Opening Congress to CAIR.
By Paul J Cella Posted in War — Comments (25) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
One of the more frightening aspects of the new Democratic control of Congress is the access it will afford to apologists for Jihad. A recent editorial in Investor’s Business Daily examines the record of the incoming House Judiciary Committee Chairman, John Conyers (D-Dearbornistan). It does not make for pleasant reading. Or consider the words of Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi: “Since Sept. 11, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin. We must make it illegal.” IBD expects “Conyers and Pelosi to kick open the doors of Congress to Islamists from the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other militant groups. They will have unfettered access.”
Read on.
I suppose if Pelosi and Conyers had their way, the US Airways passengers whose vocal suspicions led to six imams being thrown off a flight to Phoenix — suspicions, according to the imams, borne of base prejudice — would be subject to prosecution, along with the airline, the pilot and the flight attendants. I suppose, too, that if it could be shown that Muslims received stricter scrutiny somewhere, disproportionate attention from law enforcement, it would be evidence of criminality.
One of the real problems we face — and a particularly vexing one for those who cringe it fear at the charge of discrimination — is the difficulty of separating the wheat from chaff among the confessors of Islam. Advertised moderates turn out, upon examination, to be nothing of the sort. Among the Jihadists and their multitude of enablers and sympathizers, calculated dissimulation is a routine tactic, as is the cunning manipulation of the peculiar obsessions of Liberalism. I’ve noticed, for instance, that outfits like CAIR have begun including a woman at all their press conferences. The immediate recourse to the idiom of victimization was, of course, mastered long ago. Add to this the almost unshakable ignorance and apparently impregnable squeamishness of the press on these questions (has anyone ever witnessed a reporter ask a tough question along the lines of: “Mr. So-and-so, you say you condemn the killing of innocents; but under the classical principles of Jihad, there are no innocents outside of Islamic dominion; who, precisely, do you consider ‘innocent’?”), and it is fair to wonder how anyone can really expect us to penetrate the mist of confusion and subterfuge that surrounds the problem.
And so again we behold the stark staring madness of allowing a steady increase in the population of Muslims in this country. There is no obligation upon us, moral or otherwise, do pursue such a policy. The very opposite, it seems to me, is at least a prudential obligation of policy-makers. That is to say, it should be stated American policy to gradually and peacefully, but steadily, reduce the number of Muslim immigrants present on these shores.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Debating Iraq — Comments (1) »
Opening Congress to CAIR. 25 Comments (0 topical, 25 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I believe Muslims are 0.6 percent of the population and I also believe Americans put up with a lot of pc crap, however as the NY Slimes found out the majority of Americans favor legislation that protects us and our children. I really cannot forsee the Dims throwing their chance at the Presidency out the window. They want that power more than anything and I really believe they will tow a quieter line until that time and we conservatives are going to have to be smarter in 2008 and really work much harder to overturn what this election turned into, a travesty.
Peace through superior fire power:)
The raving madness that is giving CAIR a free ride on some of the rhetoric out there, I'll grant you. But that Investors.com article you referenced was sloppily written, with at least one major demographic howler in it*; and the religion itself is not pernicious. Certainly not pernicious enough to justify organized discrimination when it comes to immigration policy.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
*Most American Muslims are not Arabs; most American Arabs are not Muslims.
(1) That "the religion itself is not pernicious"; this remains an open question to me. Certainly a thriving and potent faction of it is extraordinarily pernicious; and certainly this faction can make a plausible claim to being the bearer of the authentic tradition of Jihad, which has been a vital aspect of Islam across 14 centuriues.
(2) That, in order to implement organized discrimination in immigration policy, it is necessary to demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that the religion itself is pernicious. Immigration policy must be about organized discrimination. To say otherwise is to announce a principle of open borders. And it seems to me that, even if we concede arguendo that discrimination as such ought to be avoided, it is our when it comes to immigration policy that discrimination remains wisest and least destructive.
_______
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
1). I'm not disputing that at least one of its factions is actively opposed to the entire idea of the West; keep their adherents out of the country - or any other group plotting our overthrow - with my blessing. But I think that we can draw a sufficently bright line between, say, the Sufi and the Wahhabist. God knows that they do.
2). I agree that immigration policy is organized discrimination; I am simply disagreeing with you that discrimination should be implemented, in this case. And, yes, sorry, but you do have to demonstrate it to everybody's satisfaction, or at least 50%+1 of everybody's satisfaction.
In other words: while I could get behind the strategy, I can't endorse the tactics.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
But I think that we can draw a sufficently bright line between, say, the Sufi and the Wahhabist.
How do you propose we do this, as a policy? What I have proposed before (short of a blanket ceasation of all Muslim immigration) is a loyalty oath, administered specifically to Muslims seeking to enter the US. It seems to me, however, that this is plain discrimination as well -- and in many ways more onerous.
And, yes, sorry, but you do have to demonstrate it to everybody's satisfaction, or at least 50%+1 of everybody's satisfaction.
I suppose I do (or at least demonstrate it to the satisfaction of 50%+1 of American voters). It would be interesting, I think, to envision how the question might fall out if you did indeed set it before the sovereign people of the republic.
_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
I'm in favor of something along those lines across the board even above and beyond what we have now, but I'm not sure that the true jihadists would have trouble making an insincere oath.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
But the oath gives us solid legal leverage. If we discover that some immigrant imam is posting anti-American sermons on the Web, or calling for jihad at demonstrations, we can (1) prosecute him for prejury and sedition or (2) summarily deport him.
____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
The key probably lies in something along the lines of a Demjanjuk Law, wherein citizenship can be stripped and deportation be immediate if a jihadist has hidden his or her sympathies. Until we get these and like mechanisms in place, though, the least we can expect the federal government to do is tremendous scrutiny of citizenship and visa applications from Muslim countries in general and terror-sponsoring nations in particular. Until those mechanisms are in place, it is hard to justify any immigration from the Middle East and much of Southeast Asia except in the case of religious minorities and true asylum cases such as the Kurds were/are.
It's what seperates us from the animals. We need a return to the days when to describe someone as "discriminating" was to pay them a high compliment.
The role of a moderator at an online forum is best described as organized discrimination.
I always imagined it as being a cross between a dancing hunchback and a matador in a clown suit, myself. :)
Seriously, I have previously taken Paul's point.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
"Dearbornistan"
At the risk of sounding sanctimonious, I'd like to remind you that Dearborn is an American city. It's citizens don't deserve to have their collective loyalty called into question with some sniggering play on words.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
the Bush Administration has been weak on this issue, too. Granted, the Patriot Act and terrorist surveillance programs were the handiwork of the Administration, but when we look at visa express, increased Islamic immigration (particularly from terror-sponsoring countries), the failure to profile at airports (despite Pelosi's protests to the contrary), ad nauseum, I don't see a Democratic Congress as all that much worse than what we have now in this regard. There may be some issues where they even do better such as port security. So while your bill of particulars is correct and amply supported by the evidence, it is hard to say all that much will change one way or another. Until, of course, something dreadful happens again and the political classes act all so surprised.
it should be stated American policy to gradually and peacefully, but steadily, reduce the number of Muslim immigrants present on these shores.
Just Muslim immigrants? Or are there some others we should purge also?
How about illegal immigrants.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
"Quakers in Basements" :-)
John
--------
The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
You don't have the mojo here to play this sort of game. Paul wants to limit Muslim immigration; he doesn't want to commit acts of violence against them. His meaning was clear -
- Uh-uh-UHH! Spare us the disingenuous explanation -
- so you will now: a), play nice; and b), apologize to the nice paleoconservative for trying to put words in his mouth.
Or you can do anything else, which will inevitably lead to you emailing Andrew Sullivan about what big meanies we all are here. Your call.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
The debate here centers around the fact that while not all Muslims are terrorists, at the present time all terrorists are Muslim. The question is whether to draw the line of exclusion at "anyone with a history of terrorist contact", virtually all of whom would be Muslim, or to draw it at "all Muslims", which would exclude all terrorists.
Since there is no right to immigrate here, no one has standing to claim wrongful discrimination.
Or are you suggesting excluding more than just Muslims?
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
Mojo? Game? I promise I have no idea what you mean.
I quoted exactly the phrase I was referring to--cut and paste, no changes. How is that "putting words in his mouth"? And then I asked my question.
If that's too disrespectful for this site, do what you must.
Dearborn has its own congressman, John Dingell. Redistricting did give Conyers part of East Dearborn, but Dingell's still really their guy.