From a little while back, but still a funny takedown of the SJW culture taking over campuses:
From a little while back, but still a funny takedown of the SJW culture taking over campuses:
In the last few weeks, I keep piling up stories that will probably be strung together in a few Field Day posts, but this story from HotAir I didn’t want to leave on the back burner and get to later.
The title is “I suppose we should talk about that Doritos ad“.
This is the ad:
And this was the response from NARAL:
And a screenshot in case it disappears:
So they’re opposed to humanizing human offspring, because it’s some tactic of the anti-choice movement. Humanizing fetuses is… bad?
NARAL’s twitter feed sounds like the hard leftist craziness it is, but as they’re not the kind of people I follow on twitter – Twitchy does a fine job of keeping up on that sort of thing anyway.
Not sure why they use the statue of liberty as their twitter avatar, seeing as how she’s in favor of accepting those poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free, not yearning to crush the lives from people who will never breathe, but I guess irony escapes them.
I’m a sci fi fan (and I don’t care that it’s become SF or “speculative fiction” to clean up the image of bug-eyed monsters from the 50s), and from the perspective of most humanist sci fi, I can’t see any way that NARAL doesn’t come across as utter monsters.
I just spent part of this morning watching SFDebris Star Trek reviews – I enjoy seeing what someone else has thought of classic (and not so classic) episodes of the past – and even if I don’t always agree with the takes that he has on them, I usually gain some greater understanding of the episode and story. This morning one episode review I watched was his review of Star Trek: Enterprise Similitude.
Enterprise was the prequel spinoff series that aired in the late 90s early 2000s and fared poorly. Especially compared to The Next Generation and Deep Space 9 (which was highly underrated), Enterprise was weak.
The story Similitude involves the chief engineer getting seriously injured after an engine mishap, the ship getting stuck in some kind of anomaly that was decaying the hull, and the need to save the engineer. So the highly unethical ship’s doctor decided to make a clone of the engineer by using some alien critter larva, then force-grow the clone, and basically strip it for parts.
Thing is, the clone is recognized as a person. Even though it was grown for the specific purpose of being harvested for organs, the clone is a copy down to neurological pathways of the original, so it has his memories and knowledge (dubious science, I know), and is fully self-aware and more than a little opposed to being used for parts. In the end the clone cares more for the comatose engineer and the memories of trying to make things right for his/their lost sister and family, especially knowing it’s force-grown and will age and die in a few days.
Even in this mediocrely written sci fi, there’s some understanding that something is being done with life – that life isn’t something to casually throw away, and that a human life (or near-human life) is a valuable life – and that virtue of life is acknowledged even if it’s a force-grown clone created with a specific purpose.
Plenty of folks on twitter smacked NARAL around by pointing out the definition of a fetus is “a developing human”, but the whole thing strikes me as something both telling and sinister. It shows the character of people who are in NARAL and those who support it, and it’s really disturbing.
From an alien perspective, an alien may or may not care for the idea of terminating gestating offspring, but denying that a gestating offspring is still a member of the parent race is just nonsensical.
If aliens from Zeta Reticuli said, “yeah, we kill our offspring when it’s inconvenient for us because we value the agency of full-grown Reticulans over those of our larva”, you might well find them offensive, especially depending on their history and culture.
If they said, “yeah, we kill our gestating fetuses when it’s inconvenient for us because those things aren’t Reticulans”, you’d probably find them to be poorly written or a race in absurd denial in order to justify their actions.
The problem for NARAL might be that saying you should be able to kill offspring – which is their position – then makes it solely a question of timing. The argument I remember hearing in college philosophy courses was the “future like ours” theory, that means you could kill off the weak, crippled, or handicapped, but that you shouldn’t kill off the strong in the womb. The same argument also began to apply to “future like ours” as in what can be provided for the offspring, thus it’s was okay to kill the strong if you were poor and couldn’t afford an ideal future for that offspring. There was also an argument that human offspring aren’t capable of independent life before a certain time period, and that makes it okay to kill them because they’re not individual beings yet – this is intended to be a trimester argument, but its logical conclusion would include newborns and children up to a few years of age who couldn’t survive in nature without assistance (an argument that has been made before).
Those last parts become unpalatable and monstrous to most of society right now. Using sci fi/speculative fiction to explore the concepts, there’s not necessarily a reason they couldn’t become or be considered acceptable, given the proper framework. Maybe a warrior group kills the weakest of its offspring, or an overpopulated planet exterminates them, but even then there’s a reason. The warrior race wants to be stronger, the overpopulated planet is concerned with its stability – they understand the offspring are theirs, but deny them life for a reason (albeit ones we may not agree with). I still couldn’t see a writer coming up with any kind of logic to a race that would deny its own offspring, unless it were an intentional flaw in the race – like some kind of adherence to an obsolete philosophy from when they were warlike or too numerous to survive that they now take as gospel. It might work for an group with a strict collectivist mentality that’s harshly enforced, or for a group that steadfastly believes in some throwback idea that they don’t realize they’ve outgrown.
Human cultures in the past have engaged in practices like those, but concern for our species and enlightened concern for all humanity has moved us past that… except for the people who want to drag us back. NARAL denies the humanity of a developing offspring that even infanticidal cultures of the past would not – because the infanticidal cultures of the past acknowledged it as a decision, either an ugly one or one they simply choose to be willfully apathetic about due to circumstance – while NARAL is afraid of the moral bankruptcy or perception of callousness that comes from acknowledging what they’re advocating.
According to gun industry insiders and others familiar with the proposals, the changes include requiring an expanded number of small-scale gun sellers to be licensed — and therefore conduct background checks — whenever selling a weapon. This wouldn’t close the so-called gun show loophole, though it has the potential to narrow it.
The administration is also expected to impose tighter rules for reporting guns that get lost or stolen on their way to a buyer.
They won’t go after straw purchasers, but they’ll come up with more rules and regulations for those engaged in exercising rights specifically outlined by the Constitution.
as one of the major proponents of a change, Everytown has recommended adding several factors to the definition — including selling guns in their original packaging, reselling a gun shortly after acquiring it, maintaining a certain quantity of guns for sale or selling more than 25 guns a year — as possible signals that someone needs a license.
For people who are engaged in shooting sports, that’s not really that many. There are already laws on the books that target people who are actually in the business of dealing guns without a license. If law enforcement wants to go after someone for selling guns without a license because it’s their undeclared business, they can – and it’s a matter for law enforcement to figure out “is this guy a dealer, or is this guy someone who’s well-to-do and buys and sells a lot or is he liquidating inherited guns or is he X Y Z that’s not criminal?”
Another victory for advocates is likely to be a requirement for all licensed dealers and manufacturers to report to federal authorities any guns that are stolen in transit to a buyer as missing from their inventory. Currently, advocates say, thieves often target packages addressed to gun retailers in the hopes of stealing unregistered guns that are harder to trace. And while buyer and seller might sort out refunds or replacements on their own, they’re not required to report the missing guns to the National Crime Information Center.
There’s already a form for that. Buyer and seller don’t sort out refunds or replacements on their own if packages turn up missing – one or both parties will report the package missing for insurance purposes. Plus they don’t want a gun stolen in transit to end up as their problem once the thief uses it.
White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett also raised gun-control advocates’ hopes for new domestic violence provisions last month. In a post on the actress Lena Dunham’s website, Jarrett noted that guns are the most likely cause of death for women who are victims of domestic partner violence.
Somehow I’m unsurprised that Valerie Jarrett is exchanging notes on the web with Lena Dunham. Probably won’t post much to Dunham about efforts to fight against sexual assault on children.
Gun-control activists acknowledged that changing the rules for licenses might have limited impact on what sellers actually do in the short term. But in this political environment, they’ll take whatever measures they can, no matter how incremental.
“Setting cultural norms,” said Everytown research director Ted Alcorn, “is something that laws do.”
And there’s the point.
This isn’t about doing anything that prevents crime or violence. This is about a boot stamping on a human face forever. These are the moral busibodies who will torment free men endlessly.
They’re going after a Constitutional right and trying to push people away from it culturally. They’re trying to destroy the right by making it culturally nonexistent. They’re trying to make it harder and harder to buy and sell guns. The numbers game is just the camel’s nose. Right now they want 25 guns a year… next it will be 15, then 10, then 5, then 2, then 1, then 0.
The same game has been played in many states with magazine restrictions. 30 is too many! 20 is too many! 15 is too many (NJ, CO)! 10 is too many (CT, CA, MA, MD)! 7 is too many (NY)! 5 is too many! 3! 2! 1! 0. When gun control advocates are asked what the number they “need” is, they will never settle on a number to stop on. After Newtown, the argument was “30 children will be killed” and they demanded mag restrictions… why? If 30 children is terrible, why is 15 children okay? Or 10 children? Or 5? Or one? Because of course it’s not the number, that’s just a way to get a restriction that can then be pushed further.
If enacted, the legislation would place strict limits on the number of bullets a gun owner can purchase over a 90-day period, and ban gun dealers from selling ammunition for a firearm to anyone unauthorized to own such a weapon.
The bills are aimed at owners of high-capacity rifles, but they would also affect owners of handguns with much smaller magazines, even six-shooters.
The provision would limit the amount of bullets a gun owner can buy to no more than twice the amount of the capacity of the weapon ever 90 days, which means someone who owns a six-shooter could only buy 12 bullets every three months, the Brooklyn Eagle reported.
48 rounds a year with a typical revolver. One box of ammo (minus two rounds) for the year.
You can’t maintain a lot of proficiency with that little ammo… of course, to the gun-banner, that’s not a bug, that’s a feature. Restrict the ability to shoot, then say people are incompetent, then take away the guns. It’s a win-win for the leftist statist.
It also uses laws to set cultural norms – you can’t introduce someone to shooting with 4 rounds per month. You can’t go plinking with 1 round per week. With a double-barrel shotgun, you’d have 4 rounds per 3 months, 16 per year, so it’d take you years just of nursing your state-approved amount to go shoot sporting clays.
It’d be amazing to see this same objective pushed for other rights. What if they pushed against the First Amendment and you were only allowed so many words per yea
“If I have a cold, I can’t buy Sudafed without ID, but I can walk into any gun shop and walk out with enough bullets to arm a small army without showing any kind of ID,” Ms. Simon said in a joint release. “I can buy any kind of bullets regardless of what kind of gun I own. I don’t even have to own a gun to stock up on bullets. Nothing stops me from having friends buy even more bullets for me. The sky is the limit. The San Bernardino shooters had 6,000 rounds of ammunition. We need this legislation so that cannot happen here.”
Yes, you should be able to buy all the Sudafed you want as well.
There are also laws against murder and lots of gun laws in CA and that didn’t stop the San Bernadino terrorists. There are also lots of gun laws in India and that didn’t stop the Mumbai terrorists.
“Setting cultural norms,” said Everytown research director Ted Alcorn, “is something that laws do.”
It’s to push people away from their rights by making them hard to exercise. Push people away from their rights and then they can be taken away.
Federal officials around the world today are urgently trying to track the backgrounds and contacts of the newly-married parents of a baby girl who killed 14 people in California last week in a suspected ISIS-inspired attack, as a new photograph emerged showing the future terrorists entering the U.S. together for the first time last year.
The image, apparently taken as the couple moved through customs in Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport on July 27, 2014 and obtained exclusively by ABC News, shows Tashfeen Malik clad in all black looking directly into the camera as the taller Syed Rizwan Farook stands behind her, black bearded and with a blank expression. It is the most recent photograph of the two to be made public.
It’s a subtle bias of the media to describe them as “newly-married parents of a baby girl” as though to humanize them by comparing them to a traditional family; and at the same time to denigrate the traditional family by making these terrorists into a traditional family.
Americans are taught from an early age not to judge a book by it’s cover. Problem with that is that there are words on the cover, and those words will sometimes give us an indication of what’s inside the book. You don’t pick up Ann Coulter’s “How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)” and expect it to be some kind of treatise on mathematics. You don’t pick up a Michael Stackpole Battletech novel and expect it to be a collection of poetry based on the Bhagavad Gita. You don’t pick up “Mein Kampf” and expect to find a bedtime storybook.
Likewise, you don’t look at those two and think “these are people who really want to come to America and embrace American values and assimilate into American culture”. These are people who look just like they are.
Offhand, the American muslims I’ve known who’ve wanted to integrate into American culture did so in part by acting like and looking like Americans. One woman I knew also actively wanted to be American so she and her children would be protected by the American legal system against family members who wanted to murder her for not wanting to be shoved into a force marriage. She rejected the oppressive culture, rejected being stuck in a forced marriage with a man 40 years her senior, and wanted no part of the culture of those two terrorists. Others I’ve known go out and start shops and businesses emulating American culture in different ways – bringing positives from their culture to US culture – and bringing a traditional mercantile nature while disregarding the conquest-by-the-sword malice on the negative side of their culture that they’ve left behind not just because they personally dislike it but also because it’s bad for business.
That idea of not judging a book by it’s cover, and by not judging at all, is why the neighbors who saw Arab men going in and out of the house at all times of night didn’t bother to report anything. They didn’t want to judge a book by it’s cover and be judgemental and racist, so they said nothing… and terrorists attacked because out of the goodness of their dumb little hearts, people won’t call a spade a spade.
The official response is that there is no terrorism here and that anyone who speaks bad about Islam or Muslims or the terrorism that seems to follow wherever they go will be punished by the Attorney General.
Lynch addressed the Muslim Advocate’s tenth-anniversary dinner and declared that she is concerned about an “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric . . . that fear is my greatest fear.” Her greatest fear is — not terrorism — but a nonexistent Islamophobic backlash? ISIS has demonstrated that it can bring down passenger jets, strike the heart of a great Western capitol with urban assault teams, and inspire horrible carnage in California. We also know that ISIS has pledged to keep attacking the U.S. and possesses chemical weapons. Yet it’s politically incorrect speech that strikes fear into the heart of our attorney general.
Doesn’t matter what you’re seeing in front of you – if you observe things that happen repeatedly, begin to make a theory about why they happen, and see that theory pan out as things happen again, it doesn’t mean you’re applying scientific reasoning, it means you’re a racist islamophobe who must be punished for badthink.
Lynch of course has decided to backtrack a bit on her “you are all islamophobes fearing people who are only attacking you because of your violent microaggressions at them and because you’re bigoted against them and that’s why they have to kill you and you deserve it” because her reasoning is so far leftist ideologue that it’s plainly absurd to the run-of-the-mill Mametian-brain-dead liberal:
“We always have a concern when we see the rhetoric rising against any particular group in America, that it might inspire others to violent action — and that violent action is what we would have to deal with,” Lynch told journalists at Justice Department headquarters. She also urged Americans “not to give into fear” in the wake of the apparent terrorist attack in California. “So, [what] we’re focused on, obviously, is protecting all of the people under the ambit of the Department of Justice.”
Let’s see… in San Bernadino, Muslim terrorists killed more than a dozen people and their organizations and adherents swear to kill more. Anti-muslim people killed… zero.
Sure, makes sense to go after the people who might say bad things about the people killing them.
“At this point…we’re not prepared to limit any particular ideology to what may have inspired these individuals,” the attorney general said.
Translation: “I will not blame Islamists for this because even though it’s plainly apparent it’s the reason and the terrorists themselves said as much before they went on their murder spree, I am such a leftist that I can only see them as victims of America and so it must always be America to blame.”
They’re terrorists. Lynch won’t say it, Obama wouldn’t say it (until the FBI called it terrorism). To their hard leftist view they steadfastly refuse to understand reality because they’re so ideologically brainwashed they can’t.
Newest thing today is that Syed Farook’s mother was a member of a pro-caliphate group:
Rafia Farook, the mother of San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook, is an active member of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), a Muslim organization that promotes the establishment of a caliphate and has ties to a radical Pakistani political group called Jamaat-e-Islami.
To the left, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a duck, has been genetically tested against other ducks and is a perfect 100% DNA match for a duck, then you’re a racist Islamaphobe.
Really, though, when a book is titled “Collected Mujahideen Handbook – From Al Qaeda’s Inspire Magazine: How To Wage Jihad, Build Bombs, and Kill The Kafir” and says so on the cover, it’s probably a reasonable inference that it’s not a biography of Beethoven.
Ezra Levant points out the problems Sweden has acquired as they’ve welcomed a swarm of immigrants who do not share their values at all.
“They are so liberal that they’ve welcomed in a half million illiberal people.”
There are still brain-dead liberals, possibly infected with white/western guilt to the degree that they really feel justified in inflicting suffering on their own communities. They see the world as either oppressors or victims, and with their modern leftist guilt over being successful, they feel they that their nation must’ve been the oppressor and so they must kowtow to immigrants who don’t share the values of their nations.
The really disturbing thing is that somewhat like the Rotherham rape case that Ezra Levant’s video mentions – it’s painfully politically incorrect to discuss rejecting unwanted refugees, and so goes without being discussed by most people.
In the US, we have the advantage of being a nation that in ideal is united by creed and dedication to founding documents. We’re a nation of ideas, not a nation of an ethnicity. If you’re from the US, you can be any color and have any history – and as the ideal you’re an American citizen due to virtues.
If you’re an Irish citizen, in all probability you’re Irish by race, ethnicity, and blood. If you’re a Spanish citizen, you’re probably Spanish by race, ethnicity, and blood. Same for most nations. Wars in Europe, and in fact most of the world, are often fought over one nation-state’s ethnic group having ethnic group members in a neighboring nation-state they feel the need to intervene with; or nation-ethnicities within a nation-state angered about their treatment.
In the US, there’s been such intermixing that it’s not much of an issue. Those are old world problems we left behind.
That said, the reason so much of the current immigration/illegal immigration issue in Europe is difficult to discuss is that for a nation to reject people coming into their country, it has the optics of an ethnicity-nation rejecting another ethnicity. It smacks of racism to the European. If France rejects refugees, it’s very, very easy to say “the French are racist” – just as easy as it is to say the white British Rotherham police are racist when they target non-ethnically-British criminals (regardless of the merits of the case). Taking in terrorists as refugees is wrong for the French, and allowing men to rape little girls is wrong for the British. They know it’s wrong – they’re just afraid to say so.
It leads to a consequence where the people who’d like to bring up the issue – that it’s not about race, it’s about the culture and values that those unwanted invaders bring with and how it will change a nation – have a lot of difficulty broaching the subject.
Then of course, there are also some who really are racist ethnic-nationalists. With the problems that unwanted immigrants bring in – some fall into that camp slowly because they have an actual bone to pick – but they’ve retracted from rational thought and don’t allow themselves to see that the issue isn’t a color or an ethnicity, it’s a behavior and value set that’s incompatible with western values. Others are eager racists who readily jump on the issue. And having the racists stacked up in one camp, with brain-dead liberals ideologically blinded to the problems the immigrants they embrace bring in – it’s a narrow path to walk trying to talk sense to both sides.
To the stupid racists – the problem isn’t that those immigrants look different than you – the problem is they hold values different than the rest of your society and they’ll bring their Third World problems to you. Stop being racist dumbasses. You’ll alienate actual refugees who would like to hold your nation’s values.
To the actual racists – you’re not superior.
To the leftist idiots – the problem is that those immigrants hold illiberal values antithetical to the freedoms you espouse – they’re not weak children in need of protecting, they’re individuals with agency of their own and they’re using you for the stupid handouts you’ve guilted your people into taxing themselves for. Every time you tell off the regular right in your nation* you end up reinforcing the idea that you want to bring in people to harm your nation – and you drive more people to become stupid racists. The racists say you’re committing (insertcolorhere) genocide, when you’re really killing off all the positives of your society – they equate ethnicity/race with good values because you leftists keep bringing in shitbags from the Third World with tyrannical ideologies who hate your nation and that’s their stupid simple answer. When you invite people in who want to murder gays and treat women as property, you are not helping anyone be more free. When you say that’s their culture and let them beat their wives, have forced marriages between little girls and old men, and bash your gays, you’re not worldly and sophisticated, you’re enabling monsters to terrorize your nation. You’ve become so open minded your brains have fallen out.
To the ideological true believer leftists – you’re going to implode your own society and no matter how much you think that’s a “good thing” because you’re so self-loathing, anything you actually do like about your nation will also go with it. You probably won’t understand how destructive you really are, and you won’t get it until you find out that all your machinations have led to the new powers you helped install deciding that you’re a problem that needs to be dealt with. After the revolution, there’s no more need for revolutionaries.
And yes, I’m calling out you on the left a lot more, because you leftists have to be retaught lessons that even the asshole racists still understand. You don’t starve your own kid to feed someone else if you want to continue living – even if it’s somehow noble, that noble act dies with you and your kid, because that person you saved who survives doesn’t have the same worldview as you at all – they’re using you. Their ideology views you as someone to be conquered and destroyed, and you’re helping them do it while patting yourself on the back for embracing diversity.
You can discriminate between values that people hold and whether those values are good or bad. Start learning to judge things that need to be judged, because taking paths with your eyes intentionally closed and intentionally rejecting concerned directions from people with their eyes open trying to help means you’re liable to walk off a cliff.
*Noting that the right in Europe are traditionalists usually believing in ethnicity=nation to some degree; and the right in Europe being so far ideologically left that it’s worlds apart from the US’s concepts.
‘With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations’, a slick, hard-hitting film about the European migrant crisis is going viral in Europe, already watched at least half a million times.
Although the 19-minute film may feel like a dispatch from the future, it is cut entirely from recent news reports, police camera footage, and interviews.
Breitbart notes that the original video was taken down by youtube. It’s been copied and reposted (mirrored) several times now, as is the standard response to youtube censorship. As noted in the story:
UPDATE 13/11/15: After gaining a million and a half views in less than five days, the Open Gates video was taken down by YouTube following a copyright infringement. Although the rights company involved in the claim has been named in allegedly spurious claims in the past, there is no reason to suggest that is the case with this video.
The video itself is made by somebody who claims to be from /pol/, which is the name for the politically incorrect board on a handful of popular message boards – most notably 4chan and 8chan – though relative popularity may be very different after the effects of censorship about Gamergate drove a lot of people from pol from the first site to the latter.
It should be noted that /pol/ is a place full of intentionally inflammatory, often racist, purposeless posts (shitposting), either seriously made or in jest. While the intent of the maker certainly sets the tone, it doesn’t mean it’s necessarily completely wrong or inaccurate, either. The video is, after all, a collection of news reports, camera footage, and interviews that speak for themselves. (Edit: Except the last minute or two, which is an interview that seems to be being used to a specific anti-semitic end, and is about 5 years out of date. Edit2: I don’t care for whatever agenda is intended by that last bit – whether genuine anti-semitism or shitposting parody of it, but the rest of the video with news reports is again still visuals for reporting we’re not seeing stateside.)
The video is a sharp reminder that, as Mark Steyn says, demography is destiny, and that there are parts of the world that understand that r strategists can defeat K strategists.
Bill Whittle and Stefan Molyneux had a conversation about r vs K selection recently as well. I do agree with Whittle’s contention at one point that r vs K is learned as humans can choose either reproductive strategy, and how they are a result of relative success or failure.
It’s long, but a very good conversation.
Thinking about how the r vs K that Whittle and Molyneux talk about as it applies to the Open Gates video is enlightening, but also tragic.
Since yesterday, over half of US governors are refusing resettlement of Syrian “refugees”.
A drumbeat of opposition against allowing Syrian refugees into the U.S. intensified Monday as more than half the country’s governors, citing security concerns, said they would refuse to accept Syrian refugees into their states following the Paris attacks, which President Obama said “would be a betrayal of our values.” …
By late Monday, states refusing Syrian refugees included Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin.
It’s not a “betrayal of our values” to the US to refuse refugees who we view as security concerns. It’s not a betrayal of US values to refuse entrance to actual immigrants we view as security concerns. It is denying Obama his ability to ship future Democrat voters and ideological opponents to the US into the US in order to further “fundamentally change” the US and destabilize and balkanize the US. But as Jim Quinn is fond of saying “we have elected the enemy”. If you keep in mind that Obama’s ideology is to weaken the nation, suddenly it all makes sense.
The US has a long history of refusing admission to people that are antithetical to US interests. The Wikipedia entry is biased, but the historical point is still made:
Several ideological requirements for naturalization remain under U.S. law. First is the requirement that the applicant be “attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.” This is essentially a political test, though it “should be construed … in accord with the theory and practice of our government in relation to freedom of conscience.” The statutory requirement is elaborated in the Code of Federal Regulations, which provides: “Attachment implies a depth of conviction which would lead to active support of the Constitution. Attachment and favorable disposition relate to mental attitude, and contemplate the exclusion from citizenship of applicants who are hostile to the basic form of government of the United States, or who disbelieve in the principles of the Constitution.” Even still, the ideological requirement is “nebulous”; it begs the questions of what the “basic form of government of the United States” is and what the key “principles of the Constitution” are to which the applicant must subscribe.
Like I said, biased – the last sentence gives it away. The US is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, and key principles include the fundamental framework of the Constitution itself plus the Bill of Rights.
The US has restricted entry to communists, anarchists, polygamists, and other classes that are viewed as antithetical to US interests, security, culture, etc. In short, you don’t invite people in who you don’t want in.
There’s been a major discussion in recent years of how Islam isn’t just a religion, but is also a political, governmental, and social system that’s outlined by the Koran. Sharia law, which many muslims favor, comes directly from the Koran. Sharia law is antithetical to the Constitution. And when you look at populations who support it:
Why would you want to import people from countries whose populations believe in eradicating your rights, liberties, and system of government and replacing it with a rigid, violent, authoritarian patriarchal theocracy?
Answer for Obama and Valerie Jarrett and his crew is “fundamental change” of the country that they set out to bring low in order to make things “more fair” for the world by making the US a third world country… but for anyone else who lives here who isn’t an ideological leftist?
That objection to bringing in refugees is just considering the cultural shift that will harm the nation slowly, rather than immediate security concerns of bringing in radicals.
Another quick note on “radical” vs “moderate” muslims as a crybully activist interrupts a forum that wasn’t actually discussing Islam in order to say how discussing something peripheral to Islam is islamophobic:
Ted Cruz is discussing offering up a bill that will curtail importation of Syrian refugees into the US. His main reason is security concerns.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has struck back at President Obama’s implication that his rejection of Syrian refugees is “shameful,” telling CNN he will be introducing legislation banning Muslim Syrian refugees from entering the United States.
“What Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are proposing is that we bring to this country tens of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees,” Cruz told CNN’s Dana Bash in Charleston, S.C., on Monday.
“I have to say particularly in light of what happened in Paris, that’s nothing short of lunacy.”
Asked what would have happened if his own father — a Cuban refugee who fled the island’s repressive Communist regime — had been told all those years ago by political leaders that there was no place for him because of security risks, Cruz said it was a different situation.
“See that’s why it’s important to define what it is we’re fighting,” Cruz responded.
“If my father were part of a theocratic and political movement like radical Islamism, that promotes murdering anyone who doesn’t share your extreme faith, or forcibly converting them, then it would make perfect sense.”
The US blocked active communists from entry. If you were forced to be a member of the party in order to eat, it wasn’t held against you. If you were a member of the party because you chose to be, you were blocked. If you supported communism, you were blocked. If you lived in an oppressive nation where membership was mandatory in order to get your bread ration, the US understood that you lived in an oppressive nation that forced you to either join or starve.
“When I hear folks say that, ‘Maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims,’ when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefitted from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful,” Obama said.
Maybe we should just admit the refugees who are peaceful and fleeing conflict and who are not avowed members of a political/religious sect that demands an authoritarian theocracy that executes gays for the crime of living. Maybe we should have some kind of test to see who’s actually willing to commit to wanting to support US principles and is seeking freedom from oppression and not admit the people who are members of that same political/religious sect that demands authoritarian theocracy and is sworn to eradicate the Jews and convert everyone else to their ideology by the sword.
Maybe we could say and do that in response to his “shame on you for not agreeing with my intentionally destructive plan” garbage.
A Syrian refugee relocated to Louisiana has already gone missing, but the group accommodating them isn’t taking responsibility.
WBRZ has learned Catholic Charities helped the refugee who settled in Baton Rouge, but said the immigrant left for another state after a couple of days, and they don’t know where the refugee went since they don’t track them.
“We’re at the receiving end,” Chad Aguillard, executive director of Catholic Charities, says. “We receive them, we welcome them into our community and help them resettle. There has been a lot of commotion and fear with Syrians. The fear is justified, but we have to check that against reality.”
This has been the case for a while. Regionally infamous Lutheran charities that pull federal subsidies have been resettling Somalis in Minnesota for decades, including terrorists with links to al Shabaab and Al Qaeda.
I’ll just let a couple of the reader comments from the American Mirror story finish this out:
Oh, we don’t track them, we just bring them in and hand them over to you! Then we walk around with fkking halos over our heads as if we actually did something and then you all have to figure out how to live with them while they start destroying your once-wonderful country. You’re welcome!