Category Archives: Islam

UPDATED (2/7): BRAVO: A US Marine Who Puts Americans FIRST

Homeland Security, Islam, Middle East, Military, Nationhood, Neoconservatism

A neoconservative wish-come-true is for the Empire’s Army to be loyal to the satellite states (Iraq, etc.) and the mission; not to Americans first. These, unfortunately, can no longer be conflated. They should be, but are not, one and the same thing.

This remarkable US Marine, however, is unwilling to think as he is trained to think by a military brass that increasingly flouts its limited, constitutional obligations. Here’s a Marine whose fidelity isn’t to Empire, but to America First, to his fellow Americans. This Marine has certainly not been afflicted with a Lawrence of Arabia complex. Bravo.

RELATED:

“Beware The Values Cudgel.”
“Lawrence Of Arabia: Lionized Liar”
“Your Government’s Jihadi Protection Program”:

… the military is government. The military works like government; is financed like government, and sports many of the same inherent malignancies of government. Like government, it must be kept small. Conservatives can’t coherently preach against the evils of big government, while excluding the military mammoth.

UPDATE (2/7):

Not every public official is as faithful:


Suppression:


Weak:

Beware The Values Cudgel

Conservatism, Government, IMMIGRATION, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Islam, Liberty, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, Politics

“Beware The Values Cudgel” is the current column, now on The Daily Caller (founded by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson). An Excerpt:

… When you hear an appeal to “permanent values”—”the values that make our country great,” to quote Hillary Clinton—know you are dealing with world-class crooks. These crooks want to swindle you out of the freedom to think and believe as you wish. For in the classical conservative and libertarian traditions, values are private things, to be left to civil society—the individual, family and church—to practice and police.

The American government is charged purely with upholding the law, no more. Why so? Because government has police and military powers with which to enforce its “values.” A free people dare not entrust such an omnipotent entity with policing values, at home or abroad, because values enforced are dogma.

When incontestable majorities call on government to curb Islamic and other in-migration because this imperils American lives, President Trump’s unswerving opponents—the Obama, Clinton, Ryan, McCain, Graham, Schumer and media mafia—will invariably intone, “That’s not who we are.”

When you hear that manipulative mantra, tell them to shut up, mind their own business, and stick to their constitutional mandate to protect the people, not police their minds.

Remember that through an appeal to values, the State aggrandizes itself.

A limited government, serving an ostensibly free people, must thus never enforce values. …

… Read the rest. “Beware The Values Cudgel” is now on The Daily Caller.

If you’d like to feature the Mercer Column (criminally underexposed in paleolibertarian and paleoconservative quarters), in your magazine, paper or pixels, contact me at ilana@ilanamercer.com. My gratitude to the wonderful, intellectually honest publishers who’ve taken the leap.

UPDATED (2/5): When I First Began To Suspect That Muslims ‘Embellish’

Islam, Israel, Middle East, Multiculturalism, Terrorism

Call me biased—lowlife lefties will—but it started when I was very small. (I certainly had, still have, a good memory, because I remember it all.) With no warning, the 1967 Six-Day War began. It was quite safe for an Israeli child to wander about alone along the paths of the Yishuv, in which we lived. That’s what I was doing at the time. A man grabbed me and carried me down to the underground shelter. The border with Jordan was close by back then, and we could hear the artillery. Someone switched on the radio. We tuned into the infamous broadcasts out of Cairo, according to which Israel was losing the war.

Even as the Egyptian air force was wiped out, and its ground forces were getting slaughtered in the deserts of Sinai, Egyptian radio was broadcasting its glorious victories: They were bombing Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, destroying the enemy with impunity, etc.

“Itbuch el yuhood” were the words most frequently deployed. (“Slaughter the Jews.”)

Translating the rest, the grown-ups explained that the crazed broadcaster was saying that the Jews were being thrown into the sea, but not to worry, children, the Arabs were lying for a change.

Yes, I confess. I heard that a lot when I was growing up in an Israel that was once non-leftist and patriotic, reality oriented (today, thanks to American influence, it’s more like America).

We won the war in six days and no Jew was thrown into the sea. Of course, it was also true, against common Israeli myth, that many on the other side fought valiantly. Nevertheless, stereotypes are often supported by evidence.

That’s what crosses the mind when I see the many tall tales about how many Muslims have already died en route because of President Donald Trump’s travel ban. For one of many instances, see “Fake news: Iraqi-American lied when he claimed that his mother died due to Trump ban.”

Do you get the impression immigrants you don’t necessarily want here will do anything (including to play guilt-riddled, gullible Americans), in order to gain unfettered access to the US and its generous welfare programs?

* By the way, the Muslim world that attacked Israel, back in those good old days, was much more secular. If anything, it has regressed.

UPDATE (2/2):

Linda Sarsour:

Of Course The President’s Ban Is Constitutional

Constitution, Donald Trump, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Justice

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. —The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Section, 212(f).

President Donald Trump’s moratorium on the entry of all refugees into the United States, and “an order for ‘extreme vetting’ as a condition for entry for some foreign citizens,” is constitutional. This is old hat; discussed, too, in my book, “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed.” (June, 2016).

No fan of the executive order, constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley says he disagrees with his “colleagues at George Washington University Law School and other law schools that the order is clearly unconstitutional”:

…Courts are not supposed to rule on the merits of such laws but their legality. I think that the existing precedent favors Trump.

First, this is not a religious ban. When it was first discussed on the campaign, it was described as a ban on Muslims. This is not a religious ban. It certainly can be opposed as having that effect but there are a wide array of Muslim countries not covered by the ban and would not be impacted by the restrictions. A court cannot in my view treat this order as carrying out a religious ban as it is currently written. (Trump’s comments that he wants to prioritize Christians could raise more compelling arguments of religious discrimination).

Second, the law largely suspends entry pending the creation of new vetting procedures. That is based on a national security determination made by the President. Courts have generally deferred to such judgments. A president’s authority is at its zenith on our borders. Hillary Clinton herself campaigned on carefully vetting refugees (though she favors increasing such entries). In a November 2015 national security speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton said “So yes, we do need to be vigilant in screening and vetting any refugees from Syria, guided by the best judgment of our security professionals in close coordination with our allies and partners.”

Finally, there is precedent for limited entry from particular countries going back to some of the earliest periods in this country. The earlier immigration laws include the 1875 Page Act which focused on Asian immigrants and those believes to be engaged in prostitution or considered convicts in their native countries. Then there was the infamous 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. Then there were other measures limiting immigration from particular areas like the 1906 “Gentleman’s Agreement” (Japanese aliens) and the or the 1917 Immigration Act (“Asiatic Barred Zone”). In 1921 and 1924, Congress passed the “Quota Acts” limiting entry from disfavored countries. of nations from whom no further immigrants would be accepted. In every case, immigration policy continued to develop as a series of widening, discriminatory exclusions. It was not until 1965 that we broke from our long and troubling history is such discrimination. However, The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act contains section, 212(f) that gives sweeping authority on the exclusion of certain aliens: …

… READ THE REST.


The Lobbyists: