation practice. Ted has authored more than 80 U.S. Supreme Court briefs and argued 43 oral arguments, including nine before the U.S. Supreme Court. During Ted’s service as Solicitor General, Texas achieved an unprecedented series of landmark national victories”

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=about_senator

If you want to see some vintage Ted Cruz, be sure and watch the You Tube video entitled “BLOWOUT! Ted Cruz vs. Dianne Feinstein. It is so much fun watching Ms. Feinstein go beserk under Ted’s gentle questioning. 😀

Cruz is an international debate champion–and it shows–all of the time.

Another great example of vintage Cruz is his announcement speech for his presidential run given at Liberty University.

I am behind Cruz 100%. However, I love his father even more!! 😀

Barbara Gordon
Barbara Gordon
Thursday, December 10, AD 2015 2:06am

“You are mistaken if you don’t think all Muslims are the problem. Their goal is to establish sharia law wherever they can claim a majority. Don’t think it can happen in a democracy? Think again. It’s a ‘religion’ of jihad and they want to either enslave or destroy you.”

It already IS happening here in the US.

The word “stoning” in this article means hitting very hard with full water bottles because no stones were available. I guess you would call it “bottling.”

http://m.clarionproject.org/analysis/dearborn-no-go-zone-where-islam-rules-and-christians-are-stoned

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/06/arab-americans-become-majority-on-dearborn-mich-council/3460591/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/04/michigan-its-christian-bells-vs-muslim-prayer-calls

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/1118274/posts

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/28/voluntary-sharia-tribunal-in-texas-this-is-how-it-starts/

Barbara Gordon
Barbara Gordon
Thursday, December 10, AD 2015 2:14am

“If the Republican establishment really wants to rid itself of the Trump “menace” they should convince five or six of his competitors to leave the race forthwith. The fact that they probably will not just shows the level of their own selfishness and lack of candor about what they say about “the Donald”. If we want a real horse race lets get rid of the horses asses.”

We elected a Republican majority US House & Senate–just to watch establishment Rs be put in charge of those bodies who promptly preceded to give Obama everything he wanted.

The establishment is hoping that they can excoriate Cruz & Trump to the point of making both unelectable. Meanwhile, the establishment Rs are smiling kindly at us and politely telling us what they think we want to hear–while sticking multiple knives in our back and continuing to implement freedom revoking Socialistic policies that are robbing us blind.

Barbara Gordon
Barbara Gordon
Thursday, December 10, AD 2015 2:30am

“Steve D wrote, “You are mistaken if you don’t think all Muslims are the problem. Their goal is to establish sharia law wherever they can claim a majority…”
So why did the Turkish Republic, with an overwhelming Muslim majority, abolish Sharia law in 1926 and replace it with the Swiss Civil Code, the German Commercial Code and the Italian Penal Code?
Why have not Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan – all Muslim majority countries – replaced their Soviet era civil, commercial or criminal codes with Sharia law?
Why has not Albania or Kosovo done so?”

Just because the written civil law itself is not full Sharia does not mean that Sharia is not being implemented and regularly practiced, in part or in whole, among a given Muslim population. Muslims often have an alternative court system and legal/governmental system being implemented and executed along side civil laws–similarly to the Jewish high preists in the New Testament ruling the Jewish population in Jerusalem despite being technically under Roman rule and law.

They are already beginning attempts at this here in the US.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/28/voluntary-sharia-tribunal-in-texas-this-is-how-it-starts/

Barbara Gordon
Barbara Gordon
Thursday, December 10, AD 2015 2:45am

“I can think of another reason why Trump’s proposal is a bad idea: if it were ever made permanent U.S. policy it could easily be turned against Catholics, Jews, evangelical Protestants, or other religions based on some teaching of theirs that was deemed contrary to American values or rights. I could easily imagine some future far-leftist administration deciding, for example, that conservative Catholics were too “intolerant” of women’s rights (abortion) and gay rights to be allowed into the country.”

Christians from Syria, who have and are facing unimaginable slaughter and suffering to the point of being stamped out through genocide, are being systematically denied entry to and political asylum in the United States by the Obama administration RIGHT NOW.

The courts and congress have allowed the currently elected president to have explicit discretion over immigration in regards to numbers and who can come. Of course, congress is supposed to pass the funding for these type decisions and has to this point, to my knowledge–although I have read of a very recent effort to block funding for the current Obama admin efforts to bring 10s of thousands of Syrian Muslims to the US over the time Obama has left in office.

Barbara Gordon
Barbara Gordon
Thursday, December 10, AD 2015 2:55am

“I can think of another reason why Trump’s proposal is a bad idea: if it were ever made permanent U.S. policy it could easily be turned against Catholics, Jews, evangelical Protestants, or other religions based on some teaching of theirs that was deemed contrary to American values or rights. I could easily imagine some future far-leftist administration deciding, for example, that conservative Catholics were too “intolerant” of women’s rights (abortion) and gay rights to be allowed into the country. Let’s not forget that in the 1850s there was a bona fide popular political party, the Know Nothings, devoted to the idea that Catholic immigration was a dire threat to national security — even though, AFAIK, there was not any kind of ‘Catholic terrorism’ going on at the time.”

It is a very good idea to place a temporary moratorium on bringing people into the US who are from regions of the world where Muslims have been and are being radicalized. It only took 19 Muslim men, who came in on Visas, to kill 3000+ Americans and destroy the World Trade Center and much more. If that moratorium were in place, those 14 Americans from San Berdino, CA, would still be alive.

Good God! We are at war!! How many more Americans are going to have to die before people acknowledge what is actually taking place?

Dead people have no rights!

Michael Dowd
Michael Dowd
Thursday, December 10, AD 2015 3:18am

Re: Barbara Gordon
“The establishment is hoping that they can excoriate Cruz & Trump to the point of making both unelectable. ”
What you say is true. Big Business runs the show. Dem’s and Rep’s are two sides of the same coin. Big Business needs employees who work cheap, friendly tax laws, enough welfare to keep the natives from getting restless and a general atmosphere of fear so the public will support a strong military and local police and not rise up against the establishment in any meaningful way. Remember the most important thing is to keep the world safe for money making. Big Business doesn’t care whether you are Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Liberal, Conservative, Communist, etc.

Remember the movie ‘Network” where CCA chairman Arthur Jensen, who explicates his own “corporate cosmology”. Jensen delivers a tirade that suggests Jensen may himself be some higher power—describing the interrelatedness of the participants in the international economy and the illusory nature of nationality distinctions. There’s lots of truth in ‘masters of the universe’ idea. For example, terrorism will not end until it is decided it is “bad for business”. Cockroaches and corruption are always with us.

Michael Dowd
Michael Dowd
Thursday, December 10, AD 2015 3:35am

Just so no one misses it in my comments above. Trump and Cruz are the Howard Beales of our time and they gotta go–too disruptive of the status quo, can’t have that, you know.

Penguin Fan
Penguin Fan
Thursday, December 10, AD 2015 5:33am

Let’s be clear that big business in all its forms is no friend of conservatives and anyone with “traditional” values. Big Entertainment, Big Media, Big Insurance, Big Anything. Bill Gates is the big guy behind Common Core, which is Math By Satan. Gates backs Worse than Murder as well. I HATE using Microsoft.
Since the US Govermnent already limits immigration and visas from many parts of the world – citizens of Poland must apply for a visa to visit the US, but not the Czech Republic – slowing down immigration from Muslim countries, allowing only persecuted Christians is a good idea. Of course, Obama wants Iraqi Catholics deported. Still not a peep from the USCCB.

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Thursday, December 10, AD 2015 5:40am

An excerpt from Phineas Finn by Anthony Trollope, published in 1868.
“Many who before regarded legislation on the subject as chimerical, will now fancy that it is only dangerous, or perhaps not more than difficult. And so in time it will come to be looked on as among the things possible, then among the things probable;–and so at last it will be ranged in the list of those few measures which the country requires as being absolutely needed. That is the way in which public opinion is made.”
“It is no loss of time,” said Phineas, “to have taken the first great step in making it.”
“The first great step was taken long ago,” said Mr. Monk,–”taken by men who were looked upon as revolutionary demagogues, almost as traitors, because they took it. But it is a great thing to take any step that leads us onwards.”

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top