You win a tee shirt though!
Posted on 12/08/2015 1:39:56 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
I completely get the fury over political correctness. I completely understand that the aristocratic political, media, and academic establishment have been lying to us about Islam and the Muslim world for more than fourteen years. As I explain at length on the home page, it's simply not the case that Islam is a peaceful, tolerant faith plagued by a tiny few extremists. Rather, Islam has massive problem with hate and bigotry - with hundreds of millions of Muslims supporting the worst kinds of religious intolerance and tens of millions more outright terrorist sympathizers. In the refugee controversy, I've repeated over and over that it's foolish to admit a class of refugees when we know the world's leading terror army is attempting to infiltrate the displaced masses or recruit from their ranks. We can be compassionate without making ourselves vulnerable.
But the correct response to political correctness isn't to simply take the opposite position, to answer one form of unthinking ideology with another. By tacking to the opposite of Obama's scolding self-righteousness, Trump isn't charting his own course so much as merely reacting. In fact, now that he's "clarified" that he's not just talking about immigration but a moratorium on all Muslim entry to the United States, he's gone well beyond being the anti-Obama and has reacted straight into foolishness.
Off the top of their heads, even the most hawkish national security conservatives can identify multiple categories of Muslims who should have access to the United States, beginning - of course - with our own citizens. There are many others. What about the interpreters who've laid down their lives to serve our warriors downrange and now find themselves under imminent threat from jihadists? What about members of allied militaries who are training to be the Muslim "boots on the ground" that we need to help take the fight to the enemy? Do we treat the Kurds - who are sheltering so many of Iraq's Christians while also providing the most effective fighting force against ISIS - the same as we treat suspected terrorists? It makes no sense.
On the merits of Trump's proposal, I agree with Ben Shapiro:
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.
There is nothing wrong with closing our borders to select groups when confronted with actionable intelligence or to place some groups under greater scrutiny because of known threats. But to treat every single Muslim as a threat, regardless of whether they're from Raqqa, Erbil, Cairo, or Des Moines - and regardless of whether they've tweeted jihadist threats or bled on the battlefield alongside our troops - is to act mindlessly. I would also say Trump is acting maliciously, but I don't think Trump despises Muslims as much as he loves leading the news cycle. This is a political stunt and should be treated as such.
I often speak to audiences on college campuses and elsewhere about the proper response to PC nonsense. I call the formula "apathetic, informed conviction." When formulating cultural or political opinions, one must be completely apathetic to PC pressures - don't react against or capitulate to leftist browbeating. Instead, educate yourself and act through informed conviction. Respond to unreason with reason, to intimidation with a bored shrug, and speak truth even when the truth is unpleasant. In this instance, however, Donald Trump is the voice of attention-seeking reaction, not principled leadership.
Jim. I am very disappointed.
I truly enjoy FR... but we have a true conservative and a constitutional originalist to rally behind, one that I haven’t even mentioned by name here, yet the knives come out... supporting some reality TV star clown?
I guess it has to get a LOT WORSE before it gets better.
That’s frightening.
I guess we will see what happens.
Islam has set itself out to conquer the world and must either be defeated or submitted to. Time for all to choose which side they are on.
This statement is a short-sighted interpretation of what Trump said.
There is nothing wrong with closing our borders to select groups when confronted with actionable intelligence or to place some groups under greater scrutiny because of known threats.
It's our choice.
The "good ones" are not really good. They are the decoys that give aid, supply, and concealment for the mohamicidals that walk freely amongst them.
They also have standing declarations of war against us! Why are they still here?
It would be easier to counter an extreme like Islamic immigration with an extreme like a total ban, and then open up for exceptions who don’t pose a security risk. Imagine if during WW2 we had an open door policy allowing Nazis to immigrate here, (something that in reality would have been less harmful than our present situation). We may claim we are not at war with Islam, but Islam is always at jihad with non believers, even if that means they are waiting until their numbers are sufficient to act. A zero tolerance of Islam is a good starting point for making exceptions.
Reagan was a democrat ......I think that turned out well...
champion of capitalism
Self funded
owes no favors
pro 2a
works for me
oh well
Poor Amy....grow a pair!
We did interment camps for Japanese Americans during WWII.
I don’t think Trump asking for a PAUSE is radical. I think its a mild proposal compared to Interment camps
Or maybe require them to denounce the sedition of sharia in order to gain admittance - maybe requiring evidence that they support the opposite of sharia so their words aren’t just taqiyya. Sharia is not religion, it is the official stance of executing and/or enslaving non-Muslims. To support sharia is to be an enemy of the US Constitution. The Muslims who need to be weeded out are the ones who support sharia. And it wouldn’t be a religious test in violation of the First Amendment. It would be weeding out those who intend to kill or enable the killing of non-Muslims simply because they are non-Muslim. It would be truly VETTING them before entrance. Require them to show evidence of their opposition to sharia.
Hey, BentRod, nice grammar and spelling.
YOU’RE the ignoramus, fool!
just the opposite ... Trump is brilliant !
Ok, so stop ALL immigration and visas.
Islam and sharia law is not compatible with our Constitution or our form of government. So why would they want to come to the United States except to “fundamentally transform the United States of America†as our muslim president is trying to do! Get them out of here now before it’s too late!
Trump/Cruz
You win a tee shirt though!
It's not a response of unthinking ideology. It's a thoughtful response to an existential threat.
“Someone needs to take the reins of this country or we’re all going to get killed............”
This is the reason we need a leader who speaks “straight from the shoulder” and tells it like it is. I am, like many of you, complete disgusted with the politically correct crowd who pussy foot around a subject by using PC words instead of hitting right between the eyes with what you have to say. Tell it like it is and stop all the PC BS.
Why is following the refugee law wrong? It requires us to ask about religion. Trump didn’t write the law.
Most Conservatives believe the radical muslims make up 50% of muslim population around the world. Yes, its as high as 50%, which make it 500 million radical muslims. It only make sense that we ban them from entering
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.