In my hometown, a stone’s throw from my house, Donald Trump – on an aircraft carrier that actually helped destroy the tyranny of fascism – doubled down on his statement that all Muslims should be banned from entering the United States.
If you’ve read my blogs, you’ll see that I understand there’s an issue with Islam. The left doesn’t want to admit it, and the right wants to demonize it, which would be business as usual in our republic, but this proclamation is possibly the scariest thing I have ever heard. And, not surprisingly, the dumbest idea yet for combatting the very issues we face. I couldn’t help but be reminded of the various calls for gun control after any shooting, with all of the proclamations for additional laws completely disconnected from the attack in question.
This time I’d like to analyze the two together, using the San Bernadino attack that has spawned both:
As soon as the attacks occurred, demands came for closing the so-called “gun show loophole”, increasing background checks, and preventing people on the no-fly list from buying firearms. Which, all together, would have done nothing to prevent the San Bernardino attack.
If we had enacted ALL of those before San Bernardino, the attacks still would have occurred. California has some of the strictest gun control laws on the books in the United States, yet the guns were purchased legally, with a background check, outside of a gun show, and the shooters were not on the “no fly” list. None of those new calls would have prevented the tragedy. Which brings us to Donald Trump.
He proclaims he wants to ban all Muslims from entering in an effort to prevent terrorist attacks like San Bernardino, which seems to resonate, but what, actually, would that do? Like increased gun control, very little.
First of all, he clarified his remarks to say that American citizens would be exempt, and could return home. Guess what? Both the Boston Marathon Bomber and the killer in San Bernardino – the last two terrorist attacks on our soil – were US citizens. The ban he proposes would have done nothing to prevent the attacks – just like every call for more gun control.
Second, when asked on how it would be enforced, he stated that the customs official would ask the person attempting to enter. This is exactly what we on the anti-gun control debate stress: A criminal will not self confess to being a criminal. The only people who will obey the law are law-abiding citizens. Does Trump really think that an ISIS fanatic from Belgium, coming to the United States for mischief, is going to say, “Yes, I’m a Muslim. In fact, a devout one that has pledged fealty to the Islamic State. But I mean no harm.” How is the customs official supposed to disprove such a thing when the man simply says, “Muslim? Nope”? Ask the man for the twelve apostles? Ask him to prove he’s NOT a Muslim? Funny, just such a tactic is used by the Islamic State. When overrunning Mosul and other towns, they captured people and demanded they prove that they were Sunni and NOT Shia. When they didn’t know the religion well enough, they were beheaded.
This talk is more than just fear mongering. It plays right into ISIS’ hands of an “us versus them” doctrine. I’m the first to say that Islam has a problem, and – far from being immune – is a cause of the current fight, but the only solution will come from within that same religion. If you want Muslims to quit hating America and quit wanting to kill us, that involves them seeing the very beacon on the hill that we are. It depends on them learning what life can be like outside of a Sharia state, and that’s a long, long process. I’ve read the reports of “honor killings” in America, where the parents or siblings killed a female for being too “westernized”, and they sicken me. Some will say that that proves an incompatibility. I say the opposite – the female was assimilating. Yes, the death is horrific and the man who did it should have his nuts barbecued, but for every single report of an honor killing, there are literally thousands of other Muslims who are assimilating into our democratic society peacefully. And that is the method to defeat the virulent strain of barbaric Islam.
Make no mistake, Pakistan isn’t going to reform Islam. Neither is Saudi Arabia. But Baywatch might. If we allow the Muslims to watch it.
The second part of Trumps statement puts the responsibility of verifying muslims on our elected officals.
Okay. What’s your point? They have some magic method to do so?
I would think the elected officials would have a way verifying “anyone” trying to enter our country by utilizing their Intel / DHS type assets to verify personnel, not just ICE (or one organization). I am no guru on the topic, however a sort of joint group would seem to suffice in working together to put a more stringent background check on personnel entering than what we currently have.
In regards to Trump, I do believe he said “temporary” ban on Muslims, depending on which media source you read.
I guess, bottom line, our elected officials better think of a magic method quick before the paranoid morons commit more jackassery / backlash like the ones in California and make this a bigger issue.
I wish we had some magic ability as well, but my points in the blog stand: You can’t determine a man’s religion by looking at him, and a “vetting process” based on religion is asking for failure. The Philippines is a predominately Catholic country, with a sizable Muslim insurgency. Someone shows up with a passport from there, how do you decide he’s out for harm, when he says he’s Catholic? Unless he tells you, we can’t, and that’s irrespective if the ban is “temporary” or permanent. It is just unenforceable. Now, if you’re talking about an individual, that’s a different story, and tied to a name and actions – NOT religion. The whole point of the blog is that blocking all Muslims is doing nothing but feeding the ISIS narrative. It will present no protections to our nation at all, and only make us feel better emotionally.
You are correct. Don’t want to clog up your blog with the back and forth. I should of paid closer attention to “Lunacy” in your title. Hopefully our “subject matter experts” in charge will see the beacon soon themselves and unass this situation.
Looking forward to The Forgotten Soldier.
Like standing at customs…..Congressman Issa working the counter?
These ideas…are not well thought out at best, and downright ignorant and part of the problem at worst.
Love your blog!
I stay out of the political arena usually, but Trump has some really stupid ideas and this is one of them. You make a good point re Boston bomber and San Bernardino – they were US citizens……just like Tim McVeigh. Good article.
I just moved back to Conroe (Artesian Oaks) and drive past your old house everyday. You’d be saddened by the horrible neighborhood they built on top of the natural springs next door. I keep waiting for a geyser to take it out 🙂
I understand that you are trying to reach out to Muslims who want an actual end to Islamic influenced terrorist activities. However, if you are aiming to have Muslims Westernized in the full sense, wouldn’t that mean that they are compromising, not being faithful to Islam in its truest sense if what the Koran says is supposed to be infallible, word for word? They can assimilate, but not without seriously contradicting the Koran.
You bring up an interesting point which is worthy of a blog in and of itself: Can a Muslim be true to Islam and still embrace the laws and values of a non-Islamic state? In so doing, are they rejecting the very religion they profess to follow? I’m no expert on the Quran or Islam, but it is a valid question, and the roots can be found in the history of the religion itself. Christianity was born and flourished as an underground system, with an overarching state control dislocated from it. Christians were thrown to the lions and Jesus Christ himself was murdered by the Romans. Thus, a Christian can inherently separate the overarching state from the religion. There is no contradiction from being a Methodist and, say, a Republican or Democrat. Unlike Christ, the head of Islam was also the head of the state. The state was inexorably intertwined into the religion, making a contradiction when one professes to be a pure follower and yet also obey the laws of a secular state entity. Can it be reconciled? I suspect so, as plenty of religions have shifted views over time, but I honestly don’t know. I’d have to have some Muslims weigh in on that answer.
I really want to thank you for responding back to me. The insights and experiences you provide on your blog entries are always welcome and useful even if we do not really agree on every single point. And you’re right about gun control: It simply does not work. In fact, I did a whole paper on the uselessness of it in college. I will always have an admiration for those who serve and have served as the personal sacrifices made can be costly.
As I understand it, the Wahhabists and other extremist Muslims basically have added final suras to the end of the Holy Qoran which state the overthrow of “infidels,” and purport violence. A quick Google search reveals this is called “Abrogation.”
The Holy Qoran contains many contradictory parts. A true believer is to read it based on what was said last, thus abrogation.
From Citizen Warrior (a bit of a radical site for my taste, but this is mostly quoted from others):
(The final sura is) just three verses basically saying “When Allah has achieved victory and conquered lots of people and when they are becoming Muslims in great numbers, praise Allah and ask for forgiveness.” That’s about it.
But if you look up the second to last chapter, called Taubah (which means “Ultimatum”), you will find it says a great deal about non-Muslims. In the traditional chapter order, this is chapter 9. Here are a few choice verses:
9:5 Slay the idolaters wherever you find them.
9:6 Those who submit and convert to Islam will be treated well. (Those who don’t submit will be killed. See previous verse.)
9:7-9 Don’t make treaties with non-Muslims. They are all evildoers and should not be trusted.
9:11 Treat converts to Islam well, but kill those who refuse to convert (see 9:5).
9:12-14 Fight the disbelievers! Allah is on your side; he will give you victory.
9:23 Don’t make friends with your disbelieving family members. Those who do so are wrong-doers.
9:29 Fight against Christians and Jews “until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.”
9:33 The “Religion of Truth” (Islam) must prevail, by force if necessary, over all other religions.
9:41 Fight for Allah with your wealth and whatever weapons are available to you.
9:42 Those who refuse to fight for Allah (claiming they are unable) are liars who have destroyed their souls.
9:73 Fight the disbelievers and hypocrites. Be harsh with them. They are all going to hell anyway.
9:81-83 Those who refuse to give their wealth and lives to Allah will face the fire of hell.
9:85 Those who refuse to fight for Allah will be treated (along with their children) as unbelievers.
9:111 Believers must fight for Allah. They must kill and be killed. Allah will reward them for it.
9:123 Fight disbelievers who are near you, and let them see the harshness in you.
This is Allah’s “last word” on tolerance and peace toward non-Muslims. If nothing else up to this point had abrogated the tolerant verses, the above verses completely wipe out every last positive verse in the Quran for non-Muslims.
Now I found this too….
by Waseem A. Sayed Ph.D
This allegation (abrogation) is based on the thesis that verses of the Holy Quran revealed late in the ministry of the Holy Prophet of Islam abrogate the verses that he received early in his ministry. Thus, it is argued, that all that is said about Islam being a religion of peace is just a charade since such statements are always based on verses that were revealed early on. What people are not told, it is said, is that these ‘peace promoting verses’ are no longer valid. So people need to be made aware that the true and permanent stance of Islam is the one based on the later revealed verses that call for violent Jihad and the killing of all infidels etc.
Before dealing with this allegation specifically, let me make some general comments.
This allegation is not new – it has been around for a long time and have been refuted not only in detail and by reference to the Holy Quran but also common sense invalidates all such claims: Could even a single person – let alone a whole world – have been won over by Muhammad (sa) on the basis of such [God forbid] lying, cheating and fabricating? By an orientalist, I have not found a truer, sounder, more logical assessment of Muhammad, peace and blessings of God be upon him, then so eloquently summarized by Thomas Carlyle [May 8, 1840] in the beginning of his famous Lecture: THE HERO AS PROPHET. MAHOMET: ISLAM.
“Our current hypothesis about Mahomet, that he was a scheming Impostor, a Falsehood incarnate, that his religion is a mere mass of quackery and fatuity, begins really to be now untenable to anyone. The lies, which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man, are disgraceful to ourselves only. …… It is really time to dismiss all that. The word this man spoke has been the life-guidance now of a hundred and eighty millions of men these twelve hundred years. These hundred and eighty millions were made by God as well as we. A greater number of God’s creatures believe in Mahomet’s word at this hour, than in any other word whatever. Are we to suppose that it was a miserable piece of spiritual legerdemain, this which so many creatures of the Almighty have lived by and died by? I, for my part, cannot form any such supposition. I will believe most things sooner than that. One would be entirely at a loss what to think of this world at all, if quackery so grew and were sanctioned here.”
“…… A false man found a religion? Why, a false man cannot build a brick house! If he do not know and follow truly the properties of mortar, burnt clay and what else be works in, it is no house that he makes, but a rubbish-heap. It will not stand for twelve centuries, to lodge a hundred and eighty millions; it will fall straightway…..”
Let me now turn to the the allegation specifically:
Holy Quran verses have been abrogated: This is an utterly baseless claim. The Holy Quran declares itself to be perfect at the outset [2:3] and says again and again that no one would ever be able to compile even a single Chapter like any of its Chapters [2:24-25]
And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to Our servant, then produce a Chapter like it, and call upon your helpers beside Allah, if you are truthful. But if you do it not — and never shall you do it — then guard against the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, which is prepared for the disbelievers. [2:24-25]
Commentary: The subject of the incomparable excellence of the Qur’an has been dealt with at five different places, i.e., in 2:24; 10:39; 11:14; 17:89 & 52:34, 35. In two of these five verses (2:24 & 10:39) the challenge is identical, while in the remaining three verses three separate and different demands have been made from disbelievers. At first sight this different in the form of the challenge at different places seems to be incongruous. But it is not so. In fact, these verses contain demands which stand for all time. The challenge is open even today in all the different forms mentioned in the Qur’an as it was in the time of the Holy prophet.
Before explaining the various forms of these challenges it is worth noting that their mention in the Qur’an is invariably accompanied by a reference to wealth and power, except in the present verse which, as already stated, does not contain a new challenge but only repeats the challenge made in 10:39. From this it may be safely concluded that there exists a close connection between the question of wealth and power and the challenge for the production of the like of the Qur’an and part thereof.
This connection lies in the fact the Qur’an has been held out to disbelievers as a priceless treasure. When disbelievers demanded material treasures from the Holy prophet (11:13), they were told he possessed a matchless treasure in the form of the Qur’an; and when they asked, wherefore has not an angel come with him (11:13), they were told in reply that angels did descend upon him, for their function was to bring the Word had already been vouchsafed to him. Thus both the demands for a treasure and for the descent of angels have been jointly met by the Qur’an which is a matchless treasure brought down by angels, and the challenge to produce it’s like has been put forward as a proof of its peerless quality.
Now, take the different verses containing this challenge separately. The greatest demand is made in 17:89, where disbelievers are required to bring a book like the whole of the Qur’an with all its manifold qualities. In that verse disbelievers are not required to represent their declare it to be the equal of, or, for that matter, better than, the Qur’an. But at the time disbelievers were not required to produce the like of the Qur’an then and there; and the challenges thus implied a prophecy that they would never be able to produce the like of it, neither in the form in which it then was, nor when it became complete. Again, the challenge was not confined to the disbelievers of the Prophet’s time alone, but extended to doubters and critics of all time. The reason why the disbelievers in 11:14 have been called upon to produce ten Surahs and not the whole of the Qur’an in all respects, but to that of only a portion of it. The disbelievers had objected to some parts of it being defective. Hence they were not required to bring a complete book like the whole of the Qur’an, but only ten truth of their assertion might be tested. As for the selection of the specific number 10 for this purpose, it may be noted that since in 17:89 the whole of the Qur’an was claimed to be a perfect Book, its opponents were called upon to produce the like of the whole of it; but as in 11:14 the point was that certain portions of it were objected to, so they were asked to choose ten such portions as appeared to them to be most defective and then produce a composition even like those portions. In 10:39 disbelieves were called upon to produce the like of only one Surah of the Qur’an. This is because; unlike the above-mentioned two verses the challenge in that verse was in support of a claim made by the Qur’an itself and not in refutation of any objection of the disbelievers. In 10:38 the Qur’an claimed to possess five very prominent qualities. In support of this claim, verse 10:39 throws out a challenge to those who deny to doubt it to produce a single Surah containing these qualities in the same perfect form in which they are contained in the 10th Surah. The fifth challenge to produce the like of the Qur’an is contained in the verse under comment (2:24) and here also, as in 10:39, disbelievers have been called upon to bring forward a single Surah like that of the Qur’an. This challenge is preceded by the claim that the Qur’an guides the righteous to the highest stages of spiritual progress. The disbelievers are told that if they are in doubt about the Devine origin of the Qur’an, then they should bring forward a single Surah that may be comparable to it in the spiritual influence it exercises over its followers. See also “The Larger Edition of the Commentary,” pp. 58-62.
The above explanation will show that all these challenges calling upon disbelievers to produce the like of the Qur’an are quite distinct and separate one from the other, and all of them stand for all time, none of them superseding or cancelling the other. But as the Qur’an comprises sublime and lofty ideas, it was inevitable that a most beautiful diction and the chastest style should have been employed as the vehicle for the expression of those ideas; otherwise the subject-matter was liable to remain obscure and doubtful and the perfect beauty disbelievers have been challenged to produce a composition like the Qur’an, the demand for beauty of style and elegance of diction comparable to that of the Qur’an also forms a part of the challenge.
Furthermore, and so as to leave no doubt on what the Holy Quran itself claims, it says itself that if it was not the Word of God surely there would be many contradictions in it.
[4:83] Will they not, then, meditate upon the Qur’an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much disagreement.
The claim made that the Holy Quran has itself declared that some of its verses have been abrogated by others…later verses abrogating earlier ones etc. is totally unsustainable. The verse cited in support of this allegation usually is [2:107]
Whatever Sign We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than that or the like thereof. Dost thou not know that Allah has the power to do all that He wills?
Commentary: It is mistakenly inferred from this verse that some verses of the Qur’an have been abrogated. The conclusion is patently erroneous and unwarranted. There is nothing in this verse to indicate that the Ayah spoken of in this verse as being abrogated, refers to the previous Revelations. It is pointed out that the previous Scriptures contained two kinds of commandments: (a) Those which, owing to changed conditions and to the universality of the new Revelation, required abrogation. (b) Those containing eternal truths which needed resuscitation so that people might be reminded of the forgotten truth. It was, thereof, necessary to abrogate certain portion of those Scriptures and bring in their place new ones, and also to restore the lost ones. So, God abrogated some portions of the previous Revelations, substituting them with new and better ones, and at the same time re-introduced the missing general spirit of the Quranic teaching. The Qur’an has abrogated all previous Scriptures; for, better than all the old Laws, but is also meant for all men for all times. An inferior teaching verse the word Nansakh (We abrogate) relates to the word Bi-Khairin (one better) and the word Nunsiha (we cause to be forgotten) relates to the word Bi-Mithliha (the like thereof), meaning that when God abrogates a certain thing He brings a better one in its place and when He causes a thing to be forgotten, He resuscitates it. It is admitted by Jewish scholars themselves that after the Israelites were carried away in captivity to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, the whole of the Pentateuch was lost (Enc. Bib.).
There is another verse that is sometimes quoted in this context: 16:102. Here also the meaning that somehow a verse abrogation is meant is quite untenable:
102. And when We bring one Sign in place of another1577 and Allah knows best the object of what He reveals they say, thou art but a fabricator.’ Nay, but most of them know not.
1577. The meaning is: “When We avert or delay punishment on account of a change for the better on the part of those who are threatened with it.” There is no reference here to the abrogation of any of the verses of the Qur’an. There is no verse in the Qur’an which clashes with any other verse of the Book and which may therefore have to be regarded as abrogated. All parts of the Qur’an support and corroborate one another. There is nothing in the context either to suggest any reference to the idea of abrogation.
I find all of this pretty fascinating! Wish I knew HTML better and I’d make this more readable…hope you can make it out.
Here’s the links:
Again, from what I understand….Wahhabist’s and others who want the Holy Qoran to support violence, more or less “slipped,” these final verses in. There’s debate as to what is true.
Thank you for your blog. I believe that what we can do is not something Americans or Westerners can do individually but we need to ask our religious leaders to come together with Islamic leaders and confront the extremist part of Islam today. Our message to our religious leaders needs to be something like:
Jihad is not something compatible with a modern and peaceful society. Believing that killing yourself and others as a way to achieve some sort of enhanced after life can not be the message of any religion in any peaceful society. Killing all people that don’t believe in what you believe is not something compatible in peaceful societies. The part of Islam that believes in violence as a means to an end must be reinterpreted to mean an individual change to one of peace with anyone of any faith or belief. A true revolution.
I agree that this change needs to come from Islam itself but perhaps other religious leaders can support this movement within Islam. It is to the benefit of all peoples that this movement start now.
When I first heard what Trump said, my first thought was “Well, THAT’S dangerous.” It didn’t set well and it didn’t feel like it was consistent with who we are as a country. At the time I was driving on the Sgt Andrew Looney Memorial Highway and I wondered what he would think of this; is this the country he died for? Would he agree with this? After a lot of thought, I have come to the conclusion that he probably would not. This is fear mongering at its best. It’s what we do when we’re scared to death that counts and as Americans, we don’t shrink our world. Andrew Looney would not have given in to fear. He lost his foot in Iraq, got a prosthetic, and went back. He was killed by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan over five years ago. As a boy he was already the very definition of all that is good about being an American. Exceptional young man. He was a Boy Scout in my husband’s scout troop with his brother and our three boys. I owe him. It’s my duty to live a life worthy of his sacrifice and that of so many others. Giving in to fear is not the way to do it.
I appreciate your blog post about this. You have a great ability to rise above the bs and give us a unique perspective, considering you know exactly what you’re talking about. If my knowledge of terrorism was dynamite, I couldn’t blow a small fart.
I am not American so, as with the previous post, I am stating my opinion as an outsider.
I found that Trump has a point in some of the topics he discusses. He describes some problems that occur on your country and in the rest of the world. But this fact does not make him any different than me, or you, or a vast majority of the population. It is easier to describe a given problem superficially than it is to present a good solution to that problem.
This takes me to something that I cannot stress enough: creativity. Politicians cannot think outside the box and present creative solutions. You probably know how much important this is in decision making processes, being them within smaller organizations or events (military units or soccer, for example) or in bigger organizations and events (politics, big companies, etc.).
Therefore, you always see that there are, generally, two types of politicians or ideologies (in a non technical sense): the moderates, and the more extreme. This goes from the right to the left. And Trump is just extreme, so extreme that he is probably dangerous not only to America but (and in this case I feel that I am entitled to an opinion) also to the West. I have the intuition (derived from a very superficial analysis of this cases) that moderate politicians and ideologies tend to be destructive in the long run, because they simply avoid facing some problems and they just do not present good or creative solutions (they do try to preserve a status quo in dynamic societies), and that extremists present solutions that have a greater potential to be destructive in the short run. I would place President Obama in the first category, and Trump, Le Pen, Tsipras on the second category.
Because here in Europe we are facing the same issue. And it is more dangerous here, trust me. I honestly do not know what Europe will be in the next twenty years.
In order for me to understand more this issue: do you think that Trump has any chance of winning the GOP election and, if he does, the Presidential election? And if he wins, do you think that he would be that extreme in the White House as he says he will, or that he will moderate himself?
I could not disagree with you more. Muslims are the problem , they are not as simulating into our country. They are trying to get Sharia law , the law of our land. Trump says let’s stop all illegals entering until we get control of our borders. He is saying what most are too PC to say. I say oorah!
The blog in no way addresses what is or is not the problem. It’s simply stating that attempting a ban on all Muslims is a feel-good knee-jerk reaction that will do nothing to prevent future attacks. That is all. In fact, you bring up another valid point: Banning all Muslims from entering the country legally will drive the terrorists to attempt to do so illegally, and as you so aptly show, they’ll get in. Bottom line: a blanket ban on a religion is not enforceable and will not prevent anything.
Do you hear yourself? Preventing Muslims from entering, which WE CAN DO EASILY IF WE STOP ACCEPTING VISAS FROM MUSLIM COUNTRIES,
By the way, did you know we already ban immigration from Communists? And it’s a ban that works pretty well even though it’s easier to hide ideology than religion. If we can ban free speech in immigration (“the right to a political ideology”) then a blanket ban on IMMIGRATION from one religion IS enforceable. That’s what he’s talking about. Not a “ban” on a religion. In the same way America used to only accept immigration from developed countries, it’s always good policy to accept immigration from more educated, like-minded nations than it is to accept it from third world hellholes with radical terrorism.
And it would of prevented MOST terrorist attacks: 9/11 would of been prevented (and Trump is the ONLY CANDIDATE who PREDICTED 9/11, writing of Osama Bin Laden in 2000), the San Bernadino attacks would of been prevented, and even the more recent Orlando attack would of been prevented (his father came as an immigrant from Afghanistan and is pro-Taliban and radicalized his son).
The Boston Bombing also would of been prevented. It is disingenuous to say it wouldn’t prevent anything. It’d be like saying we should accept immigration from Nazis in WW2 because there are “moderate Nazis” and we can’t “ban a political ideology” even though we already do ban Communist immigrants (it’s an actual question on many immigration forms if they were involved with the Communist party). And certainly not accepting Nazi immigrants would prevent Nazi terrorism.
I really don’t get why you want to step into this issue and hurt your book sales.
Please read other replies to comments for further explanation. In the end, the ban is only enforceable for those who admit to it – and that’s my whole point. Take your communist example: If someone came here and said, “I hate communism, and I’m from Russia”, we’d let them in immediately. It’s exactly why anyone who could wade ashore from Cuba was granted immediate asylum. All they would have to do is pretend – IE not check the block on the form that says they’re a member of the communist party. Yes, not accepting Nazis would prevent Nazi terrorism – but only if the Nazis would self identify as such, which they WOULDN’T if they intended harm. It’s the same with religion. You state “Muslim countries” as if that’s a panacea, but it’s not. As I stated elsewhere, the Philippines is an overwhelmingly Catholic country, but it has a sizable Muslim insurgency in the south – one that just pledged allegiance to ISIS. Are you going to ban all immigration from that country? It’s not a “Muslim” country, but if someone showed up here with a passport from there, he very well may be a terrorist. What about Belgium or France? The latest terrorist attacks in those countries came from their own citizens. As for hurting book sales, I have no idea how my pointing out a flaw in a strategy would do that. We both agree that terrorism is real and needs to be dealt with. Where we disagree is that this policy would do anything to prevent a determined terrorist. Like gun control, all it will do is prevent the law abiding from coming. Like I stated in another comment, it’s as if it’s raining outside and someone said, “Wrap yourself in toilet paper to protect yourself” I say, “That won’t do anything.” They respond, “YOU BELIEVE IN GETTING WET”. No, I don’t. I’m just pointing out that this policy will do nothing.
Draft Brad Taylor — President 2016
I enjoyed reading your blog. Lets be clear on what Donald Trump said, ” he wanted a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” He is talking about a temporary ban. Federal immigration law supports the right of the president to do this. A temporary ban until we are sure that we are not putting US Citizens at risk is not unreasonable.
When you look at the claims ISIS is making about sending agents and you hear what the FBI director is saying about their concerns on proper vetting it seems to me that dismissing Trumps ideas without thoughtful review is in its actions over reactive.
Lastly, Sharia Law is a core tenet of the Islamic Religion and it is the supreme law by which true believers must live their lives. Needless to say it is not compatible with the constitution.
I’m glad you enjoyed the blog, but I think you missed the complete point of it: You can’t possibly enforce such a shutdown based on religion. It just will not work and is a feel-good knee jerk reaction that will do nothing to stop the flow of anyone bent on harm into the United States, just like all of the screams for gun control. That’s all I was saying. Everyone commenting has an opinion on Islam and the threat therein, and completely avoids the main theme of the blog: A ban using religion as a vetting process will not make us safer or prevent future attacks. It’s like it’s raining outside and someone said to protect yourself with toilet paper. I say, “Toilet paper won’t do it” and everyone comments, “SO YOU BELIEVE IN GETTING WET!!!” See further comments for answers to the same statements made by others – as well as my thoughts on Sharia. Thanks again!
If a ban on religious pretenses is like using toilet paper to shield from the rain, what would be the equivalent of using an umbrella or adequate rain gear?
What we’re doing on a daily basis right now.
Such as every single thing the FBI, CIA, DHS, State and everyone else is doing. Do you want me to make a list? Yes, the San Bernadino person slipped through, but expecting 100% success is ridiculous. We just had a soldier killed on a raid in Iraq freeing prisoners. Do you feel we should run amok asking why he was killed? I mean, why didn’t we come up with a plan that guaranteed NOBODY died? Can’t we do that? Can’t we predict every single event on a battlefield to prevent a single death? ANSWER: Uhhhh….no. If you have some great ideas about screening the millions of people coming into the United States, throw them out instead of poking me with ridiculous questions that want a panacea of the perfect world. We don’t live in a perfect world. We could stop all visits to our country (note, I don’t say immigration, even while that’s where everyone resides in debates. When we’re talking about a blanket ban, let’s face facts: It’s got to be a BLANKET ban. No entry from any country for any reason at all) – every Brit, Frenchman, and any other country from stepping foot here to go to Disneyland, but that’s not really a solution. It’s just a wish. And before someone says it – YES, we should be scanning social media – not withstanding the fact that the woman in San Bernadino posted under a pseudonym with a FB account that was privacy locked. We SHOULD do it even if it wouldn’t have mattered here.
You answered the question from the first sentence. No need to get defensive. 🙂 And yes, I’m fully aware that there is no such thing as 100% in terms of security. Any expert will admit that.
I’ve been hearing that the investigation into the woman and the mosque the couple were attending was halted by the administrations’s political correctness toxic cocktail:
Yes, though there is no such thing as 100% in the context of success, this event had a good probability of being thwarted like the many incidents during the George Bush administration.
If only we had emplaced a ban on all Muslims before the attack, it would have been 100%. Is that what you mean? Because if not, you’re going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the blog.
Like I said, there is no such thing as 100% success…
Now, calling for a ban on Muslims is NOT necessary if the DHS and other authorities are allowed to do their job and investigate SUSPICIOUS MOSQUES accordingly without being slammed with the politically correct nonsense of “offending Muslims”. It’s impossible to conduct investigations without being accused of offending someone. That’s why I posted those links. This worthless administration should stop pandering to jihadists specifically. That way, none would think of such a ban. Btw, if this continues, it will be necessary to seal the borders at some point like what happened in 9/11.
Once again, you miss the point. Sealing the border against “Muslims” will do nothing to prevent Islamic terrorism. I’m getting sick of beating this dead horse. We both want to prevent attacks, but using a religion to do so as a vetting mechanism will do nothing but make us feel good about “doing something”, and yet still allow in terrorists. Honestly, this is my last post to you. Either tell me where I’m wrong, or quite posting, no offense. I get that Islamic extremists are a threat. I’m not debating that. Or I’m not trying to, but you keep going off on tangents. The entire blog succinctly postulates that banning a religion will do nothing for our security, and in fact, harm it with respect to others we need in the fight. You see something different, please explain that instead of going off on tangents.
Actually, I did go off on tangents. I could not help but point out how broken immigration security is… You’re right that banning on a religious basis is not an actual solution.
You did mention that the ban would “harm” others to helping the U.S. in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Just one thing: How is it that Saudi Arabia formed a coalition without even consulting the U.S. even with all the pandering done for these nations?
I know the ban in and of itself won’t really work, but at this point, how much worse can things get as far as being isolated is concerned? Haven’t we already lost too much credibility abroad for the ban to really do any real damage? In fact, I do not think anything at this point can play into ISIS hand’s that already has not played into thanks to this administration.
In fact, I do not believe the question of whether or not the ban will work is even the right question to ask at all…
Btw, on a side note, I take issue with you saying that the right wing “demonizes” Islam or even that there really is genuine Islamophobia in America anyway. The right wing just does a better job of reporting Islamic iniquities and barbarism on a systematic level than the left does, which pretends that’s not the case. How is that “demonizing?” How can there be such prominent Muslims in positions of power and influence in our government if there even is any Islamophobia? How?
I think I’ve said what I want to say that bothers me. This is final post for this particular blog entry.
I don’t have any idea where I said the right wing “demonizes” anyone, or said anything about islamophobia in any way in the blog. This blog anyway. Perhaps you should read this one I wrote earlier, which, is in fact linked above. https://bradtaylorbooks.com/2010/10/american-islamophobia/ And what makes you think Saudi Arabia DIDN’T consult with the United States prior, notwithstanding apparently they didn’t even consult with other members that theoretically were included.
I’m much more concerned about the proliferation and availability of encryption technology that terrorists have quickly leveraged to their benefit. The Edward Snowdens and Bradley Mannings of the world (and their disciples) have done us a great disservice and helped make it more difficult for us to track the bad guys. As stated, temporarily banning Muslims – a “feel good response” for public consumption – lacks any real substance or depth of thought toward a real solution.
Yeah, the solution to Islamic terrorism is to continue to allow Muslims to demographically colonize the West. After all, they’re natural conservatives. We’ll definitely win over their hearts and minds by exposing them to how great our ideas are, and by allowing then to watch some “Baywatch” reruns.
You cuckservatives are dangerously retarded.
Thanks! Nothing like informed debate devoid of emotion and ad hominem attacks. Out of the two of us, I’m apparently the only one who’s met a Muslim. And for sure, I’m the only one who’s actually killed a Muslim terrorist hell bent on harm. I’m pretty sure my view trumps yours. Take it elsewhere.
This is in reply to both Trump’s comments and to those mentioning some Muslims desire to implement Sharia law in the US (and other Western countries). I’m not American but from a layperson’s perspective shouldn’t both banning people (temporarily or permanently) based on their religious beliefs or implementing laws based on a religious code contravene the First Amendment’s freedom of religion.
I’m aware that the US has previously taken actions to protect themselves which breach the Constitution (Japanese internment camps in WWII, suspension of Habeas Corpus in the Civil War) so Trump may be able to get his way (in theory) but I imagine any law would be challenged in the Supreme Court immediately.
Just looking at those from a feasability point of view. Looking forward to the next book.
IMO Brad if all these individuals were required to serve 24-36 months….this wouldn’t even be up for discussion.
Like yourself,I went the ROTC route. I served 16 years got put on shelf in A-Stan 2002.
If you don’t try,you never succeed.
Let them watch Baywatch.
I loved that. It pretty much sums it up. They will watch Downton Abby, The Big Bang Theory and Binge Friends on Netflix. They will have kids as American as anyone’s.
I just picked up your first book and after reader your blog, I’m going to read.
If Trump had called for the temporary ban of all Syrians and/or Iraqis from entering the US, he might’ve had something. Didn’t Jimmy Carter ban Iranians from entering after the hostages were taken in ’79?
In a general sense, those of us concerned about the rise of Trump should be asking this question: why is this happening? In a general sense, Trump is getting a lot of support because, it seems to me, there are a lot of seriously angry people in this country. They are upset about how things have been going and they are not at all satisfied by the promises of politicians that they can fix the many problems that seem to be piling up. I also think a lot of Trump’s appeal is a backlash against the political correctness that has been plaguing our society for the past generation and has really been coming to a head since, well, 1/20/09.
Agree with your assessment about the state of political affairs. As for Trump calling for a temporary ban of all Syrians and/or Iraqis, once again, that would have done nothing. The San Bernadino killers were from Pakistan, either directly or once removed. The Boston bombers were from Chechnya. The killers in Paris were from Algeria – African descent by way of France. Like I said in another comment, if you want a ban to work, it’s got to be total – ban every single person from every single country from visiting here for everything from Disneyland to business investment. Cherry picking just asks for the terrorist to find a way around it, making us feel good, but doing little for real security.
Trump says to ban all Muslims from entering USA. Some people roar with approval, others with outrage. Either way, Trump gets all the attention, which I suspect is the objective. Does he really mean it? What do you think? Does his track record show a man of dependable integrity or ideology? Your title, “… Lunacy
of Fear” – well, I’ve been in a state of fear and shock since Obama was elected so one more step into lunacy doesn’t hardly move me.
PS – Admire your blogs. A touch of excellence in a society going mad. ——– Ken V. A. (12/9/15) had a nice idea: Brad Taylor for President 2016
I was just talking to a friend about this very topic last night. We both agreed that the thought of Trump being elected is terrifying. He is like the Howard Stern of the political circuit, ready to say anything for attention, and prepared to turn the nation on its head to propel his own agenda.
The scariest part of all, perhaps, is that so many American are buying into Trump’s fear mongering. He isn’t providing viable solutions to world problems, but is instead tossing a cherry bomb in the lake and waiting until every prejudice rises to the surface like a shell-shocked school of fish.
Sadly, it isn’t just the anxiety riddled, ill-informed lunatics who are coming out of the woodwork to support him and his beliefs. I’ve heard well-educated friends and colleagues say that he is the answer. But when hate is on the agenda, it isn’t long before even more barbaric policies will be tossed on the table.
It didn’t seem possible that anyone would ever follow Hitler either, and yet so many people did, until the Jews and other groups labeled unsavory were rounded up and nearly stamped into extinction. Is that where Trump is heading with his charges against Muslims? Hasn’t history taught man anything?
I’m not saying that I’m not afraid of terror organizations. I’m a journalist, and I’ve seen what ISIS and its counterparts have done to colleagues like James Foley, who was beheaded in Syria. I also watched, devastated, as the World Trade Center came down in the midst of a city I once called home, ruining the lives of people I loved. So I get it.
But we can’t allow ourselves to be ruled by fear. We have to be smart, and prudent, and most of all, err on the side of being kind. Mass destruction, or obstruction as the case may be, will only turn and crush us all in the long run.
I’m not saying I have the answers, but I do know that Trump isn’t to be trusted. He doesn’t listen to people that are there to offer him council. If elected, it will only be a matter of time before he tosses his cabinet altogether to pursue his own agenda or simply torques off the wrong nation by saying something stupid and inflammatory, resulting in someone pushing the doomsday button and sending us headfirst into Armageddon. Is that what we want?
Let’s hope reason wins out. I know it seems like our options are limited sometimes, but there is a reason the nation has intelligence agencies in place to keep us informed and secure. But we have to listen and act with discernment, not rashly and fueled with fear. If that happens, fear could easily lead us into oblivion.
You and your friend are terrified of Donald Trump being elected and scariest part of all so many Americans buy into Trumps fear mongering. i haven’t noticed any viable solutions to world problems in last 9 years.. Did I miss something! And it is the anxiety-riddled, ill- formed lunatics and surprising to you well-educated friends and colleagues supporting him. I am sorry you are terrified; i’d say you are young and been educated via liberal universities, and esp. if you are a journalist. Well, i’m 80 years old and i am not even scared of what will happen here for God, not Allah, is in control. i don’t know that i fall into any of the categories you listed coming out of the woodwork or the educated people but since early on i have had an interest in the world, esp., the USA. i have thanked God through the years that I was born here and for my parents who rarely talked about politics. My father was a tenant farmer, my mom gave birth to 10 at home, they raised a nephew and nephews came in the summer and worked and stayed with us who’s parents struggled more financially. I never felt wanting. We lived within our means. We had large garden and 2 large strawberry patches, etc.,. Food was never a problem and many showed up at our door at noon and no one ever left without food from the garden that needed it. In high school, i listened to those, esp. boys who didn’t get as much meat as they wanted.. i had never thought about it. A man much older than me, went to school with my oldest bro who had ridden a horse to school until his senior year and put into a different school district, much further away and he drove, Dad said he came right home when rode the horse but not when he drove. The man older came to the restaurant in our small town, we would say ‘hi’ until two weeks before he died. i was sitting at the liars table and he sat down across from me. He told me that he used to walk across the fields on Saturday and he got 25 cents on Sat (he was of a family of 4 and land owners.) That my folks always went to Sidell on Sat. nights and would take him with them. That one day he at our home for dinner (noon on the farm) and a family showed up. That my mom never said a word but went to the chicken yard, killed, cleaned, cut up and cooked . He had started his conversation with “You had very special parents.” I said that I always thought I had. So you can see the time and way I grew up very different than yours. I never heard my parents talk about others. Speaking of Hilter, read Brodie Thoenne’s books re. Hilter, Holicaust: There are at least 15 books, 4 series. They are closer to what happened than about any; they are fiction based on truth, from newspapers, persosnal letter, etc.,. Her husband did research. I think you will see the liberals were not the anti-Hilter crowd. Reporters couldn’t get newspapers to print the truth of what was happening. A reporter was sent out of the Hearst Castle on foot. Clark Gable picked him up and told him of a paper that would print the truth. Things aren’t always what it seems or what you expect. One day, a young girl, teacher, who had rented an apt from us and her male friend who lives in our town were at our home and talking with us at table and got around to politics, when he bent his head and looked at me and said “I voted for Trump.” I looked him in the eye and said “So, did I.” i went on to say a month before I wouldn’t have until Dr. Carson dropped out and supported Trump. He said he too had been for Carson. He would be around 25 or so. Girlfriend from Chicago. Our son, we never asked who he voted for. He came over after Rep. debate and said Dr. Carson made more sense than any. We still don’t know if he voted for Obama the first time; i have my doubts but I could be wrong. His neighbor and he have gotten close, Bob is older than our son but younger than we. When Obama ran the second time, he told me that he voted for him the first time but not going to the second time and told our son, it didn’t matter who ran against Obama, had to vote for them. He worked for GM and a union man. The people I know voting for Trump are average folks like us. The ones who know nothing of what is going on vote liberal. Just listen to Jesse interview them on Bill O’Reilly. But I told my husband some of the blame is on our education system today which is sad. My cousin maarried a Mexican gal yrs ago who came into the country legal and she was anti the illegals very much. Our daughter-in-law came into this country legally. She recently went back for an uncle’s death and funeral she had lived with when 16 in Germany. She came back with a larger Denmark flag and my son made a stand for it to be on their patio. She said never be higher than American for she is an American now. That we do have a problem with when we see the Mexicans waving their flag and the American flag being burned. If they feel that way they should go home. There are many who come into this country not to blelnd. I know many who came to work in the coal mines and plants. Yes, I know Muslim, a dear friend. He came here when 18. He dearly loved this country. Now has 3 grown children. We have 3 Muslim women in our village and see them walk by and at store. The biggest thing was 2 homosexual young men walking holding hands; we had passed them going to a Tea Party at American Legion and the hot word was “I just saw something I never thought I would see here. Sadly, I knew it was coming. I am anti gay life; my Bible says it is an abomination. Now, let’s get something straight, I don’t hate gays. I had a brother-in-law that was; he was very young when we got married and i was close to him all through life. A young woman asked me after he was grown and moved to San Francisco if I had ever thought about if he was gay. I said ‘yes.’ I loved him but not lifestyle he chose. He got introduced to it in college; had changed to Catholic and had written a Catholic priest asking him about it. He died from Aids before he was 50. We were in contact with him until 2 weeks before he died. My husband had asked him if he wanted him to come there and he didn’t. His friend with him. I also know lesbian and like. God is the one who will deal with them, not me. Well, I’ve covered a lot of subjects. One more, my husband just got an e-mail from a friend, retired school teacher, The speech Putin gave re. Muslims; that US should pay attention to. Well put! They do not assimilate into America and already Muslim elected in Minn. A friend, liberal, said no one knew he was. I don’t believe that. Already cases of wanting Sharia law and may have somewhere in States. We will no long be the United States if the Liberals have their way and to believe a Socialist got the votes they did by the Democratic Party makes one wonder when that also could happen. I never thought that would happen. One woman Jesse on Fox asked about it, said “aren’t we already.” Talk about scary. i didn’t know how my grandson in college thought and texted him that we didn’t need socialism. He texted me right back “I’m a Bernie fan.” I started to text “are you kidding!” and he sent before I could, “Jusst kidding, grandma. I love you.”
I request that you take a look into the epidemic of rape and violence against women and non-muslims that has been spreading across Europe and the Rotterdam rape gangs of Pakistani muslims that have been terrorizing women and running an underage sex slavery ring across England.
I must respectfully disagree with your opinion that majority of muslims are assimilating into western society. The extremely loud vocal minority is what guides and controls the masses of their community.
For example, barely around 80 years ago, the Nazis were a very small minority among the German population. Yet they were strong enough to plunge the entire world into war and cause millions of deaths. The opinions and beliefs of the Non-Nazi Germans was inconsequential. It did not matter.
When Al Qaeda operatives attacked on 9/11, the opinions of the millions of muslims who have assimilated did not matter. They did not oppose, nor did they condemn the 9/11 attacks caused by the minority extremists that killed over 2500 innocent citizens. This minority is now the driving force behind most of Islam. Their actions speak the loudest.
People like Donald Trump are not born, they are created. The epidemic ( which I believe it is, in my opinion) of Political Correctness is taking away the Western Cultures’ ability to defend themselves and their ways of life, and thereby creating the people with the mindset to fight for their way of life and freedom. Countries in Europe like Sweden have assimilated to accommodate Islamic culture, not the other way around. This is also quite evident in college campuses all across the USA.
What we’re seeing here is Western ( and civilized ) society defending itself from being assimilated by a barbaric culture and it’s supporters hiding behind the Hijab of Political Correctness. The fear is real. The 130 dead people in Paris and 14 dead people in San Bernardino are proof of this. The women in Sweden and the rest of Europe getting raped by the so-called “refugees” is proof of this.
Watching Baywatch will not reform Islam. It will just cause more rapes of Western women by Islamic ‘refugees’.
By the Way, I’m reading Forgotten Soldier right now, and it’s an absolute Blast.
I don’t think we disagree at all. All I’m saying is that the “solution” of keeping out terrorists by asking their religion will not work, and closing our eyes and pretending that Islam doesn’t exist is not an answer. IE – to use your Nazi example – Germany pretended the ideology didn’t exist and we ended up with Hitler. Hitler didn’t come about because the non-Nazis didn’t matter. He came about because they did nothing. The ideology must be confronted, but it can only be confronted from within.
I completely agree with your point that the best way to change an ideology is from the inside. But it gets kind of difficult to change when the voices at the heart of the ideology are calling for the deaths of infidels, Death to America, wipe Israel off the map, Sharia Law in western nations etc..
The core leadership cannot be reasoned with or debated with. Their word is gospel to their masses. What’s happening is the opposite of assimilation. They are forcing western cultures to adopt their laws and customs. I’d call this conquest, not assimilation.
The only way to cure this ideology is for the core leadership to ‘go away’ or change their line of thought. Not exactly an easy solution, so we’re all ears for one that works while letting the western cultures remain and maintain their freedom.
It’s not even the case of looking the other way while a crime is committed. These guys are actively supporting and sympathizing with the criminals who commit the crimes. I’m still waiting to see the massive protests AGAINST the Paris and San Bernardino attacks by moderate Muslims who condemn the radicals of their religion.
You make a huge leap by stating that Muslim/Islam has some core group of leaders that the masses follow. There are 1.7 billion Muslims, with many different sects, and they don’t follow a central leader. In fact, they don’t even have a person that’s equivalent to the Pope, but it would be analogous to a Muslim saying all protestants listen to every word the Pope says. For instance, the “Death to America, wipe Israel off the map” is from Iran, who are Persian, Shia, and directly fighting ISIS in Syria. ISIS, AQ, and Hamas are Sunni Arabs and consider Shia to be apostates who deserve to die. On the other end are the Kurds, which a consensus has as our only ally in the fight for ISIS. But they’re Muslims as well, with 80% being Sunni and 20% being Shia, and yet they don’t shout any of the things your perceived “core leadership” believes. I’ve spent time in Kurdistan, eaten at a fake McDonalds and had good friends there. Most learned to speak english watching reruns of Happy Days or something like that, and they were as westernized as anyone. In the end, it’s not a problem that can be framed with a minimalist construct of organization with monolithic solutions, because it’s much, much more complex than that. As for protests, there have been many, but as I’ve blogged about before (links in the blog above), not nearly enough. That is where the reform will come from, but only when they feel the need to do so (another blog linked above, which hits on some of the points you bring up). This guy is working valiantly on the effort (a Muslim American Doctor), and I wish he’d get more news time:http://aifdemocracy.org
My mistake there Sir, I should have been more precise with my words. By core leadership I meant the Imams and clerics, the people who generally interpret the words of the Koran ( Which I believe is outdated by almost 2000 years). That is what I believe the problem is. Christianity, Hinduism and Judaism have modernized, but the Koran’s teachers in both the major sects of Islam ( Sunni-Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar etc. & Shia- Iran, Iraq etc. ) still adhere to ancient laws like stoning women to death for adultery, honor killing for getting raped, Death sentence for converting from Islam to another religion etc. The call for a global Caliphate is real.
How do we go about changing that ? Majority of the Islamic people obey the gospel of these Clerics and Imams preach. They find our culture offensive and are trying to force us to change to their needs, not the other way round. They are not willing to negotiate.
Trump’s methods might seem a little extreme, but tell that to the people who are afraid ( with proper reason ! ) they’re gonna be paying Jizya tax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya) or will never be able to openly celebrate Christmas in the near future. At least Trump is trying to find a solution. He understands the frustration and anger of the Western world towards this barbaric culture.
If anyone can come up with a solution that is actually effective ( by effective I mean lets us westerners keep our culture and freedoms ) without resorting to extreme measures like Trumps’ ( which seems VERY mild compared to treatment of non-muslims in Middle-Eastern countries), we’re all ears.
On a side note, one request : Please stop killing off the interesting villains in your books so quickly. Guys like Lucas Kane, Baldy, that Lost Boy are what makes your books so interesting ( at least to me ). The protagonists are good & all, but some people find good antagonists more interesting than people like Jennifer & that pair of assassins.
I can’t give you the exact figures or years accomplished, but several times in US history, all Mexicans have been escorted out of the country. The last time was after World II when the then president wanted to create jobs for all the returning servicemen. So it has happened. But because we have no border control now, anyone can get into the US whenever they want.
When I was growing up, my oldest brother, who was in the Navy during WWII, tried to come back to the United States from Australia with his wife and children as at that time there were not many jobs available in Australia. The US govt. would not allow him in. Even tho he and his family would be housed and supported by our parents. My mother wrote to everyone she could think of, and they either just wrote back ‘No’, or didn’t reply. Finally in desperation, she wrote to then Senator Wayne Morris, of Oregon, and within days my brother was on his way home.
At that time, if you wanted to immigrate into this country, you had to have a Sponsor who would see that you had a place to live and a way to make a living, and help and support until that was accomplished or returned to whence they came. Not a bad policy, but still petty officials have always existed to gum up the works.
What I”m trying to say, we have not reached a good process for immigration, but having open borders is just plain stupid..
The present administration is so riddled by lies and deception I’m surprised they can stand each other. You hear everyone say that the Social Security system is broken, but what happened was that the government just flat cancelled the trust fund status and robbed the bank. 60 Minutes did a program about five years ago, and even showed on TV, the IOU in the amount of $17 TRILLION dollars, signed by the government. Obama has now cut off the yearly raise to ss checks, usually 1.5% and not always that much, which barely allows for food and shelter to begin with… but now since they are not giving any increases this year, Libyans re allowed to come in and probably be supported by the already ‘broken’ social security that we contributed to all our working years. My grandchildren are now supporting me with their contributions to social security. But there is enough money in there to support foreigners. Why couldn’t the current president stay home instead of spending BILLIONS on vacations every time he has set up a crisis to occur.
Sorry, I don’t mean to go on and on, but I never hear anyone tell the true story about Social Security. When I asked a local political representative why the government didn’t pay back the money, his response was, in front of witnesses, “THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!” and he turned away from me and started talking about something else.
In my humble opinion, we should kick them all out and start over.
Keep the blog, you sound like you have your brain turned on… at least you recognize the stupidity of the present administration.
I just found you and your books. I read many books every month, and can’t imagine how I have missed you. Keep up the good work.
While I thank you for your service, I think your bias favoring the government as our protector is misplaced.
Between politics, niaveity, and political correctness the government has literally paralyzed itself when it comes to protecting its citizens. Your years in government service seems to enrich the mediocrity of government efficiency. Most people do not trust the government to do the right things for the right reasons.
Keep up the great writing.
Thanks for the accolades, but I’m honestly curious where you read that I had “Bias favoring the government as our protector”. The whole point of the blog is that the government CAN’T protect us by using a religion as a screening criteria. The fact that Trump is politically incorrect makes us no more safe than the government being overboard with PC. Nowhere have I said I have blind faith in the government, and I’m unsure how you inferred that. After all, it’s the government that runs our border controls – and I’m saying such controls as espoused by Trump won’t work. In a nutshell: Using religion as a screening criteria will only make us feel safe. It will do nothing to stop terrorism. That’s it – the whole blog. Nowhere did I praise the government as some end-all, be all protector, and I certainly don’t trust the government to do the right thing for the right reasons. Doesn’t mean I agree with Trump. It’s not a binary choice.
Love the books by the way 🙂
My comment is, what is your take on the need for peaceful Muslims to rise up and be a strong voice in the fight against extremists?
I tend to think that they aren’t treated all that well in western countries…some of us are tolerant and choose to educate ourselves, others just listen to fearmongerers. Given that, how can we expect them to be passionate to rise up, risk their lives (they run a huge risk when doing so..they’ll be targeted much quicker than infidels) to defend Democracy and the west when democracy and the west haven’t been that great to them?
It’s kind of like when an abortion clinic gets hit by a nutcase evangelical. Do other evangelicals rise up to denounce the act with vigor? Not really. They kind of say to the outside world “oh no, we don’t support that…” Then behind closed doors whisper to their family “well they kind of had it coming.”
This is my simplified way of seeing the anger that Muslims don’t become more vocal. Thoughts?
I enjoy your books and at present I’m reading THE FORGOTTEN SOLDIER. I read with interest your view on Muslims assimulating into American society and it’s not going to happen. Take a ride thought Deerborn, Mi. if you don’t believe me. The Muslim men have as many as 4 wives but only the first one is listed. The others are called family members. They live in grand houses and use IBT cards to buy their food. The women don’t leave their houses unless they are dressed in Muslim dress. The women work outside the home but again they are dressed the Muslim way. I’m sorry I don’t know what that kind of dress is called. When I see them dressed that way then I know they are Musllim. The schools have two menus, one for Westerners and one for the Muslims. There is not Assimulation and they have been there for decades and getting larger. All this is paid for by taxpayers. Everytime you sell a book, the money you pay back to the government goes to them and others who have learned to milk the system. If they believe in their holy book the Quran they cannot assimulate and follow Allah, it just will not happen. While I respect your opinion and your outlook I believe you are dead wrong.
Thank you for your service to this Country and for me and others like me who love and appreciate this Country.
We don’t disagree. The difference is I’m not completely sold on the whole “Muslims are evil” thing. I read an article the other day that really brought it home to me. Ultra Orthodox Jews in Israel are exempt from the draft because of their religious conviction, which is basically that the state of Israel itself is nonexistent. They enforce a segregation exactly like puritanical Islamists, to the point that females cannot even ride on the same bus. When the state of Israel tries to reign them in, they begin firebombing and murdering.Replace the name of “jew” with “Muslim”, and there is little difference: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/01/hilltop-youth-givonim-jewish-terror-shin-bet-investigation.html I found it instructive on the limits – or lack thereof – of religion. I, too, am not sure that the Islamic way of life is compatible, but I’ve also seen a version of Islam that you have not – namely, a group of people worshiping a God without restrictions or conditions. Can that happen with Islam writ large? I honestly don’t know, and hold the same fears you do. I do know that Islam isn’t going away, and simply saying they don’t exist will do nothing for the problem. The only solution is reform – and that comes with our involvement, but not our demands. Trust me, I see the things you say, and it breeds fear in me as well.
I am certainly coming late to this discussion. I do have two points to make. Trump and others discuss banning muslims from entering the country. I do not think this is a valid strategy but there is a difference between banning muslims in general and opening the door for thousands or hundreds of thousands refugees as the administration seems to want.
My second issue is that it seems to me that the purchase of the weapons used in San Bernardino was illegal. If (and there is always that if) the news accounts are correct the weapons were bought in a straw man purchase. That the person making the purchase of the guns was purchasing them for the 2 idiots. This is a violation of federal law. And shows the futility of most of the laws on firearms.
Interesting,Most think that Muslims will assimilate into American Society…become American….I don’t believe that will “ever”happen! Do I trust Muslims,no I don’t. Upon reading as much as I can,&
talking to military friends….how can you trust someone that believes it’s ok to lie to a non Muslim!
As for Muslim terr.they are already here…. I beg to differ with your opinion about “peaceful “Muslims! Try converting them…BUT….it’s ok for them to “show you “their”way! Funny you were S/F…an old friend …S/F 5th Gp.SOG…Nam….& retired 2000?? We had same discussion…for the past 40 yrs. his job was THE bad guys….his world experience view….”little”different than yours. My view was “influenced “by his & others real world experiences….with Muslims!
Thanks for your time,
He never suggested a blanket ban on all Muslims entering the country. The flood of Syrian refugees entering the EU was the cause for his comment, along with incidentals such as ISIS statement that they were indeed using the influx as cover, and the unusually high number of fighting age males among the refugees.
Is his suggestion ‘stupid’ or ineffective? Might the effort not lead to more refined methods of determing who among the innocent are indeed the enemy? Isolation of aggressive ecosystems do save species of less aggressive creatures. Simple biology.
For that matter many “intelligent” efforts have been curiously ineffective, one might draw attention to IQ theory and its rejection by the military–the institution for which it was designed– after it proved a very poor tool for spotting cognitively disabled recruits. And what can be said of its later adoption by the public school systems?
Many cultures have isolated themselves from their enemies. The geographical boundaries of North America offered significant isolation from Europe and Asia for many centuries; was this to our detriment? Possibly not. The native cultures of central and South America were decimated by contact with European culture. One might object that the contagion was viral. Not cultural. But whatever the culture, language and religion are used as weapons and as a tools of advancement, and they determine the boundaries of perception. All perception is neurally mediated and therefore culturally bound. Not all cultures can blend without a great number of violent consequences.
You tackle difficult themes and your experience shows in your writing. I like your books for those reasons. But I believe that there are times when the seemingly simplistic thoughts and actions of the masses are in fact the best course to follow. We would never have advanced as a species if this were not the case because nonverbal group intelligence proceeded ‘higher’ forms of conceptualization and allowed us to survive long enough to develop civilization. This is a battle of ecosystems. Let Islam into your culture and eventually the baser more aggressive forms will prevail. Much smarter and notable men have stated this fact–Churchill among them.
To my mind it is a curious irony that a culture which seems to value the development of the individualistic would attempt to embrace a culture which values the submission of the individual, but life is filled with irony; life without death is inconceivable. The will to do so is, to me, clearly the of the elite minorities. There must be a great amount of profit in such a view.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I do disagree with your statement that he never called for a blanket ban. From his statement on the website: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration That’s pretty much a blanket ban, and I honestly don’t think it will lead to any different refined methods for ferreting out terrorists within a given population. Oh, and the military does use an IQ test for determining ability/placement for occupational specialties. It’s called the ASVAB. Thanks again.
Steve Powers is correct in the following respect: Trump’s suggestion of a ban on Muslim entry on the heels of San Bernardino was for a TEMPORARY ban pending review of the vetting procedures now in place. Politicians speak in generalities, and generalities are often useful, and accurate, because they allow for necessary flexibility in the face of individual facts. The factor “Muslim” would be only one of many, when testing for who is or is not too dangerous to let into the U.S. We already leave this decision to officials, and it is within their best discretion. I believe Trump made the point in order to break through the fog of political correctness that forces too many officials to avoid the entire category of “Muslim,” out of fear of persecution or job loss over any reference to it or use. In combination with other factors, it obviously is relevant. In that sense, I support Trump’s bold statement, and believe it has in the end helped, not hurt, in this discussion.
You’re right on all accounts. While I’ve never (ever) been accused of being a conservative – if us liberal would take the time to read true conservatives (Bill Buckley, George Will, etc.) – we’d learn a lot. Trump is not a conservative – he’s hijacked the Republican Party, turned the election into a food-fight, and is free-associating his way into the Oval Office.
I’ve been around since 1964 – and can’t remember a more dangerous circumstance – because; thanks to anger & bitterness over income inequality (this is genuine) + sexism + racism (Clinton’s tagged with Obama’s skin color – at least where I live/N.C.) – and all of that amplified by the Republican Party’s Propaganda T.V. Network (Fox) – I am almost positive Trump and his early-onset-Alzheimers will be directing our military come January.
(in the words of kids throughout the ages): This sucks.
Trump is a moderate. That’s probably what the nation needs at this moment in time.