Trump’s Muslim ban (2017) was issued by US President Donald Trump on Friday afternoon on January 27th 2017. It stops those from entering the US who are:
- non-Christian Syrian refugees;
- refugees from anywhere for 120 days;
- citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days.
The seven countries are all Muslim-majority and account for 82% of the Muslim refugees who come to the US, most of them countries the US itself has screwed up.
The order was issued on Holocaust Remembrance Day, in which Trump remembered the Holocaust but not the Jews.
President Trump said the order was to keep out “radical Islamic terrorists”:
“We don’t want them here. We want to ensure that we are not admitting into our country the very threats our soldiers are fighting overseas.”
Only 6% of terrorist suspects in the US are Muslim (based on FBI numbers for 2008 to 2012).
Of Muslim terrorists who have carried out deadly attacks in the US since 1975, 0% come from those seven countries:
- The 9/11 terrorists came from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates. Not on the list.
- Muslim terrorists since 9/11 have come from Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Egypt and the US states of Washington, Oklahoma, Illinois, Tennessee, Ohio, Virginia and New York. Not on the list.
Ill-conceived and badly executed: Trump did not ask for the opinion of experts from the government departments of State, Justice or Homeland Security, nor did he give them advance warning – the very people who know something and who would carry it out. He did not even wait for his own people to be in place to carry it out.
So:
- A five-year-old was held apart from his mother like he was a terrorist.
- An Iraqi translator, who received death threats for working with the US military and was promised entry to the US, was being turned back.
- Those with green cards, which let them live and work in the US, were not let in unless it was in the “national interest”- even though most of them presumably have jobs, businesses or families in the US for which they are responsible. Trump later backed off of this part.
- Government lawyers were unprepared to defend it when it was challenged in court.
- Trump fired Sally Yates, the acting attorney general, an Obama holdover who refused to defend the order, what Trump sees as being “weak”.
From 2004 to 2015 Donald Trump played a savvy business executive on US “reality” television.
The good news, for those who see Trump as a proto-fascist, is that he respected the court orders, which put part of the ban on hold.
Barring people by religion is unconstitutional. Trump’s campaign rhetoric makes clear that barring Muslims is his intent. It is what Jesus or the Two Corinthians would do, apparently.
Barring people by nationality is perfectly legal. It was a common US practice from 1882 to 1965. The US stopped partly because it created ill-will with its allies.
Blue state, red state: airports, mainly in blue states on the east and left coast, filled with thousands of protesters. Meanwhile in red-state Texas a mosque burned.
– Abagond, 2017.
Update (February 4th): a Republican judge in Washington state has put a stop to the Muslim ban nationwide:
- The state is home to Microsoft and Boeing, which oppose the ban. So do the state’s universities.
- The Department of Homeland Security could not show a single case where any of the hundreds of thousands of refugees let in since 9/11 had killed anyone in the US in a terrorist attack.
- The ban was ruled unconstitutional, as going against the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment.
- The case for the ban was further damaged when it was found that someone in the State Department, presumably under orders from Trump, had secretly invalidated 60,000 to 100,000 visas as a way to get round earlier court rulings.
The Trump Administration says it will fight the ruling in court. If Trump had listened to Sally Yates instead of firing her, he could have avoided all of this.
Update (June 29th): After a second attempt, the Supreme Court has approved a partial ban: for the next four months the US can block anyone from six Muslim-majority countries – Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Libya and Iran – who does not have a “bona fide” tie to the US: school, work or immediate family. So no tourists, visiting scholars, grandparents, etc. After four months the Supreme Court will hear arguments about its constitutionality – when the temporary ban is over! The ban starts tonight, 8pm New York time.
Update (June 27th 2018): In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court backs Trump’s Muslim ban, which currently affects five Muslim-majority countries – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen – along with North Korea and Venezuela.
Chief Justice Roberts:
“The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices. … The text says nothing about religion.”
Sources: mainly The Economist and New America.
See also:
- Trump v Hawaii – the Supreme Court decision in 2018 that upheld the ban
- Donald Trump
- 9/11
- diseased host model of US society
- The nadir of US race relations
- Holocaust
- White American terrorists
- White Evangelical Protestants
WTF with this man.
I didn’t get this part, could you please clarify?
“The good news, for those who see Trump as a proto-fascist, is that he respected the court orders.”
Does it mean to imply that Trump respected what the court orders? (But then he fired the attorney general?) I don’t get what’s going on but it’s bad in so many ways.
LikeLike
Speaking of the Muslim ban, it’s effects in the workplace I work at was felt. I overheard conversations from co workers talking about how so many international students can’t attend a semester at school due to their religious beliefs. It was appalling to overhear such a conversation. It is even more appalling to hear about stories of people not being able to see their loved ones or other important people because of this executive order.
Unfortunately, a new leaked executive order allows the Trump administration to deport legal immigrants, who use public social programs like welfare. Since my family are made up of immigrants, this will affect them because a few of them do rely on social programs as a source of income. All of this is nauseating to say the least.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If 0.001 percent of the 2 billion Muslims were terrorists, USA would be under attack by 2 million terrorists. The reality is there is hardly any terrorist threat. Toddlers kill more Americans than ISIS.
Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. No one has been killed in the USA in a terrorist attack by anyone who emigrated from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, the seven countries targeted in the order’s 120-day visa ban.
Saudi Arabia supplied 19 of the 21 9-11 hijackers. Pakistan hid bin Laden for 6-8 years. Russia supplied the Boston bombers. But none of them are on his banned Muslim countries list.
I bet Trump doesn’t hate Muslims enough to pull all his business dealings with businesses run by Muslims or countries that have Islamic populations.
Why does Trump have extensive business interests in Dubai and other countries in the Middle East ?
Not only that… Trump has avoided bankruptcy twice because Prince Alwaleed bin Talal came to his aid.
I think Steve Bannon (The man who has Trump’s ear) deliberately wants to incite the Clash of Civilizations war.
He is literally Bond-supervillain insane.
He just needs a white Persian cat and a monocle to complete the look.
Look at him
He looks like he eats, drinks, and bathes in lard. If he bathes at all, which is up for question.
I actually think that all that needs to happen is that these countries build a temple, or rename an existing temple after Trump and then pay the Trump organization suitable monetary tribute.
I am relatively certain that after they do this the ban would be lifted.
Imagine a scenario where the cleverest troll on an “alt-right” internet forum were somehow given absolute power over the most powerful country in the world. That’s more or less what the USA has now.
Trump’s beginning of his term is bordering on catastrophe.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Mira
The courts put part of the ban on hold, saying he could not turn back people who arrived at US airports with the right papers. Trump, from what I understand, obeyed the courts, in fact walked back that part of the ban.
He can fire the attorney general, but not judges. If Trump “became another Hitler”, as some fear, then one of the things he would do is defy the courts (or stuff them with stooges). Another would be to shut down an independent press. Another would be to end the right of assembly (protest).
Firing an attorney general is admittedly a bad sign. Nixon in the days of the Watergate scandal was the last to do it. But defying the courts would be far worse.
LikeLike
I wanna push back a little on the blue state/red state point. I’m seeing protests in Nashville, Houston, Detroit, Kansas City, New Orleans, and many more. Birmingham, AL declared itself a sanctuary city today. Things are happening all over.
LikeLike
Abagond,
Thanks for the explanation. Let’s hope it won’t get there. Still, this is bad already. And he’s been a president for, what? Two weeks?
LikeLike
@shnnn
Good point. Concerned citizens are distributed throughout the country.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Mira
A little over one week.
LikeLike
@ Afrofem
Even worse.
LikeLike
Any bans or attacks on Muslims from him will be twisted around in a “See! America hates you because you’re Muslim! Join us in our jihad against the infidels!” type fashion.
Given ISIS’ effectiveness at recruiting new members over the internet, they will be able to radicalize at least some local Muslims in the U.S. that have already been leaning in that direction.
And there will be increased attacks by these people. Americans will die at their hands. Trump has just created more terrorists, and some of them are already on U.S. soil. And, were it not for the previous administrations long thought out moves to build the coalition fighting ISIS at the root, they would swell their ranks overseas easily.
I’m not sure they’ll be able to do that very effectively now given the coordinated efforts to stop them, but that’s no thanks to Drumpf. He’s a world class idiot.
LikeLike
It is a 90 day travel ban for 7 countries, Libya, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. For a so-called Muslim ban, it fails to include the most populous Muslim country, Indonesia, nor does it include Saudi Arabia, nor Pakistan or outlaw Islam in America. Calling it a “Muslim ban” is sensationalist. However, it is apparent that sensationalism in media is now praiseworthy. I don’t know if it’s better than cheerleading everything but since the media is partisan it seems that these are the only two extremes we’ll get.
By the strange rules of reporting being applied it could easily be called an “African ban” too since two of the countries are in Africa. Never mind that it’s only two and most African countries are unaffected. Travel bans have been imposed by previous presidents, even Obama, and travel advisories (IOW, “dont’ go there”) have also been recommended for US persons. This is not unprecedented.
Iran stands out as an exception but what most of these countries have in common is that they are quite tenuous states (sometimes due to American military interventions under previous administrations) where terrorist organizations, including some that have declared war on America, may be in significant positions of power. It is very likely that Trump’s administration will be reversing Obama’s policy of arming “rebels” [i.e the non-government groups that are doing the killing and raping as Tulsi Gabbard suggested], might be taking the fight to them, and does not want them to be able to easily retaliate against Americans. However, such an assessment does make Iran’s place on the list somewhat ominous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Correction. I didn’t include African country #3, Somalia.
LikeLike
I & my family have been banned from flying on American Airlines for years, even before Obama’s 2nd term. How did we find out? By a check-in clerk (not sure of the title, but she definitely wasn’t security) while on our way to JAMAICA via VIRGIN airlines. Apparently we’d failed a security test that none of us ever knew about. Bear in mind my family are Muslim and have unmistakably Arabic names, and I was a Muslim at the time.
Therefore this absurdity can’t surprise me.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Testing lists.
Evil Mohammedeans
Attack and rape innocent German blondes
LikeLike
List failed.
LikeLike
I like what Trump is doing. He’s acting like a boss. Can you imagine a horde of the these filthy Mohammedeans attacking black women during the New York City Carnival? You see what they did in Egypt, in Sweden , in Germany. They even had to ban OctoberFest!! Bastards. They ruin everywhere they go.
We have them contained on my side. The dervishes are mostly confined to overcharging peole for cheap Chinese clothes and toiletries. Axe that sells 2.50 at Family Dollar is being sold for 5 dollars out here. How do I know? Damn Muslims couldn’t be bothered to remove the original price!
I’m sure he’ll deal with Saudi in time. With the opening of land for fracking, that band of bandits and rapists will actually have to learn how to work.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@satanforce: Huh? I’m German and nobody banned the Oktoberfest. Must be your fake news telling you that. 😀 Seriously, I love abagond for leaving comments like yours, it’s pure comedy gold.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ll say this though. Black people should not put our capes on for these other groups.
Black people warned the world about this. Riots in Baltimore, Ferguson, not to mention the fact that black people have always been on the frontline fighting white supremacy for way over a 100 years.
People don’t have a problem with white supremacy, just as long as it’s mainly aimed at black people. What they have a problem with is white extremism.
Because then it spreads to everyone. That’s why you have these women’s marches and Mexicans and Arabs up in arms.
I don’t kid myself. I know full well that blacks get treated like shit in Saudia Arabia and N.Africa and in Mexico.
They thought they were honourary white supremacists, you know they got their little superiority kick from looking down on blacks. But now FOR REAL white supremacists are telling them who the F**K they are.
White supremacy is like an aggressive form of cancer, it does not stay static, it spreads and grows and get’s stronger.
So part of me wants to say “F**K all these Arabs and white women and Mexicans with their MLK quotes. Carry your own f**king nuts and stop hiding behind black people”
LikeLiked by 4 people
hmmm…
refuges coming from places we’re bombing and made it impossible for them to live a decent life.
maybe we should stop bombing them
LikeLike
@nomad
Stop bombing them and stop architecting “regime change” by arming vicious mercenaries for geopolitical reasons.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Munchausen by proxy foreign policy. we’ve known for many years now that ‘regime change’ and bombing innocent people creates refuges and terrorists. Yet we continue bombing and regime change. I guess its so we can look good when we protest muslim bans and kill the terrorists that inevitably emerge from our policies.
LikeLike
Look at him
he looks like a drunkard, his nose is red.
Seriously, I love abagond for leaving comments like yours, it’s pure comedy gold.
That’s the intent of his post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
49% of the American public agrees with the ban. We are a stupid and a selfish people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I saw that from the Reuters poll:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-poll-exclusive-idUSKBN15F2MG
Not sure how representative this is. Any other polls out there?
LikeLike
After the polls from the last election being so off, do you actually believe these ones?
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ TheHipHopRecords
Maybe Black Americans should review their own position about immigration? Or how it happens currently.
See
LikeLike
“After the polls from the last election being so off, do you actually believe these ones?”
Never underestimate the stupidity and self-sedating power of large groups (the majority) of Amerikans!
LikeLike
@Herneith
Good point, although it’s highly believable that that many Americans would agree with the ban. 63% would be believable IMO.
LikeLike
@TheHipHopRecords
+1000
And far too many are unappreciative of the sacrifices blacks made for the rights that ALL non-whites in the US enjoy.
If there’s any silver lining here, it’s a stark reminder for them that white supremacy is a real system designed for the benefit of real whites–not the wannabes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Since the ban is widely seen as bigoted, the poll is probably low, just as Trump’s own poll numbers were low.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Origin
I guess we can count on you and Paul Ryan to turn a blind eye to bigotry. By your logic, slavery in the US was not about race since not ALL Blacks were enslaved.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When will he ban wars in the middle east so that no refugees are created in the first place?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hate this man so much. Everything about him and the situation in the U.S. reminds me of early 1930’s Germany and Hitler. Teresa May is a traitor to our country. She refused to condemn his ban on Muslims and despite uproar all over the country he is being welcomed here for a state visit. Britain needs to take a strong stand against him and forget about this stupid, imaginary, ‘special relationship’.
I hope he gets assassinated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“he looks like a drunkard, his nose is red.”
Supposedly his drug of choice is cocaine (hence all those 2 a.m. tweets). But I’d bet he knocks back the booze, too.
The combination would light up his nose like Rudolph’s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shoot, posted too soon, I thought we were discussing Trump’s nose.
Gack. I can’t even look at that other one. He looks like he just crawled out of a gutter after a week-long drunk.
LikeLike
“By your logic, slavery in the US was not about race since not ALL Blacks were enslaved.”
He/She would be right. Some Blacks were slaveowners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Dubuclet
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/pendarvis.html
Race was the justification, not the motivation.
Note how slavery was kicked to the curb when industrialization and mass White immigration became the norm.
LikeLike
In St-Domingue, 1/3 of the land and 1/4 of the slaves belonged to people of color or blacks.
LikeLike
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Assali-Family-Syria-Donald-Trump-Vote-Allentown-Immigration-Ban-Travel-Order-412238593.html
Just as I thought. Some of those who supported Trump were Syrians, they can pass for white,
Now the Trump got there votes. He’s flipped on them and the real OG white supremacists have let them know that they are not white enough.
That’s why black people should sit this out. Don’t speak for them. Don’t stand up.
F**K EM
I know that’s hard thing for black people to do because that’s just not outrnature.
Because black people got enough sh*t to deal with.
LikeLiked by 4 people
@abagond
I read the text of the executive order and then did a CTRL+F. It does not mention Muslims and it does not restrict travel from the most populous Muslim-majority countries like Indonesia and Pakistan. Therefore I think calling it a “Muslim ban” is deliberately sensationalist. If could go back in time to a travel ban being issued for Germany, Poland, France under Nazi control I would not consider it a “Christian ban” just because they are Christian countries.
The executive order seems concerned primarily with weak states that have very active terrorist organizations. Somalia has Al-Shabaab, which was responsible for the Westgate Mall attack in Kenya, while ISIS is active in Syria and Iraq (and to some extent Libya) while Yemen is being bombed by Saudi Arabia while Iran-backed Houthi are active there.
Finally, I don’t consider religion and race to be equivalent, certainly not when we’re talking about expansionist religions like Islam and Christianity which consumed various ethnic groups as they grew. Race does not represent a system of belief that you can leave or substitute another for [i.e, if “apostates” are allowed to live].
IMO, at this point in history Muslim-majority nations have a bigger problem with religious tolerance than nominally Christian Western nations do. We can freely criticize Christianity until we puke and depict Jesus in any way we want but you dare not “insult” islam in Pakistan, for example. There is a death penalty for “blasphemy” there and individuals in France and the Netherlands have been executed for that crime even though there is no law.
I don’t think there is a single Christian Church allowed in Saudi Arabia while there are certainly Mosques here (some Saudi-funded) and religious freedom is guaranteed. Finally, try to find Jews in most Muslim countries, LOL! Most had to leave long ago! A significant number of those countries don’t even allow people with Israeli passports to transit (only Somalia is on the Trump admin’s list but not on that one). These are not the characterstics of race but the characterstics of religious belief and sometimes fanaticism.
LikeLiked by 3 people
@ abagond
What’s the purpose of you “like”-ing your own comments?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@gro jo
“These racially mixed Pendarvises knew neither poverty or slavery”
these people were a different class than the slaves they held. they were as far as I know, always mulattoes. a different system of racial classification was in use then. different from the two tier system of black/white categorization than we use in the US today. the model still employed in south Africa, where you have whites blacks and an intermediate racial category, coloreds. we used to have that system in the US.
LikeLike
I don’t think it was any accident that Obama was a mulatto.
LikeLike
“they were as far as I know, always mulattoes. a different system of racial classification was in use then.”
“The Pendarvises… were the lineal descendants of Parthena, the African mistress of the last Carolina Landgrave, Joseph Pendarvis. (The Carolina Landgraves were the first big landholders of South Carolina.)” The children of a slave inherited the slave’s status regardless of their color. The children of Joseph Pendarvis were probably freed by him or their mother was.
Nomad, I wasn’t interested in racial classification as much as the legal process that allowed them to keep the lands and slaves their white father left them. If slavery was about race, as Abagond argues, the following would not have occurred: “Unable to override the stipulations recorded in his father’s last will and testament, a younger white brother who was only a few weeks old when the last Landgrave died expressed his outrage by later changing his and his children’s surname to that of Bedon, his mother’s. Besides the almost patricidal symbolism of this act, there was, of course, very racist reasoning underpinning it. Assuming, quite correctly in his case, that because of their wealth his nephews would wed whatever white wives they wanted, it probably became all too clear to him that within a couple of generations or so there could easily be confusion in the identification between his own and his brother’s progeny. The fact that his would be the considerably poorer cousins of a wealthy family “of colour” must have been absolutely unbearable for him.” My St-Domingue example indicates that it was a universal rule that property was passed on according to the will of the owner regardless of any ‘racial’ objection! Conclusion: U.S slavery wasn’t about race!
LikeLike
@ Fan
Like-ing my own comments: It is either an accident (how I consciously experienced it) or subconscious vanity.
Like-ing my own posts: That I do that on purpose if I still like a post a month or more after I wrote it.
LikeLike
@”What’s the purpose of you “like”-ing your own comments?”
Desperation. He’s been proven to be a liar, hypocrite and defender of white supremacists. Anything helps at this point.
LikeLike
@ TheHipHopRecords
I always thought that black Americans as a whole were too empathetic of other groups for our own good. Nevertheless, I’m watching all of this with a careful eye. Bannon’s testing the waters, seeing just how far he can go and how much pushback the Trump Admin. will get as a result. Start out with the “shock and awe” policies first and the less ridiculous yet more lethal policies will seem perfectly reasonable and fly under the radar later.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see all 3 major pillars of white supremacy being strengthened. All the signs and signals are there.
Besides this immigration ban, we see Trump threatening to send the national guard into Chicago to restore order, we see the resumption of the North Dakota pipeline and the rhetoric about a trade war and military war with China ratcheted up to a much higher level.
We will end up with something much worse than stop and frisk and mass incarceration and repeal of affirmative action and voter registration laws.
And witnessing how the POTUS testified previously about how unfair it was that native Americans had exemption from certain US laws and taxes, I expect the Native American federal recognition system to be torn to shreds.
And if a standoff (if not war) breaks out with China, we do not need to imagine who the targets for that will be. If the majority of Americans support the immigration bans, they will not hesitate to support the reinstatement of internment camps (which Trump previously praised FDR for). Or maybe the USA will create its new group of refugees fleeing them.
For white supremacists, it is an “us” v. “them” thing, but since the “them” part views the rest of “them” as part of the problem too, they might succeed in splitting apart all their shared interests.
All the stuff that has been discussed on this blog for the past 10 years is very much in play.
If we are still confused about whether blacks should ally with other oppressed groups or with the white supremacists (or knocked down by both), we should look at what is happening internationally. Given what happened to the Australia PM yesterday, they are now between a rock and a hard place. I would not be surprised if China swoops in to pluck them off from the US alliance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@gro jo
you called the black slaveholders ‘Black’. by modern US definition, unique by the way, they were technically black. but they were not dark skinned. they were mulattoes and they were considered a different category at that time. white-mulatto-black. not like today where its just white-black. so its misleading to call them “Black” without that clarification. we are imposing our modern two tier way of seeing black/white race system on the past where there was a three tier system in operation.
LikeLike
nomad, as I’ve said above, the children of a slave inherit her status unless she is freed or the children are freed. Jefferson’s mistress, Sally Hemings, was ‘white’ yet a slave, because her mother was a slave. I’m not interested in debating how dark or light anybody is. Race, like property, is defined by laws. I’ve shown that the white child of Joseph Pendarvis was unable to overturn his father’s will, leaving his property to his nonwhite children. I concluded that race does not trump (how did that bozo get in this?) laws governing wills. If you can prove otherwise, I’d like to hear from you, otherwise, this debate is concluded.
LikeLike
I don’t like none of these people.
I don’t like these nasty-ass Mexicans. Went to Mexico City and every second there it felt like 15 million eyeballs following me everywhere in that smog filled mess. Like that giant eye in that Dungeons and Dragons movie. Trump will Build That Wall, and use Privatized Prison Labour to fill the gap that will result when he sends these low-skilled, low-value human beings back to their hellhole of a narco-state. And I get to move up spaces in my green card application. :happy
I don’t like white women. Where’s Becky when black women are getting the crap beaten out of them? The NRA has stood up for black men more than NOW has stood up for black women. Why weren’t there any Becky’s at the last dozen or so McKinneys, or were they too busy ordering pussyhats from Amazon? Its not even like these are some Tawana Brawley/Duke Rape situations , because there is straight video evidence AND BLM is controlling the narrative.
Oh. And I don’t like Arabs. And no. I’m not going to give a reason to hate Arabs. Because you don’t really need a reason to hate Arabs.
Good thing Israel has nukes. Now just for the right push….. Most of these Arabs are inbreeders anyway, so I’m sure some kind of ethnic bio-weapon can be made to deal with them efficiently.
I like my facts to be diverse, so that I can pull from a full slate of alternatives before arriving at a true conclusion. Either way, its good to keep these “allies” (LOL) on edge, using a good cop/bad cop strategy that lets them know who will be doing the throwing under the bus. Then they can be used as Useful Idiots. Call them out on their hypocrisy, then make them come to you in contrition and with hat in hand. We must use domestic ad emotional abuse as the mode for negotiating with these “allies.” Nevertheless, the bad cops will , by definition , be in the minority. We will need these other peoples money and services increase BNP (Black National Product).
LikeLiked by 2 people
gro jo
have it your way
LikeLike
@ abagond
“Like-ing my own comments: It is either an accident (how I consciously experienced it) or subconscious vanity.”
or
Like-ing your own comments is either a conscious vanity or a subconscious accident.
LOL Either way it goes, I appreciate your attempt to answer honestly!
😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am sure there will be many articles and videos coming out about the history of immigration bans in the USA.
Here is one:
The Dark History Of Immigration Bans In The U.S.
Seeker Daily
(https://youtu.be/pc8p4T10P3I)
Of course, there is a thinly veiled political message behind this (ie, it is completely different from what Obama did, this might end up fueling ISIS or other attacks on the US), and we should see various points of view.
But we had thought that the country had believed that specific racial and national immigration bans are a blot on US history, and ended up causing more damage than they solved. I guess the country really believes something different.
LikeLike
1. Pass Law that is ratcheted up 100 percent more than what I really want.
2. While hippies are butthurt, gut NSC, three letter agencies and other losers.
3. Cripple Deep State. Break them to my will so that absolute rule becomes easier.
4. Dial back original law )(. still hard on terrorist countries
) proceed to ramp anyone who stands me and my coke/amphetamines /poon-grabbing.
5. Kansas City Shuffle FTW.
LikeLiked by 2 people
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/03/03bfdee75465563f8e1ff7d457fbb03cb325d050d9bcedb6f7691337b0314c2c.jpg)
LikeLiked by 2 people
@jefe
” I guess the country really believes something different.”
You know they do. Duplicity is at the heart of the American experiment: slave owners spouting off about “freedom and liberty”, stone cold Indian killers getting all dewy-eyed about the “pursuit of happiness” and folks who cheered on the rounding up of the Japanese in 1942 extolling the virtues of American “justice”.
The majority of this country has always publicly espoused one set of ideals and lived by another. Now the tables are being turned on them by their new prez. All of that bile he flung around during the campaign is very, very real and they will suffer along with the groups they detest.
Chauncey DeVega described it this way:
http://www.chaunceydevega.com/2017/01/the-butchers-bill-has-come-due-i-cant.html#more
When Trump and his posse get through with them, they won’t know what to believe.
One last thought, people forget that walls and travel bans are two edged swords; they may keep some people out, but they can also be used to keep people in against their will.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Every time I see a picture of that funny looking fool Trump, I laugh!
LikeLike
At the rate things are going, it might not even come to impeachment: the Republican leadership might take Trump aside, as they did Nixon, and persuade him to step down for the good of the party and the nation.
Not sure what the steps are to declare a president mentally incompetent.
LikeLike
Nixon, for all his faults, seemed to be a patriot. Not so sure about Trump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Herneith
He is president. It is not funny any more.
LikeLike
@Satanforce @Herneith
Comments deleted for obscenity.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@”He is president. It is not funny any more”
Maybe not to you but it’s funny to me because you and most people wrote him off from the very beginning: https://abagond.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/donald-trump/
And I’ve not forgotten your words as recent as September:
“But part of me is glad because, barring the unforseen [sic], he [Trump] pretty much sank his campaign for good.”
I, on the other hand always took him seriously:
“I wouldn’t count him out. This is far from over.”
LikeLike
Last year I thought he was a clown.
Now he is more like Freddy from Nightmare on Elm Street.
LikeLike
It may not be funny to us mortals, but I’m sure God is laughing.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
You know we’re in trouble when Nixon starts looking good by comparison.
LikeLiked by 2 people
To all those who think marginalized groups are crazy for fearing backlash from white America anytime members of their groups commit crime and acts of violence, the Muslim ban is a perfect contemporary example that their fears are justified. Muslims here and abroad have been dealt a severe blow by this ban not due to Islamic extremists and their acts of terror, but due to acts of a power-mad wannabe dictatorship regime living in Washington D.C. with xenophobic and Islamophobic pathologies in my opinion.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
Nixon was a ultra-paranoid crook, but at least he knew how to behave like a president in public.
LikeLike
@ Brothawolf
“Muslims here and abroad have been dealt a severe blow by this ban not due to Islamic extremists and their acts of terror, but due to acts of a power-mad wannabe dictatorship regime living in Washington D.C. with xenophobic and Islamophobic pathologies in my opinion.”
Right, and once a ban like this is “normalized” in the U.S. — once the general public becomes accustomed to it and complacent — it will be easier for Trump’s government to take more extreme steps, like rounding up all Muslim Americans into internment camps. Or whomever else they designate as undesirable enemies of their state.
LikeLike
@ Afrofem
“at least he knew how to behave like a president in public”
Which included knowing when to step down for the good of the nation.
But no one tells Donald Trump what to do.
I may be wrong, but I can’t see Trump resigning due to pressure from his party. He would only resign if he wants to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Scribh
I agree, Pence is a lot more dangerous than Trump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Scrib Gael
“Lethal in what lies under the surface, but with a veneer of respectability and polish. Perhaps that seeming normality would be what makes him lethal.”
Your remarkable words above really reminds me more about you than it does Nixon, Trump or anyone else. Were you (as this site’s living embodiment of white supremacy) standing in front of a mirror when you wrote them??
Don’t you know: people who live in glass houses …
LikeLike
Not sure if I gave my actual opinion but I think there are valid national security reasons for an incoming adminstration to restrict travel from countries torn apart by Islamist terrorist organizations which hate ALL infidels [non-Muslims] and “apostates” with a passion.
From The Islamic State’s magazine Dabiq:
[Hope I kept my tags matched]
I don’t think it’s incorrect to say they have been so commanded:
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=8&verse=12
The Bible has some quite shocking passages too but there is no strong movement in the West to resurrect a militant fundamentalist force.
I think it’s fascinating how much the Islamic State seems to understand the nature of the discussions in the West about violence committed in the name of Islam. They’re almost mocking the lack of “common sense” and the fear of being labeled due to “political correctness”. They recognize that people who deviate from the script will be considered “fringe” and will be subsequently ignored.
Personally, I’m often surprised by liberal whites’ concern about the smouldering wick of Christian political power, harassing bakers for not making cakes for certain weddings, while they do their best to convince people that if they’re the least bit concerned about jihadi terrorism, they are being irrational and “Islamophobic”. For the likes of IS, it is very much about religion and their violence against infidels is worship.
IMO, the travel restrictions are not because of racial characteristics but the ideological characteristics of militants and the erosion of state authority which allows them to issue official-looking fake IDs and the like. The militant group Boko Haram in Nigeria, who kidnap and bomb other Nigerians, is now officially an arm of IS having pledged allegiance to the Caliphate (and being accepted). They’re so-called Sub-Saharan Africans not Arabs! The conflation of ideological/religious commitment and race does not work for me in this case.
Anyway, as much as I am aware of America’s own history of injustices, no country is obligated to make it easy for its declared enemies to enter its domain. It is likely that the Trump administration does not trust existing Obama administration procedures for keeping terrorists out and so imposed the three month moratorium in order to institute its own.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Origin
Do you have a source for that Dabiq quote?
LikeLike
@Origin
Abagond is just desperately fishing for a reason to falsely accuse you of plagiarism. It’s a shame he has to stoop so low.
LikeLike
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-circulates-more-draft-immigration-restrictions-focusing-on-protecting-us-jobs/2017/01/31/38529236-e741-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?postshare=2611485889175975&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.b80b5e4f38c2
Trump is the boss. He’ll take money from the immgrants to use in an “inner city revitalization plan”. He’ll stoke black resentment of immgrants to support his plan. Then the gentrification will begin……
Suckers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Origin
The quote smells like a hoax. When I google it I get Islamophobic and pro-Israeli websites. Issues of Dabiq have been faked before.
LikeLike
He is president. It is not funny any more.
You’re right but you have to laugh to keep from crying! After the Muslims, who’s next?
LikeLike
‘
Issues of Dabiq have been faked before.’
Issues of CNN have been faked before. Guess they have that in common with MSM.
LikeLike
I think that Quran quote might also be fake. Allah wants believers to behead folks? Come on!
LikeLike
Update: a Republican judge in Washington state has put a stop to the Muslim ban nationwide:
– The state is home to Microsoft and Boeing, which oppose the ban. So do the state’s universities.
– The Department of Homeland Security could not show a single case where any of the hundreds of thousands of refugees let in since 9/11 had killed anyone in the US in a terrorist attack.
– The ban was ruled unconstitutional, as going against the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment.
– The case for the ban was further damaged when it was found that someone in the State Department, presumably under orders from Trump, had secretly invalidated 60,000 to 100,000 visas as a way to get round earlier court rulings.
The Trump Administration says it will fight the ruling in court. If Trump had listened to Sally Yates instead of firing her, he could have avoided all of this.
LikeLike
Issues of CNN have been faked before.
https://i2.wp.com/4.bp.blogspot.com/-KhpLiueCUj8/WJN0mOxIyvI/AAAAAAAABmI/d1PvtQ_GQNQ6MogKuy_hwYzLpeht9m-mwCLcB/s1600/ok.jpg?ssl=1
LikeLike
“Vermont senator and American hero Bernie Sanders.”
Are you referring to Bernie, the extraordinary coward who was too afraid to speak out against the DNC who rigged his nomination – taking it from him and handing it over to Hillary Clinton?
He’s your Amerikan hero?? Figures!
Naturally after that you’d want to vote for your heroine, HC.
Blue Pills are powerful psychotics!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The impression I get from Bannon and some of his past statements is that he is the worst sort of Cecil Rhodes type racist, obsessed with restoring the Victorian world where Christianity and class united the White empires in their rape of the global south. He only has opened his heart to the idea that Slavs count as White.
It now seems to be shaping up to be two new wars the USA will have, one against China and the other against Iran.
I’ll leave it to your own mind what these wars would do in the world. You don’t need to be a scholar or other expert to know it would be extraordinarily BAD.
War with Iran would be about the stupidest thing USA could do, which probably means they’ll do it
There are 100,000 Iranian troops in Iraq and China has already pledged to defend it’s ally. USA struggled against Iraq, who had a much smaller army and much more friendly terrain. A USA armed invasion of Iran may well result in a spectacular defeat.
And as nuke loving as Trump is, bombing has never won a war without somebody catching bullets on the ground. If you want to win a war you have to hold ground and that means troops.
Period.
But what problem does the POTUS have with Iran anyway ?
The USA were attacked by Saudis and ISIS is a Sunni organization that hates the Shia-dominated Iranians. I’m not sure anybody can point to a terrorist attack that was actually supported by Iran.
LikeLike
“WordPress need’s an edit function ”
you said it. i’m always making follow up comments to cyrrect errors.
yes I know, I spelled correct incorrectly. good thing I caught it before pressing post.
LikeLike
I have read most of the comments here and one thing no one seems mention or explore is Why come to america in the first place?
Why insist on coming to the most racist criminal nation on the planet?
Especially if your black or brown.
And with technology making infomation access global?.
Me as a native born african american I think and dream everyday about how to leave and never come back.
And the last places I would consider visting are any place north (due cold climate) and especially any white majority population country – who needs or wants this fececes.
LikeLike
Indeed, Black Americans should NOT care and way too many of us still care. We are not to be hired out, for free, to fight for other groups’ causes only for them to trample on us once they have enough power, and the numbers, to do so. The individual above, now lecturing this predominantly black space about our “lack of understanding”, was the same individual that argued forcefully that Asian police officers should be granted the same privilege of slaughtering Black Americans with impunity as white officers. Chinese-Americans came out in huge numbers, with his vociferous support, to demand that Peter Liang face no charges at all for killing someone. Yet, apparently, if Black Americans act in a self-interested manner, as other groups do, we are racists? Instead of asking nicely for Black Americans – who have already fought successfully for rights which STILL benefit ALL minorities – to lend the credibility of their voices we are defamed and treated as if we have an obligation to slave for other groups. Try to sell that nonsense to someone who is still confused about the nature of the world.
Now for Islamophobia. It is construct invented to give a particular religion special protection from critical speech. There is no Christophobia or Santeria-phobia, or even Scientologo-phobia within the lexicon, though Scientology has been heavily criticized. Islamophobia could be seen as stealth Sharia Law as Islam cannot be insulted in any way in muslim countries, by law. You can be arrested or killed by the state and/or set upon by mobs. Character assassinating people for saying anything unflattering about a religion is a rung below literal killing but is designed to have the same effect of stifling speech. However, NO collection of ideas should be exempt from criticism in a country with free speech. IMO, all well-thinking persons should oppose the establishment of de facto blasphemy laws.
Islam’s holy writings command muslims to treat non-muslims in deceptive (Taqiyya, Kitman), extortionate (Jizya tax) and cruel ways. This is demonstrated by several verses from Islamic holy writings (which I may illlustrate in another post so as to avoid being moderated for links). When devout muslims commit what we call “extremist” terrorism their actions may seem extreme but their motivations are in line with the literal interpretation and orthodoxy of the religion. For example, it may be unusual for a Christian to leave a comfortable life and go to a distant land to do missionary work but some are convinced to do it because of their commitment to following the example of Jesus Christ and Paul etc. Likewise, Islamic terrorists are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. It would not seem that “moderates” have a theological leg to stand on as they are actually explicitly denounced by the scriptures as “hypocrites” who will be going straight to Hell.
Finally, about the judges’ ruling against Trump wrt the temporary travel restrictions: my general feeling is that he was acting within the ambit of his presidential powers. I suspect that this will backfire as many attempts to derail Trump have. The worst thing that could possibly happen is something I don’t want to mention but it would absolutely shred his opposition since blocking his initiatives force his opponents to own the situation, not Trump. Given how uncanny Trump’s ride has been, I can’t help but have an ominous feeling about that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
One note on the penultimate paragraph: there are portions of the Islamic scriptures that show elements of tolerance towards unbelievers. However, the concept of “abrogation” is a major part of scriptural interpretation.
According to wikipedia:
So in order to understand what holds you have to know what has been abrogated according to a particular tradition.
LikeLike
It’s also interesting that promotion of Islamophobia only recently became popular despite the decades-long existence of a predominantly black and counter-cultural Muslim group such as the Nation of Islam [which really has its unique core beliefs]. I bet they would have loved being exempt from criticism!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Out of curiousity I checked the FBI statistics for “hate crimes” from 2015.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2015/home/topic-pages/victims_final
According to this, 59.2% of victims were targetted because of race/ethnicity while 19.7% were targetted because of religion.
Of those who were targetted because of race, 52.2% were Black and 18.7% were white.
Of those who were targetted because of religion 52.1% were Jewish and 21.9% Muslim.
It would seem Jews and Black people should worry about themselves first since we’re the ones still taking most of the heat!
LikeLike
@ Kiwi
“This thread has shown me that Black Americans do not care about or understand the experiences of immigrants and refugees or the sacrifices they have to make to come to America.”
It sounds like you’re implying the group of Black Americans and the group of immigrants-and-refugees are mutually exclusive. You know this is not true. Even in this particular ban, some of the countries are black-majority.
LikeLike
@ Origin
“Scientology has been heavily criticized.”
When was the last time someone burned down one of their religious buildings?
I don’t see there being anything about the term Islamophobia that suggests. Americans must never say anything critical of the religion itself, much less accept sharia law. There has been a decades-long movement to decrease anti-semitism in the U.S., but it doesn’t require us to accept Talmudic law or stop eating shellfish. What it does mean is that it shouldn’t be acceptable to discriminate against people because of their religion or to desecrate their holy places.
Vandalizing or burning down a mosque or a synagogue, beating or killing someone because they are Muslim or Jewish (or wearing clothes that make you think they are), refusing to hire someone or rent to them solely because of their religion — these things are not okay.
LikeLike
“The worst thing that could possibly happen is something I don’t want to mention but it would absolutely shred his opposition since blocking his initiatives force his opponents to own the situation, not Trump. Given how uncanny Trump’s ride has been, I can’t help but have an ominous feeling about that.”
Considering how his team has already made up one Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil that never happened, I can’t help but have an ominous feeling about the likelihood of Trump masterminding a false flag atrocity to eliminate any opposition to his plans.
LikeLike
Solitaire:
“When was the last time someone burned down one of their religious buildings?”
Accusations of islamophobia are not limited to people who burn buildings. Of the people you have heard labeled “islamophobes” how many were previously arrested for burning mosques? The extreme case you mentioned is not representative of the actual use of the term, IMO.
LikeLike
Of those who were targetted because of religion 52.1% were Jewish and 21.9% Muslim.
This doesn’t surprise me. The far right hates Muslims, both the far right and far left hate the Jews.
LikeLike
@ Origin
The actual use of the term is to describe hatred, fear, and discrimination against someone because of religion.
I gave more examples than just the burning of the mosque, like refusing to hire a Muslim. Not wanting them in your neighborhood, shouting “go home, terrorist” at them, not letting your kids play with them: these are also examples of Islamophobia. Do I need to list every single one of the various forms hate and discrimination take?
Please, tell me again how often these things happen to Scientologists.
LikeLike
@Benjamin
“both the far right and far left hate the Jews.”
Define “far left”?
Why do you think people you define as the “far left” hate the Jews?
LikeLike
@Solitaire
Islam and muslims are not the same thing. The islamophobia construct protects the integrity of Islam primarily, not muslims. I’ve seen people accused of islamophobia just for arguing doctrine. Ayaan Hirsi Ali comes to mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hirsi Ali, a former muslim, often had a security detail, BTW. There was a credible risk of ending up like Theo Van Gogh or the Charle Hebdo employees.
LikeLike
Is it islamophobic to say religion is driving groups such as ISIS when they themselves say their war is religious?
Scriptures
9:5
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=9&verse=5
9:29
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=9&verse=29
98:6
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=98&verse=6
I find it very dishonest to say the terrorist groups have “nothing” to do with Islam yet this is what Obama usually said after every terrorist attack in which the killer shouted “Allah is greater” in Arabic.
LikeLike
@Afrofem
Why do I think people I define as far left hate the Jews? Because when Jews are victims of discrimination, the Left generally ignores it. A Jewish girl in a progressive California school was initially denied a position in student government, because her Jewish identity, apparently, meant that she couldn’t be unbiased in certain situations. But no social justice group or whatever they call themselves showed up to her defense.
But can you imagine if a Muslim girl was temporarily denied a place in student government because she was a Muslim? Oh boy, would the Left be out in full force. Protests and rallies and pepper spraying right wing students in the face. Perhaps ‘hate was too strong a word. But the fact remains that Jews still suffer a lot of anti-Semitism, no matter how powerful they are, and that’s something the Left clearly isn’t comfortable acknowledging.
LikeLike
@ Origin
“The islamophobia construct protects the integrity of Islam primarily, not muslims.”
Can you provide a source for that? All the dictionary definitions I’ve ever seen define Islamophobia along the lines of “hatred, fear, prejudice against Muslims.”
Some people may be using the term incorrectly. I don’t deny that.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
“Some people may be using the term incorrectly. I don’t deny that.”
I’m only concerned with use. I’ve seen critics of Islam called Islamophobic because of their opinions on the religion itself. I think it’s fair game.
LikeLike
Now this might be a little controversial, but if you identify as a believer of anything I think it’s fair for people to form opinions about you based on that admission. It’s not like race which you can’t usually change or conceal. If I say I’m a Whtie Nationalist people would rightly assume that I believe America is for white people only. If I say I’m Christian people can rightly assume that I believe Jesus Christ is Lord and the Good News should be preached.
LikeLike
If I say I’m Muslim what would people believe?
Here’s a pewresearch poll from last year that tackles some of those questions:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/22/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/
I found it interesting both from the muslim and non-muslim perspective.
LikeLike
@Benjamin
Does “progressive” equal “far left” to you?
Your comment:
“Oh boy, would the Left be out in full force. Protests and rallies and pepper spraying right wing students in the face.”
brought to mind the recent protests at University of California at Berkeley against Breitbart provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. According to Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-ucberkeley-protests-idUSKBN15H1R5
I wonder if you were just as concerned when peaceful student protests in 2011 at UC Davis in resulted in students being sprayed in the face at point blank range with pepper spray by campus “security” personnel?
Were you just as concerned about Black students pepper sprayed at Dillard University (a historically Black institution in New Orleans, LA) in 2016 for protesting an appearance by David Duke on their campus where according to the protesters:
http://www.complex.com/life/2016/11/students-pepper-sprayed-protesting-david-duke-louisiana-senate-debate
Or are you only concerned about protests, rallies and pepper spraying when alleged “left” protesters (in this case the individuals clad in black were likely police provocateurs) are implicated?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Benjamin
Can you provide a link to an article about the Jewish girl denied a position in student government?
LikeLike
@ Origin
“I’m only concerned with use. I’ve seen critics of Islam called Islamophobic because of their opinions on the religion itself.”
You said above “The islamophobia construct protects the integrity of Islam primarily, not muslims.” My point about the definition is that the correct usage of the term Islamophobia refers to hatred/fear of Muslims. You contended above that the term is primarily used in regards to Islam, not Muslims. You also defined Islamophobia as a “construct invented to give a particular religion special protection from critical speech” and said Islamophobia equates to “stealth Sharia Law.” What proof do you have that the term Islamophobia is primarily and widely used this way, in opposition to its actual meaning?
“If you identify as a believer of anything I think it’s fair for people to form opinions about you based on that admission”
Perhaps. But is it fair to make government regulations that treat members of certain religions in a discriminatory manner? In a nation that prides itself on protecting religious freedom, not establishing a state religion, and upholding the separation of church and state?
Also, you don’t get to control what opinions people form about you based on the admission of belief in a certain faith. You said: “If I say I’m Christian people can rightly assume that I believe Jesus Christ is Lord and the Good News should be preached.” Yes, but they may also assume any number of other things that may not accurately reflect your particular beliefs. Christians do not believe the same about every aspect of faith and every societal question. Also, non-Christians may have incorrect assumptions about what Christians are like or what their religious practices entail.
“The disbelievers among the People of the Book [Jews, Christians] and the pagans will dwell forever in hell; they are the worst of all creatures.”
What, like Christians don’t believe this?? Christians don’t believe the other People of the Book [Jews, Muslims] and the pagans are going to burn eternally in hell???
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Afrofem
I said initially denied, she was ultimately given the position.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/03/uclas-troubling-question-for-jewish-students-everywhere/387091/
LikeLike
@ All
Re: Satanforce’s Washington Post link.
Satanforce what do you mean, “Trump will “take” money from immigrants to use on…” You can’t take money from someone who wasn’t entitled to it in the first place.
The policy discussion in the piece is about taking or terminating social welfare, not for immigrants but for aliens (sorry y’all it’s a troublesome term but stick with me a minute). In other words terminating benefits for those who are illegally in the country anyway. Connotatively speaking all reasonable people think of an “immigrant” as a legal resident and yes it would be appalling to strip a legal resident of their rights and entitlements. An alien by contrast lives under daily, heavy stress and insecurity, why is that the case? Because they know that their entitlement claims are under the heaviest threat versus any other social group in whatever polity we happen to be looking at. Satanforce says that immigrants are under threat based on that WP piece but that simply is an appeal to sympathy, it’s not immigrants under threat it’s non legal residents a.k.a. aliens.
Satanforce paints a picture of blacks (and perhaps other domestic groups) being manipulated to ill feeling to exclude aliens from entitlements. I see a different aspect here:
The people who are under threat of exclusion from entitlement benefits are not immigrants, they are illegal residents. Blacks and other legal residents of the U.S. don’t need to let ill feeling motivate them into thinking about rational policy prescriptions for how to dole out a finite entitlement pie. Thinking about the finiteness of the taxpayer based resource and the hierarchical reality that some are legal citizens and some are not is enough to reach tentative ideas about excluding non legal residents from entitlements. (I’m not advocating for that, I’m just laying out some sobering brass tacks about the realpolitik around this issue.)
Another issue:
What a striking article! There is an absolute bitter war coming around the issue of taxpayer funded entitlements. I say that it’s “coming”, it really is already here, but it is still spoken about in awkward closeted ways. Trump’s policy discussion here, in a broader context, is about trying to cut out entitlement spending that can not be paid for anymore given the national debt. The enormous national debt that is not a piece of magic that can be ignored forever! It is a very real debt and there is no money to pay for it and yet it must be paid or partially paid. To do that their will probably be more and more cutting of entitlements. It only makes sense to start cutting entitlements from those whose claim is most spurious, the other members of the polity won’t fight this too much. But of course going after the weakest claims is only the beginning.
Post Script:
I’m not necessarily espousing any personal desires here in this post but rather my intent was to show a Devil’s Advocate side to Satanforce’s point about govt. manipulation of domestic “in” groups against “out” groups. I also wanted to present the tacit tension surrounding the macroeconomics of a growing national debt, a finite tax base and job competition amongst various social groups.
I know my post is not a rosy one, I don’t want anyone to think that I’m a sophisticated peddler of pessimism, I am not. But I do look at difficulties and inconveniences from time to time. Ultimately the task is to overcome the difficulties, this is why I resonated with Origin’s call for us all to have courage (a couple of months ago, when the election was still a fresh event.) This need to feel and act with courage will be very important for the next four years. (Courage is always important but I think most of you know what I mean.
@ Mbeti
The U.S. is simply an amazing, beautiful country, even though it has some really horrifying problems. Paradox is an inescapable part of life, we each have to find our way to embrace it, in a way that works for us.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
I’m against crying Islamophobia insofar as it is used to stifle any criticism of Islam. I have seen it used in that way along with violent terroristic intimidation in Western countries and death penalties against blashphemy in authoritarian Islamic theocracies.
@Solitaire
“Perhaps. But is it fair to make government regulations that treat members of certain religions in a discriminatory manner? In a nation that prides itself on protecting religious freedom, not establishing a state religion, and upholding the separation of church and state?”
The grant of religious freedom includes implied assumptions that religious observance does not break existing laws. If, hypothetically, a religious creed obligated believers to replace any existing government with a theocratic one which would also outlaw other religions I think it would rightfully earn opposition. All of the islamist militant groups are religious yet no well-thinking person should suggest that they be able to operate freely in countries with religious freedom. Interestingly, the German government does not view Scientology as a religion but as a business masquerading as a religion. It is possible for a country to have religious freedom but discriminate as to which faiths are valid religions under the law.
@Solitare
“Also, you don’t get to control what opinions people form about you based on the admission of belief in a certain faith. You said: “If I say I’m Christian people can rightly assume that I believe Jesus Christ is Lord and the Good News should be preached.” Yes, but they may also assume any number of other things that may not accurately reflect your particular beliefs. Christians do not believe the same about every aspect of faith and every societal question. Also, non-Christians may have incorrect assumptions about what Christians are like or what their religious practices entail.”
One generally chooses to identify as belonging to a certain religion. If done verbally, one should really choose a designation that best represents their beliefs. If simply saying you’re Christian would create the wrong impression, say Roman Catholic or Jehovah’s Witness or Methodist. If one simply says “Christian” then I think it’s fair for the listener to make assumptions based on that disclosure. If you didn’t want to communicate something about yourself and your values then why share that you’re Christian?
@Solitaire
“The disbelievers among the People of the Book [Jews, Christians] and the pagans will dwell forever in hell; they are the worst of all creatures.”
What, like Christians don’t believe this?? Christians don’t believe the other People of the Book [Jews, Muslims] and the pagans are going to burn eternally in hell???
Ah tu-quoque. I’ve actually said many times that Christianity’s division of the world into pagan and heathen and the command to convert the latter supported the imperialistic attitude of Western European nations. Nobody pushes back against this as Christianity has not been declared a protected specie. However, Islam is similar in this respect. It historically divided the world into the parts ruled by Islam, Dar al-Islam (House of Islam; note that Islam means SUBMISSION not PEACE, that’s Salam), and the Dar al-Harb (House of War) where Islam does not rule and where Muslims should be at war with the infidels.
However, for all the assistance Christianity gave to imperialistic endeavor it does not explicitly call for Christians to wage carnal warfare against unbelievers. There are elements of bloodthirstiness in the Old Testament but it 1) was limited to conquest of a clearly defined and limited geographical area not the whole world and 2) has been superseded by the Christian gospel. Islam lays out an open-ended plan for Jihad so I think it is incorrect to say that believers who adhere to the plan and follow it faithfully are not “true” muslims. They may very well be the truest ones in existence even if they are a minority. They can quote scripture, and that is how they recruit.
9:11
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=9&verse=111
5:33
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=33
Given the above, I can’t disagree with the Islamic State’s claim that it is Islamic.
LikeLike
BTW, going to hell was not what caught my attention in the passage you quoted, Solitaire, but “worst of all creatures”. That is an extremely supremacist statement about anyone who does not share your belief. When such dehumanization is combined with instructions to kill those same people and the promise of a reward in the after life I think it helps explain the fanaticism of those who have been deeply indoctrinated. None of it made complete sense to me until I started to pay attention their claims that they are acting in the name of God and started looking for the internal logic that drove them. What I saw was the literal definition of drinking the koolaid.
LikeLike
@Origin
“If, hypothetically, a religious creed obligated believers to replace any existing government with a theocratic one which would also outlaw other religions I think it would rightfully earn opposition.”
You described Christian Dominionists in this country with that sentence. VP Pence is their man in the White House. They have a well developed and executed plan to create a theocracy in the USA.
They have also spread their beliefs globally through missionaries. Some Christian Dominionists have exerted deep influence in governments of the global South such as Brazil and Uganda. I consider them every bit the threat that you consider Wahhabist/Salafist Islam. Both are fanatical and violent. Both lust for power and global empire. Both deserve determined opposition.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Origin
Please tell me why I should not temporarily ban you from commenting on this blog for 90 days:
#1. Christians are genocidal (Srebrenica, Rwanda, US, etc + cherry-picked Bible verses).
#2. You are from a Christian-majority US state created by genocide.
#3. WordPress does not allow calls for violence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Origin
Then why in the world do you keep banging the drum about how dangerous Muslims are?
LikeLike
Terrorist attacks by Muslims on Christians that killed 10 or more people in 2016:
year.month.day country city #killed
2016.12.19 Germany Berlin 11 killed
2016.12.11 Egypt Cairo 27 killed
2016.11.13 Nigeria Ungwan Magaji 17 killed
2016.11.13 Nigeria Kigam 11 killed
2016.10.25 Kenya Mandera 12 killed
2016.10.15 Nigeria Godogodo 48 killed
2016.10.12 CAR Kaga Bandoro 30 killed
2016.09.17 CAR Ndomete 26 killed
2016.08.16 Nigeria Jeman 10 killed
2016.05.03 DRC Beni 34 killed
2016.04.25 Nigeria Enugu 48 killed
2016.04.09 Syria Qaryatain 21 killed
2016.03.27 Pakistan Lahore 78 killed
2016.03.13 Ivory Coast Bassam 18 killed
2016.02.24 Nigeria Agatu 300 killed
2016.01.29 Nigeria Adamawa 10 killed
2016.01.27 Nigeria Chibok 16 killed
Source:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/christian-attacks.aspx
Except for Syria, not a single one is a country banned by Trump.
The only one I can remember making the news in the US is the first one – the only one where White people were killed.
Likewise, as pointed out the post, no one from the banned countries has killed a single person in the US in a terrorist attack, not on 9/11 and not since.
LikeLike
@abagond
With regards to your above comment: what about the 2016 attack in Nice, France. Did you not count that because Muslims may have also died?
LikeLike
@ Benjamin
It seems because that attack, like the one at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, was not targeting Christians as Christians.
LikeLike
@ Origin
“It is possible for a country to have religious freedom but discriminate as to which faiths are valid religions under the law.”
But there must be legal guidelines in place for how to make such a determination. At any rate, Islam is considered a valid religion in the U.S., protected by the Constitution, exempt from taxes, etc. So any discrimination taking place against Muslims cannot be excused by claiming it is not recognized as a valid religion.
“If simply saying you’re Christian would create the wrong impression, say Roman Catholic or Jehovah’s Witness or Methodist.”
Why would this eliminate any wrong impressions? Please — as soon as someone says they’re a Jehovah Witness, most other Christians will slam a door in their face (under the assumption that otherwise they’re going to spend the next couple hours being read to from Watchtowers). There are still plenty of Catholics who think Methodists are apostate from the One True Church, that they are willfully disobedient and rebellious sinners who are going to hell. There are still plenty of Methodists who think the Catholics worship the Virgin Mary and the saints, that they are deluded devotees of the Wh*re of Babylon who are going to hell.
A non-Christian in some parts of the world might assume a Catholic rapes altar boys. A non-Christian in some parts of the world might assume a Protestant will stop at nothing to convert them and rob them of their language and culture. Historically there have been many places and times that non-Christians assumed Christians were cannibals. Do the Christians not admit as much in their own songs and prayers? Why else would the Christians put so much pressure on you to send your child off to some faraway “school” (wink wink, nudge nudge) from which few ever return? It’s because they’re actually going to kill your child for use in their cannibalistic rites.
You may “share that you’re Christian” in order “to communicate something about yourself and your values,” but you still cannot entirely control the assumptions of the person you’re sharing that information with. People will form opinions of you and your values based on your admission of your faith, but those opinions will not necessarily fall in line with what you believe you are communicating to them.
Speaking of Christian values: Is supporting a travel ban that disproportionately impacts refugees a Christian thing to do? Does the ban do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Does this ban feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the widow and the orphan? Is it loving thy enemy, turning the other cheek, and doing good unto those who persecute you? Is it what being a good Samaritan means? Is it what Jesus would do?
LikeLike
Legion
Two quibbles with your devil’s advocate argument.
Alien is not a synonym for illegal or undocumented. We even have the term “resident aliens” which describes non-citizens who are here legally.
One complication with the “taxpayer funded entitlements” argument is that some illegal/undocumented immigrants do pay income tax and therefore are taxpayers and are helping to fund those entitlements.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Benjamin
“A Jewish girl in a progressive California school was initially denied a position in student government, because her Jewish identity, apparently, meant that she couldn’t be unbiased in certain situations. But no social justice group or whatever they call themselves showed up to her defense.
“But can you imagine if a Muslim girl was temporarily denied a place in student government because she was a Muslim? Oh boy, would the Left be out in full force. Protests and rallies and pepper spraying right wing students in the face.”
According to the news articles you linked to, the amount of time between the Jewish girl being denied the position and her ultimate acceptance was 40 minutes, during the course of one student meeting.
May I suggest that it would be rather difficult for any social justice group to show up in her defense in a 40-minute time span, especially when the campus at large had no idea what was happening at that meeting while it was taking place?
According to the articles, once this incident became public knowledge, it spurred a great deal of discussion about anti-Semitism on campus. The judicial board of the student government issued a formal apology to the Jewish girl, which was printed in the campus newspaper. The discriminatory treatment of the Jewish student was also publicly condemned by the university’s administration.
If in fact any far-left group issued a statement that opposed her place in the student government or condoned the biased treatment she received, I saw no mention of it in these articles.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
May I suggest that it would be rather difficult for any social justice group to show up in her defense in a 40-minute time span, especially when the campus at large had no idea what was happening at that meeting while it was taking place?
Here’s how I think it would have went down if it had been a Muslim girl in her place, instead of a Jewish girl. The Social Justice crowd – upon finding out what happened – would take to their social media right away. They’d write about how a Muslim student was “humiliated” by being initially denied and then forced to wait “40 minutes” in “shame” just for being active in the Muslim community. They’d then use this as evidence of how our society is horribly Islamophobic and needs reforming.
It seems to me that Social Justice movements seem to view anti-Semitism as something that died out 50 years ago. And that Jews no longer suffer hate crimes, and that Islamophobia is the “new anti-Semitism” we must fight. But as it turns out, Jews suffer hate crimes for their faith more than Muslims do! And if that’s the case, don’t they deserve a bunch of Social Justice Warriors protesting anti-Semitism on the regular, like they do Islamophobia? But no, that doesn’t happen.
Some might say that because most Jews in the U.S. are White, they don’t need social justice. Yet apparently White LGBTQ people and White Women do still need social justice. If that’s the case, then why not Jews?
LikeLike
@ Benjamin
It does happen. Social justice groups and other progressive organizations do protest anti-Semitism. They do join in solidarity with Jews when acts of anti-Semitism take place. I’ve seen it with my own eyes and taken part in it myself. I know Jewish people who themselves belong to social justice organizations and are actively involved in progressive movements and far-left politics.
If it isn’t loud enough, vocal enough, and visible enough for you, then get involved.
Of course, if you just want to bash the left and “SJWs” with made-up scenarios of what you think would have happened, you can do that from your armchair.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
If it isn’t loud enough, vocal enough, and visible enough for you, then get involved.
No I don’t think most progressives – particularly young progressives – are vocally or visibly against anti-Semitism at all. Unless they happen to be Jewish progressives, then yeah, they are. Do you really feel that far left students attending a college like Berkeley are as passionate about fighting anti-Semitism as they are Islamophobia? Because I really don’t think so.
LikeLike
@Benjamin
Thank you for the two articles that described the student council meeting at UCLA at which Rachel Beyda, candidate for a student board position, was questioned about a potential conflict of interest. I read both and did a bit more reading about the issues involved in Beyda’s candidacy.
I found it interesting that both articles from the NY Times and The Atlantic managed to avoid discussing contexts for the student council’s concerns. The contexts at UCLA, as well as, nationally and globally that prompted by the UCLA student council to have concerns about Beyda’s potential for bias. Beyda is involved in UCLA’s campus Hillel and a Jewish sorority. I personally found those affiliations unremarkable since that was the norm during my own time in college. What likely made those affiliations noteworthy to the student council is that the UCLA had just completed a contentious battle over whether to support the non-violent BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanction) movement.
Hillel and many centrist and rightwing Jewish organizations have taken an extremely hard line against BDS. Eric Fingerhut, the President and CEO of Hillel International penned a strongly worded article in the Times of Israel with the title, ”Hillel is taking on BDS’s circus of hate”. Among Fingerhut’s comments:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/hillel-takes-on-bdss-circus-of-hate/#ixzz3OuNs6uJK
Hillel has positioned itself as a staunch defender of Israel with a clear set of [guidelines] (http://www.hillel.org/jewish/hillel-israel/hillel-israel-guidelines). Other Jewish campus organizations such as Open Hillel and Jewish Voice For Peace have chosen more open and dialog oriented approaches to working with groups that oppose Israel’s policies.
I don’t see the questioning of Beyda as something out of the blue or anti-Semitic. In light of Hillel’s position, Rachel Beyda’s membership in Hillel would raise questions about her attitudes and potential biases. Any campus activist attached to an organization with similar strong positions could expect the same.
LikeLike
@Benjamin
I also noticed a constant conflation of Jewish and Israel in both articles. In the view of the Atlantic author and many of the NY Times commenters Jews and Israel are one and the same. Action against Israel is equated with action against all Jews.
In actuality, world Jewry is extremely diverse. There are Jews on all continents and in all racial groups. Jews speak dozens of local languages. Jews are also politically diverse both in Israel and globally. There is even a group of Jews who are secular. There are sharp disagreements among Jews themselves about Israeli policies and practices.
While I understand all too clearly the longing and defense of a homeland, I think the rightwing government of Israel uses those feelings among Jews to promote self-serving propaganda and fend off the effects of the non-violent BDS movement. I think equating BDS with anti-Semitism is a way to shut down discussion of the policies and practices that prompted the Palestinians to start the BDS movement years ago.
On some level, I think the current spate of alarmist articles about the supposed marked increase of anti-Semitism are part of the effort to smear BDS and claim victim status for supporters of a colonialist settler state. A state that engages in relentless assaults on the Palestinian people including: displacement, home demolitions, confinement of whole populations, military attacks on civilians, torture and murder. A state that exports its anti-dissident control techniques to repressive regimes throughout the world, including the USA.
It is a familiar playbook. America, Canada, Australia, South Africa and many other colonialist, settler states have followed the playbook with great success. Yet, there are always consequences. For individuals supporting settler states the consequences may be experienced on a personal level including: intense criticism, isolation/shunning and lack of trust by people who oppose the settler state.
Moreover, in the US, Alt-Right and Evangelicals tend to use both Jews and Israel as cudgels against their political adversaries. For them it is a way to bloody the faces of people who oppose their policies and paint them as reactionary and intolerant. The end goal for them is shutting down discussion and criticism of their repressive domestic policies.
I have no doubt that anti-Semitism exists. I think it never died out. I also think some attitudes and behaviors many Jewish students describe as anti-Semitism may be part of the negative blowback to Israeli policies and practices. Conflation of Jewish and Israel can be a two way street, with car wrecks and casualties going both ways.
LikeLike
@Benjamin
One source of tension I came across in my reading is the issue of some Jewish subgroups defining themselves as people of color. Their self-definition flew in the face of their status as White in this country. Their self-definition also caused some scenes at student of color gatherings on campuses. In many cases, non-European descent Jews such as the Mizrahi and Sephardic describe their rejection in terms of anti-Semitism.
Sigal Samuel, a Mizrahi Jew wrote an article that explored being Jewish and dealing with the color line in the US and Israel. Her opinion piece, I’m a Mizrahi Jew. Do I Count as a Person of Color?, included these observations:
http://forward.com/opinion/318667/im-a-mizrahi-jew-do-i-count-as-a-person-of-color/
There seems to be lots of complexity that the simple label of anti-Semitism may not cover. Color and cultural identity can override religious affiliation.
LikeLike
OFF TOPIC: left-wing hatred of Jews.
Talk about deflection! Not as bad as making Jacqueline Craig about LGBTQ rights, but in this case I do have a proper post on Jews. Please continue it there:
Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@abagond
Where did I call for violence!!!!????
I am very aware of the Christian world’s genocides and I am aware of such which happened historically and are happening contemporaneously in other areas that are primarily Muslim. The Darfur crisis comes to mind in which Janjaweed commit genocide against more traditional Africans. Mauritania is a country where many less-Arabized Africans are enslaved today. I am anti-intolerance and anti-totalitarianism and anti-slavery regardless of where it is coming from. That is my consistency. I think it is fair to call out those things regardless of how they manifest.
Also do not misrepresent what I said. I said that the behavior of groups like ISIS is supported by exhortations and allowances in their scriptures just as they say. They are extremist, yes, but thay are also fundamentalist. This is something I have discovered from my own research and I do not think it is false. Would I be accused of “cherry-picking” the Bible if I quoted from it to explain the Christian justification for missionary work and conversion of indigenous people? If I point out a passage like this from 4:100-102
to show that Islam has a similar mandate to spread itself then am I “cherry-picking”?
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=100
Islamic destruction of indigenous cultures is as much a fact of history as the Christian march. Much of the M.E, including Turkey, was primarily Judeo-Christian by the time of Mohammed and Southern and South-East Asia was primarily Hindu and Buddhist. Fundamentalist, orthodox Islam is extremely intolerant of other religious expression. In the early 2000s one of Afghanistan’s reminders of its Buddhist history, the Bamiyan Buddhas, were destroyed by the Taliban using dynamite.
Nonetheless, there is no need to ban me since, as it is clearly your preference, I will voluntarily cease posting in perpetuity. It is your blog and you have the right to determine what you will and will not allow. I consider myself a person always in the pursuit of truth and I go where it takes me. To the extent that such a pursuit brings me into conflict with the orthodoxy here, I will leave.
Cheers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Origin
You have never called for violence as far as I can remember. But none of that matters. Because you come from a state with a history of genocide and a majority religion whose holy writings can (and have) been used to justify the same.
It has nothing to do with orthodoxy. It has to do with keeping my blog safe from people who MIGHT call for violence. Given the history and religion of your state, I should block all comments from it for 90 days. Out-group homogeneity and half-truths rock!
But seriously, I am just giving you a taste of your own medicine to make a point. I am not banning anyone, at least not for such ridiculous reasons.
LikeLike
@ Origin
Since you are not cherry picking, please show me where ISIS used Sura 9:29 to justify terrorist attacks.
LikeLike
yeah, i’m looking for that call to violence. didn’t see it.
???
LikeLike
@ nomad
I doubt there is a call for violence. I did not see one. But by Origin’s logic, that should hardly stop me from banning him.
Under Obama, people from those seven countries were looked at more closely, but they were still judged as individuals. Trump’s ban does the opposite. Its effect is not to keep the country safe – there are apparently already enough safeguards in place for that – but to defame Muslims as dangerous.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
So is it like saying that any of us posting from the USA, not just Origin, should be put under a 90-day ban because we might call for violence considering where we’re from?
Just like Trump’s ban is on anyone from certain countries because they might commit terrorist attacks considering where they’re from?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Solitaire
Exactly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@abagond
“You have never called for violence as far as I can remember.”
Well, it’s good for me to learn that I haven’t called for violence!
And since you have clarified your stance I rescind my voluntary offer to leave.
Anyway…
Out-group homogeneity?
I am talking about Islam. This is a religion not a place or a person. Muslims observe in different ways just as Christians do. However, if we consider Islam’s sacred texts as authoritative, as claimed, then they describe the religion. From what I have seen kufr [infidels, unbelievers] are considered essentially untermensch. The degrading nature of the designation helped me to understand how it became adopted, in a slightly different form, as a white supremacist term for native South Africans.
My thesis is that the “extremist” Islamist groups are simply following the letter of the law. This is contrary to what we have been told and consistent with claims made by those groups. They don’t seem to have contorted or mutilated the religion but are doing everything, even things to shock people, very devoutly. They consider the Muslims not actively working for Islamic supremacy to be apostatizing and this can be backed up.
By way of example, while some Christians are for gay-rights, I think that Biblical arguments for tolerance in this regard require microscopic spliting of hairs, especially if the Old Testament, which calls for stoning, is taken into account. I think it would be very difficult to reconcile Fundamentalist Christianity and gay marriage which is why so many conservative Christians are opposed.
The implication is that if we are vigilant about right-wing Christian groups we should not turn a blind eye to other potential sources of religious fundamentalist extremism just because a non-white racial designation has been applied to many members of the religion.
LikeLike
Just a little fun fact to share, Chapter (9) sūrat l-tawbah (The Repentance) is often taken out of context by extremist and islamaphobes alike. The chapter deals with a broken treaty with Polytheist and the retribution for breaking that treaty.
On the flip side with the US constantly attacking their country those versus could be viewed as reasoning behind the acts of terrorist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In retrospect, my reaction to abagond’s post when I didn’t get his point is interesting and it probably inadvertently revealed the sincerity of my position. It is abagond’s blog and he has a sovereign right to regulate who posts. I believe the same about this country and its right to regulate immigration in accordance with the exigencies of national security.
LikeLike
“if we are vigilant about right-wing Christian groups we should not turn a blind eye to other potential sources of religious fundamentalist extremism”
I am unaware of any 90-day travel ban on right-wing Christian fundamentalists.
LikeLike
@”Not as bad as making Jacqueline Craig about LGBTQ rights”
LOL! Yet he never labeled it as “OFF TOPIC” and even rushed to the defence of the deflectors. But then again, the deflectors were abagond’s fellow campaign colleagues…
LikeLike
Hmmm…
Seems I remember a Haitian ban under a Dem president.
CLINTON SAYS U.S. WILL CONTINUE BAN ON HAITIAN EXODUS
1993
*”Saying that he feared a mass exodus of Haitians unless he acted, President-elect Bill Clinton announced today that he would at least temporarily abandon a campaign pledge and would continue the Bush Administration’s policy of forcibly returning Haitians who try to emigrate to the United States.
It was Mr. Clinton who helped create the expectation of an exodus from Haiti when he condemned the Bush Administration for a “cruel policy of returning Haitian refugees to a brutal dictatorship without an asylum hearing.””*
Anybody remember any protests?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@nomad
“Anybody remember any protests?”
Hell no! And no court stays either!
But thanks for pointing out yet another example of the myriad racist Clinton policies (and hypocrisy).
And don’t forget that in the wake of the tragic earthquake that left millions of Haitians with nothing, Obama took drastic measures to stop Haitian refugees too, including sending the Coast Guard to Haiti not for humanitarian purposes but to monitor them.
They even said they would “scoop up any boats carrying illegal immigrants and send them to Guantánamo Bay”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@resw
Clinton and Obama are democrats. so its okay.
LikeLike
@lord of mirkwood
I won’t answer stupid questions.
LikeLike
@lord of mirkwood
“You just don’t want to admit that either you are shilling for Trump or you don’t care if he destroys our country. ”
Neither one of your thirsty allegations is relevant to anything I’ve said. But you tried.
“That is why I support Keith Ellison to be the DNC chair. ”
Not sure how that’s relevant, but I guess you needed to somehow broadcast your support for a black person as part of your continuing effort to distance yourself from your year-and-a-half-long display of racism on this blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why treacherous evil is worse than overt evil. With treacherous evil you have people pretending to work for good while doing evil. Overt evil just does evil. However overt evil is perceived and always opposed. Treacherous evil gives the illusion of working for good causing those who would otherwise oppose it to stand down. Like with Obama. Treacherous evil goes unopposed. That’s why it’s worse than overt evil. Are y’all yearning for Hillary and a continuation of Obamaism? I say to hell with that and good riddance. If Trump is what it takes to put an end to Obamanation and Clintonism, so be it. I ain’t looking to favorably on no Democrats and that includes Warren and Sanders. Did they speak out against drone murder? No. I don’t think the Democratic Party is reformable. Let it die. Better yet. Kill it.
LikeLike
I ain’t looking to favorably on no Democrats (except tulsi gabbard)
LikeLike
@ Kiwi
In my case, my conundrum isn’t so much questioning the validity of your statements and opinions. It’s the puzzle of what exactly do you hope to achieve by continuing to hammer the point that black people also aren’t perfect when it comes to racial issues, xenophobia, etc.?
Are you hoping for some general all-around confession of being imperfect and fallible? You must know that, human nature being what it is, you’ll never get that from everyone here. Way back, however, at least a couple people did concede that imperfection to a certain degree, but instead of taking that opportunity to cordially explore areas of consensus and disagreement with those posters, you continued to angrily lambast everyone. That’s certainly your right to freely choose to take that tack. But what is the best possible outcome to your doing so? What ends (if any) do you hope to achieve? And is it even possible to achieve those ends with the approach you’re currently taking?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Solitaire
Blacks on this blog has more than enough admitted to being imperfect. As well as highlight black issues. The problem isn’t some admittance that kiwi wants, but a platform to throw around his anti-black tantrum and someone to listen and give him tissues.
Notice how kiwi picks instances of a small amount of blacks doing wrong and then applies that small amount to a general population. Even in the case of the Muslim ban, blacks have stood more with Muslims than even Muslims cared to stand with blacks. Yet he ignores that only to hammer on that some blacks agree with the ban. The crux of why is never mentioned. Of the blacks that support the ban or don’t care either way, it is a matter of Muslims being dead silent on black issues and now that they are treated like negros they want to cry racism and seek support. It has nothing to do with denying them the right to come here as he falsely claims because most blacks don’t care enough either way.
Secondly Kiwi can’t even admit Asian issues unless it is to bash Asian women for dating white men. He ignores the anti-black attitudes that many Asians carry and that isn’t a small amount either. He use some examples of Asians centering black issues and thinks that is enough to address the very real anti-black issue or the very real self-hate issues that can be found in their communities. Like gro jo or not but he points out kiwi’s underlining issues very well and nonenjoying of it has to do with pointing out imperfections in blacks that blacks on this blog already know own about. If anything he is playing oppression Olympics and using other groups such as Native Americans, Latinos, and Muslims to boost his Asian oppression. Notice how he always talks about how he relates to these people only after using them?
LikeLike
What color is America’s empathy?
“Judging by the millions protesting against president Trump’s policies on behalf of the vulnerable and voiceless, empathy is alive and well. Or is it? Trump’s recent immigration ban exempts Christians from Muslim-majority countries, recognizing their status as the world’s most persecuted faith. But how much empathy do Christians feel for their brothers and sisters in Africa? And why do Muslims who care about the plight of the Palestinians lose so little sleep over the systematic elimination of their black African co-religionists in Darfur? Is skin colour still a significant stumbling block to empathy?”
https://www.opendemocracy.net/rebecca-tinsley/all-christians-are-brothers-and-all-muslims-are-brothers-except-when-their-skin
LikeLike
@Kiwi
“almost all Blacks in the US have not experienced a war on their home soil in the last two generations.”
Wrong as usual. The War on Drugs (which was really a war on blacks) has ravaged many black communities in the US, specifically in the 80s and 90s. Hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions more have been incarcerated as a result. Jobs and residences fled areas that were left looking just as war-torn as perhaps what you claim happened on your “home soil”.
“My family has, by contrast, which makes it easier for me to relate to Syrians who dream of coming to America.”
Yeah, yeah yeah….A dream of coming to a racist country that you and most of the world knows has always oppressed and continues to oppress black people.
You’re just upset you had to find out the hard way that white American majority doesn’t have a problem discriminating against Asians either.
” But reading the comments on this thread, it would appear the simple act of immigrating to the US is seen as anti-Black”
Then point out such an example from “this thread”, or should we just assume it’s your usual dose of BS.
@sharinalr
“The problem isn’t some admittance that kiwi wants, but a platform to throw around his anti-black tantrum and someone to listen and give him tissues.”
+1000
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Sharinalr
You just dropped the mic——yeah!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Kiwi
Yes, please give an example this:
LikeLike
@ nomad
What do you expect from a country where “Black Lives Matter” is a controversial statement.
LikeLike
abagond
“Anybody remember any protests?”
“What do you expect from a country where “Black Lives Matter” is a controversial statement.”
exactically. that’s what makes the muslim ‘ban’ protests so hypocritically sanctimonious
LikeLike
@nomad
I was a Democrat then and, no, it was not okay. I voted against Clinton in 1996. Haiti was not the main reason, but it was most certainly part of it.
LikeLike
@abagond
“Clinton and Obama are democrats. so its okay.”
“I was a Democrat then and, no, it was not okay. I voted against Clinton in 1996. Haiti was not the main reason, but it was most certainly part of it.”
LOL. Of course you know I was being sarcastic, right? I mock Democrats.
LikeLike
It looks like Whites in the US are way more against Muslim immigration than Blacks or Latinos (as of early this month):
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/polls-reveal-stark-partisan-divides-over-support-for-muslim-ban_us_5894d7cde4b0c1284f25e00e
LikeLike
I wonder what they are discussing in white Christian churches nowadays. Anyone attending any?
LikeLike
Donald Trump is a victim of his campaign rhetoric.
(https://youtu.be/viDffWUjcBA)
Clearly what he has sought to enact was not a ‘total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”. Yet we are reacting as if it were. We are overreacting to everything he does.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“but a platform to throw around his anti-black tantrum”
I’m asking him to think about why he’s throwing the tantrum. But wording it in that way generally leads to resistance rather than cooperation from any individual one is trying to reach.
He’s been going on like this for months. If he wants to get beyond it, he needs to do some hard thinking and soul-searching.
If he can’t or won’t get beyond it, there’s nothing I can do, but I feel the need to try.
LikeLike
Solitaire
I understand, but he doesn’t care to reflect because it is not something he wants to get pass. He doesn’t care about Muslims or Asians for that matter but he does care care about himself. I’m curious on what he gets by hiding behind these groups. Hmmm….
LikeLike
A year ago fleeing the US was a nervous joke. Now people are actually doing it. Due to WordPress’s rule against calls for violence, I cannot say what I truly feel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rula Jebreal says the Trump’s Muslim ban is not about national security but about White supremacy:
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSKSnMtDiYs)
I did a post on her back in Ancient Times:
LikeLike
Let’s not forget the 9 young children who were killed a few nights back night in Yakla-Yemen.
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-02-09/nine-young-children-killed-the-full-details-of-botched-us-raid-in-yemen
During this botched raid (ordered by Trump) over a dozen other civilians died.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/02/yemen-yakla-civilians-killed-170207043727800.html
That mission left a trail of orphans and widows, tearing apart many families.
The nine young children who died were
The Trump administration called this a “winning mission”.
What was won by sending these nine children to an early grave?
Most of the people effected by this probably didn’t give two shits about the United States, until now.
A few thousand villagers just got radicalized.
Trump the man who walked away from six bankruptcies, leaving others to hold the bag, who was too scared to go to Nam (Not because he disagreed with the war on principal like Muhammad Ali but because he thought it was for others to die for their country) and stiffed small businesses who built his hotels will never accept personal responsibility for anything.
Trumps presidency is pretty much like a reality TV show and half the country can’t wait for his next episode. He’s thinking ” Great ratings, great ratings! Boy oh boy the advertisers will have to pay double now”
LikeLike
@TheHipHopRecords (@TheHipHopRecord)
thats horrible. where were you when barama was doing it?
LikeLike
@THHR
I’m glad you posted that list of children’s names. One of the children killed was an eight year old girl, Nawar Anwar Al-Awlaqi. She was the daughter of Anwar Al-Awlaqi. He was a US citizen who repatriated back to Yemen and became an influential propagandist for Al Quaida.
Obama droned him in 2010 without any criminal charges or legal due process. Two weeks later Obama droned his sixteen year old son, Abdulrahman, along with his cousin and other innocents at an outdoor cafe in Yemen.
According to the Intercept:
Intercept writer, Glenn Greenwald, alleges that eight year old, Nawar
may have been targeted in a “revenge op” (operation) and that was the real purpose for the raid. Greenwald states:
In essence, the US has become a gangster state like the warring lords of feudal Japan or the Mafia in Sicily in the 1800s. The corporate media covers for them, so the majority of Americans have no idea that our tax dollars fund gangster activities that would make the Bloods and the Crips seem like boy scouts in comparison.
Yet, when a US newscaster says the words, “gang related activity”, whose faces do they show?
LikeLiked by 1 person
outrage lately. better late than never. maybe if we had shown this kind of outrage when obama started down this path, maybe we could have curtailed some of this. saved some lives.
LikeLike
see. i think it was fine when obama was doing it. it only became a problem because trump did it.
LikeLike
@nomad
+1000
And God knows if abagond’s boss got elected, we still wouldn’t see this level of outrage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@nomad
It is an outrage when any president wastes American tax dollars on killing innocents and wanton destruction: from George Washington laying waste to Native American villages to James Polk invading the Mexican Territories to Nixon bombing the Plain of Jars in Laos. Obama and Trump are just carrying on the traditions of their predecessors.
Perhaps the greater outrage is the passivity of the American people (you know, like you and me) when we finally learn of their atrocities.
There is a time when mere criticism is not enough.
LikeLike
I have never been passive about it. thats what makes me unamerican.
“There is a time when mere criticism is not enough.”
Havent seen much criticism about obama’s drone murders. That’s the problem with the black folks that have been insinuated into his crimes. Criticism is not enough, but until you have criticism you dont have a basis for anything else.
There is a time when mere criticism is not enough.. And that time came before the end of Obama’s first term. There should have been protests. In fact, there should have been protests when he bombed his first wedding party. When he droned his first American. That was the the time for outrage. And we certainly should not have voted for that a-hole a second time.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
Nice of you to sneak in a response 30 days later, but as usual it completely fails.
“Sorry, but that’s not a war and most of the associated deaths were inflicted by US Blacks on themselves”
That is of course your asinine opinion–devoid of any fact, as usual. President Nixon’s own counsel said this about the “War on Drugs”:
“We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did”
And the result of this war was thousands of deaths, millions of blacks incarcerated at much higher rates than whites who used drugs at higher rates.
“Sounds like you support the Muslim ban.”
That must be why you can’t find a single direct quote of me expressing such support.
““But F**K Latino’s, Asians, Arabs.
Let the wall fall on the top of them for all I care.””
You said, and I quote, “But reading the comments on THIS THREAD, it would appear the simple act of immigrating to the US is seen as anti-Black” but then gave us a quote from ANOTHER THREAD, once again showing how dishonest and pathetic you really are.
LikeLike
@ Kiwi
As usual, you cherry picked a quote out of context to make a spurious point. Here is the rest of THHR’s comment:
If I treated Asian Americans like you treat the Black people on this blog (and likely offline), I would go to their blog comments sections and hector them, call them “stupid”, make up facts as I go along to buttress my racist arguments and generally show utter contempt for them 99.9 percent of the time.
Then I would wail about how “oppressed” I was while studying for a STEM degree with a six figure income potential. I would attribute my not getting pulled over and insulted with racial slurs by police as the result of my being a “good person” and not because I have the right “paint job”.
In short, I would see them through the eyes of the dominant group and not as fellow human beings worthy of consideration or respect.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As sharinalr rightly pointed out, “kiwi picks instances of a small amount of blacks doing wrong and then applies that small amount to a general population”, but in this case, he couldn’t even do that. He had to go to another thread to pick an irrelevant example.
But what’s worse than that is the fact that abagond actually upvoted kiwi’s racist comment.
No wonder he allowed kiwi to publish a factless post using the same “bootstrap myth” that the old abagond labeled as racist.
LikeLike
Resw,
Kiwi lies so much that you have to fact check the stuff he says. That is why that book he recommended on that post I suggest others read it. Knowing him he twisted what the author actually said to garner credibility for his bs.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
Agree. It’s all so bizarre to me because Kiwi was not so openly dishonest and racist when he was commenting here a few years ago. Now it’s routine. I just wonder what happened…
LikeLike
@resw
What happened is him wallowing in anti-Black cesspools like this:
He has been repeating this racist claptrap on this forum verbatim for over a year.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Afrofem
Asians, like white, want the emotional labor of blacks but don’t want to address the very real anti-black attitudes that keep blacks distancing themselves from them. Asians have shown time and time again a deep seeded envy for blacks because they see themselves as the good child that should get what they want. Yet the bad child is getting what they want. Any progression of blacks they don’t see the labor that blacks put in and any labor blacks do put in they see it as should benefit them. Yet none of their accomplishments benefit others and they want praise?
Asians want white status to “rule over” others rather than equal rights. That is why they think any group progressing other than them is a take over.
LikeLike
@Sharina
Yet none of their accomplishments benefit others and they want praise?”
It is easy for our anger at Kiwi’s insults to blind us to the fact that “Asians” (Asian Americans) are a very diverse group with many nationalities and dozens of ethnic groups. They range from Northeast Asian descent people (Chinese, Japanese and Korean) to Southeast Asians (Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians and Filipinos) to South Asians (Indians and Pakistanis) and Western Asians (Afghans).
While I agree that most Asian American groups seem to lean toward extreme self interest most of the time, there have always been exceptions both individually and among the groups. According to older local activists I talked to, many Filipino-Americans had a keen sense of justice and were willing to put their bodies on the line not just for themselves, but in coalition with other groups in ways that benefited everyone.
Filipino-Americans fought side by side with Chinese Americans in the early 1900s to improve harsh working conditions in Alaskan canneries. In the early 1970s, Filipino-Americans struggled with local Northwest Native tribes to uphold their treaty rights. Later in the 1970s, Filipino-Americans joined forces with Black Americans in Seattle to organize the building trades.
On the individual level, there have been countless individual Asian Americans from all ethnic backgrounds who have worked for laws and causes that benefit all Americans.
Asians want white status to “rule over” others rather than equal rights.
Not necessarily. Some Asian Americans are into Asian Supremacy ideology just like some African Americans are into Original People ideology. There are other Asian Americans who realize that for all Americans to live and thrive, the rights of every American must be secure. What drives the Asian Supremacists?
Satanforce on the United Airlines 3411 thread offered this analysis:
There are other Asian Americans like Aaron Mak who understand that all Americans rise or fall together. He and other Asian American activists recognize that Asian Americans and African Americans operate within a racial hierarchy that has been in force for centuries that disadvantages Black people in different ways from Asian Americans. As Mak explains:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/milwaukee-protests-asian-american-black-lives-matter-214184
So Sharina, while some Asian Americans do want to “rule over others”, I believe there are plenty who want to live with other Americans with equality and peace. I think it is important that we not lose sight of those Asian Americans and work with them when we can.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Afrofem
Make no mistake. When I say Asians I don’t mean all. However, those that do the things I mentioned are still Asian none the less.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
True.
LikeLike
@Afrofem
After careful consideration, I think would be more beneficial if I was specific on the ethnic group I am referring to. Asians are quite diverse and because I am not ever speaking on all of them then it would only be right.
As such I typically an referring to those other Asians have called “the white people” of Asians. These are Japanese Chinese or Korean. My experience with Koreans have been quite well, so I typically exclude them from this.
On the other hand the Chinese I have interacted with are the types I am referring to most often.
LikeLike
@Sharina
Understood. I meant no disrespect in my long-winded paragraph about how many groups are covered by the word “Asian”. I just didn’t want to paint different groups of people with the same brush.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@AFrofem
No worries. I appreciate your straightforwardness. I actually hate when people play games and beat around the bush. Plus this allowed me to re-evaluate how I use terms such as Asians, Black, and Hispanic people. Although it’s use doesn’t say all, I really have to look at the extreme diversity of all groups.
LikeLike
don’t forget ‘south asia’: india, sri lanka, pakistan, etc etc
LikeLike
@v8driver
Good point, we didn’t forget them.
LikeLike
Update (June 29th): After a second attempt, the Supreme Court has approved a partial ban: for the next four months the US can block anyone from six Muslim-majority countries – Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Libya and Iran – who does not have a “bona fide” tie to the US: school, work or immediate family. So no tourists, visiting scholars, grandparents, etc. After four months the Supreme Court will hear arguments about its constitutionality – when the temporary ban is over! The ban starts tonight, 8pm New York time.
LikeLike
Interesting how the Supreme Court, in affirming Trump’s travel ban from designated Muslim-majority countries, took the opportunity to condemn and renounce USA v. Korematsu
This is the first time that the US government has officially struck down the Japanese American Internment action
Supreme Court finally condemns 1944 decision that allowed Japanese internment during World War II
The rejection of Korematsu v. United States came in the Court’s travel ban ruling.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/26/17505902/supreme-court-korematsu-japanese-internment-camps
LikeLike
@ jefe
Wow.
LikeLike
Update: In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court backs Trump’s Muslim ban, which currently affects five Muslim-majority countries – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen – along with North Korea and Venezuela.
Chief Justice Roberts:
“The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices. … The text says nothing about religion.”
LikeLike
I remember back in December 2015 White Liberal talking heads saying the Supreme Court would never uphold a Muslim ban. And that Trump would never win. Well, here we are.
LikeLike
re:
Maybe the emphasis is that the USA has the right to separate out people and prevent their movement as long as it has nothing to do with race or religion.
The new dog whistle is “National Security”.
Korematsu v. USA has been promised for a long long time. Maybe good to do that some time soon as it came up again in this Supreme Court Ruling.
LikeLike
@ jefe
Yes!
LikeLike
I remember suggesting that the “Muslim ban” would be upheld because restricting travel to/from countries with which the US is at war/conflict is a pretty obvious and clear-cut presidential power like it or not.
LikeLike
@abagond! Do you know about the slavery of domestic workers in Arabian countries?
LikeLike
@ Mr Satan
Do you know that you are banned? Troll be gone!
LikeLiked by 1 person