Donald Trump

Trump Calls for Complete End to Muslim Immigration [UPDATED]

GOP frontrunner Trump wants "total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering until we "figure out what is going on." He even means Muslim citizens currently out of country.

|

The Hill reports, from a Donald Trump campaign press release that can be seen in this tweet that the Republican presidential frontrunner wants to stop letting any Muslim immigrate to or even enter the country:

In a statement from his campaign, Trump called for a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the United States until elected leaders can "figure out what is going on." Trump is quoted in the statement as saying that a significant number of Muslims harbor a "hatred" towards America and as a result should be kept out of the country.

"Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine," Trump said.

 "Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life."

So, upping the ante on radical demonizing of a religious-group Other, Mr. Trump? In a completely unrelated link, I wondered a while back about Trump if "fascism" might be the closest accurate designation of his blustery vague strongman national greatness crusade that sees most of our problems in either foreign or domestic Others.

The percentage of Muslim immigrants or otherwise present in America who cause any sort of problem because of the "hatred" Trump posits fills enough of their hearts to bar them all is, it should go without saying, vanishingly small.

Some context: Cathy Young's 2011 Reason feature on earlier conservative attempts to restrict the rights of peaceful Muslims in America. Back in April, Shikha Dalmia used the example of India to show that Muslims are peacefully assimilable in multi-religious democracies.

UPDATE: Does it keep getting crazier? It's Trump, of course it does. From a new Hill story:

When asked by The Hill whether [preventing any Muslim from entering] would include Muslim-American citizens currently abroad, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks replied over email: "Mr. Trump says, 'everyone.'"

UPDATE II: Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) spokesperson in this tweet from CNBC's John Harwood apparently wants to convince anti-Muslim elements that he's got their number as well, though his recommendations don't apply across the board to all Muslims.

But as Paul said in a press release reaction to Obama's speech last night: 

Immigration, visas, and refugees from countries with active terror networks must be halted while we determine how to better secure our borders and our people.

Shikha Dalmia and I have both critiqued Paul's immigrations stances in the recent past.

NEXT: Webathon Update: 31 Hours Left; 147 Donors and $84,000 Short!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Trump is like a Reason stereotype of an opponent of open borders.

    1. I would imagine this proposal would command majority support. What is so unreasonable about it? It is obvious the government can’t effectively screen out the dangerous ones. It is not like we owe anyone admission.

      1. What about the various Muslim or quasi-Muslim minorities persecuted by the majority (Ahmadis, Alawites, etc)?

        Or Muslims declared by the jihadis to be “apostates” because they support liberal reforms or think America is an OK country? Such people would be non-Muslims in the minds of the people who want to kill them, but Muslims in the minds of immigration officials.

        1. Sometimes life is like that. Since when is it our duty to solve the world’s problems?

          1. Yeah, man, it’s our job to AGGRAVATE the world’s problems!

        2. what about the Muslims solving the problem that is radical Islam, the problem that everyone other than Obama and Hillary can identify?

          1. The *world’s* problems? These are also U.S. problems.

            Imagine the propaganda coup of a ban on Muslims – ISIS could say that “our enemies realize that true Muslims are like us.”

            And the need for, say, physicians, is a problem for our part of the world.

            1. And to be fair, I was talking about people admitted for having useful skills, not for being the uncle or cousin of someone already in the U.S., and not for being in a refugee camp somewhere.

              Though I would also be interested in bringing in a few groups of *actual* refugees – that is, victims of ethnic/religious persecution, especially if we can establish with some confidence that they were victimized by ISIS, as opposed to *being* ISIS.

              This would, as noted by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, have the *de facto* effect of giving a preference to Christians, Yazidis, and other non-Muslims persecuted by jihadists, plus some Muslims persecuted for not being jihadi enough.

              These guys will probably be sensitive to national security issues vis-a-vis ISIS, maybe as much as some posters here.

            2. plenty of physicians come from India and are Hindus. When does the US govt tell its peers in Muslim nations that it’s time they take action, perhaps starting with cutting off funding to these folks, something that is a poorly-kept secret. We can’t solve radical Islam; Muslims have to do it.

              1. We can’t solve radical Islam; Muslims have to do it.

                And they’re getting worse and worse at stopping it from being our problem.

            3. These are also U.S. problems.

              Not so much, no.

            4. “And the need for, say, physicians, is a problem for our part of the world.”

              Then we should end the AMA’s power to limit the numer of Medical Schools.

              There are more than enough students who can pass Med School who are denied admittance because of a false scarity.

              Do you thing that the USA doen’t hae enough smart kids to graduate Med School and must depend on Muslim countries for smart kids ?

              That would be and is stupid.

              1. It is stupid to assume that the probability of a Muslim immigrant becoming a murderer and taking lives, simply because he is Muslim, exceeds the probability of him becoming a doctor and saving lives. You operate from the assumption that the expected net value contributed by a Muslim immigrant (in dollars or in lives) is negative, without any statistical evidence to support it.

                Let’s face it: if we were to look at the number of murders committed by Muslims in the US per 100,000 Muslims, it would probably be less than the number committed by black people or Latinos in the US too. I don’t suppose those criteria should also be used to exclude immigrants.

                It also shows a residual economic retardation among so many (e.g. John) that some still think permission of immigration constitutes some sort of gift given to outsiders at out expense. We let immigrants in for perfectly selfish reasons: because they become employees and provide goods and services. Just as if I were to move to Indiana to get a job there, Indiana would not be doing me some sort of special favor by letting me in.

                1. It’s not economic retardation. There is a difference between immigration and subsidized immigration. For may immigrants, permission of immigration does in fact constitute a gift given to outsiders at US taxpayer’s expense.

                2. tell me what level is an acceptable risk that you are willing to take? will you live next to these muslims you want to import so badly?

              2. “Then we should end the AMA’s power to limit the numer of Medical Schools.”

                How about we just end the AMA’s monopoly control over our *personal* right to medicine?

          2. what about the Muslims solving the problem that is radical Islam

            Which Muslims would that be? Is that the +89% of Egyptians who think apostates should be executed? Or the 1/3rd of Palestinians who support the murder of Jewish children? Or the 38% of American Muslims who admit that ISIS’s beliefs are truly Islamic or correct? Are those the Muslims who are “solving the problem”?

            1. what about the Muslims solving the problem that is radical Islam,

              Admittedly I read your post wrongly. I noticed after having read your posts elsewhere in the thread. Sorry.

              1. no problem. Your numbers put a second clause to what I had: provided that Muslims see radical Islam as a problem.

                The figures indicate far too many do not.

        3. And how do you tell one from the other? Any ideas? And where is it written that we’re obligated to save Muslims from themselves?

          1. We’re not obliged, but I don’t see why we should cut off our nose to spite our face by keeping out good engineers, physicians, etc.

            1. Because their children will have an ideological predisposition to killing your children in a few short years.

            2. How do? What great benefit does the Muslim community bring to this country that denying them entry would ‘cut off our nose’?

              The few engineers and physicians that get through are barely a blip on the radar compared to the larger Muslim community that festers with radicalization and antisemitism.

              1. “What great benefit does the Muslim community bring to this country”

                Wow, you sure refuted all those people who want to bring “the Muslim community” to this country!

              2. The few engineers and physicians that get through are barely a blip on the radar compared to the larger Muslim community that festers with radicalization and antisemitism.

                Citation required.

                1. Why would these low foreheads require a citation?

                  1. I know! **pats self on back** They are total poopy heads!

                2. Take a walk through Flint Michigan sometime.

              3. And if we let Latinos in surely they’ll make our streets awash with cocaine. And Italians? The Mafia will run all our cities and towns. If we let any more Christians in they’ll burn down every planned parenthood in the country, and oh, God forbid we should let Russian immigrants come here and bring their godless communism with them.

                Seriously, come up withe some quantitative evidence that Muslims, as a class, pose any greater imminent threat than, say, black people, or hispanics, or Eastern Europeans. Something other than just canards and hysterical nonsense please.

                1. I agree with your sentiment here, Mark but I disagree that this is an emipirical question. The question of religious tolerance and universal suffrage must be decided on first principles. A religious test for citizenship would explicitly enfranchise certain religions violating the first amendment. Frankly, the first amendment is the only one the state even pretends to take seriously these days. Those of us who pay lipservice to the ideal of liberty should pause before arguing so passionately to ignore the first the same way we do the 2nd, 4th, 9th, etc

                2. “Seriously, come up withe some quantitative evidence that Muslims, as a class, pose any greater imminent threat than, say, black people, or hispanics, or Eastern Europeans. Something other than just canards and hysterical nonsense please.”

                  Quantitative? Count the bodies from 9/11.

        4. Should probably use the Muslim Brotherhood as a starting point, and flag organizations that are affiliated with it, and then ban any individual associated with those organizations. Classically liberal Muslims and persecuted minorities would probably not be affected, plus you’re targeting terrorist groups and their political backers rather than any specific religion. It also keeps out those whose support for terrorism would come not with arms, but by subverting public functions, money laundering, preaching jihad, and so on.

          1. Seriously why not do this? Also, why not before importing them ask the basic Pew poll questions that showed showed the a vast majority of Muslims in many Mid East nations support Sharia being imposed on non believers, and ban them on that? Sure many will lie, but we could also check their social media, interview their references etc etc for any mention of Sharia and simply disqualify them. It’s a lot more palatable to ban people because they support religious fascism than their particular religion.

            1. Yes. A detailed interview, which is what enhanced scrutiny, supported by Rand and others, is all about.

            2. Sharia by DEFINITION cannot apply to non-Muslims you dumb twit. Non-Muslims pay a “Jizya” and are exempt from all laws whether they pay the Jizya or not.

              1. “Non-Muslims pay a “Jizya” and are exempt from all laws whether they pay the Jizya or not.”

                Exempt from all laws? Really? Unbelievers can go around murdering whoever they want in The Caliphate?

        5. There are all kinds of oppressed groups the US doesn’t take now. So what? Immigration should be to the benefit of the American citizen, not the needs of foreigners.

          1. It’s not about “the needs of foreigners,” but about taking advantage of the fact that America is still a place people want to move to.

            Of course, as I’ve indicated, there should be an extra burden on would-be Muslim immigrants to show that they’ll be useful additions to the population and not radicals, but seriously, so long as we’re straw-manning, I’ll ask why we want to reduce the number of peaceful people coming to this country to make it a better place? Especially people with experience of persecution at the hands of people like the poll respondents cited above.

        6. is the the USA responsible for accepting all the worlds refugees? what about israel? they are right next to syria and havent taken a single refugees also the other arab states

        7. is the the USA responsible for accepting all the worlds refugees? what about israel? they are right next to syria and havent taken a single refugees also the other arab states

        8. is the the USA responsible for accepting all the worlds refugees? what about israel? they are right next to syria and havent taken a single refugees also the other arab states

      2. Exactly. Keep them out.

      3. With that logic, we should also block people from South Carolina from going anywhere else because one of them shot up a church…

        1. that’s a poor example – the vast majority of SC was appalled by Dylann Roof’s actions, no one has suggested he be anywhere but prison, and a jury of his peers will likely recommend execution. There is no substantial sub-group of supporters for what he did.

        2. A black church getting shot up doesn’t enjoy the same level of popular support in South Carolina that some Jewish children getting murdered enjoys in Palestine.

          1. Plenty of Israelis like seeing Palestinian children get murdered; no doubt you see that as reason to cut off funding to that country or prohibiting immigration from there?

            1. Really? Show me a video of Israelis dancing in the street over the death of Palestinian children.

              Because there are plenty of videos of Palestinians doing just that when Jewish children are killed.

              1. I bet they use the blood for their religious services. The monsters!

        3. What an asinine statement. On top of being a completely spurious analogy. Beyond all your obvious bullshit, you’re comparing restricting the movements of American citizens with restricting the entry of foreigners.

          If you really think that is the same, then you are profoundly confused.

          1. Trump is proposing restricting the movements of US citizens.

            1. I’m willing to bet Suicidy supports stripping all Muslims of citizenships. have you seen his comments on the subject? He’s two thirds of the way to demanding they be sent to death camps.

            2. Guess what? We did that to the Japanese during WWII and the country moved on just fine.

              Muslims are arguably a much bigger threat now than the Japanese were during WWII. I see no reason why internment camps shouldn’t be considered.

              1. This is great. I plan to shove this comment at everyone who either implied or stated “we’re not talkin’ doing nuthin’ bad to them Muzzies”.

                Christ, this histrionic asshole.

              2. Japanese had just killed more Americans than Muslims have in 200 years (minus all the Americans Muslims killed defending their homes from Bush’s swinging cock).

                And Japan had major warships and a real 1st world class navy sailing up and down the US coast.

                But no no…please go on about how much more dangerous the Muslims are.

                1. Within the country? Absolutely. Japanese weren’t launching attacks inside the United States, and there wasn’t much to indicate that the ones who were already here would go that direction.

                  Muslim terrorists on the other hand have repeatedly attacked us within our borders and killed thousands, have hid amongst the population, and we have every reason to believe they will continue to do so indefinitely.

                  So while they aren’t a threat to our military in the way Japan was, they are absolutely more of a threat to our country within its own borders, and therefore more deserving of internment camps than the Japanese were. My point stands.

        4. why should we add another potential terrorist group to the already unstable USA?

        5. why should we add another potential terrorist group to the already unstable USA?

      4. Oh how surprising Area Fascist John has no problem with a fascist proposal.

        1. John has gone so far off the deep end that even Nathaniel Branden’s Head is calling him a fascist. Damn, son.

      5. “I would imagine this proposal would command majority support. ”

        John, your imagination is as boundless as your grasp of reality is weak. Seriously, you almost never get these calls right.

        1. Cyto-

          I don’t buy the proposal, but I could see it being favored by 50% of Americans, especially if there’s sequels to San Bernardino.

      6. When does the govt get around to screening out the gun-fetishizing compound-living war mongoloids like the ones who fap about their guns around here all the time. That would be a better start toward making America safer.

        1. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

        2. “un-fetishizing compound-living war mongoloids”

          Name a few. I’ll wait.

          1. Ha. UN-fetishizing becomes the complete opposite of intended by removing one letter.

      7. What is so unreasonable about it?

        The problem with his proposal isn’t the anti-Islam sentiment, it’s the insanity of making such a vague criterion the basis of immigration decisions.

        A more “reasonable” proposal might simply be to exclude prior residents of certain nations from immigrating. I don’t think it would be effective either, but at least you can objectively determine whether people have been residents of some country.

    2. If they’re not here, they can’t get guns.

      See? That’s gun control logic. You make it harder for people with potential for radicalization to get guns. At least not on our soil.

    3. But for medical marijuana, and removing federal pot prohibition… and self-supporting as opposed to parasitical. I vote libertarian, but can still hear with both ears.

    4. Is there anyone out there who doesn’t see that there is going to be an all-out war between the radical muslims and the USA fought here in the homeland?

      Wait until they start attacking our malls and sporting events on a weekly basis, killing thousands of our citizens a week. Wait until they kill your family members. All of you will be crying for every and any muslim’s head to be on a fence post. And then you’ll be crying, “Oh, if only we had elected Trump!”

      COMING SOON TO A MALL NEAR YOU!

      I swear, 90% of Reason readers can’t see any further than the end of their nose.

    5. Reason *pretends* that Trump is the Reason stereotype of an opponent of open borders.

  2. All of Islam is a nefarious plot to get Donald Trump elected president.

    1. I think ReSon is in on that plot too

      1. I think you mean tReason.

  3. I kind of agree with Trump but he could have stated it much better.

    The litmus test and reason for an immigration pause isn’t how they worship. It is two other things:

    1. Islam’s repeated commands to use violence, intimidation, and terror to spread the faith and force those who won’t convert into submission.

    2. Sharia Law – the secular component that goes along with the religion. Is is totalitarian and the exact opposite of libertarianism.

    So yes, anyone who believes in either of these tenants of the Islamic faith is not compatible with our culture and should not be admitted until we “figure out what is going on” (See if western Europe goes up in flames).

  4. In a completely unrelated link, I wondered a while back about Trump if “fascism” might be the closest accurate designation of his blustery vague strongman national greatness crusade that sees most of our problems in either foreign or domestic Others.

    I’m sure libertarians will make wonderful lampshades. Can I place an advance order?

    1. Fascism is a perfectly good descriptor for Trump.

      And every other aspect of our current executive-uber-alles, punish-your-enemies/reward-your-friends system of governance.

      1. I find it depressing that even libertarians are now misusing “fascist” as an epithet. No, Trump is not a fascist, not by any reasonable definition. Let’s not join the left in diluting that term any further, thanks.

        1. Maybe we beat them by diluting it even faster then? (Obviously if you say no, you’re a fascist)

        2. There are multiple definitions of the term fascism depending upon context. The only one that fits for Trump is “economic fascism” (private ownership, state control) but that applies equally well to everyone else running and practically everyone in any government office since FDR (and many before then, too).

          1. Fascism isn’t just an economic ideology; indeed economics isn’t even it’s main idea. I was always under the impression that the central tenets of fascism were race/ethnicity-based hypernationalism, and concentration of power in a strong leader, and of course a big and aggressive military.

            Trump would probably be better described as just a populist demagogue.

            1. “I was always under the impression that the central tenets of fascism were race/ethnicity-based hypernationalism, and concentration of power in a strong leader, and of course a big and aggressive military.”

              You would be wrong. Just because the most notorious fascists had these characteristics does NOT add them to the definition.

            2. No, the essence of fascism is primacy of the interests of a national community over individuals. The term stands for the “binding together” of the people in a country into a strong community.

              Contrast this with, say, communism, which claims to act in the interests of the working class, ignores national boundaries, and has public ownership of the means of production as its goal.

              Those are the defining properties of these ideologies; in practice, both lead to the emergence of strong leaders and police states, but those are merely common consequences of these ideologies.

        3. The word comes from the Latin meaning basically “the ties that bind”. So it’s structuring politics around a national narrative that has all segments of society cede power to the government to protect society from some threat, usually defined in very emotional terms.

          “Black lives matter (institutional racism)”
          “Climate Change”
          “The Mooslims are coming”

          Whoever disagrees is denounced and persecuted, as dissent prevents the top men from adequately protecting all of us from the existential threat.

          1. I denounce LW, and call for him to be persecuted.

          2. Using fear to push through political agendas isn’t unique to fascism; people use fear to gain political advantage in many other forms of government.

            The essence of fascism is the idea that the interests of society, defined as an ethnic group or nation, outweigh the interests and liberty of individuals. That’s as opposed to communism, where the interests of workers outweigh the interests and liberty of individuals, and theocracy, where conformance to “God’s will” outweighs the interests and liberty of individuals.

        4. Actually fascist is a perfectly good description of Trump and for that matter arguably you.

      2. Personally I kinda preferred the term swine.

      3. “And every other aspect of our current executive-uber-alles, punish-your-enemies/reward-your-friends system of governance.”

        Which is to say that Trump isn’t any more of a fascist than the current bozos in power.

  5. Well, not allowing new Muslims in, does prevent them from being rounded up and placed in camps later.

    1. It would sort of kneecap the sort of stimulus/jobs program we will likely need soon.

  6. Now, I’m not for a total religious exclusion.

    We should focus on people with the skills we need – including, if need be, Muslims, though it may be a good idea to check them out a bit more thoroughly before letting them in. But a genuinely non-explody Muslim who wants to work here as a surgeon or engineer shouldn’t be barred due to religion.

    And the fact is a majority of Muslims isn’t explody. There’s a small minority which actually does anti-American terrorism, a larger group of sympathizers, and a lot of Muslims who want to live in peace and genuinely dislike the jihadis. Let’s not lose their services just to punish the administration for its previous naivete in separating extremists from the peace loving.

    Especially since – who knows? – the jihadists may pose as non-Muslims the better to infiltrate the country.

      1. Yeah, nobody wants to accept this reality. I don’t know if it’s political correctness or just that western minds can’t wrap their heads around the fact that yes, there is a large group of people who’s values are completely and totally alien to our own (or some combination of the two), but how much more of a reminder do we need?

        I mean, to the average westerner, it only makes sense to assume that once Muslims arrive in the west and see how great things are here (compared to the oppressive shitholes they escaped), they’ll become liberal westerners just like us. It doesn’t compute that they’re coming here to unapologetically replicate their oppressive shitholes, and subject the rest of us to the same treatment.

          1. “If you don’t agree with me and my retarded talking points then you’re just hypnotized by PC!11” /retarded conservaderp with a victim complex

        1. “Yeah, nobody wants to accept this reality”

          No – nobody wants to accept the theological police state you people are proposing.

          “It doesn’t compute that they’re coming here to unapologetically replicate their oppressive shitholes, and subject the rest of us to the same treatment.”

          That’s because they’re not. By the evidence that they’re here, and they’re not doing what you’re describing.

          1. Well, let’s see. I think Saudi Arabia could be described as a theological police state, even if it may not be a shit-hole in general quality of life. Then you have more than a quarter of British Muslims supporting death for apostates, as they practice back home (wherever). Hey, it’s not 100% !

          2. No – nobody wants to accept the theological police state you people are proposing.

            and who proposed such a state?

            1. How do think you’re going to get rid of the Muslims? Please be specific.

              1. The topic on the table is not taking any more of them in. We’ll no more roundup those already here than we will the illegals.

              2. Nuclear weapons for the ones outside out country, gas chambers for the ones already here?

                1. “gas chambers for the ones already here?”

                  Ahem!.. the politically correct term for those are “showers”..

            2. “and who proposed such a state?”

              Supporters of The Caliphate.

          3. Sometime, go look up Rotherham and its gang rapes by Muslims — which went on for 15 years because anyone who mentioned what was happening was sent off for sensitivity training.

            1. Yes. If you just say “Rotherham” over and over again you’ll be able to come up with a plan to rid the world of Muslims.

              Don’t forget the Barbary Pirates. Nobody’s even mentioned the Barbary Pirates, yet.

              1. This time, we have really good reasons!

              2. I guess we should just pretend Rotherham never happened then, right? I mean, Muslim rape gangs were operating with impunity in the middle of a progressive western democracy, and we should just not bring it up because… ??

                1. What point do you think Rotherham proves other than “guilty white people are retarded and the state doesn’t work very well”?

              3. I think the point of Rotherham is that the PC fuckers were so terrified of Islamaphobia that they enabled rapists to victimize thousands of people with impunity.

                1. That and also the Muslim community is uniquely predisposed to organizing rape gangs which target underage white girls.

                  Cultural chauvinism is rampant in the Islamic community, as according to their religion non-believing women are fair game for rape.

                  1. It is a cognitive disconnect to see God’s Own Protestants unwilling to admit brother faithful who also see women as rightless dams fit only for squeezing out tithing canon fodder. I suspect it is because the Mohammedans have a hard on for the Boy Prophet instead of Sexy Jesus. I guess Hell hath no fury like a woman-beater scorned!

                    1. Hell hath no fury like a woman-beater scorned!

                      Hehe, nice. I have certainly noticed the rape obsession.

              4. At least with the Barbary’s we got a darn good Navy out of it.

                The current Navy won’t even splash Somali pirates.

          4. The reality I accept is where immigration is for the benefit of the citizens of that country. Not based upon the needs and wants of foreigners. Any other notion is worthless destructive bullshit.

            1. “The reality I accept is where immigration is for the benefit of the citizens of that country. ”

              Tough shit it’s not the government’s job to cater to your ‘benefits’. Only to protect individual rights.

              1. Individual rights OF ITS CITIZENS.

                Not to allow an unlimited number of people to cross the borders without any regard for the negative effect it may have on the culture or the rights of the people who are already citizens.

        2. there is a large group of people who’s values are completely and totally alien to our own

          Do you know how many of those people are Americans? Jesus Christ, the other is everyone.

          1. None? Ask the average Muslim if he’s an American first or a Muslim first.

            The legal status of his citizenship is irrelevant; they’re not Americans in the sense of actually believing in liberal western values like secular rule of law, representative democracy, and equal rights.

            That’s the problem.

            1. The vast majority of non-Muslim US citizens hold values antithetical to my own.

              1. Oh yeah? Are they going to murder you for it?

                1. Are they going to murder you for it?

                  That’s what they use the state for.

                2. Touch?! Their cops are, by the looks of the last dozen or so videos I’ve seen and reposted.

              2. Ouch! You just had to rub salt into those election returns, didn’t you? Once passwords or hashtags are handed out so each voter can at will verify that his or her vote was counted as cast, the LP vote count will, I’ll bet folding money, increase by 2/3 into the 3% range and accelerate with the repeal of Nixon’s looter subsidies, usurpations and taxes.
                Since we’re on the subject, perhaps as many as 1% of libertarians claim to be mohammedan (no telling how many as hostile infiltrators). I care as much about the opinions of mohammedans as politicians care about folks who don’t vote at all.

              3. Maybe you’re the problem, then. ; )

            2. That’s not a legitimate issue for government to address.

              1. It most certainly is a legitimate issue for government to consider when formulating immigration policy.

                Nobody has the right to come here. These people aren’t citizens. The constitution doesn’t protect them.

                1. For that matter, the Constitution doesn’t protect you either.

                2. None? Ask the average Muslim if he’s an American first or a Muslim first.

                  By that litmus test no believers of any stripe should be let in. Christians put God first, not country. As do Jews, etc.

                  Heck, even principled atheists should put their morality ahead of the state. What kind of world would it be if everyone elevated the state above morality?

            3. That, the AKs and the suicide vests, the mutilated girls, pederasty, prohibitionism (of beer, not smack), illiteracy (except for that one book in spaghetti code), antiabortionism, arson, running amok, time bombs, berserker murders, carpet-biting, smelly headbands and sexually transmitted zoonoses…

      2. “Why take a chance?”

        What chance? The incredibly small chance of a terror attack? Better chop your balls off too to prevent testicular cancer. It’s not like you need them.

        “What’s the upside for us?”

        There is no ‘us’. Stop trying to press-gang others into your pants-shitting delereum.

        1. The American Cancer Society’s estimates for testicular cancer in the United States for 2015 are:

          About 8,430 new cases of testicular cancer will be diagnosed.
          About 380 men will die of testicular cancer.
          The incidence rate of testicular cancer has been increasing in the United States and many other countries for several decades.

          Chopping ones balls off is more likely to save your life than banning Muslims.

          1. That’s about ten times the rate of cocaine deaths. If the GOP weren’t birth-forcers they’d surely ban testicles this afternoon.

            1. “birth-forcers”

              Does this involve sex or just being a Jedi?

      3. Where are you people gonna channel your hate once Muslims are off the table? You lost the blacks, the gays, and the Mexicans as socially acceptable objects of hate. You are running out of subject matter.

        1. There will always be the kulaks and wreckers.

        2. I’ve never has any antipathy toward gay, tan or mexicano folks. They do not wear suicide vests, fly planes into buildings and mountains, or run amok with firearms and tease the looters into trying to make berserker rampages more likely than they are. When I was 10 most Texas boys my age owned firearms and none had ever heard of moslem berserkers. Then George Holy War Bush, Republican, decided he wanted the death sentence for potheads and to invade and bomb the Byzantine Empire…

      4. And 1 in 3 men could rape if they could get away with it.

        Quote the survey with a small sample size and non-randomized population and the highest response of the kind you were looking, and oi la! Demographic group successfully demonized, commence discriminatory policies!

        Do you have any actual evidence that Muslims in the US commit a disproportionate share of violent crimes relative to other demographic groups? Other immigrant groups?

      5. And how are you going to test for that?

        I think you could reasonably restrict immigration based on objective criteria, like prior countries of residence or even travel, but religious conviction?

      6. WAAH all people are equal and the same!!!
        At the same time we must accept diversity!!!
        libertarians and liberals, one in the same

      7. WAAH all people are equal and the same!!!
        At the same time we must accept diversity!!!
        libertarians and liberals, one in the same

      8. “Fun bonus link: 95% of Child Rape and Molestation Convictions in the UK Were Committed by Muslims”

        Obviously a sign of racism against Muslims!

        Derpity.

    1. There’s a small minority which actually does anti-American terrorism, a larger group of sympathizers, and a lot of Muslims who want to live in peace and genuinely dislike the jihadis.

      how do we tell the difference? At some point, it is incumbent on the ones who want peace to do something toward that end, for it is they who have lost the benefit of the benefit of the doubt because of the explodys and their sympathizers. And maybe it’s long past time to sit with the Saudis and others say “stop with the funding of these fuckers before you piss us off.” It’s not like we have no avenues of recourse, including those that do not require sending Americans into battle.

      1. Yup, it’s true.

        We stop buying Saudi oil, we get slightly higher gas prices. They get chaos in their streets and probably guillotines.

        1. Then our religious nuts will freak out over higher gas prices.

        2. Isn’t OPEC largely dead? We aren’t really buying a ton of Saudi oil (13% of imports.)

      2. how do we tell the difference?

        Well, Trumps comments are ridiculous on the face, but if we’re going to exclude classes of people based on religion, why not just exclude non-citizen Sunni Muslims? ISIS and Al Qaeda are Sunni organizations. Possibly not all but most attacks are perpetrated by Sunnis.

        Of course, the Saudi Royal family would be excluded from traveling to the US as well as most Egyptians and Pakistanis.

        The ignorance of Trump and most politician about the religious and tribal complexities is staggers. I’m no expert but here’s a good starting place.

      3. Just as it’s a safe bet that any group what calls themselves christians want to coerce women to breed against their will and kill or imprison anyone with the wrong kind of pipe filler, so it is more likely than not that any group that answers to mohammedan will include a disproportionate number of woman-mutilators and berserkers. I personally believe it is the superstition that causes it. Do understand that some folks will regard these brainwashed collective mobs statistically, like psychohistory equations in an Isaac Asimov novel. Bad enough that Congress is overrun with superstitious prohibitionists who want to strip half the population of individual rights. Bringing in additional bigoted morons is simply suicidal–unless the idea is to repeal the second amendment.

    2. Now, I’m not for a total religious exclusion.

      How generous of you.

  7. Why does the US need Muslims? Is there a shortage of misogynists? Are we running short of people who dislike Jews and gays? Do we need more people who believe in death for apostasy and blasphemy, to balance out the people who believe in free speech? Do we need more cousin marriage with the subsequent birth defects, which are rampant in Muslim cultures (and among Muslim immigrants in the UK)? Do we need more people who believe that their religion is destined to take over the world, by force if necessary?

    What Western country has ever gotten better because of Muslim immigration? No, your local grocer or falafel joint are feeble examples, compared to the experiences of France and the UK and Sweden etc., with more rapes, more welfare cases, higher crime, and lots of terror supporters. Is Hamtramck better now that the Muslims have pushed out the Poles? Is Minnesota better now that it has lots of Somalis on welfare (and lots of Somalis going back to fight for Islamist terrorists)?

    This is a classic instance of how ideology blinds people. They chant “freedom of religion” and “freedom of movement” as if they are talismans that will protect us against a medieval religion with a proven track record of violence and oppression. As if all immigration is the same. Pro tip: immigrants who believe in the tenets of your culture are a better bet than those who want to bring their failed culture with them. And every Muslim brings a failed religion.

    Sorry, but Trump is right on this.

    1. Perfectly said. More Muslims means more terrorism — now, and even more so in succeeding generations. And that means more government control. Why a libertarian supports this would be a mystery — if one assumed that the libertarian was actually thinking.

      1. Guayna has a Muslim pop of about 7%. Albania over 50%. Where’s the terror?

    2. I am not getting any heartburn over this but will be curious to see how many do.

    3. Very well said.

    4. “And every Muslim brings a failed religion.”
      What does a successful religion look like? Jim Jones and his flock? The Catholic Church and a bunch of pedophile priests? Evangelical churches and their drug addicted or closeted gay/homophobic preachers?

      1. I would object to immigration by Jim Jones types. The Catholic Church is not officially a pedophile organization, whereas Islam is officially against Jews, gays, religious freedom, etc. I would also oppose immigration by drug addicted or closeted gay/homophobic preachers.

        1. whereas Islam is officially against Jews, gays, religious freedom, etc.

          So is the Catholic church, actually.

    5. What Western country has ever gotten better because of Muslim immigration?

      Spain.

        1. Yes. As bad as that stuff was, it was better than Christian Europe.

    6. They chant “freedom of religion” and “freedom of movement” as if they are talismans that will protect us against a medieval religion with a proven track record of violence and oppression.

      Actually, we call them “principles.”

      1. But you are ignoring the fact that your principles can conflict with one another by working at cross-purposes. You might support the one principle of “freedom of movement,” but what if it means importing millions of people who vote against all your other principles? What if it means that these millions cause the government to spend more money and spy more on everyone? You end up supporting one principle, and sabotaging a bunch of others. This is a trap that many idealists fall into, by refusing to see real-world results.

        1. I’m not a utilitarian. I’m not going to oppress groups of people who may not have harmed me. It’s against my morals, period.

          1. They did horrible harm to Spain for centuries.

            1. The Moors conquered Spain militarily. Also nicole isn’t Spanish and she was born centuries after the Moors left Spain.

              1. nicole isn’t Spanish and she was born centuries after the Moors left Spain.

                *blocks nicole*

              2. And all the Moors who did it are dead.

              3. The vision and motivation for taking over Europe is the same now as it was 1300 years ago.

                1. The vision and motivation for taking over Europe is the same now as it was 1300 years ago.

                  Which has what to do with anything? I said I would only be willing to against against specific individuals who had harmed me.

            2. What harm do you believe they did to Spain for centuries?

              1. Slavery, religious oppression, economic theft and ruin. All the features of a religious dictatorship.

                1. It’s Moops.

                2. Was the same not true of the Christian dictatorships preceding and succeeding the Islamic rulers of Spain?

                  1. Spain was part of the classical Roman / Gothic world before the invasion. Slavery was practiced, on the other hand, citizens had property rights and due process. As good as it got in the world in 711.

                3. Still better than Europe at the time.

          2. Morals. That’s your problem. You need to abandon them in an irrational pants-shitting frenzy.

          3. so not letting you in the house is oppressing you?

            1. Not letting me buy a house from a willing seller would be.

              Not letting me return home would be too.

              1. that’s not the same thing at all. By definition, immigrating is moving into someone else’s home. If you are hostile to the values of the home, letting you move in is not going to go well.

                1. Whose home? Whose values? Stop collectivizing.

                  1. Western society has a set of values that are incompatible with Islam, and that’s according to them. When enough people from a group do horrible things, and when other adherents either tacitly support those things or say nothing, then you’ve lost the benefit of the doubt. Let me know when there is a string of mass casualty events ties back to a group other than Muslims.

                    1. More collectivist horse shit.

                    2. Warmongoloid, remind us of the time you denounced your fellow compound-dwelling gun faggots after they’d murdered a bunch of school kids.
                      Oh, that’s right. You doubled down on your gun fapping…mah gunzzzzzz !

                    3. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

                2. ” immigrating is moving into someone else’s home. ”

                  Said no one with an understanding of immigration.

          4. Not letting someone immigrate is not “oppressing” them.

            1. It’s oppressing the Americans who want to associate with them.

              1. Technically true, but that’s a weak reason. We still have nation-states in this world, even if you don’t like the concept.

        2. There are already millions of people in this country who are opposed to our principals. Many of them were born here and speak roughly the same language that we do.

          1. fortunately for us, they tend to be quite vocal about it and readily identify themselves through political affiliation. They are also not reflexively prone to mass casualty events in getting their point across.

          2. Some of them were even born to our own parents.

            1. Apparently, we’re not allowed to ship our siblings off to the camps unless siblings are in the habit of perpetrating mass casu-

              Wait. Wait. I think that’s a go, actually. Agi Manface had siblings, therefore they are all highly suspect.

            2. you don’t suppose there is some difference between your views on those principals and actions that you take that harm the rights of others?

              1. If you aren’t going to think this through, I don’t see why I should have to.

              2. Have all Muslims taken actions to harm me?

                1. if there some number that has to do so before you take notice that something might be amiss?

                  1. if there some number that has to do so before you take notice that something might be amiss?

                    What does that even mean? I’m not interested in acting against anyone who hasn’t harmed me. Stop collectivizing.

                2. Have any?
                  In the name of their religion?

                  1. No.

            3. Still trying to decode this sentence.

          3. That’s true, so why bring in more?

            1. That’s not for you or the USG to decide.

              1. Yes it is.

              2. Actually it is. We’ve always controlled immigration in one way or another.

        3. The problem here is that the “bringing in of people” is itself a political decision, subject to political lobbying and self-serving political interests.

          We should have an immigration system in which people are sponsored by institutions and individuals who take legal and financial responsibility for them.

          1. Win Bear says “We should have an immigration system in which people are sponsored by institutions and individuals who take legal and financial responsibility for them.”

            Exactly right, Win Bear. I had been thinking that immigration should be pushed as far down to the local level as possible. Let counties/townships/communities sponsor immigrants. Your solution is what I was driving toward and hadn’t quite got there yet.

      2. Yes. And the rest of call it an excuse to stop thinking and be stupid. You do realize it is just an assertion? It is nothing but a way to avoid answering the argument. Just yell principles as if that excuses you from defending your position.

        1. Yes, John, I do realize that first principles are “just assertions” and not arguments.

        2. Fuck off, you cowardly little pussy. The pant’s shitter calling to deport all Muslims because of the actions on a miniscule few.

          John|2015/12/02 15:15:34|#5744644?|?|filternamelinkcustom

          I am with you. I fucking had it with this bullshit. Nothing personal but if having Muslims in your society means putting up with this shit, every Muslim in America can pack their shit and head back to Bumfuckistan.

          You wouldn’t know a principle if you were beat over the head with it. Christ, you are a diseased piece of shit.

          1. John is a Trump/Huckabee fascist.

            1. At least Huck is charming sometimes.

      3. You know things are screwed up when Ben Sasse has a better take than a lot of the Reason commenters….
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x44EREtI7uY

      4. “freedom of religion”

        Claiming “God said so” is not a free pass for totalitarian ideology.

    7. Why does the US need Muslims?

      Why does the US need you, for that matter?

      “Need” has nothing to do with it.

      1. Too late, I’m already here. And yes, “need” has everything to do with it. It’s perfectly valid to expect immigrants to make the country better and not worse.

        1. Says the radicalized conservative bitter clinger extremist militia shitlord.

          /Homeland Security

          This sort of rabid demographic hysteria WILL be shoving its dick straight up your arse before the warm thrill of schadenfreude has had time to fade.

          Go ahead. This time, its totes safe to fuck the Constitution. Its just paper, after all. With the right guys in charge, it’ll be fine this time.

          1. What part of the constitution requires all immigrants be let in?

            1. A good try! Take your time, read the thread, and when you can follow along, feel free to chime in.

        2. ” “need” has everything to do with it.”

          Actually that has nothing to do with it. ‘Rights’-a concept you don’t understand and are hostile to-has everything to do with it.

          1. I think JFK said it best: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

            Why the hell would we want to admit some damn Muslims interested only in pursuing their God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness when we – as good libertarians – accept that the purpose of the individual is to serve the interests of the state? Isn’t the idea that people should be free to pursue their own self-interest what Hillary warned us about with her alarums about excessive individualism and Obama spoke out against with his “you didn’t build that”? We are all just individual twigs in a bundle and we must take care that the bundle be strong, we must only allow in immigrants who will serve the greater glory of the Motherland rather than putting their own selfish interests first.

            1. We are all just individual twigs in a bundle and we must take care that the bundle be strong…

              +24 fasces, dictator

        3. Unfortunately, given that authority over who can immigrate has been transferred to the federal government, need has become irrelevant. “Need” would be far more accurately represented if the people/spouses/businesses who needed them took responsibility for bringing them in.

    8. Clearly, peope heavily indoctrinated in Islam from middle eastern countries are prime candidates to come here and embrace libertarianism, right? Like that nice couple down in CA I keep reading about.

      1. A real libertarian would judge individuals based on their actions and words not the actions and words of others who happen to share skin color/hair color/ ethnic background/ religion. You’re a worthless socialist through and through. You just don’t know it.

        1. Suicidy’s not a libertarian by any definition.
          He’s a proto-conservative nutjob who’s only concern is that the gubmint might grab his gunnzzzzz.
          It’s war-mongoloiding faggots like Suicidy who give this site and libertarianism a bad name.

        2. I raised my kids telling them, “Don’t judge other by what they look like or where they’re from, but instead on what they do or say”

          Yes, we should not collectivize. But religion is a belief system, and if a person willing identifies themselves with a particular belief system, it is saying something about how what that individual believe and thus what he might say or do in the future.

        3. “A real libertarian would judge individuals based on their actions and words not the actions and words of others who happen to share skin color/hair color/ ethnic background/ religion.”

          Because’s one’s ideology is completely irrelevant to predicting one’s actions.

          Derpity.

    9. Christ you are a disgusting fascist POS. Why are you here? There are internet toilets like Breitbart where your kind of retarded illiberal fantasies are accepted as if they are anything of value.

      Your pants shitting =/= my problem. It is not a USG imperative.

      1. I don’t believe any of this is your problem. You’re not an American.

        1. I usually just lurk reading posts here, agreeing with many as they match my personal views, but this Cyto individual comes across as an extreme pacifist liberal.

          Trump may be a clown, but I don’t think it’s anti-libertarian to allow the government to protect the people from violent religious extremists. While I don’t think that all Muslims are a threat, what he said did strike a chord with me, in light of the events that have happened in recent years involving jihadists.

    10. How many Muslims do you personally know, you fucki ng bigot. I have Muslim friends and none of them have any of the qualities you describe.

    11. We don’t need more cocaine either, so why not ban Latin Americans too? Do we need more carjackers? Then why not deport the blacks while we’re at it. Empty canards and sweeping generalizations are very convincing though.

      And why not throw climate change deniers in prison too. They chant “freedom of speech” as if it is a talisman that will protect us against Armageddon. Sound familiar?

      1. “We don’t need more cocaine either”

        Speak for yourself!

  8. How exactly is this going to be enforced? A total ban on immigration from all Muslim-majority countries, even if the person professes to be a Christian or atheist? If not, how is that proven? What about for a country with a divided population, like Nigeria? How about countries with Muslim minorities, like most of Europe?

    1. A test involving bacon? But that would exclude many Jews.

      But of course it doesn’t have to be a perfect 100% ban. Simple steps could easily cut Muslim immigration down by 95%+. In the real world, it’s not very hard to figure out who is Muslim.

      1. I’m all for a bacon/fatback consumption entry test. Keep out those damn vegetarians.

        1. Hey now. I eat a mostly vegan diet, for health purposes. But now and then I like a nice burgers, steady, or bacony treat. Sometimes I combine them. I find that the relative rarity of such an event enhances it’s majesty.

          1. God, even your diet is fucking socialist.

          2. I went paleo for health reasons. Lots of fatty meats and fresh veggies.

            Sunday I had a beef pot roast with yellow onions, green onions, carrots (including chopped up stalks) and red peppers. Strained the veggies out of the broth, reduced it over medium heat, then stirred in the shredded meat. Topped with the veggies. Yum.

      2. “Simple steps could easily cut Muslim immigration down by 95%+.”

        An this would stop a terrorist committed to getting here and causing damage how?

        1. It wouldn’t, but it’ll do a lot to ease Papaya’s rage-boner.

    2. You ask and then check. It is not hard to figure out.

      1. How do you check? Give them a brainscan?

        1. you accept that no plan is perfect. The behavior of some Muslims has ruined the benefit of the doubt for others. That’s not our fault.

          1. that line of reasoning works just as well, if not better, for the other side.

            1. which other side would that be: The substantial percentage that won’t actually commit violence but supports those who do? Or the theoretically nice side whose silence is getting increasingly difficult to separate from acceptance?

          2. Why do the Muslims make us hit them?

          3. you accept that no plan is perfect. The behavior of some Muslims gun owners has ruined the benefit of the doubt for others. That’s not our fault.

            I used to think that conservatives were at least better than liberals on self-awareness. Apparently they have to suck in every way.

            1. warmongoloid and suicidy are the worst offenders.
              I think they’re Idaho-dwelling NRA plants who post here to make libertarians look bad.

              1. And you make Libertarians look good?

          4. Oh crap. Then by that logic you should oppose the 2nd amendment.

            And the first, maybe.

        2. “Here’s a Koran. Please rip out a page and tear it into small pieces.”

          1. The 9/11 terrorists spent their last hours in brothels committing every sin they could in the confidence that their jihad would lead to forgiveness. You don’t think they would tear up a Quran to achieve their goal?

            1. OK, you’ve convinced me: no Muslims, nobody with Muslim names, no immigration from any Muslim country at all unless they can prove, beyond a doubt, that they aren’t Muslims.

              1. So you think a terrorist couldn’t possibly sneak by your ever-watchful eye?

                Will you please be my lord and protector?

                1. I’m sorry, but this is an idiotic form of argument. It’s like saying you shouldn’t lock your doors because someone could always break in through a window. Bars on windows? Why, they could always tunnel into the basement!! So there’s no reason not to just leave your front door open when you go on vacation.

                  1. Yeah. Something bad could always happen, so let lots and lots of Muslims in. After all, at this point what difference does it make?

                    1. Clearly Papaya and Suicidy believe that the government will find top men to do the job. Unlike you foolish libertarians they have faith in their betters. They know their place. It’s bent over licking a boot while they beg Uncle Sam to protect them from the scary monsters.

            2. The 9/11 terrorists spent their last hours in brothels committing every sin they could in the confidence that their jihad would lead to forgiveness.

              Yeah. Just goes to show how sincere they really were in the tenets of their religion. Why am I not surprised? Bunch of fucking hypocrites.

            3. I don’t think they’d rip up a Koran though.

          2. A modern Fumi-e, if you will…

          3. You’re so pathetic. You SO BADLY need the USG to live out your power fantasies and put those brown people in their place.

          4. There was a riot at a German refugee camp when an Afghan refugee did just that.

            http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33999801

            That Afghan was smart. He will get asylum for sure.

            These kinds of scenes do not bode well, though:

            http://www.middleeasteye.net/n…..1362611071

            1. Notice all of the women and children in that photo

    3. The green card application form asks if an applicant has ever been a member of, or in any way affiliated with, the Communist Party or was associated with the Nazi regime. Just add a question whether they are Muslims.

      1. Islam is a belief system, it isn’t an organization the way the Communist or Nazi parties are/were. And so anyone who is an ex-Muslim is out? Even someone who was just raised by Muslim parents but never followed the religion as an adult?

        1. I’m trying to explain how the US immigration system works. People applying for immigrant and non-immigrant visas are asked all sorts of questions, the answers to which the US government is not in a position to verify. However, if somehow it becomes clear that an applicant lied on the visa form, then a visa or a permanent resident status or a US citizenship are quickly revoked. Yes, some Nazi collaborators managed to immigrate to the US, but as soon as credible information appeared about their Nazi affiliation they were stripped of their US citizenship and could be deported well before a court in, say, Poland finds them guilty of sending people to gas chambers.

          1. Back then government wasn’t just pro-forma checks and looking at your retirement calculations.

            Now, you just check a box and say you’re not a nazi, commie, or terrorist, and they let you in.

            9/11 hijacker’s visas still came through after they were DEAD.

        2. Islam does have a political secular component – Sharia law is not a new invention.

          1. Sharia law isn’t an organization the way political parties are. Jesus Christ, are you people actually this dense?

        3. Communism is definitely a belief system in the same way Islam is. It requires no formal organization to be a communist. Neither is Naziism if we’re talking about the modern kind which I’m sure they consider just as disqualifying. You’re distinctions really prove the opposite, ideological screening is now currently done.

          1. Do they ask “are you a Nazi” or “are you a communist” before they let you in?

        4. “Islam is a belief system”

          Ask them is they are a member of the Ummah.

      2. I think they do ask about terrorism now.

        1. Well if the immigrants answered honestly, then proposals like the one Trump is offering wouldn’t be on the table at all.

          I wonder how many members of ISIS have snuck in behind legitimate refugees, too.

    4. Yeah, it’s probably not doable as stated by Trump, but you could probably stop 90% by excluding Muslim majority countries.

      1. Exactly. The US is a very popular place to immigrate to. We should be cherry picking, not scraping the bottom of the barrel.

        1. “We”? There is no “we”. More horse shit collectivism.

          1. And yet earlier you were referring to “our” enemies. I agree with you on this particular aspect of this issue, but I wish you’d remain consistent.

    5. Yes, it’s a very difficult problem. Total ban on immigration for Muslim-majority countries, regardless of professed religion, would be a start. A total immigration moratorium would also cut the Gordian Knot.

      1. At least nail we sort out who is here, who gets to stay, and who needs to go.

        1. First go to: gun fetishizing war-mongoloids. Exhibit: You.

  9. until elected leaders can “figure out what is going on.”

    So…never, then?

    1. Maybe. It’s a risk I am willing to take.

      1. And totally willing to impose on others, because you are a fascistic POS.

        1. So how many Americans need to be murdered by these extremists before you’ll admit that the government should step in to protect us? As far as I know that was one thing that was okay but the version of libertarianism that I follow.

          This is not NSA spying, this is keeping citizens safe from mass murdering criminals who want to destroy us in the name of their religion.

      2. The risk I’m willing to take is a free society with a strong 2nd amendment so that we can at the minimum defend ourselves against any threats, domestic or foreign.

  10. Yes, Syed Farook (American-born Muslim) shows how well they assimilate. By all means, bring in more Muslims. The more Muslims, the more anti-Semitism (that is normal for all Muslims), more jihadist terrorism, and increasing government security provisions at the expense of liberty. I do wonder why a libertarian wants those results, naturally (I can easily understand why a totalitarian like Obama does). Perhaps you might look at David French’s analysis (based on worldwide surveys) of Muslim attitudes and why jihadist sympathies are a LOT more prevalent than most people ever want to admit. The link is:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..extremists

    1. The cities of Dearborn and Bloomfield Hills have co-existed peacefully for decades.

      1. Trivia question:

        As of a 2002 survey, what percent of American Arabs are Muslim? What is the largest religious affiliation?

    2. Yes, Syed Farook (American-born Muslim) shows how well they assimilate.

      You are unintentionally correct.

    1. Perhaps the NSA can direct some of their extensive resources towards these folks, obtain warrants, and do an investigation rather than spending time going over my phone calls – most of which consist of my wife reminding me to pick up various sundry items from the grocery on the way home from work.

      1. But that would be the dreaded “profiling.” No, we have to spy equally on everyone, to be “fair.”

  11. my co-worker’s sister-in-law makes $71 every hour on the computer . She has been fired for five months but last month her income was $16368 just working on the computer for a few hours. see page………. http://www.earni8.com

    1. How “explody” is she?

      1. For $71 bucks an hour I bet she’s very ‘fisty’ on cam.

        1. he’s very ‘fisty’ on cam.

          Quick with a witty comment?

        2. FoE, call your office!

  12. I’ll be interested to see how this plays with the Republican base. I can at least imagine this position playing pretty well with a big slice of the base, especially as a backlash against the constant admonishment from team blue that no matter how ugly things get, the most important thing for us all to remember is to stop acting like the redneck racist hicks that he knows we really are.

    I have a hard time taking Trump seriously as a candidate, but he does seem to have pretty strong populist instincts. Would be interesting if that’s enough to carry him, it certainly seems to have been enough for others.

    1. I’ll be interested to see how this plays with the Democrat Base. They do have a history of seizing people’s assets and locking people up in camps for having the wrong ethnicity.

      1. I expect most of the Democrat base to react to this proposal the same way they react to every other proposal: based on who it is that proposed it.

        1. Oh, I think not. The average American, white or black or Hispanic, is not thrilled with the idea of importing more Muslims. This is one of those issues where people might not say anything to pollsters or even to their closest friends, but they’ll vote for Trump on this alone. It’ll be like all the UAW workers who defied union orders and voted for Reagan in 1980.

          1. “The average American, white or black or Hispanic, is not thrilled with the idea of importing more Muslims.”

            You have literally no idea how the average voter works. In the general, no one but Trump’s retard base will buy this. Millenials will turn out in droves for Hillary if Trump is the other choice, and so will Normal People, who you are totally disconnected from.

          2. “importing more Muslims”
            No doubt, very few people in the US like the idea of buying foreign-manufactured Muslims. But that’s entirely beside the point, as we are talking about immigration.

            If you can’t distinguish between people going from one place to another, and people being purchased and brought from one place to another, you have some serious psychological issues.

            But you may well be right; after all, the average American voter is probably retarded. Those who disagree with him should be proud of the fact.

            1. Which will only make those who agree with him even prouder.

    2. This bullshit in CA can only help him. Especially with Obama’s speech, which showcases his PH.D. In Dumbfuckedness.

  13. “figure out what is going on.”

    Hahahahahaha

  14. Trump is actively trying to destroy the GOP. If he was going for the Dems too, I might support it. Islam is a problem, but keeping out people that embrace western culture & civilization is stupid. I don’t know how to fix it, but Trump’s way will head us in the wrong direction.

    1. since when has Islam embraced Western culture and civilization? Indeed, its main motivation seems to destroy it. And it’s not just those who commit violence; it’s also the ones who support the violence and whatever opponents exist whose silence sounds like acceptance. Like someone else posted earlier, what is the benefit to having immigrants who are openly hostile to your way of life?

      1. Islam isn’t trying to emigrate to the United States.

        1. Oh, yes it is. It’s in the Koran: Islam is destined to rule the world. Every Muslim must believe it, because the Koran is the perfect and eternal word of Allah.

          1. Sorry, but I can no longer distinguish between people cosplaying as nativist xenophobe retards and the genuine article, so you get no response.

            1. Obviously I know far more about Islam than you do. And I know that a “phobia” is an irrational fear. There’s nothing irrational in fearing religious totalitarianism.

              1. Islam: the amorphous goo that shapeshifts into hominids in order to invade their lands, all the while obeying their hivemind in Mecca. Lol. You seem like you’re on the verge of declaring them a collective consciousness.

            2. And I have little patience for obsessive open borders nut cases who have lost any sense of reality and want to go to great expense to make the US less safe.

              1. Safe from what? A one in 20,000,000 chance that you’ll be killed by a terrorist in a given year?

                Go clean your fucking shorts out, pussy.

                1. Suicidy is too busy polishing his gunnnzzzz to wash out his shorts.
                  After that, he needs to fap to his Guns & Ammo stash.

          2. “It’s in the Koran: Islam is destined to rule the world”

            Judaism is also destined to rule the world, per its scriptures. As is Christianity. Every Christian and Jew must believe it. They have no option.

            1. I’ve read my scriptures. I tells me that Christianity rules Heaven, but here on Earth the faithful must expect to always be persecuted by the unbelievers.

              1. True, and there’s nothing in Christianity or Judaism about converting people by the sword, killing apostates, or establishing a theocratic dictatorship with other religions as officially second-class. There is in Islam, though.

                I really wish people would give up equating Islam with other religions. It’s different, folks. A religion founded by a caravan robber turned prophet turned warlord is going to be different than one founded by a pacifist carpenter. Just accept reality.

                1. Missed the point completely. There is nothing in Muslims that makes them Quran-programmed robots incapable of evaluating their scriptures flexibly, just like Christians and Jews do.

                  “nothing in Christianity or Judaism about converting people by the sword, killing apostates, or establishing a theocratic dictatorship with other religions as officially second-class”

                  That’s just plain not true.

                  1. Need some of those violent verses from the New Testament as citation.

                  2. There is nothing in Muslims that makes them Quran-programmed robots incapable of evaluating their scriptures flexibly

                    Oh yes there is. the Koran and Bible are quite different in many ways.

                    The Bible was written by dozens of people “inspired” by God, in a handful of languages, over hundreds of years. Very few read it in the original languages. The New Testament, centered on the pacifistic Jesus, largely supersedes* the Old. (*This is probably not the theologically-correct word, but you get my meaning.) There’s lots of room for interpretation, and nearly all of the violence that people cite is in the Old Testament, which very few Christians treat as central or equal to the New. (Many Bibles simply delete the entire Old Testament.)

                    The Koran is very different. It was (supposedly) dictated by Allah (who speaks a somewhat archaic Arabic) through Gabriel to Mohammad. The copies on Earth are “perfect” copies of Allah’s copy in heaven. Muslims are expected to read it in the original Arabic. (Korans in translation are not “really” Korans in their view.) There is comparatively little room for interpretation.

                    1. The Koran itself is almost the opposite of the Bible: it’s more peaceful in the beginning, and gets more violent later on, reflecting Mohammad’s transformation from caravan robber to somewhat peaceful prophet to warlord. So you might notice that when Muslim apologists quote the Koran, they quote early passages, and when critics do, they quote later ones. But like the Bible, the latter parts are said to supersede (to some degree) the earlier parts.

                      And then there’s the problem of considering Muhammad “perfect” and a model for all Muslims: that gives you justification for cousin marriage (hence the well-documented negative eugenic effects of inbreeding in the Muslim world), slavery (ISIS has total theological justification for their sex slavery), hatred of Jews, etc. And, of course, it’s a central Islamic belief that Islam is destined to rule the world, with everyone else officially subjugated as second-class citizens, or converted, or killed. Which happens in every country ruled by Muslims.

                    2. Sitting in Saudi Arabia in 90 waiting for the war to start, I started reading the Koran. Started out calmly. Slowly turned batshit crazy.

                      It was pretty funny whenever Mo got mad and went to his tent or a cave to pout. Usually came back with some convenient rule changes.

                    3. “…cousin marriage (hence the well-documented negative eugenic effects of inbreeding in the Muslim world)”
                      You may as well be quoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Jews had the same problem, as do the Amish.

                      Religions don’t immigrate, nor do books. People immigrate. If you’re going to tell me we should operate from the assumption that a self-identified Muslim believes even half of what’s in the Koran, then you are a bona fide retard. Most of the Muslims I know drink and eat pork for fuck’s sake! How many Catholics do you think actually oppose birth control and condoms and pre-marital sex? 3% maybe?

                      I don’t think you’re in a position to lecture others on the nature of reality.

                    4. Agreed.

                      The Bible teaches the faithful how to survive in a world that hates them, in order to receive their reward in Heaven. God himself will hand out justice to the unfaithful.

                      Islam teaches the faithful that they must do God a favor by themselves cleansing the world of the unfaithful, in order to make Heaven on Earth. The plan (the world-wide caliphate) will not work if there are any dissenters.

                      This makes it much like communism, which will only truly work when everyone in the world is doing it. The mere presence of unbelievers undermines the operation of the whole system, so they must be eliminated.

                      Muslims are also supposed to deprive themselves of pleasures of the flesh (sex, alcohol) while on Earth, and will be rewarded with all the virgins and booze they can ever imagine once they make it to Heaven, while a Christian’s reward is to existence eternally in the presence of God.

                    5. “Oh yes there is.”

                      No there isn’t. Your wall of text regarding the Koran doesn’t change that fact.

                      “There is comparatively little room for interpretation.”

                      Different Islamic sects actually follow different Hadiths. The Ibn sect ignores a bunch.

                    6. Take a shred of comfort that the President of Egypt has basically told scholars and clerics there to get their shit together. So, there are some Muslims trying to force/start a reformation.

                  3. You seem to be working very hard to establish an equivalence where there is none. As one who is not religious, when I compare and contrast Islam/Judaism/Christianity, Islam comes out as the least libertarian and most violent. Especially in any modern practical application. Which includes time spent in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Jordan.

                  4. It’s true but you’re the only special snowflake who reads it that way I guess.

                2. What about one founded by genocidal former slaves? How will that one turn out?

                  1. Jesse: Phineas.

                  2. God-dammit, Jesse, the Scots-Irish are not the issue here.

            2. well, obviously, as evidenced by the long list of attacks in recent years perpetrated by Jews and Christians. I get that religion is inherently exclusive – that believing the dogma of one requires dismissing the dogma of the others. Yet only one advocates violence, the followers of only one justify the use of violence.

              1. “Yet only one advocates violence, the followers of only one justify the use of violence.”

                Really? You think only one religion advocates violence?

                1. List of religions who both in theology and deed forswear violence:

                  1. Baha’i.
                  2. There is no number 2.

                  1. Buddhists. Srsly, dude.

                    1. Three seconds of googling will find you plenty of Buddhist violence. Y’know, “deeds.”

                    2. They’re self-violent. Immolation.

                2. only one religion is actively perpetrating it on a large scale, and justifying those actions. Are there Buddhists or Baptists blowing shit up that you know of? With the sanction of those in their particular church?

                  1. You’re on ice of diminishing thickness with Baptists, particularly those of the Southern Baptist Convention variety extending back over several decades.

                  2. Are there Buddhists or Baptists blowing shit up that you know of?

                    Yes, why?

      2. Islam does not embrace Western culture and civilization but many Muslims do.

        1. Wonderful for them. Since they are so many of them so fond of Western culture and civilization then they can start Western-style free nations in their home countries, and when they’ve done so, and we’ve seen them be peaceful and civilized for a couple generations, then maybe we’ll invite them in.

          1. We’re off-topic here, but that does seem to be happening at least to an extent. A lot of the current fundamentalism is a reaction to it.

            I was fortunate enough to go to Morrocco a few years ago and couldn’t escape a local asking me about Hip Hop and Kanye West.

              1. Not sure what I’m weeping over there, plural opinions seem to fit well. Unless something drastic happens Islam will be a husk of its former self, Disneyfied and all about “love” (much like Christianity today). 40 years is a good time to check.

                I’m think their increasing love of Hip Hop is more than enough reason to halt or at least limit immigration from Muslim countries, let alone their explodyness.

                1. Many of the young men who blow themselves up or join ISIS were “aspiring rappers” so it may be more connected than you think!

            1. Excellent. Let’s check back in on them in 40 years.

      3. I have to say I’m much more concerned about the American electorate destroying the country than I am Muslims. They’re a greater threat to my liberty as I see it. I’d rather we deal with terrorist by allowing everyone to open carry M4s than to be dicks to everyone.

        1. This.

        2. I don’t think ending Muslim immigration counts as “destroying the country.” Not compared to the price of letting in who knows how many more Muslims.

          1. While we disagree on this subject, that is not what I was referring to. I’m talking about every liberty reducing bullshit idea that comes from both sides of the Isle in Washington and is supported by our retarded electoriate. From the war on drugs to gun control to job killing regulations and everything else, I could literally go on all day listing the threats to our liberty that we face coming from fellow Americans.

            1. Weirdly, in most other threads, these same folks seem to agree that other white Americans are frequently the Other.

              1. Trump understands one thing. The easiest way to fire up a large group of people is to give them a common enemy. It unfortunately works. Of course this is exactly what ISIS wants.

              2. More weirdly (and relatedly) I think: the way these people respond to every Muslim terrorist attack basically seems to mirror they way feminists respond to every male-perpetrated shooting (or race-baiters to every white-perpetrated mass shooting). Lots of absurd and troubling rhetoric about toxic masculinity, complete dismissal of the facts presented by rational people that only a minute minority of the demographic group is dangerous, etc. The same kind of nonsensical hysteria, only applied to a different group. Calls for ‘drastic measures’, abrogation of due process, for ‘perpetrator groups.’ Same tune in a slightly different pitch.

            2. I fear the erosion of economic and personal liberty far, far more than I do Islamic terrorism. Trump cares about as much for constitutional limits on government power as Obama does.

              Frankly, we have many options well short of banning an entire religion or ostracizing American citizens. For instance, maybe we could stop pretending in the law enforcement and national security context that you have to treat each person as equally likely to be a terrorist. Doesn’t have to be wholesale discrimination but can simply be a factor in determining whether someone should be investigated or not.

              There’s also the military option, which, at least, is legal. . .well, can be legal.

              Not advocating any specific course of action, but we can’t hope for limited government when everyone seems unanimous on hundreds of different exceptions to those limits.

              1. “we have many options well short of banning an entire religion or ostracizing American citizens”

                Exactly, and certainly there needs to be some travel controls in place and certainly we should not be naive about the fact that ISIS has declared war against us. 20K to 30K ISIS soldiers in Syria. Growing numbers in Libya as well. I think banning travel to and from ISIS hot spots at this time is prudent. There may need to be some exceptions to that after you get clearance from the State Department.. But if your some 25 year old who just decided to go “hang out” in a country wracked in civil war for some R&R for a bit, I think you should expect the possibility that your return trip is going to be delayed perhaps indefinitely regardless of your religion and citizenship. It’s not all or nothing and we don’t have to be stupid about it. If you’re coming here from the Middle East you should expect a different level of scrutiny than some Jamaican grandma visiting the kids. If people don’t like that then maybe they can convince ISIS to stop being dicks.

                1. I don’t think the point of a Muslim ban is efficacy though. One could accomplish the same security goals by doing what you mention, but I don’t think that’s what this (or Trump’s campaign in general) is about. More about getting cathartic revenge against someone or indulging paranoia. I think solving problems isn’t even on the map.

                2. The Jamaican grandma is often denied an entry tourist visa if her savings and assets indicate that she is “poor” and at risk of stealing jerbs.

                3. “I think banning travel to and from ISIS hot spots at this time is prudent. ”

                  This. An enhanced screening process should minimize the number of jihadis entering the US. Nothing is perfect.

            3. “Isle in Washington”

              Kinsleyian typo.

          2. Come on Papaya, you know damn well that if we don’t have open borders no matter what the consequences that it will be the end of everything. Because false equivalences.

            1. Well it means you aren’t a free nation.

              1. So we already aren’t a free nation. Also during World War II would you have been open to allowing active German soldiers to immigrate to the US? If not, you’ve just agreed that completely open borders is not practical in the real world. If so, you’re a raging moron.

          3. So if we import 1.3 billion muslims will america still be america or will it turn into the middle east?
            you believe when people cross invisible borders they magically become constitutional republicans?

    2. “but keeping out people that embrace western culture & civilization is stupid.”

      Evidence that this is why they attempt to emigrate?

  15. Shikha must write about this. I demand entertainment.

    1. Seconded

  16. Muslim-American citizens currently abroad

    Where is this country “Muslim-America”, anyway? And why does Trump care about their immigration policies?

    1. It’s in the Middle East!

  17. …Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks replied over email: “Mr. Trump says, ‘everyone.'”

    “This is coming from the candidate, mind you. I have no part in this. I just asked and that’s the answer he gave. Leave my name out of it.”

    1. But her name is perfect for a Trump fan!

  18. ‘Shikha Dalmia used the example of India to show that Muslims are peacefully assimilable in multi-religious democracies.’
    There was recently a major Muslim outcry over a Hindu newspaper that had a picture of a piggy bank on the front page. So I’m not sure how sound Shikha’s example is

    1. Shikha Dalmia used the example of India to show that Muslims are peacefully assimilable in multi-religious democracies.

      Shikha has become a joke around here, for good reasons. Holding up India as an example of successful Muslim assimilation is absurd.

      1. India’s failed assimilation is largely because they let different regions and religious ‘zones’ have their own laws; so Muslim regions don’t have to follow national Indian law. So in effect, there is no effort at assimilation. The

        Ghandis/Nehrus had a chance to impose rule of law, and they failed; today, Modi and the Hindu nationalists are doing everything in their power to make things worse. Anyone who thinks Trump is bad should look at what Modi has said; pretty sure the guy thinks ancient Indians invented airplanes.

        1. india’s failure is not deporting all muslims to pakistan. what was the point of separation, if muslims can have a homeland but hindus cant?

    2. Shikha Dalmia used the example of India to show that Muslims are peacefully assimilable in multi-religious democracies

      I don’t recall the partition of India/Bangladesh/Pakistan as being particularly peaceful, and I always thought it was marked more with ethnic cleansing than peaceful assimilation. I’m not sure how you factor in the ongoing state of hostilities between Pakistan and India when discussing peaceful assimilation, but it strikes me as odd in the extreme that anyone would use the Muslim community in the Indian subcontinent as a positive example of anything at all.

    3. Pakistan is essentially a Muslim-separatist nation that only exists because there is so much strife between Muslims and Hindus in India.

  19. His base rallies around him because they are thirsty for blood. He is trying to incite wars on all fronts: race, religion and immigration status, it doesn’t really matter. When he says “ship ’em back home” or “blacks are killing whites” or “muslims dancing in the streets” or what he said today, he is just trying to create strife, resentment and competition. It’s all fun and games on The Apprentice but when it comes to violence and guns then someone could really get hurt.

    1. I agree. Trump is a classic leftist.

  20. From my libertarian viewpoint, there is no right to ingress to this country, and our politicians have the duty to manage it for the betterment of the citizens. At this time, I could buy that the best interests of citizens include a moratorium on Muslim immigration. ***Nothing in this statement is intended to be an endorsement of that consummate buffoon, Donald Trump.***

    1. I don’t think you need to be that generic about it particularly when your talking about a US citizen. Certainly we should should be profiling people coming from countries with large terrorist organizations which would include most countries from Algiers to Pakistan. In those cases the responsibility for proving who they are and why they are coming here should be theirs. It should not be, well we don’t know who he is but we can’t prove he’s up to no good so we have to let him in. I certainly don’t think you should be blocking people from coming here solely based on being Muslim.

      1. Why not? Islam is essentially incompatible with Western Enlightenment values. To the degree any individual Muslim is OK with our values is the degree to which they ignore the Koran. It’s the “moderate” and “assimilated” Muslims who “aren’t really Muslims,” not ISIS, which is 100%, full-strength Islam.

        1. So is most of Congress.

        2. I never understand why US conservatives want to believe in radical Islamic theology.

          1. Accepting that Muslims believe it is not the same as believing in it.

            1. You are acting as if they are somehow objectively correct about who is and isn’t Muslim, and what Islam really is. As if such a thing were even possible.

              1. It’s just as possible to interpret Islam as it is the constitution. Surely you don’t think the latter is impossible and could mean anything.

                1. I think just about anyone here would disagree with at least one significant Supreme Court ruling. What does that suggest to you?

                2. That’s a false equivalence. The constitution is a piece of paper that can be read and says the same thing regardless of who reads it. Islam is a label applied to a belief system of over a billion people on this planet who have widely different ideas of what it is and applications. There is no Islam to go read. The Koran is not Islam.

                  Now if you had said you can interpret “America” as well as you can Islam, then that would be a valid comparison.

                  1. America is not a belief system. You could say Communism. The fact that not everyone agrees on everything doesn’t mean it can mean anything the followers of either ideology will have some disagreements but ace similar beliefs.

                    The followers of Communism could think it means the same thing as capitalism. But they would be wrong, and very few people would read it the same way. Islam is no different.

                    1. Communism is fairly straightforward to define. Islam really isn’t, any more than Christianity is. There is certainly huge variation in the beliefs of Christians, despite the fact that they generally agree that Christ existed and the Bible is holy. Muslims also agree on certain concepts, but the rest of it is widely variable.

                      And America, written broadly, most certainly has elements of a belief system.

                3. Plenty of people do think the constitution could mean anything. Arguably most people. And certainly that’s how most people approach their religious texts.

                  Again, by Papaya’s definition of ‘Muslim’, I have never known a “true” Muslim. None of them follow the rules written in their book, or follow them very selectively. But he knows what true Islam is, and wants to convert these mild Muslims to the true jihadi faith, so he can justifiably hate them I guess.

                  Of course the correct opinion on the matter is that the US government doesn’t care what the rue version of any religion or ideology is, it cares only about the actions of individuals; if people want to call themselves Muslim and eat pork and fuck male hookers, then it isn’t the prerogative of the state to discriminate against them for describing themselves as Muslim or stipulate that they are not Muslim. But Papaya wants the state to decide what the correct interpretations or versions of religions and ideologies are, and impose these definitions on its citizens. And he thinks he’s a libertarian.

                  1. In what way would you’re interpretation not apply to everyone else? If somebody said the support ISIS or were NAZIs but had not acted then should the US screen them from immigrating. After all, that could mean “anything”.

                  2. You want immigration of people who are anti-libertarian, and you think you’re a libertarian. Libertarianism is not a suicide pact.

        3. This is a large part of my point. Apart from any concerns about violence — why import people who are so antithetical to your cultural values? Believe me, we have enough people who don’t agree with our culture, already here. It makes no sense to me.

          1. I don’t care about their general culture as much as their *political culture*.

            Anyone want to name muslim majority countries with political cultures they want to import more of to the US?

        4. All religion is incompatible with Western Enlightenment values, as are your ‘ideas’.

          1. No, it isn’t. This country was founded by a bunch of devout Christians. You may hate religion. But the fact is Christians have done a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of CREATING an enlightened western society. And I respect them for that.

            1. Well, Muslims invented the astrolabe, the compass, and algebra. And hummus.

              1. There’s nothing the Muslims created that they didn’t appropriate from either India or the countries they conquered. Sorry to burst your bubble.

            2. You are as retarded a historian as you are a deluded war mongoloid, Suicidy.
              Commit to your name – kill yourself already.

              1. Actually, he has a point. We under rate Christianity’s role in helping to foster such values.

          2. All religion is incompatible with Western Enlightenment values, as are your ‘ideas’

            Exactly, that’s why all the Founding Fathers were atheists! /stupid

      2. The being Muslim part is the root of the problem. I imagine some Muslims, many a large number of Muslims, want to get the hell out of whatever country they are in. But the violent ones, coupled with those who support the violence while not engaging in it, make the benefit of the doubt hard to give.

    2. That’s not a libertarian viewpoint.

  21. Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks replied over email: “Mr. Trump says, ‘everyone.’

    1. I was just talking to somebody about that role among other Oldman roles Saturday night.

      1. I have to say, you are always up to the task CJ:)

      2. Man that Glee bandwagon here at H&R just passed me right on by, didn’t it?

        1. You just compared Community to Glee? That is by far the most outlandish statement on this thread.

          1. Don’t bother, CJ. Hugh really hates Alison Brie. And Gillian Jacobs.

            1. Which one is the scary dyke in the track suit and which one is the guy in the wheelchair?

            2. Hugh Akston: worse than PapayaSF (and Hitler)

              1. Hey!! I am not worse than PapayaSF!

                1. The only person you can’t be worse than in Nikki.

          2. I don’t know what Community is. I think Glee was like an offshoot of Rent? Is that right?

        2. You’re not alone. And I don’t think we really “missed” it

  22. Does that include the Saudi royal family? If so Trump might get my vote.

  23. its pretty evident that even “moderate” muslims want to destroy Israel, impose Sharia law and install a caliphate in western countries. They just disagree on some of the tactics used by terrorists. There’s no reason we should be letting people from these countries into ours, particularly because our government is so damn incompetent when it comes to screening incoming threats to our nation.

  24. Well, apparently certain segments of the commentariat have actually reached FULL RETARD. Congratulations, you literally have no integrity, principles, or even a shred of dignity if you support collectivist fucktardism like this. So keep cheering it on. It’s good when masks slip.

    1. I’ll admit that serious restrictions on immigration (even ones that aren’t full-retard like Trump’s) are imperfect at best. But I think they do pose one interesting question:

      Can any restrictions on immigration at all be reconciled, on a principled level, with libertarianism? What principled basis is there for a government to tell anyone that they can’t come in?

      1. What principled basis is there for a government to tell anyone that they can’t come in?

        perhaps when you are hostile to the values of the citizens who live under that govt, you are not the best bet for assimilation into society.

        1. Doesn’t matter.

        2. “perhaps when you are hostile to the values of the citizens who live under that govt, you are not the best bet for assimilation into society.”
          Uh, so the government is responsible for defining what my values are? Says a “libertarian?”

          The government is responsible for guaranteeing assimilation with these predefined values?

          Remind me again why you’re morally or logically superior to people who want to have people who don’t believe in global warming incarcerated?

          1. WarMongoloid isn’t a libertarian. More like an NRA plant who has a good internet connection in his Idaho compound.

          2. One obvious difference is that he doesn’t want to lock anyone up. How is he the same would be a better question.

      2. Let’s take one of the classics: Nobody who has a communicable disease can immigrate. Nearly everyone agrees with this.

        But why does being sick cost you your freedom of movement? Aren’t we just punishing you for something you have no control over? We don’t expel residents who have diseases, so why do we refuse entry to foreigners who are sick?

        Or another: A conviction for a violent crime. Presumably, if you are trying to immigrate, you’ve done your time, paid your debt to society, etc. Wouldn’t refusing you entry be a violation of your rights without due process? Even constitute a form of double jeopardy? Again, we don’t expel convicts, so why do we refuse them admission?

        1. I thought that in some cases immigrant convicts are expelled. I may be wrong.

          1. Yes, felony convictions, for example, can get your visa or green card revoked and you deported. In theory. Obama’s not real big on deporting anyone.

        2. ” Nobody who has a communicable disease can immigrate. Nearly everyone agrees with this.”

          Nope. Only if that disease can be transmitted easily like TB. HIV is communicable but it’s very difficult.

          1. Or if you go anal bareback and don’t tell your partner.

        3. Ultimately, there has to be a definition of how imminent and severe the threat posed by a person trying to immigrate is. In the case of a person with a record as a violent criminal, having committed a violent crime is a decent predictor of future violent crime; Of course if one can demonstrate that having committed a certain kind of crime bears no significant predictive value on commission of future crimes, then I would say prohibition of such persons would be unnecessary.

          Same goes for diseases: most of us probably have some pathogen in us that we could hypothetically give to someone else; lots of people immigrate with colds. Only if the disease is severe and its spread seems immanent would prohibition be justifiable. It’s actually similar to self defense. When are you allowed to shoot someone? In theory, the guy walking toward you with his hands in his pockets could be intending to attack you. But it’s not likely. But if he’s in your house and he’s pointing a gun at you, then you’re allowed to shoot him, and you don’t even need to verify criminal intent on his part; for example, if it turns out that you left your door open, and he entered your house by mistake thinking it was his, thought you were an intruder, and drew his gun, you would be no less justified in shooting him to defend yourself, regrettable though it may be that he should die because of a misunderstanding.

          1. In this case, I would say we might consider if 1 of every 2 Muslims turned out to be murderers, we we had no other way to discern which ones were murderers, then turning them down would be justified. But not if it’s 1 in 10,000 turn out to be murderers. And in all probability, the latter is closer to reality than the former. No one here wants to present evidence to the contrary it seems.

            1. I don’t see any imperative to let anyone at all in. I think the onus is own those that want to immigrate to justify why they should, and not on the US voters to justify why they shouldn’t. I also don’t believe immigration is a right, nor have I heard a persuasive case that it is.

              Immigration is also not treated like a natural right. There’s plenty of entitlements that come with it.

      3. To me, controlling problems at the border is inherently statist. It is saying, in effect, that the issue cannot, will not, or should not be dealt with at an individual level. That is not inherently anathema to libertarianism, but it is certainly not in line with the anarchist side of the spectrum.

        Basically, as far as I can tell, the most principled libertarian argument for immigration restrictions is that, within the borders, statism is already the norm. Thus the only way to control the government is to play statistical games with correlation. The border is thus a tool for policy ends the same way welfare or zoning codes are.

        It is an argument to which I admit some sympathy, but I cannot help but notice how nicely the left and right sides of the statist spectrum play into each others’ hands. One side creates “sanctuary cities”, the other side says we have to “secure the border”. Net result: less freedom all around.

        In this specific context, it seems to me like an “exceptional circumstance”. The question I have, though, is: if and when this doesn’t stop terrorism, then what?

        1. Freedom of movement is just one of many freedoms. A Libertarian state protects its citizens freedom of movement by not restricting movement within the nation and not prohibiting citizens from leaving (and returning).

          However, it is not self-evident that a state has a responsibility to respect the freedom of movement of people who are outside its borders and not citizens. Surely people in other countries lack many freedoms. Is it the libertarian’s state’s responsibility to rectify all the other freedoms that people in other states lack?

          If you are not an Anarchist — if you respect that a nation-state is a legitimate construct — then control of membership in that nation-state would seem to be a fundamental power required for the survival of that state.

          1. Were you responding to me?

            1. Nope, sorry. Misplaced from elsewhere in the thread.

      4. Can any restrictions on immigration at all be reconciled, on a principled level, with libertarianism?

        Yes, they can.

        1. I was trying to remember that link. Thanks for posting.

        2. I was trying to remember that link. Thanks for posting.

        3. Nutbar quotes nutbar site. News at 6.

          1. Theoretical idiot makes snarky comments, ignores any sense of practicality, safety or realism, coming up at 6:10.

            1. You forgot “common sense.” As in ‘common sense gun control’ or ‘common sense speech restrictions.’

              Btw, practiacal idiocy tends to have worse implications than theoretical idiocy.

        4. Our constitution does not declare us a borderless country. So I will stick with that.

          1. Our constitution doesn’t declare anything other than limits on the government.

            1. Doesn’t it establish Congress and depts of state, war and, treasury? So not just limits.

        5. That is an excellent link. Thanks for posting.

      5. Restrictive immigration is completely reconcilable with Libertarianism. The “Night Watchman State” of Libertarian ideals acts, among other things, as a steward for whatever community resources exist. Even in a Libertarian Utopia there may be community resources. In the U.S., of course, there obviously are. Should we ever achieve a state where there are no shared community resources, then that state might operate differently, but such a thing is as much a pipe dream as the perfect Communist utopia.

        Immigration is an imposition on community resources: immigrants use roads, parks, government services and all the various infrastructure built for the benefits of citizens of the nation.

        Thus, acting in stewardship of citizens’ community property, it’s proper for the government to control who and how many people immigrate. This can help prevent employers from privatizing the benefits of cheap labor while socializing the costs — public schools, healthcare, courts, etc.

        A nation exists for the benefit of its citizens. Even — especially — a Libertarian nation. Citizens have no other way to express their collective will regarding their national borders and the makeup of their citizenship than through their government. And, yes, even Libertarian states engage in collective action. It’s the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism.

        1. “Restrictive immigration is completely reconcilable with Libertarianism. The “Night Watchman State” of Libertarian ideals acts, among other things, as a steward for whatever community resources exist.”

          Said no one with any understanding of libertarian-ism, ever.

          1. Our constitution does not create a borderless society. Are you against the constitution?

          2. You don’t even bother to make arguments, so I really have nothing to refute. Were you able to articulate in any coherent fashion how I am wrong, we might have something to talk about.

        2. i love how reason all the sudden forgets about private property rights and freedom of association

      6. There’s not really a principled basis for the state doing anything. For those legitimate things it can do (including ejecting trespassers), it runs into the basic problem of being the state, which is deciding for all and setting rules without agreement.

        I think communities do have the liberty to restrict who may come and go, as the sum of the residents’ liberty, assuming that is the rule they agree to. Private developments certainly have the liberty to stop who may come on to their property, or even who can join the group or buy available property.

        I think the “thick” libertarian would at least ask that owners have a reasonable motive for restricting their association, especially as the group scales up. You certainly have the liberty to make an all-white or all-black or non-Muslim city, but it’s pretty shitty and anti-liberal to do so.

        1. I don’t think so, the “state” is merely a collective agreement. If the state cannot legitimately exist than neither can a corporation or any community owned property. If two friends and I can communally own something and manage it then we would most likely do it through votes. We could restrict and manage that in the same way any single owner could.

          If the state can never be legitimate than that’s saying there is some threshold of ownership where the amount of people becomes illegitimate.

          The collective owners of the United States are the citizens and can manage that collective property as any others would. That only leaves private property. So the libertarian case relies on the state not being able to restrict someone from somehow moving and occupying a private piece of property without use of any state property. Okay, we’re probably talking about a handful of people who would or could do that, but that’s fine.

          1. If the state can never be legitimate than that’s saying there is some threshold of ownership where the amount of people becomes illegitimate.

            That doesn’t follow at all. The illegitimacy of the state is not due to the number of people involved in the supposed collective agreement. Wal-Mart employs more people than there are citizens in many states.

            1. I’ve made the case that the state is legitimate, specifically to act within the scope of property rights. If you don’t agree then make a case and distinguish it from any other collectively owned property.

    2. That there is some quality argumentation, right there. Really, it’s made me question everything.

    3. The people who are saying “no Muslim immigration” are by and large the very same people who object to immigration in general. It’s not like they’re vacating any principle they’ve previously espoused. Having different principles is not the same as having no principles.

      1. because Mexicans and Muslims are just brown people from different parts of the world?

        1. No? What?

          1. you’re saying people opposed to more Muslim immigration are opposed to all immigration. I don’t see it. Maybe some out there types are but that seems overly broad. And the usual response here is that it’s due to some animus toward the brown folks.

            1. I said the people arguing against Muslim immigration don’t hold a “right to immigration” as a principle. Thus, calling them unprincipled is unfounded.

              1. Ima gonna question that premise. I don’t believe a majority of Americans has a problem with immigration, per se, but a sizable section takes issue with immigration by people hostile to our way of life.

                1. Again, I don’t see how that in any way disagrees with anything I said.

            2. Frankly, it doesn’t make you seem any less dumb. Can you present any actual evidence that Mexicans are less likely to commit violent crimes or murder fewer people per capita than Muslims? In short, is there any actual rational reason for the “no Muslims allowed” policy?

    4. Well, apparently certain segments of the commentariat have actually reached FULL RETARD.

      Call it what it is- bigotry. Pure, unadorned bigotry.

      1. It’s not bigotry to disagree with an ideology. As a (mostly) libertarian I dislike Nazism, Communism, whatever the Aztec human-sacrifice religion was called, and Islam. I don’t want followers of any of them allowed into the US, because I believe in liberty for the people already here, over the liberty of foreigners to come here and reduce the liberty of others. So sue me.

        1. It’s not bigotry to disagree with an ideology.

          No, it’s not, but it’s bigotry to be a bigot.

          1. Weak circular argument. Which you lost.

      2. A chunk of Islam, the radical variety, is indeed bigoted toward Western culture and Western values. That’s fine; but why then must I be forced to welcome them into my home? Let them stay at their place and hate all they want.

        1. “why then must I be forced to welcome them into my home?”

          You people sure do love your persecution complex. And nationalist delusions.

          1. And you love being a wacko theoreticalist open borders anarchy nut job.

            1. Suicidy, how do you find time to post, what with all the gun polishing you must need to do on a nightly basis?

  25. To Papaya, and others – are you also going to defend his stance on Muslim Americans currently abroad? What line would he have to cross before you agree he went too far?

    1. Well *someone* has to do *something*! It’s just a little bit of common sense immigrant control law!

      1. “Sometimes life is like that.”

    2. No, if they’re already citizens, you can’t stop them from returning without a good reason. But remember that Trump is a negotiator. He’ll stake an extreme position and then compromise a bit.

      1. But remember that Trump is a negotiator. He’ll stake an extreme position and then compromise a bit.

        This is how I know you being satirical. Well done! You had me fooled.

        1. Seems to me that’s exactly how he operates.

        2. No, that’s how Trump does things. It’s in his book. Read Scott Adams’ blog posts about him.

          1. It’s in his book? You believe that shit? Seriously?

            1. I’m in sales and I see this all the time. You go big, and then you have a fallback position. Nobody pays list, but not everybody gets the same discount.

              1. Exactly. I often use similar tactics when applicable.

        3. He’s playing 7-dimensional chess, Crusty. You just don’t understand.

          1. I understand that it is a negotiation tactic. What I do not believe, in any way whatsoever, is that Donald Trump is a master negotiator, and can negotiate America into or out of anything.

            Donald Trump is a great self-promoter, and that is it.

            1. I honestly don’t understand the endless yammering on about Trump either for or against.

              How he can inspire such devotion or such hatred is beyond me. He’s a garden variety fool. He’ll have his 15 minutes and then go away.

              So fucking-what. Boo-hoo.

              1. I think his 15 minutes are not going to end any time soon, which is why he has to be taken seriously.

                1. It will end prior to November 2016. It’s all just entertainment for the bored.

                  1. The problem is that he has revealed that a large chunk of conservatives are retards who hate our values and freedoms.

                    1. Our? Weren’t you just decrying collectivism upthread? For God’s sake, stay consistent, man

                    2. You are a Canadian. Please go away.

                    3. You won’t talk that way when you need our water, Sam Hayseed.

            2. So adorable Trump is a bad negotiator? Okay buddy, you REALLY know what you’re talking about.

              1. What’s your argument now? Trump has lots of money, so he must know what he’s doing?

                What about Warren Buffett and his policy prescriptions? “Oh, well, that’s different.” Or George Soros?

                There are Nobel prize winning scientists who believe in astrology and homeopathy. That’s enough to convince me that a billionaire and successful businessman is perfectly capable of being an utter moron.

  26. This leads me to wonder: What would he do about people who convert to Islam while in America? American citizens who convert to Islam while in America? Will they be shipped out of the country? Rounded up in interment camps? What about American citizens who convert to Islam while out of the country, what happens when they return home? Furthermore, does this mean that every American citizen returning home from abroad will have to fill out some sort of declaration of their religion when they go through customs? How will they weed out the liars?

    We need a more effective way to drill down to the answers to the questions that arise when anyone in this three ring circus of candidates proposes something clearly preposterous to weed out those who are saying the crazy thing to get attention from the ones who could actually maybe lead a country. Make the ones proposing the insane have to show the people that their proposals are nothing more than a joke so that those who cannot or will not consider reality for themselves can see that proposing radical, unconstitutional, and frankly impossible moves by the government makes someone utterly unqualified to lead a country

    1. This is the straw man of the day I guess. What you do is nothing for current citizens. The KKK or Nazis weren’t defeated with internment camps. But communists were not allowed to immigrate, and it became unpopular so the numbers dwindled in either case. Just do the same things. It’s not the end of the world to not let some people immigrate.

  27. I think the comparison to gun control is apt.

    Stop the legal sale of guns to people and only bad people will get guns. Only good people will be penalized. But bad people won’t be stopped from getting guns. Granted it will make it more difficult, but where there is a will there is a way.

    Stop Muslims from entering the country illegally, and only bad Muslims will enter the country. Only good Muslims will be penalized. But bad Muslims won’t be stopped from entering the country. Granted it will make it more difficult, but where there is a will there is a way.

    But I guess principles go out the window when we’re talking about Muslims.

    1. ^ This.

      1. Nope. Sure, some will get in, but your sets of “good Muslims” and “bad Muslims” aren’t fixed. “Good” ones can easily become “bad” ones, and it’s often the children and grandchildren of “good Muslims” who become radicalized.

        1. Sometimes, it’s even th children of Christians!

          1. Sometimes good people have children or grandchildren who turn out to be murderers. It’s clear we have to ban people!

            1. Now you have it!

          2. Sometimes people get lung cancer without smoking cigarettes, so light ’em up! Ignore those inconvenient “statistics.”

    2. Surely, sarc, this time the government will get it right.

      1. There’s a first time for everything.

    3. Banning guns, but the ban applies only to Muslims. It is common-sense gun-control we can all agree on.

      1. That’ll torture the ACLU more than anyone.

    4. But I guess principles go out the window when we’re talking about Muslims.

      What principle are you talking about? There is a basic Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. There is no Constitutional right for non-citizens to enter the country.

      Gun control isn’t bad because it harms the innocent (or at least not bad *solely* because of that). It is bad because it is an egregious violation of the government’s sole source of authority. Trump’s idea is a bad one, but it is not unconstitutional (except for the bit about keeping American Muslims out, of course).

      1. “There is no Constitutional right for non-citizens to enter the country.”

        There is no article in the USC that permits the USG from regulating immigration.

        1. Art 1, Section 8. Clause 4, the Naturalization Clause, seems pretty clear that the power to determine who becomes a citizen, rests with Congress. And through caselaw (Chirac v. Lessee of Chirac, 15 U.S. 259 (1817)) nearly as old as the Constitution, only with Congress.

          This does not jibe with the Anarchist wing of the Libertarian movement, but then again, the Founders weren’t Anarchists.

          1. Um… naturalization is NOT the same as immigration.

        2. You are correct — inasmuch the power to ban immigration is retained by the states. There is, as you would put it, “no article in the USC that prevents states from banning immigants”.

          The sole clause related to right of travel explicitly mentions citizens only.

          Odious though it would be, Texas (for example) would be entirely within its rights to make entry into the state by non-Americans punishable by death.

          1. Actually, come to think of it, the US government could also ban Muslim immigration by simply passing an declaration of war against all members of the Islamic faith, or issue letters of marque and reprisal granting private citizens the right to wage such war. There are no limits on those powers specified in the Constitution.

            I guess you could try claiming that nothing in the Constitution grants Congress the power to prevent people we’re at war with from entering the country… but at that point you’d just be being silly. 🙂

    5. “I think the comparison to gun control is apt.”

      No, it isn’t. Next.

      1. Why not? Seriously, reading this thread is sort of like looking at a transcript of Monty Python’s argument clinic.

  28. What is going to happen when Trump calls for America to rape Muslims to death?

    1. Even the men and the ugly women? I don’t know if I can get behind that.

      1. Especially the men of “fighting age.” Those are the ones we have to get to first.

        1. I think it’s against my religion to rape a man of fighting age, but I understand that if I were a baker, I’d have to bake cakes for gay weddings, so if I, as a citizen, were enjoined to rape men of fighting age to death, it would probably be pretty intolerant of me to refuse.

    2. The Muslims will institute Sharia Law, and the rapists will marry their victims. Or stone them to death. Depends on what they look like under the veil.

    3. What is going to happen when Trump calls for America to rape Muslims to death?

      Ratings.

    4. He wants to know what’s behind their wall.

    5. That is quite a strawman.

      1. I trust your judgment since you seem to be an expert on those.

  29. Take this to its logical conclusion, and only a Final Solution can save us from our Muslim Problem.

    All this shows is that human nature doesn’t change, and that history repeats itself.

    1. If Jews had been engaging in mass slaughters of German citizens, Hitler might have been more convincing. I would at least have been sympathetic if he halted Jewish immigration.

      1. So if a dozen Jews had gone on killing sprees, you would have supported the Holocaust?

        1. Apparently, it really is that easy.

          1. Once you dehumanize a group of people, it is very easy to slaughter them.

            1. When I used to boggle at how the German citizens could just sit back and watch it all happen, I did not expect I would get to witness contemporaries trip that primrose path myself.

              1. Life is a real treat sometimes HoD.

              2. I did not expect I would get to witness contemporaries trip that primrose path myself.

                Alleged “libertarians”, no less.

            2. Once you dehumanize a group of people, it is very easy to slaughter them.

              Don’t worry. That could NEVER happen here…

              Er…wait…

              1. The group of people slaughtered last week was, you know, slaughtered by a couple of Muslims.

                1. Yeah. As opposed to having been slaughtered by…you know…all Muslims.

                  1. Pants-shitting that Muslims are going to be slaughtered in America is a bit premature.

                    1. Is someone worried about that?

                    2. Is someone worried about that?

                      With all of the Holocaust comparisons to Trump’s hamfisted immigration plan, you all seem to be. As to the number of massacres required before the American public gets their pogrom on, how many attacks by Native tribes did it take before the USG started sicking the Cavalry on them?

                      It won’t be one massacre perpetrated by Muslims that’ll do it. (Well, not unless they use a nuke or the equivalent.) But if the U.S. started suffering citizen death tolls from Muslim extremist violence on par with those suffered by Israel during the height of the suicide bombing campaign (2002: 452 dead out of total population of 6.57 million, or 6.88 per 100k, the murder rate for a bad state), then you’d start seeing pressure to “do something.”

                      It’s also the way those deaths occurred, versus how most murders occur, that has a disproportionate impact on the electorate’s emotions. I can avoid most chances of being murdered by not doing stupid stuff, with stupid people, at stupid hours of the day. I have some control over this risk.

                      For the shooters, OTOH, their co-workers thought they were harmless enough that they threw a baby shower for them. The co-workers were at work when they died. Most people don’t think death is a likely risk of their job. It scares people more.

                    3. Oh. People are scared. I see.

                      Well, if “people”, in their panicked rush to throw due process and rule of law at the politicians*, consider that some of us might not be ready the pay such a steep price over their feelz, that would be charming.

                      *Politicians. Because this time, it’ll work. This time, handing more control to the government really will make everyone safe. This time, when Top Men ban something, it will go away. Prohibition – we just didn’t do it right, those other times! But this time, its different. We won’t be eroding the rule of law by handing this tool to the government. It won’t be abused, and it would never be used against anyone else. We really, really mean it.

                    4. As opposed to the pants shitting going on on the right over Muslim immigrants?

                    5. It’s a hell of a leap from saying that prospective immigrants do not automatically have a right to enter the country, nor become citizens, (never mind the issue of spending public funds to expedite that process) to stating that people who wish to restrict Muslim immigration also want to place them in death camps. The latter is a disgusting slur.

                      The U.S., from the very beginning, has taken upon itself the right to say who can be a citizen and who can’t. All nation-states, by the definition of them as sovereign entities, have that right. Further, the US felt it had the right, during the Indian Wars, to forcibly segregate people living within the U.S. from other people, in an attempt to limit the violence both sides committed on each other. AFAIK, Trump isn’t even saying he would do that as President; merely prohibit Muslim non-citizens from emigrating to the U.S. Not people who are already here.

                      I think his plan is excessive and poorly thought-out. But I do not think it lays outside the powers of the US to regulate immigration, and given the State Department’s utter incompetence in its field—Malik’s visa was so riddled with easily disproven lies, CBS found out the village she supposedly came from didn’t even exist: it didn’t matter, come on in—that they may be only able to administrate a blanket ban, rather than something more measured.

                    6. Further, the US felt it had the right, during the Indian Wars, to forcibly segregate people living within the U.S. from other people, in an attempt to limit the violence both sides committed on each other.

                      That is some grade A revisionism there. Do you honestly think that’s what the US government was doing? As opposed to genocide, breaking treaties and promises, and basically saying “We’re taking this land because you can’t stop us.”?
                      No, the cavalry was just keeping two quarreling factions away from each other. Incredible.

                    7. It wasn’t the Indian Wars. It was The War Between Colors.

        2. A dozen here a dozen there is that all you think is going on? Look at all the trouble Europe is having that could be our future. I think this problem is far greater then you realize, or care to admit.

          1. How many Muslims have engaged in “mass slaughter” in the US? We’ve got 9/11, Ft Hood, Boston, and the latest in California. Maybe a dozen participants in all. What am I missing?

            1. Here I don’t have time to post every single attack.

              http://www.jihadwatch.org/

              1. I’m not going to sift through all that bullshit.

                The subject was “mass slaughter.” What “mass slaughter” in the US by Muslims did I miss?

                1. So as long as it isn’t “mass slaughter,” everything’s OK? How about individual slaughter? Honor killings? Jew-bashing? Economic support for terror? Etc., etc.

                  1. Why did we ever let Africans into this country?

                    /sarc

                2. Chattanooga recruiting station.

                  Recent knifing at UC Merced.

                  I am willing to bet there are more, too.

                  Its hard to keep them all in your mind.

              2. Yeah, well, if your link did, you could have saved bandwidth and said ‘two or three’.

          2. Europe is in no small part a result of what happens when you take everybody’s guns away (or at least make it legally prohibitive to use them), monopolize enforcement of every aspect of life in a single body, and then have that body abrogate the responsibilities it has shouldered and moreover punish anyone who calls attention to its negligence-cum-malfeasance.

            The lesson to be learned there is more important and more enduring than the crisis of the minute, but it will be almost completely ignored and/or forgotten.

            1. So what you’re saying is that we need more gun control, more laws against self defense, and more welfare, so the terrorists can roam free without any worry of retribution?

              Yay! Just like Europe!

              /sarc

              1. One thing that has irked me about this discussion is the reverence for Europe and European culture. European culture is utter shit. The most recent cultural exports of Europe have been fascism, communism, and now “democratic socialism”. They are violent, narcissistic, entitled little fucksticks who have been coddled by the US for far too long. Which is not to say that everybody here is so wonderful, but the US has done a better job of preserving the only strain of European culture that’s ever been worth preserving–classical liberalism–better than any country in Europe has.

                Would I want to see Europe under Muslim rule? No, of course not. But Europe under European rule is nothing to be praised.

              2. where did kbolino say we should emulate Europe? Seems the post says just the opposite.

                1. On first read, I thought sarcasmic was making fun of Obama and lefties saying we should be just like Europe, but on further reading, I’m not entirely clear what point he was making.

          3. A dozen here a dozen there is that all you think is going on? Look at all the trouble Europe is having that could be our future. I think this problem is far greater then you realize, or care to admit.

            There’s no way Muslim immigration can ever possibly reach the levels say Irish or Italian or Jewish immigration did 100 years ago.

            Did America fall apart to the Mafia, alcoholism and usury as a result? America has an exceptional record of assimilating people because our national identity isn’t race based.

            Europe is having problems because of a declining youth population and the fact that national identity is inherently tied into race and ethnicity resulting in alienation. It’s very hard to be a Muslim with a family from Syria and ever become a “true” Frenchman or a Swede.

            America doesn’t have that problem or at least it wouldn’t if jackasses like Trump and the goose-stepping morons that support him would stop shitting their pants over it.

            1. But the Irish and Italians and Jews weren’t Muslims. It’s a different religion, with different beliefs.

              1. Is that a joke? They absolutely were different religions from the US majorIty, and that’s a huge part of why they were less accepted.

                1. Papaya said “it is a different religion”, with different beliefs” and your retort is “it was a different religion”? That doesn’t make much sense.

                  Or are you saying that since Judaism and Catholicism were different from Protestantism, and Islam is different from Protestantism, Islam = Judaism and Catholicism? If so, get thee to a logic class.

                2. RUM ROMANISM AND REBELLION

                  Funny how times don’t really change, eh?

              2. Pap, what we’re seeing in this thread is an example of why libertarians is often regarded as a fringe political party. Picking this particular hill to die on, and especially given the timing.

                1. libertarianism is seen as a fringe political movement b/c the uninitiated read war-fapping retards like Suicidy and WarMongoloid and think, ”wow, libertarians are fucking retards.”

            2. There’s no way Muslim immigration can ever possibly reach the levels say Irish or Italian or Jewish immigration did 100 years ago.

              why is there no way? And assimilating Muslims has not gone very well in Western society.

              1. why is there no way?

                Because they have other places to go and there are more hurdles to go through to get here compared to 130 years ago.

                And assimilating Muslims has not gone very well in Western society.

                I’ve already explained why the European experience is fundamentally different from the American one.

                Again, American national identity is not tied to race, ethnicity or religion. In Europe it absolutely is, hence the large segments of ghettoized and alienated Muslims.

              2. “assimilating Muslims has not gone very well in Western society.”

                Yes it has gone damn near perfectly in North America.

            3. I think you make a persuasive case here, but I also think it’s based on a few naive assumptions or incomplete truths.

              here’s no way Muslim immigration can ever possibly reach the levels say Irish or Italian or Jewish immigration did 100 years ago.

              At the moment this is true as a % of total pop. but we really don’t know who the numbers will play out in the future. If the migrant situation continues or intensifies the numbers may increase. I agree with this part of your comment, though.

              Did America fall apart to the Mafia, alcoholism and usury as a result? America has an exceptional record of assimilating people because our national identity isn’t race based.

              I question this part because your missing context. You seem to think that past performance guarantees future returns – meaning because something worked in the past it will continue to do so indefinitely. I think that may be incorrect. The US was able to assimilate large numbers of immigrants when 1) there was no welfare state 2) natives demanded and expected assimilation 3) during the industrial revolution when the US economy grew at about 7-10%. None of those factors exist now. And, actually, most of those immigrants came from Europe and while not necessarily the same “race” they shared certain common cultural reference points. For example, the gap between gender equality was similar. Currently our cultural norms regarding sex and gender are worlds apart from potential Muslim immigrants.

              1. Europe is having problems because of a declining youth population and the fact that national identity is inherently tied into race and ethnicity resulting in alienation. It’s very hard to be a Muslim with a family from Syria and ever become a “true” Frenchman or a Swede.

                I’m unconvinced that the reason so many Muslim youths are alienated in Europe is due to inherent racism. The Paris terrorists were second generation. First generation immigrants – their parents – largely integrated, were employed, and were less religiously focused. The question then is why are the second generation turning to Islamism. That question goes to the heart of the existential crisis at the heart of modernity. Crying “racism” is overly simplistic, imo.

                Until we understand more completely what’s happening with these second generation ‘youths’ we need to be cautious about the possibility of re-creating those circumstances in the US.

                Finally, Farook was a second gen American citizen. His circumstances were remarkably similar to the Paris boomers. Pause for caution if you ask me – which you didn’t. 🙂

                1. The Paris terrorists were second generation. First generation immigrants – their parents – largely integrated, were employed, and were less religiously focused. The question then is why are the second generation turning to Islamism. That question goes to the heart of the existential crisis at the heart of modernity. Crying “racism” is overly simplistic, imo.

                  My theory is simply the first generation is just happy to be out of a war zone and in a stable country with religious tolerance.

                  The second generation comes along and is sort of torn between the ethno-religious world they have at home and the culture of whatever country they live in now. It is alienating to have been born in a country and not treated as a true member of that society because you’re the wrong skin color or religion.

                  That of course doesn’t explain everything but when you combine that with a shitty economy you can see where the appeal of radical Islam comes in to disaffected young men.

                  I think that’s less likely to be repeated here given how different American culture is.

                  1. Over the past couple of decades, both here and in Europe, we’ve developed a grievance culture. A culture that encourages feelings of alienation and victimization – even glorifies those beliefs. We lack the cultural confidence to assimilate as we did in the past.

                    Simply stating that America is the exception to the rule – that we can assimilate as we did in the past is naive and encourages an experiment that might turn out just fine – as it did in the past. Or, our results could be less desirable. I think that’s a valid concern. And assurances that “we’re different” aren’t terribly persuasive.

                    1. Over the past couple of decades, both here and in Europe, we’ve developed a grievance culture. A culture that encourages feelings of alienation and victimization – even glorifies those beliefs. We lack the cultural confidence to assimilate as we did in the past.

                      If in 20 years we end up with a bunch of Muslim college students cowering in a ‘safe space’ and screaming about free college, I think that would be a win considering the dire predictions I’m hearing right now.

                      Those idiots are harmless, they’re the opposite of terrorists because they want to join the system, not destroy it. And sure a few inevitably will and become Democrats but the majority will never amount to anything.

                    2. If you haven’t already read about the Muslim Student Association in Britain you should. They’re demanding and getting sex segregated lectures and shutting down speakers as “racists”. I think we know they use safe space nonsense as a means to shut down debate and bully not-right-thinkers. This may seem pathetic when expressed by white and black Americans, but it might take on an altogether more aggressive and even more illiberal tone like it has in Britain and Europe.

                      And, grievance culture expands far beyond just the universities into a PC kind of authoritarianism. But the greater concern is how it discourages assimilation and encourages feelings of alienation. Those factors can lead to violence when married to an ideology like Islamism.

                    3. Being illiberal dickheads is to be expected but what is being discussed is the threat of these people becoming radical, violent jihadis.

                      If they’re forming student unions and attempting to use the heckler’s veto to bully dissenting views that’s not good but it’s also a far cry better and more civilized than blowing shit up.

                    4. In the olden days, all immigrants felt some level of cultural alienation. Their environment (the USA) demanded they suppress those feelings if they hoped to survive and prosper. Volumes have been written on this topic. We no longer demand assimilation but instead teach alienation as legitimate. That reality may have profound consequences when tied to the culture of the immigrants we’re talking about. We’re talking about immigrants’ whose native culture is profoundly different from ours. In past generations, immigrants may have differed in religion, language and history, but they differed very narrowly in terms of gender and sexual mores. That’s not true today. Our current factors differ significantly from the past.

                      It’s just like an American to assume we’re so very different from everyone else (from every other country/culture) that we’ll succeed where others have failed. It’s pure American arrogance based upon American Exceptionalism. It’s naive and arrogant.

                    5. “Over the past couple of decades, both here and in Europe, we’ve developed a grievance culture. A culture that encourages feelings of alienation and victimization – even glorifies those beliefs. We lack the cultural confidence to assimilate as we did in the past.”

                      THIS! A thousand times this.

          4. ” Look at all the trouble Europe is having that could be our future.”

            As much as you want it to be, it’s not-unless assholes like Trump have their way. America assimilates Muslims just fine.

            1. Yes. Let’s take a complex issue and distill it into self-satisfying and ego stroking simplicity.

              You’re a nitwit, latte boy.

              1. I’m right, end of story. There is no assimilation problem in North America, period.

            2. Why are you so obsessed with spending our tax dollars to bring hundreds of thousands of indigent Muslims here? Nothing libertarian about that, is there?

              1. Where did Cyto claim he wanted to spend “our tax dollars to bring hundreds of thousands of indigent Muslims here”?

            3. Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia seems to do a better job of unassimilating people.

        3. It’s only been a dozen Muslims? Apparently my math over the past 37 years has been way off. Attempts at moral equivalency of that level are just embarrassing.

        4. Muslim immigration moratoriam == Holocaust. I see what you did there.

          1. It’s still quite evil and evokes a slippery slope.

            1. No. No, it isn’t.

            2. Nazi comparisons, from the man who — no shit — literally supports infanticide and the extermination of those with physical and mental deformities.

              I’d slow clap, but I need my gun hand free when I’m around a moral monster.

        5. Actually, there were several cases of Jews murdering Germans which served as rationalization to the government for its anti-Jewish laws; Wilhelm Gustloff comes to mind.

          “This time it’s different” isn’t really as different as people love to claim.

      2. What the fuck?

      3. Seriously, are you fucking even aware that Kristalnacht, the first major pogrom in Nazi Germany, was in reaction to Jewish terrorists murdering a German diplomat?

        Jesus Fucking Christ! You’re literally justifying the beginnings of the Holocaust!

        1. Yeah, pretty much. It’s the same type of hysteria which makes any and all measures taken to “keep us safe” just peachy.

          I looked at the numbers earlier today. About 2.5 million people die in the United States each year. That’s about five every minute. It takes us about three minutes to exceed the number killed in California. Far more people are killed by falls in the shower each year than by terrorism and yet we’re losing our minds over it. About 250,000 Muslims immigrate to the United States annually, yet there have only been a handful of them involved in any activity that could even be remotely described as “terror”. There’s no sense of proportion here, at all.

  30. Um, did I stumble into the comments at Breitbart by mistake?

    1. Stormfront.

    2. Trump thread

      1. “Trump thread”

        Whatever he’s got, it seems to be contagious.

        1. Well he’s not gong to be President so people need to start thinking about whether they want to hand the job to Hilldebeast on a silver platter.

          1. Cruz or Rubio will win Iowa.

            Trump gets poll numbers nationally, but do those people really vote?

            The problem is some GOP guys are hanging on…Bush et al should give up.

            Then Cruz or Rubio will be at Donald’s level or higher, and we can all just enjoy Donald as a joke again.

            1. That’s my guess as well.

            2. “Trump gets poll numbers nationally, but do those people really vote?”

              They might. People are pretty fucking fed up. While I would prefer Rand steps up his game and takes the nomination, I don’t think Trump would be as horrible as a lot of the people here. Though I have a lot of problems with his positions on things.

              1. Well we will never find out because if he gets the GOP nod then Hildebeast will be President.

          2. Cruz or Rubio will win Iowa.

            Trump gets poll numbers nationally, but do those people really vote?

            The problem is some GOP guys are hanging on…Bush et al should give up.

            Then Cruz or Rubio will be at Donald’s level or higher, and we can all just enjoy Donald as a joke again.

            1. It’s hard to believe Bush is still running. Perry and Walker and that guy who’s name I forgot had better chances when they dropped out.

              1. It’s his turn, damnit!

    3. Thank you. I was just this evening talking with a friend, who happens to be a genuine, real, moderate Muslim, about whether he would be allowed back in the country (he happened to have returned from a business trip to China this afternoon).
      No, he doesn’t think ISIS speaks for him or for Islam. And his answer to those Christians who quote the Koran at him is to quote the horrible passages from the Old and New Testament back.
      No, modern, assimilated Muslims don’t think everyone should be forced to follow sharia, any more than the average assimilated Jew thinks people should be stoned to death for collecting sticks on Saturday.
      This stream is astounding, and disturbing, and shows principles are only skin deep. (so to speak).

      1. Enh, we’ve been having endless attacks, provocations, and played whack-a-mole.

        People are frustrated.

  31. When asked by The Hill whether [preventing any Muslim from entering] would include Muslim-American citizens currently abroad, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks replied over email: “Mr. Trump says, ‘everyone.'”

    I will say this: that statement doesn’t strike me as an affirmation so much as spox being unable to add to anything the boss already said.

    It leaves room for him to back off later after getting everyone riled up.

  32. If we do not win the intellectual battle of first principles (free speech, self-defense, etc…), it does not matter whether or not we allow Muslims into the country.

    1. “I’m not concerned about our survival, Colonel. I’m concerned that what survives will no longer be human.”

  33. OT:

    What did I miss?

    Did Clark get kicked off of Popehat?

    His posts are still on the site but his twitter feed is no longer linked.

  34. I’d like watch the “keep ’em all out” and “let everybody in” teams in a bench-clearing brawl.

  35. Wow. What a fine bunch of collectivists.

    1. Objecting to religious totalitarians ? “collectivism.”

      1. religious totalitarians =/= all muslims

        1. According to the Koran it is.

          1. Why are you an Islamic fundamentalist?

            1. I am not, but Mohammed was.

              1. Well that means he was right!

                1. Well, if you think he was wrong, then you simply aren’t a Muslim.

                  1. Why do you think the most fundamentalist Muslims are the ones who are “correct” about what is and isn’t Islam, and who is and isn’t Muslim?

                    1. Yeah, libertarian atheists know what the true essence of Islam is. not some dirty Islamic scholars.

                    2. I didn’t say I knew.

                    3. I personally don’t. But the fundamentalists do. And they back their shit up with mass murder. So they get their way a lot.

          2. “According to the Koran it is.”

            And here reality disagrees! Well, I guess I’ll just ignore that and go with the book!

            1. If you ignore the book, then you simply aren’t a Muslim.

              1. Yeah, this also isn’t true when fundamentalist Christians say it to claim UCC worshippers aren’t Christian.

                1. Umm, it’s usually the UCCers that are making the claim about who is and isn’t Christian.

                  1. Not any UCCers I hung out with, and I grew up in the church. But if they did, they’d be wrong too.

          3. Well the Koran is wrong about most things, so who gives a shit?

      2. Huh, so you’re worried about a theocracy in the US? Seriously?

        1. Yes. He’s that fucking stupid.

        2. We already have a growing theocracy here. Progressive Othodoxy, through the Church of AGW.

          1. Just when I thought Suicidy couldn’t sound any more insane, he goes and outdoes him/her/cis self.
            Congrats.

      3. HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH ONES ARE THE MUSLIMS?

    2. Libertarianism ? Anarchism.

      If you accept that nation-states are legitimate, then the power to control the borders and membership of the nation-state are fundamental to its existence.

      1. The United States is not a nation-state, at least not in the conventional definition of the term. And I would argue that it is hardly one even in a more expansive definition.

        1. Using this defination, the U.S. qualifies, and in fact it is given as an example:

          http://www.towson.edu/polsci/p…..atisns.htm

          1. I mean “definition.”

          2. Have you been to one of our glorious inner cities lately? How about an Indian reservation?

            The US is a pluralistic state composed of many nations.

            1. The Indian reservations are a dying leftover. However, if we’re truly classifying our inner cities as distinct nations, then we will inevitably Balkanize. I don’t think the situation is that hopeless, yet. I think even inner city Detroit is part of the American nation, even though it’s a sick part. Southerners descended from confederate soldiers consider themselves patriotic Americans. We are, largely, one nation. However, if you want that to stop being true, continued mass importation of populations with no allegiance to or understanding of our national character will sure do it.

              1. “Southerners descended from confederate soldiers consider themselves patriotic Americans.”

                Not all of us, only the traitors!

            2. In case, we’re getting side-tracked by the definition. The important point I was trying to make is that even were the United States far more Libertarian than it currently is, the power to control its borders and membership would be essential for its survival.

              1. 1. The point I was making was beside yours.

                2. That the nation-state is the ideal organization of people is a poli-sci fantasy. There can be states of many nations and nations split into many states, and those configurations can be quite stable (or not). Heck, the needs of defense alone can unite disparate nations into a single state.

                3. I have no desire to see the US fracture. But to say that someone who elects the most corrupt person on the ballot every chance he gets while thinking “the rich” are oppressing him by making too much money and I are fundamentally of the same culture is to me a little bit of a stretch, to me. That we generally agree to be peaceable about our differences may be a common culture, but it’s kind of weakly defined at that point.

                1. But to say that someone who elects the most corrupt person on the ballot every chance he gets while thinking “the rich” are oppressing him by making too much money and I are fundamentally of the same culture is to me a little bit of a stretch, to me.

                  What a horrible sentence. Let me try this again:

                  It is a bit of a stretch to say that I have the same culture as someone who votes for the most corrupt person on the ballot every chance he gets while thinking “the rich” are oppressing him by making too much money

  36. The establihope for Trump’s imminent demise for finally going too far has grown palpable in past hour.

  37. I think this is the thread Hugh was looking for.

    1. But is it the thread he deserves?

      1. Hugh deserves something, but I don’t think it’s this.

        1. hugh can’t always get what hugh wants

          1. But if I try sometimes, I just might find, something way better than the fucking Stones.

              1. that MOP track is one of my favorite bangers.

                but why would anyone want to shit on the stones? they invented about half of the rock & roll vocabulary. You can’t take them away and then keep anything good.

  38. This thread has convinced me that not only is Nikki not The Worst, she’s not even in the bottom 20.

    1. You take that back!

    2. You take that back!

      1. Well if she is cute and has a good sized rack – I’ll take that front.

        1. Now that was funny.

  39. I’m glad to see most of the commentariat have pulled their heads out of their asses and know we have to do something about an inconvenient truth: the fact that the muslim religion is, at it’s core, fundamentally incompatible with free society.

    I’m not saying we should round them all up and kill them, that’s barbaric. But we sure as hell have every right to round them all up and kick them the hell out until their coreligionists get their shit in gear and go through the goddamned Enlightenment already. It’s been over 300 years, no more excuses. No more immigrants until 1) all of those currently here who do not speak the dominant language and have no appreciable skills are fully integrated (“fully integrated” to be defined by voters at an appropriate time in the future), and 2) Islam is not a never-ending third-world horror-show.

    For 2), I propose this test: when you see a news headline about Muslims Acting Badly, if you’re legitimately surprised, then they’ve probably gotten over their shit. As it stands, I would be shocked if I saw a news story about a Buddhist going on a killing spree (yes, I know it happens in Bangladesh, but it seems to be confined to that one place for unique reasons). However, every single day when I see a new headline about craziness in the ME or Africa, I don’t even bat an eyelash. It’s just par for the course for these sub-human animals. That has to change.

    1. One problem with number 2- I’m not legitimately surprised at a headline of anyone (race,sex,religion,nationality,favorite ice cream flavor) acting badly. Human beings’ capacity for ‘acting badly’ is only surpassed by their capacity to react stupidly to said bad actions.

    2. Gojira, you have provided a perfect summation and easily the most well-worded and coherent summary of a fascinating (in a road-kill-with-spilled-intestines sense) mindset.

    3. “But we sure as hell have every right to round them all up and kick them the hell out until their coreligionists get their shit in gear and go through the goddamned Enlightenment already. It’s been over 300 years, no more excuses.”
      There are perhaps a dozen countries in the world with about 10% of the earth’s population that, more or less, have gone through “the Enlightenment.” And even within those countries, in many of the inner cities, you wouldn’t know it.

      “However, every single day when I see a new headline about craziness in the ME or Africa, I don’t even bat an eyelash. It’s just par for the course for these sub-human animals. That has to change.”
      What about Mexico or El Salvador or Honduras?

      You people illustrate your own stupidity so clearly. If you look at the statistics, the countries that produce the most homicides (and the most murderers) are most disproportionately in Latin America, which is not, to my knowledge, a part of the caliphate.

  40. Again, I would agree with something along the lines of the recommendations of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, which says to admit some refugees but to vet them and to prioritize victims of religious persecution.

    I wonder what the results of opinion polls among Syrian Christians, Yazidis, and Muslims whom ISIS regards as the wrong sort of Muslim, would be re religious freedom?

    1. …and yet our government let in 1 christian and 283 Sunnis who were fleeing from Assad and may not really hate ISIS at all.

  41. I like terrifying children as much as the next guy but fucking really?

    http://rare.us/story/an-oklaho…..artnership

    1. Gunman: “Now I’ll kill all those children – wait, they’ve pulled protective blankets over their heads. Curses, foiled again!”

      1. I don’t even know what to say to shit like this. Who thought that was a good idea?

      2. Bright red blankets, no less. How about DayGlo orange with reflective striping in case the shooter is color blind?

        Jeebus.

    2. Not if i’m the next guy you don’t , I fucking hate children, It’s why I became a Libertarian, that and the stoned ass-sex with Mexicans, oh and monocles of course.

      1. I’m afraid the teachers are going to scare them so much that my fear tactics in my diamond mines will no longer be effective.

      2. Never go anywhere with out your top hat and silver tipped cane. The cane is convenient for keeping the orphans in line.

      3. You should learn to love children. Their reinvigorating blood, their ceaseless forced labor, their delicious tears. And they can polish your monocle in between bullwhippings.

  42. Judge Judge Posner – courageous slayer of straw men!

    1. Judge Richard Posner

      1. He’s not a hip craze like Dance Dance Revolution.

    2. I thought he was like Judge Reinhold for a minute, and just coincidentally became a Judge as well.

  43. Since Trump only gains after comments like this, it’s time to move on from how unhinged he is and move on to the real problem…after all he is only one person

    All of those unhinged comments have garnered support from at a minimum of almost one third of the GOP. In fact, Brian, look how many libertarian commenters here agree with him.

    You got bigger problems than Donald Trump.

    1. You have to admit one thing, Trump is providing Democrats with a reason to want to vote for Hillary. Being a more technocratic fascist, that is.

      1. She is solidly better.

    2. Gotta wonder how many Democrats find Trump’s sentiments appealing. Quite a few, I’d bet.

      1. How may union supporters do they still have? I have know quite a few private sector union guys in my lifetime and some of them were the biggest racist bigots I’ve ever seen in my life.

    3. Gee, I guess you’re right, I guess now I love socialized medicine, socialized everything else, and hatred of white males; you’ve successfully converted me to progtardism Jackaland!

      This thread is evidenceof one thing and one thing alone: that most people are stupid about most things, and libertarians are no exception.

  44. OK. Who favor changing culture totally/nation building in Iraq?

    Now who favors doing the same in America?

  45. Banning Muslims will do no good, with all these 3D printers about now people will just be cranking out new Mohammedans by the dozens in garages and workshops.

    1. The praying 5 times a day is convenient for recharge.

    2. I would rather have an army of 19 year old Jessica Albas.

  46. But to be fair, Rand and Trump want a pause in immigration of Muslims (Trump) or people from international hot spots (Paul) until the U.S. government can get its act together and adopt a better immigration policy which admits desirable immigrants and excludes undesirables.

    Neither Trump nor Paul seem to endorse an indefinite halt to Muslim immigration, as some commenters suggest.

    1. I only support an indefinite halt to not-hot Muslim Immigration! And I stand by this comment and am entering it on Yik Yak now! Un-anonymymonoymouslies!

    2. Well, indefinite doesn’t mean “forever,” it just means “not certain in amount or length,” so I’d say they do endorse an indefinite halt to Muslim immigration, unless they mentioned exactly how long the U.S. “getting its act together” will take.

  47. Finally. In addition to my junk mail, I can now get pictures of my junk mail.

    http://qz.com/566668/the-unite…..your-mail/

    1. Oh, junk *mail.* Never mind, then.

      1. I bet AlmightyJB will mail you pictures of his junk if you ask nicely.

        1. There are plenty on display at Epi’s mom’s house for everyone here to see.

    2. Huh, do they really give you pictures of your mail or the mail they actually delivered, ’cause I can tell you there’s a huge difference.

  48. How . . . how do we know which ones are Muslim? By name? Would you disbar a guy named Aade Nouri from entering from Iraq? Because he’s actually a Christian.

    Are we going to disbar members of the Nation of Islam from entering?

    What about the Italian Muslim Association?

    Or is this a call for a category for religious beliefs to be added to ‘RealID’? Maybe we’ll get those immigration checkpoints and internal passports yet!

    1. They’ll just start mandating it on the Census form. Plus make you declare at the border.

      “Do you swear, under pain of beheading from ISIS, that you aren’t a Mooselim?”

    2. “How . . . how do we know which ones are Muslim?”

      Offer pork and see what happens.

      For the Italian Muslims make it pancetta.

      Easy, sneasy.

    3. Hey Ag, if you got a Steam friend request from some rando, that was me.

      1. Ah – send it again. I ignore request that don’t come with an attached message or other notification. I get a lot of friend requests and pretty much all of them are people I don’t interact with enough to recognize their names.

        1. Sent. I wanted to send a message before, but I don’t know how. #lern2steam

      2. You never Steam friended me….:(

        Unless you did and I just don’t know your handle.

        1. So needy…

          You never told me your handle, though I figured it out.

          1. Good, accepted.

            I’m also glad to see that you play good games.

            1. I’m also glad to see that you play good games.

              Check out these two. I know how this is going to play out…

              1. I lost it at the bald eagle in the colors of the flag.

      3. Classic Rando!

    4. That’s where this will have to go in order for these xenophobic fever dreams to materialize.

  49. So. Is this what reason has come to, then?

    1. Overrun by Republicans? Fraid so. It’s a far cry from the bastion of liberty it once was. Might as well be a Red State.

        1. Next thing you know, they’ll start letting the Irish in.

    2. I demand those who worship false gods be kept from our commentariat borders.

    3. You just missed the libertarian moment. Now you’ll just have to wait for the next one in 132 years. Not sure, have to check the Mayan calendar.

  50. So is the idea that this is finally the time when government types are given a lot of power and they don’t fuck innocent people over AND don’t totally fail at what it is they were supposed to do AND don’t make things vastly worse?

    1. WHYCOME U BE TALK LIKE A FAGGOT

      *guitar solo*

      1. Guitar Solo shred first!

  51. So, really. Does libertarian now mean “Republican, but stupider”?

    1. How many of them claim to be libertarian? I don’t think Papaya does; he’s too Serious and Pragmatic for us ideologues.

      1. I consider myself largely libertarian, but I’m not a “perfect” one. All ideologies fail (in the sense of conflicting with reality) when people try to apply them 100% to everything.

  52. Trump’s call for ending Muslim immigration is a good step, but more needs to be done. Mecca needs to be nuked, then we can say that Islam no longer exists so those practicing it should stop. Also, A proposed constitutional amendment to ban Islam should be implemented. If Donald Trump’s idea can get such wide currency, so can the things I suggested.

    There’s no need to fear. Underzog is here.

    Oid Kahane Chai (Rabbi Kahane lives)

    1. Ha!

      When you can’t tell Underzog apart from the yokels…

    2. Oid Kahane Chai (Rabbi Kahane lives)

      The proper translation is “Rabbi Kahane still lives,” you dumb shaygetz.

    3. If we’re amending the constitution, ban Marxism. Then we have rock solid legal ground to deal with our orogressives.

  53. Most great men are bad men. It’s like Trump is saying, “I’m gonna be an awful person in 2015, but look, historians of the future will credit me for stopping the towel head invasion.” I enjoyed the Trumptactularity for a while, but this is fucking bullshit.

    1. How his apes hoot when they hear him called fascist.

      1. He also has mooks.

      2. Freedom! Until it looks like my ape gets the biggest rock.

    2. He’s Roderick Spode only not funny.

  54. The libertarian moment keeps getting more libertarianish.

  55. By my rough but precise calculation, only about half of the people here want to see America be great again.

    1. WHERE MY COUNTRY GONE

  56. In Top Trumps Trump trumps Muslims!

  57. Choose hotshot: No guns or no muslims. Can’t have both, but you can listen to some music.

  58. I think Wodehouse sums up Trump and the Trumpalos quite well:

    The trouble with you, Spode Trump, is that just because you have succeeded in inducing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you’re someone. You hear them shouting “Heil, Spode Trump!” and you imagine it is the Voice of the People. That is where you make your bloomer. What the Voice of the People is saying is: “Look at that frightful ass Spode Trump swanking about in footer bags! Did you ever in your puff see such a perfect perisher?

    1. “the Trumpalos”

      Is Trumpa-Lumpa already passe?

    2. +1 Eulalie

    3. “Did you ever in your puff see such a perfect perisher?”

      No

  59. So, when is American Kristallnacht? I’m hoping to loot me a shit load of delicious shawarma.

      1. But leave the doner kebab behind, please…

        1. I suppose you hate Currywurst, too.

          1. Never had it to be honest. Though, I imagine it’s great beer garden food.

            Remind me to tell you about the time I ate at a “Bavarian” beer garden in Thailand.

            1. Currywurst isn’t much; it’s usually a nondescript sausage slathered with ketchup mixed with curry powder.

              What happened in the Thai Beergarden?

              1. Asian waiters looking down right silly in lederhosen walking through rows of tables with plates of Thai fried rice and steins of Heineken.

                I vastly preferred the Leo Beer girls.

                1. Nice, but can they each carry six or eight full-liter Massen at a time? Sometimes, I’m just thirsty.

                  1. can they each carry six or eight full-liter Massen at a time?

                    I’m going to interpret “full-liter Massen” as sexual innuendo.

                    Because that’s my prerogative.

              2. I could go for some currywurst. It’s great “I’ve been out drinking all night in Berlin” food. It’s absolutely the equivalent of cut up hot dogs with ketchup on them though.

    1. When you eat shawarna, you’re eating with Osama.

      1. Every time you eat shish-taouk a Muslim terrorist gains his wings.

  60. Are we still talking about the Musselmen? Their black shells weird me out about a bit, but I believe they can be assimilated into proud patriotic taxpaying flag-waving members of American society. You’re a narrow minded bigot if you don’t.

    1. Watch out or they’ll scallop you!

      1. Is that the roe you want to hoe?

        1. Gill t.

          1. Okay, let’s scale back the puns. I find them ichthy.

            1. I’ve just been schooled!

            2. You’re just angling for a fight, Fist.

              1. And I fell for it hook, line and lead weight.

  61. This is like a perfect climax for 2015. The dissenting voices on immigration and war on terror go full collectivist, and it’s motivated by a Trump story. Of course. If only he had also made some comment about gay marriage.

    1. If it was about Trump and Muslims and they could somehow fit puppycide, abortion, weed, and gay wedding cakes into it, it would be the ultimate article. I just can’t think of how that would work right now.

    2. It’s too late, dude. The Homocaust can only happen once.

      1. “They denied us the cake!”

        1. That’s it! That’s the test! Make all Muslim immigrants bake a gay cake before admission. If they won’t, they’re out of here!

        1. “This article is being considered for deletion”

          Ignorant slut or not, I’m hoping the reason isn’t just her fucked up viewpoints.

            1. Meh. Ok. Sounds like more of a hit piece they could move to their own website.

              1. Except the sentence “I found that Julia Hasper meets neither the not ability criteria for academic nor for politician.” is complete and utter bullshit. The woman has a PhD from fucking Oxford and ran as a candidate for the UKIP. Her notoriety is what makes her notable. I’m not a drinker of the Wikipedia kool-aid, but I refuse to have the core principles of Wiki fall prey to European “right to be forgotten” and overly draconian libel restrictions bullshit.

                1. Yeah I see your point. I certainly agree you have no right to be forgotten but if someone wants to write a hit piece on someone they don’t need Wiki and is that really it’s purpose? . I don’t know. We know it takes very little derp wise to be covered in the media but does that rise to level of “encyclopedia” material? I mean I guess consistency wise, how many entries cover people not that important or known. In a world of Honey Boo Boo, I guess it’s a mute point. If the hit piece is inaccurate or overly bias then is Wiki where it belongs? I mean there are plenty of places you can go trash someone.

                  1. Well, the good thing about a Wiki is that you can correct the errors or bias. Still, judging from her latest upload to Academia.edu, I don’t see where she can claim they’re misrepresenting her.

                    1. wow. She’s a professional asshole.

  62. Just the other day I saw a Muslim.

    1. Did you get beheaded? I mean you must of got beheaded. OMG! guys, _Warren_ got beheaded.

    2. Was he drinkin’ a Pina Colada at Trader Vic’s?

    3. I work with more Muslin than ISIS ever did.

    4. FB friend him. Some of your best friends will be Muslim then.

  63. There is probably a well thought out and somewhat workable solution somewhere between Trump’s bullshit and Obama’s bullshit, that might actually do some good. Unfortunately, the prospect of our government ever arriving at and executing such a plan is pretty much zero.

    We’ve been fucking around over in the middle east for decades trying to affect regime changes when we shouldn’t have been involved. And we’re still doing it. We just recently destabilized both Syria and Libya in half witted efforts to oust their leaders.

    So we succeeded in ousting Gaddafi and now someone please explain to me how Libya and the world is better off because of it? Assad is still there even though we’ve managed to exacerbate the problem there with our hair brained idea of arming the ‘good’ or ‘moderate’ terrorists. How has that worked out?

    I don’t agree with Trump on this, but it does make a lot of sense to really do some serious profiling when it comes to immigrants and being a lot more thorough when vetting those people. The woman involved in the recent attack in Cali was an ISIS sympathizer yet she was somehow here on a Visa.

    The next step is to just stay the fuck out of the middle east and let the people over there fix their own problems or just continue killing each other, whatever they decide to do. But no one is going to convince me that some of this is not due to blow back, of course it is. But the ideology a lot of Muslims have with jihad and Sharia is also a serious issue.

    1. But no one is going to convince me that some of this is not due to blow back, of course it is.

      Yes, what we’re currently experiencing is blowback from Grenada, 1492. They haven’t even gotten around to having grievance with our shit yet. In 2538, they’ll get around to outrage for our actions in MENA and AfPak.

      1. I dunno, but when I click on that link, it just brings me right back to this page. I don’t see anything about Granada.

        1. You’re lucky the link didn’t go Visit our HTML tutorial“here.

    2. “So we succeeded in ousting Gaddafi and now someone please explain to me how Libya and the world is better off because of it?”

      Having one less asshole is always a good think.

      Glass half full. You know?

      1. Libyans love it so much they are fleeing their own country. No doubt Gaddafi was bad, but the vacuum that was left behind seems an order of magnitude worse.

        1. Weren’t Libyans fleeing before? If they weren’t, were they allowed to leave? Not saying it’s a good place but at least now there’s something other than a tyrant. The general guy who controls a bunch of eastern Libya might not be so bad.

          1. The general guy who controls a bunch of eastern Libya might not be so bad.

            Was the general guy who controlled the whole part of Lybia so bad?

          2. Yes, instead of one tyrant who wasn’t hostile to the United States we’ve got a whole bunch of them that probably are. Much better.

    3. I think we have been trying to stand in the middle of the road, and should either choose full disengagement or full engagement (pick some sides and break some alliances, then more rubble, less trouble.)

      The problem is Obama is doing disengagement, and its not been pleasant either. Maybe his problem was he’s trying to look like he’s not disengaging when he is disengaging?

      I suspect disengaging is viewed as “Islam is winning!” though – so it may not help.

      There probably is no good solution. Every one will have major drawbacks.

    4. “The woman involved in the recent attack in Cali was an ISIS sympathizer yet she was somehow here on a Visa.”

      OK, to be fair, she was here because her husband was a U.S. citizen.

      To me, if you’re a U.S. citizen man, you have the right to marry a foreign woman, and likewise a U.S. citizen woman with a foreign man. If that’s not in the Ninth Amendment – the right to marry, and not the BS version of it concocted by the Supreme Court – it’s hard to see why we have a 9th Amendment in the first place.

      And I don’t see how a U.S. citizen, as a condition of having marital relations, must be required to go abroad to visit his/her spouse.

      Now, if that woman pledged allegiance to ISIS, then that could arguably be a reason to prosecute her.

      1. Well, I agree with you. I’m married to a foreign national. And I actually think the current process is unnecessarily draconian and should be easier in most cases. But when you’re dealing with someone coming from a country, I think Pakistan in this case, that is a known to be a spawning ground for radical jihadists, then I think we have to check that person a lot more closely than we normally would. Call it profiling or whatever, we should be doing it. Maybe they would have found nothing. But at some point, this person was posting stuff about allegiance to ISIS, online and other things that you would think our government, which has to spy on everyone for our safety, would have maybe found. But no, they’re too busy making sure to read everyone’s gradma’s personal email to be concerned about radical jihadists.

        1. Like I say, I think there’s probably some kind of law she broke by pledging allegiance to ISIS, which would have justified arresting and prosecuting her.

        2. “But when you’re dealing with someone coming from a country, I think Pakistan in this case, that is a known to be a spawning ground for radical jihadists, then I think we have to check that person a lot more closely than we normally would.”

          Absolutely, normally it’s for the would-be immigrant to show that they’re someone you want in this country.

          But the importance of marriage is such, in my mind, that the right to marry should reverse the presumption, so that separating someone from their spouse should be based on proving charges against one or the other of them (or both) in a court of law.

          1. Separating *a citizen* from their spouse

          2. The process is overly draconian and stressful the way it is now. Apparently, it was much easier at one time. I was talking to a guy on a flight back from seeing my wife during my own process with her green card, who had married his wife in Columbia back in the 80s. He said he just went to the US consulate there and told them this is my wife and that was it. They then flew back to the US together and lived happily ever after. When I told him what it’s like now he was astonished that they make people endure something like that.

            1. I’m sorry to hear about this. 🙁

    5. “But no one is going to convince me that some of this is not due to blow back,”

      Yeah but that’s because you’re a dunce.

      Seriously, anyone who bleeves the blowback fantasy does so because they want to. There sure as hell isn’t evidence for it.

      1. It amazes me, that we agree on so much, but you are so retarded when it comes to foreign policy.

        1. No, you’re the retard. You literally cannot hold a conversation in this subject with going PapayaSF-levels of retard.

          1. So C, let’s say you are essentially a non-political guy, making a living for your family. The guy who lives next to you is a fucking terrorist, yet you have no association with him. I lay a 500 pounder in on him, and in the process, kill your family while you’re at work. Who do you and your former wife’s father/brothers gonna blame for her death?

            1. Forget it, he’s rolling.

        2. Aww, that’s nice.

    1. Pantsed the link.

  64. Oh look the thread is full of ‘libertarians’ who want to save freedom by destroying it. What. A. Surprise.

    Why can’t you people just fuck off back to Breitbart or whatever toilet you crawled out of? You have no place here.

    1. I don’t think that Cytotoxic is the boss of here.

      1. You’re not the president of who’s boss.

        1. You’re not the Great Leader of presidential bosses.

          1. You’re not the Prime Minister of which president gets to be chief.

        2. Be careful, FOE, when I’m named Supreme Overlord, you might miss out on being a Czar of something that we totally don’t need and shouldn’t exist.

          1. As long as I’m the Party Czar you all can have whatever titles you can earn in Thunderdome.

            1. “titles you can earn in Thunderdome.”

              I thought this said titties. I think titties earned in Thunderdome would be better.

          2. Wow. You’re on a Kaiser roll.

        3. Boss-ception?

  65. Viewing this just from the actions and words of Rand Paul and then seeing the comments here, anti-immigration/anti-Muslim feelings must poll sky high, at least among GOP primary voters.

    1. This is not an Archer behind the scenes. I has the dissapoint.

  66. I just wanna know who’s gonna fund social security and medicare when I become too old to work. Angela Merkel thinks Muslim immigrants will take care of the aging Germans. In the US it will be mostly be Mexican and Filipino immigrants, with Roman Catholic sensibilities, changing my soiled underpants. This is a topic the AARP should weigh in on.

    1. Who changes your soiled underpants now?

      1. I had hemorrhoids a few years back and went the store to buy adult diapers and wore them until the ‘hoids healed. I did because I still could. Or are you saying I am a pathetic alarmist?

        1. Just inquiring about a possible job opening…for a friend.

        2. Wow, that was…umm..open and honest.

          1. Yes, it’s the sort of transparency I advocate for our government, but widget may spare us if he so desires.

    2. A little advise. Don’t count on either. Save as much as you can. Diversify.

      1. Yes, soil boxers, briefs, and banana hammocks.

        1. I’m just going to walk around bottomless leaving a trail like a slug all along the floor of government buildings until someone either pays for my assisted living or puts me down.

      2. Advise assumed. You still can’t count on going out your way in battle.

        1. I can and I do. I know no other way. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to get some of that money back, just that I don’t count on it.

  67. This is interesting

    “After reading the recipe, I wondered where Spaghetti Pie came from. After doing some Internet research, here’s what I found:

    “? The dish originated in Chicago, like a spaghetti version of a deep dish pizza.

    “? It was a dish made for church socials and then gained in popularity.

    “? Spaghetti Pie was created for Al Capone because he liked both deep dish pizza and spaghetti.”

    1. I feel micro-aggressed by those bullet points! Don’t you believe in safe spaces?

    2. Jesus Christ, it’s like the Midwest is where food goes to die.

    3. This thread wasn’t divisive enough? You needed to nuke it from orbit with a “spaghetti pie” link?

      You are a fucking monster.

      1. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, I gotta troll the internet till I die.

    4. Spaghetti pie is just wrong. It’s like broccoli and pineapples on pizza, in a sane world it wouldn’t exist.

      1. Mushrooms and pineapple are the bomb on pizza.

        1. Mushrooms, yes. Pineapples, no way, blech!

        2. The former yes – a nice, white boscaiola pizza is divine as it is rustic as it is authentic.

          http://www.aglioolioepeperonci…..aiola.html

          The latter on a pizza is like putting ketchup on rigatoni.

          1. Or putting soy sauce on your white rice. Stupid Western tourists.

            1. Everyone knows rice is just a butter delivery system.

              1. Just like toast and King’s Hawaiian rolls.

            2. I like soy sauce on white rice; it’s something I picked up from all those Stupid Filipinos I used to work with in the Navy.

          2. I prefer tomato sauce to a white sauce but I’ll try that recipe. Looks good.

          3. Rufus,

            Thanks for that link. I take back all the negative, spiteful, hateful, nasty things I have said about you (and there have been a lot).

            1. There has?

              Man. I must have autism because I never noticed.

        3. What are you, East German?

          1. Little known fact that East Germany is the homeland of the pineapple. But no, I’m Norwegian.

            1. Then you put fish on your pizza too, right?

              1. Shrimp on occasion but not anchovies.

              2. Lutefisk and gammelost deep dish pizza.

            2. When I visited the GDR in the 80’s, every goddamn thing on the menu had pineapple in it or on it. I assume Fidel Castro and COMINTERN trade balances had something to do with it.

    5. Yeah.

      No.

      It’s a Spaghetti-Joe.

  68. Watching Aida on YouTube. You hear me NSA?

    1. Nice, but Verdi’s best work was definitely Nabucco.

  69. Trump supporters and sympathizers are a vastly greater threat to the freedoms of Americans than even violent Islamic groups.

    1. Most politicians are a great threat to freedoms of Americans. And you know the sort of stuff they want to do when radical jihadists start blowing stuff up? It’s not increasing freedoms of Americans.

      1. Trump is worse than most pols. He’s GOP Hugo Chavez.

        1. You’re so full of shit it’s funny. Hugo’s hand picked successor just lost the presidency and most of their congress though down in Venezuela. I guess that the people finally decided that having a working economy is not really an evil US plot to destroy their country.

          1. What…the fuck does this have to do with my statement? Do you think? Ever?

            1. You mentioned Chavez. However, thinking is not typically required after another of your silly posts. I don’t see any real comparison between Trump and Chavez. I don’t like either one of them, but Chavez was a hell of lot worse. Do you think the Donald is going to nationalize entire industries and shut down media that doesn’t agree with him? Make some of his political opponents disappear? Get real.

              1. He appears to be against free trade. This is a close second to socialism for economic illiteracy.

                1. I don’t believe anything that Trump says and I don’t think he believes any of it either. Here is a guy who maybe jumped into the race as a publicity stunt and then suddenly realized, I am sure much to his own astonishment, that a majority of Americans really are idiots and that he could actually be president. He’s all over the fucking place, I don’t even know what he’ll say next, but I already know I don’t believe a word of it. He’s just saying what he thinks people want to hear. Then when he realizes it’s not what people want to hear, he changes it.

              2. I don’t know about that. He seems exactly like the type.

              3. Do you think the Donald is going to nationalize entire industries and shut down media that doesn’t agree with him? Make some of his political opponents disappear?

                If he thought it would get him more power and he had support for it, then yeah, I kinda could see him doing that.

    2. If you go along with the mob, they will never hurt you, right?

    3. If you expand that theme to a 1000 words you get a job writing op-eds for the NYT.

    4. The terrorist can only shoot me, while my fellow Americans can unilaterally strip our rights in a headrush of emotive tantrums and erase the last bastions of rights still clinging to the vine.

      But that’s okay, because they had super important reasons.

      Not the terrorists, of course. They had bad reasons. That’s different.

      1. Listen, Hamster, just eat some bacon and you don’t have to be afraid of them.

      2. Not entirely true. Your fellow citizens can command government to employ violence against people who engage in certain undesired behaviors, as a deterrent to the rest. Terrorists do the same, but somewhat more haphazardly. End result is the same.

        1. “Haphazardly” is a vague way to compare something several orders of magnitude less likely to be a real and personal danger in my life.

          In the name of precision, you know.

          1. Depends on how many people are doing it and how publicly. Good luck finding political cartoonists willing to draw Mohammed, for example.

            1. No. It doesn’t. The numbers to justify hysterical blubbering panic that “The boogeyman is gunna kill us allllll!!” are not there. You’re in more danger from cops, US politicians and at the moment, yourself.

              And if the OMG WE’RE ALL GUNNA FUCKING DIE isn’t adequate, a dearth of cartoons doesn’t elevate this to earth-shattering, law-shredding importance either.

  70. I also get a kick of these yokel idiots who think that Trump has the pulse of the nation or, while they disagree with what he says, respect him for having ‘balls’ and think that he’s showing other pols how it’s done.

    Newsflash: H2H have him losing to Hillary quite solidly. If Trump were ever the GOP nom, he’d motivate people to turn out and vote-for Hillary. The Millenials alone would bury him. Trump has by far the highest negatives in the GOP and it looks like Ted Cruz might beat him in Iowa.

    1. Ted Cruz would get pulverized in the general election too. It doesn’t help that for the past few months he’s been smooching Trump’s ass hoping something will rub off.

      Of the 4 candidates with more than 5% in the polls in the GOP primary, Rubio is the only one with a prayer of beating Hillary.

  71. “Immigration, visas, and refugees from countries with active terror networks must be halted while we determine how to better secure our borders and our people.”

    Rand Paul wants to restrict access to potential terrorists, but base it on conflict areas with a lot of anti-American terrorists–rather than because of those people’s religions?

    Not only does that sound reasonable, it’s hard to imagine a reasonable objection.

    It even take the First Amendment and the Constitution into consideration. No complaints from this libertarian.

    1. It’s still far too vague and broad and severe. Heavy screening or even blocking people who are members of nefarious organizations like the Muslim Brohood might be different.

      1. “Heavy screening or even blocking people who are members of nefarious organizations like the Muslim Brohood might be different.”

        Did Rand Paul say that Egypt was one of the conflict areas? I don’t think so.

        And if the Muslim Brotherhood were in Syria, do you think they’d give us a list of all their members so we could check?

        And if you targeted the Muslim Brotherhood, wouldn’t that be targeting them because of their religious beliefs? I don’t believe they’re currently on the list of designated terrorist organizations.

        How ’bout banning everyone from Syria regardless of their religion instead? We can help refugees. We could send them food, tents, shelter, and medicine. Wanna come to the U.S.?

        Sorry, that’s a little dangerous right now.

    2. I think the best strategy to keep out undesirables is a simple geography test to see if they know the difference between Kentucky and Kansas and can point them out on a map. If they can’t, they don’t get in and instead are exiled to Antarctica.

      1. Kentucky’s the one with the BBQ right?

        1. No, no. Some sort of pie, I’m pretty sure.

  72. OT Thieving Florida Man killed by my idiot cousin

    http://www.tampabay.com/news/p…..or/2256886

    1. Sorry about your cousin. Totally undeserved.

    2. Well, I blame the would-be burglar for doing the equivalent of pouring A-1 sauce on himself and going into the lion’s cage.

    3. It was a total feel-good story up until “euthanized”.

  73. You know what’s to blame for Trump?

    No, it isn’t global warming.

    Obama is to blame for Trump.

    People are so sick of hearing Obama’s PC platitudes for so long, they’ll flock to an idiot like Trump–just because he seems to be speaking from the heart.

    People don’t even care if what Trump is saying is idiotic–as long as it seems both idiotic and genuine.

    1. No, it isn’t global warming

      DENIER!

  74. Oh noes, not the Others.

    1. Those dudes were BADASS on “Lost”, so…..

    1. Chuck Mangione can Fleugel my horn any day.

      also, here he is with Tony Levin & Steve Gadd. That is an absurdly good record.

  75. What’s the difference between Sharia and the state that progressives ultimately want to see? In progtopia I get to have a gay wedding and an abortion? Is there anything else?

    1. Safe spaces

    2. Kinetic velocity?

    3. MOAR FREE STUFF?

  76. I didn’t read anything in this thread. I was warned. Happy Monday to you all. I’m out.

  77. Back in April, Shikha Dalmia used the example of India to show that Muslims are peacefully assimilable in multi-religious democracies

    Jesus, could you have picked a worse example? Religious factionalism and mutual hatred between Muslims and Hindus in India is rampant. I have never met anyone who had as much pure, white-hot hatred for Islam as the Indian immigrants I’ve been acquainted with, and of course the current President of India has had his own run-ins with that population. This is without considering that a huge fraction (arguably the most militant part of the Indian Muslim population) seceded and formed their own country — a country which has notoriously poor relations with India, to the point of hair-trigger nuclear warfare nearly breaking out over border skirmishes.

    1. I know quite a few Indian immigrants myself and a couple of them have voiced their opinion to me of Muslims and it is not a positive opinion. I’ll just leave it at that.

    2. Loretta Lynch could make a slam-dunk case if she went to my local pizzeria. I deleted a link and a sample unsolicited quote from the Hindu proprietor because I don’t want anything to happen to my source for Major North Eastern US City-style Pizza.

    3. Pakistan didn’t secede from India, it was partitioned by the British before either country was independent.

      1. I think it’s most accurate to say that Jinnah’s Pakistan Movement was a secession that was recognized by the British partition.

        1. No, it’s not accurate at all. They were never part of India. It would be just as “accurate” to say that Canada seceded from the United States.

          It’s understandable that South Asian Muslims were reluctant to be forced into a nation with a large Hindu majority that was adamant about imposing its religion on them.

          1. It’s understandable that South Asian Muslims were reluctant to be forced into a nation with a large Hindu majority that was adamant about imposing its religion on them

            Kind of interesting how every single other religious community in India — and India in the 50s pretty much has it all as far as religion goes, from Christian to no-shit headhunter animist types — didn’t feel the need to do this, despite having much less social pull and self-defense capacity than Muslims in India do. Given that India currently maintains an alternate system of law for its Muslim minority, and many Muslim-majority states with full religious rights, I’d venture that Islam rather than Hinduism is the problem in this arrangement. God knows it has been aggressive since its entry into the Indian subcontinent, and that it’s been a proximate cause of the loss of more NAP friendly religions like Buddhism in the northern part of India.

            1. Most of the other religions in India (indeed all except Christianity, which is almost a negligible minority) are basically syncretic with Hinduism; Hinduism is a highly syncretic religion; Islam is not.

              I would generally err on the side of self-determination, and say that Ghandi was at best misguided, at worst decidedly wrong to try to force a single Indian state including all the Muslim regions. He was blinded by his nationalism, and everyone would have been better off if he’d have let the Muslim regions all go their separate way.

              But once the matter was settled, it was also a mistake to allow for a separate legal system for Muslims. That move all but guaranteed sectarianism. They should’ve been hot or cold, instead they were lukewarm.

          2. They were never part of India.

            That is so incorrect that I can only assume that you are writing from a parallel universe.

            What is Superman’s origin story there?

          3. Furthermore, it’s extremely disingenuous to claim that India only existed post-1945. The Muslim-majority provinces that now makeup Pakistan were always considered to be part of India proper, before the Raj or even from the time of the Mughals. Case in point, as I’m sure you know, the term “Pakistan” only dates from 1933 as an acronym for “Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, and Baluchistan. The concept of a Pakistani nation didn’t exist before Iqbal.

            1. it’s extremely disingenuous to claim that India only existed post-1945

              I blame Ron Bailey

              1. I blame Ron Bailey

                I admit that I don’t get the reference.

            2. Let’s not even get into Bengal (aka East Pakistan, aka Bangladesh).

  78. What the FUCK is it about Muslims that turns some libertarians into pants-shitting statists?

    I need to never click on one of these threads again. Or at least block John beforehand.

    1. Check your own pants, cosmo. The shit you’re smelling is your own.

      1. Fuck off, shit-weasel. Cowardly pussy.

        1. We can’t hear what you’re mumbling with that big statist cock in your mouth, cosmo.

          1. SIV, you are a diseased piece of shit. You’re about as libertarian as Obama or McCain. An unprincipled piece of garbage. The notion of liberty has never crossed your mind, yet you come here every night and badmouth those who value it. You are a fucking sniveling little cunt.

            Fuck off and die in a fire.

            1. You’re not going to get “liberty” by rimming the state, statist.

          2. It’s hilariously jarring to see you calling FdA a statist for NOT wanting the government to round up and deport a ton of people based not on their actions but on their beliefs.

            1. Where did I call on the government to deport anyone? Fucking NOWHERE. Try to keep up, sister.

              1. No, you say just enough to not get called a cunt.

                That dropped eye of yours looks like the hood on a cunt to me, SIV. When you talk, your mouth looks like a cunt moving.

              2. Where did I say you did? Fucking NOWHERE. Try to keep up, bro.

                1. He’s not your bro, pal.

                  Not the time? Ok I’ll go…

      2. In 2014 there were 18 deaths and 6 injuries in the United States related to terrorism broadly defined… which includes events with descriptions “No group claimed responsibility for the incidents; however, the deceased assailant was identified as larry McQuilliams. Sources suspected that the incidents were fueled by anti-government and anti-immigration sentiments.”

        (source)

        Compare that to numbers on driving fatalities (32,719 in 2013), or smoking related death (~1,300/DAY).

        Can you at least see why some of us might find deporting all Muslims or making them take loyalty oaths or tear out a page of the Koran (as suggested by Papaya up above) a tad out of proportion?

        1. During the entire Cold War Communists were not responsible even for that many deaths on the US soil. Nonetheless, they were and still are severely restricted from immigrating in the US.

          1. Are you namechecking a period of intense political paranoia that led to the modern security state and the curtailing of many basic liberties in the name of security in a positive or negative light here?

            1. I happen to consider the strong anti-Communist stand taken by the US government at the time as a very good thing. I’m a proud anti-Communist.

              1. I’m pleased with the collapse of communism on the global scale. I’m happy that the Soviet Union was unable to achieve it’s aims, but I think the period left an indelible legacy on American politics and culture that is not in tune with liberty. Sometimes total war is warranted, but I don’t think it’s wise to seek out situations where that’s the case.

                1. Excellent point, jesse. Communism was an is an abhorent ideology, but to combat it we did a lot of things of which we should be ashamed, that in the light of history weren’t needed for its defeat. It might not have been obvious at the time, but now that we’re confronted by another scary bogeyman we should really bear those examples in mind.

                  1. You got to the heart of it much more succinctly than I did, Contrarian.

              2. So, you agree with the idea that people with communist sympathies should be denied citizenship?

                I would try to explain the difference between opposing someone’s views and making laws restricting their rights, but that concept seems lost on most people and I assume you’re one of them.

                1. So, you agree with the idea that people with communist sympathies should be denied citizenship?

                  Absolutely. Communists and Nazis should not be granted US citizenship. The US immigration law is probably one place where Communism and Nazism are treated in a similar fashion. Fine by me.

                  Communist and Nazi foreigners have no intrinsic right to immigrate in the US. Despite that, the system was flexible enough to let in plenty of former Communists and Nazis who reformed themselves or were desirable in other ways. But the general principle that Communists and Nazis were and are not welcome here is good.

    2. Let’s be clear, JB. Yokels aren’t, by any stretch of the imagination, libertarians.

      I’m embarrassed that these assholes post here. I the fear that the curious, that visit here, will confuse their cowardice with libertarian philosophy. They are disgusting.

    3. Given that Islam is a murderous totalitarian ideology, it’s not terribly surprising that some libertarians cannot be completely unbiased while contemplating whether to welcome with open arms adherents of this ideology.

      1. grrizzly|12.8.15 @ 12:03AM|#
        “Given that Islam is a murderous totalitarian ideology, it’s not terribly surprising that some libertarians cannot be completely unbiased while contemplating whether to welcome with open arms adherents of this ideology.”

        Well, totally banning the immigration of a class of people based on belief goes a bit beyond ‘biased’.

    4. Ha, that’s the surprising part: John barely dipped a toe in this one

  79. I seriously cannot believe how many people here are willing to collectivize and demonize a billion people for what they believe. It’s literally persecuting thought crime. And all of this over two people! If we were talking about a real existential threat then I’d at least understand, but the biggest threat here is, literally, the cowards clamoring for some Strong Man to save them from a “threat” that they have almost zero chance of ever actually facing.

    1. It’s frankly disgusting.

      1. It’s depressing. I’m not saying we are destined for a return to fascism, but I can start to see how ideologies like that took hold and grew.

      2. You keep that shit up, nicole, and George Zimmerman is going to have to post your nudes on his Twitter too.

        1. We’ll finally find out if the rumor is true that she only has one huge nipple that covers both breasts.

          1. Nipple or areola? The latter I can conceive of, but the former doesn’t seem possible.

            1. nicole’s figure is Lovecraftian in that her curves are non-Euclidean.

              And her genitalia are tentacle-based.

              1. Go on…

    2. Please don’t lump together hatred for Muslims and mere opposition to bringing in people from countries with high terrorist presences. They’re not the same thing at all.

    3. And all of this over two people!

      This is rather ironic, considering that just three years ago, there was a bunch of heartburn over the refusal of the IOC to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Munich Massacre. It’s not like Islamic-inspired terrorist acts have diminished in frequency since then.

      What’s happening here is that libertarians (and most of the Western World, really) are confronting an existential dilemma in trying to reconcile whether Western culture and values are able to continue to accomodate, survive, and thrive with the settlement of people from a culture and religious system that it has essentially been at war with since the beginning of the Middle Ages.

    1. If he goes after internet porn he’s going to lose a lot of followers. I’m guessing chronic masturbaters make up a huge part of his following.

      1. *Sploosh* Wait, what?

  80. I can’t believe John is still defending this shit. Do you think he’s secretly going back to some private red state message board and complaining “I can’t do it anymore. I can’t maintain the pretense! It’s gotten too ridiculous.” ?

    Nevermind the rest of the fascists showing their true colors….
    This whole Trump thing has certainly been an eye-opener for me about the number of crypto-fascists running around in libertarian clothing on this website.

    1. Hazel, I bailed earlier; the ‘screw ’em all’ rhetoric got entirely too loud.
      Sorry folks, if there is anything at all to what libertarianism means, it’s not outlawing an entire group of people for their religious beliefs.
      You can certainly prosecute those of that religion that cause physical harm or property damage, but you don’t get to per-emptively deny rights based on beliefs.

    2. From memory, John originally came here circa 2004 to tell us all how wrong we were about the Iraq War and Bush.

      He’s come a long way since then.

      It’s good if people from other mindsets engage with us; it makes them more libertarian.

      And being libertarian isn’t like being pregnant anyway. We all have some issues we care more about than others. We need to appeal to people from all kinds of different backgrounds. I haven’t always known everything I know now.

      And it’s also true that sometimes the things we think of as being libertarian really aren’t necessarily libertarian. Over at Rockwell’s site, you’d find a lot of people far to the right of John who are convinced that we’re all a bunch of phony libertarians. What do they call us–“cosmos”?

      1. I tend to come to libertarianism from a conservative bent. But, even I have to say, this is just bizarre. What a lot of people, and even some long-time posters are advocating here is the effective repeal of the First Amendment. At some point, you’re going beyond just blind spots to cast aside core principles.

        How they think that if this happens, it won’t come round and bite them on the arse is beyond me.

  81. Are there actually people here saying that we should round up all the Muslims? I didn’t read the entire thread, but I haven’t read any post advocating that yet.

    1. Not sure, since I didn’t stick around for the (stuff), but it started as denying entry into the US to any “muslim”, whatever that might be.

    2. As best I can tell the argument is that wanting the government to stop doing something is fascist while wanting the government to keep doing something is “libertarian”.

      1. SIV|12.8.15 @ 12:15AM|#
        “As best I can tell the argument is that wanting the government to stop doing something is fascist while wanting the government to keep doing something is “libertarian”.”

        As best you can tell says you can’t read.

      2. And by “doing” you actually mean “let other people do.”

        We need to stop the government from letting us go where we want and keep our own money, that’s statism! Come on guys, let’s go stop that government from letting us do things. Down with big government! I won’t let no government let me do what I want.

        Lol. Really though; now one is seriously redefining the word ‘do.’ Oh, I’m having such a ball here.

  82. I get all the arguments people have made here, save one: Muslim immigration is a net benefit, yet we should continue to bomb the shit out of Muslim countries.

    1. Well bombing the shit out of them certainly seems to increase the number of those trying to come here to flee the destruction. It’s a win win!

  83. Post 750.

    Trump hits a nerve.

    1. Its been a while since we had a bona fide fascist commanding the support of 1/3 of a major party.

  84. I don’t have a problem with barring violent Muslims from immigrating.

    My problem is, is like to add a lot of people to that list:

    1. People with huge war boners
    2. People who love taxes
    3. People who love public pensions and health care
    4. People who enjoy participating in democracy in general as a great way to accomplish big things.

    Since we tolerate all of that, I really don’t get why people are suddenly having hissie fits over some mass shootings. Sounds like an argument for gun control (and, yes, the selective understanding and revulsion of that crowd is kind of obvious, too.)

    1. If you have a reasonable way to identify the people in groups 1-4, I’d love to hear it — I don’t want those people in my countries voting to take away my shit. I can’t think of a reasonable way to identify, and I do find the current restrictions on communist and Nazi immigration acceptable.

      Islam is easier to identify and more geographically and ethnically expressed than those who would philosophically assent to 1-4 above. Supposing it is possible to achieve a more liberty-friendly mix by barring Islamic immigration, don’t we owe it to our descendants to do so?

      1. “Islam is easier to identify and more geographically and ethnically expressed than those who would philosophically assent to 1-4 above”

        You could interview everybody and make those you don’t like wear stars on their backs. Hey, it’s only one more government agency to promote libertarian values!

      2. Lighten up, Trousers, We can let the Wermarct invade but the not NAZIs.

    2. Humans tolerate the crazy among their kin and national more than from strangers. Globalists and Cultural Marxists think this form of tolerance is evil and want to sell you on another former of tolerance will keep them in power.

  85. For all you whiny bigots, I’ve yet to hear what the US might gain by prohibiting Muslim immigration. Let’s hear it, with some at least projected data, please.

    1. Ever hear “Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute.” ?

      Now apply that general sentiment to the current situation.

      1. “Now apply that general sentiment to the current situation.”

        Your false equivalence means nothing,

        1. You did not get my whole meaning. Right or wrong has nothing to do with it. The benefits are intangible.

          Humans are funny that way. Their systems are biased towards preventing losses You have to take that into account. You may or may not like it. But if you prefer reality…..

    2. while you are at it answer this
      how many people should have to die by islamic terror until it is acceptable to close entry from muslim countries?

  86. Countries at war typically tighten access to their enemies.

    Does the current religious war make things difficult. Well yes. But if they keep attacking until we declare war on them it is their own damn fault.

  87. It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [2] [3] – Thomas Jefferson

    1. If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude to the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains rest lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were ever our countrymen. ~ Samuel Adams

  88. Have you already heard Donald Trump speak?” I had been asked for quite some time. … It was on a winter’s day in 2015. And there I sat in a public meeting, an unknown among unknowns. … It was the last hour before midnight when his speech ended … It was an immense wealth of ideas that in a more than three hour long speech came from his mouth, clad into the beauty of a gifted oratory. … When he was standing on the podium with a face radiant with joy and looking at the stormy enthusiasm, I felt that there had to be something special in Trump! … Everybody could feel it: this man speaks on behalf of a divine appointment, as a messenger sent from heaven at a time when hell had opened to devour everything.

  89. I’m really conflicted on this, let’s see if I’m posing the problem correctly: Is it cool for the Government to discriminate among immigrants based on ideology?

    Does the distinction between the rights of the citizen and the innate rights of all people (if such exists in our law) play a role in how we approach the issue? Do we owe visa candidates some sense of fair play? Should I weigh such scrutiny on a scale of its measurable past effectiveness, if examples and some yardstick is available? Or is there some values-based approach that says we just can’t discriminate that way, on the face of it?

    I don’t know if the view is “libertarian”, but I think if the government is going to do it, they need to demonstrate:
    1. It is within their authority to do so
    2. In a clear cause-effect relationship why this enhances the overall safety of the nation
    3. The gov’t is best for the job of picking ideologies to “weed out”
    4. In keeping with #3, we really need to treat Muslim immigrants with a broad brush policy.

    LOL no they’re not gonna fulfill my criteria. Maybe there’s no basis in law for the above, but if not, then limited powers would check the endeavor overall, right? So no, I don’t think this is a thing the government should concern itself with. I just don’t like it when we start defining things for the government to do based around religion. As a last resort, I prefer such scrutiny be more direct, relying on metrics like affiliation with terrorist groups, etc.

    1. Did we manage to exclude communists during the Cold War?

      ======================

      Thomas Jefferson and John Adams reporting to John Jay, re upcoming Barbary Wars lead by Jefferson. Americas first “War on Terror”

      It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [2] [3] – Thomas Jefferson

      1. Go to Paradise? Izzat all? Get all sweaty and cut up in a knife fight and not even score a passel of virgins to rape if my side loses? I guess there was no mohammedans union in Jefferson’s day.

    2. The Alien and Sedition Act got passed. – you are asking for logic when logic is the smallest part of what is going on.

      1. The proper answer is No Soft Targets.

    3. ” Is it cool for the Government to discriminate among immigrants based on ideology?’

      I’ll bite for the sake of potentially narrowing the issue =

      There’s nothing (last i checked) in the constitution dictating what kind of immigration policy the US should or shouldn’t have. There’s a bit of a summary here about constitutional issues related to the topic. Its from an advocate for more-open immigration policy… but regardless of one’s personal views, Ilya Somin is a good egg and presents the details pretty clearly.

      The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 passed supreme court review in 1889. If Congress can arbitrarily choose a country to ban immigrants from… can they choose to screen (in theory) by “religion”? Who knows. Possibly. The reality is that any such policy would fail in any case.

      1. The Geary Law requiring registration for enforcing Chinese Exclusion as reenacted 1892 and made enforceable in 1893 was one of the several causes of the Panic of 1893. China’s Six Corporations had enough economic clout in These States and India to exacerbate the silver troubles, as looters in Congress labored to enact another damn Income Tax.

    4. It’s cool with the DemoGOP for the political State to deport anyone who has ever lit a joint. Prohibitionism is indeed a religion as powerful as christianity, mohammedanism and communism–and every bit as coercive and irrational. Since thy have these laws why not amend to keep out berserkers and let in some hippies?

  90. Hey, could you argue under a legal framework that since “Congress shall make no law” ensures that there can be no legal root for this particular shoot of authority to spring from, therefore limited powers means government can’t discriminate based on religion even among non-citizens? As an argument, isn’t discrimination based on religion by any federal institution, regardless of the nature of that discrimination, or its target, an automatic violation of the first amendment in that government is taking a position on the quality or nature of a religion, and determining its action thereby?

    1. not relevant

      1. Well, “country of origin” isn’t mentioned in the first sentence of the first amendment, right? Why doesn’t the first amendment apply to institutionalized discrimination based on religion when it comes to immigration? Is the distinction that government can discriminate on religion in practice, so long as congress doesn’t make a law? I thought “limited powers” meant government had to tie all its action to a legal framework providing them authority, and that the amendment effectively cleansed our legal system of the possibility of building any legal authority to do this.

        1. The bill of rights applies to existing citizens. As already noted in the above link, some limited powers are granted to congress in the constitution to regulate immigration, but the rest devolves to the states. Read the link.

          1. * sorry = that’s not true and i shouldn’t have said that.

            The bill of rights applies to citizens or *anyone in US jurisdiction* regardless of status.

            However the point would be that it obviously doesn’t apply to people outside the country, and congress retains a great deal of authority to restrict access. To the specific problem i walked into there…. there’s more here

            1. n 1952’s Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to expel noncitizens who were former Communists. “In recognizing this power and this responsibility of Congress, one does not in the remotest degree align oneself with fears unworthy of the American spirit or with hostility to the bracing air of the free spirit,”

              ============================

              Evidently there are some who take it not as “bracing air” but as “foul stench”. Take those two in San Bernardino last week.

              1. That would probably fall under the national-security related issues that Somin notes in the first link above.

                In theory, it would probably grant congress the ability to ban Muslim immigrants. However, there’s no likelihood of that happening, and even if it did it would be impractical and nonfunctional.

                What’s more likely is Rand Paul’s formula , which is creating a list of “hot” countries which we demand an added level of scrutiny and barrier to migrants.

              2. Then there was the Charlie Chaplin case… That socialist even had a Hitler mustache!

            2. Well, I took my reading to mean that Congress restricting immigration might be somehow joined to the commerce clause in some people’s minds, and beyond the potential pitfalls of all this percolating down to states, especially inland states sharing borders with other states and the lack of distinction between their commerce and international commerce…Not a fan of centralized control, but this particular issue doesn’t top my list of things to be alarmed about, for some reason….

              I dunno, I don’t think the linked presents anything for or against the question of using religion as a specific criteria for the government to base decisions on immigration around. I realize you may form a basis for all this belonging to states, I simply suggest that there may also be this first amendment avenue to attack the idea, in that the first clause of the first amendment does not frame its admonishment as the granting of a right, but “no law”. I take “no law” to mean that no institution of government (Congress especially) may embrace such criteria in policy, regardless of where it finds such policies useful and whether it has the authority to operate in immigration waters to begin with. After all, if the government can act for/against a religion in practice, just not in law, then what is the usefulness of the the law to begin with?

              1. Sometimes it’s fun to examine the many levels on which Trump’s ideas are loathsome.

              2. Not that I agree with Trump, but there are quite a few legal tricks a Trump admin could use to jump through those hoops.

                The national security exemption has allowed the US to ban citizenship to people who support political ideologies like Communists and National Socialism. Even though it’s not illegal to be a commie or a nazi. So there’s a history of the US government discriminating against politically disfavored groups. And it’s not that much of a stretch to argue that Jihadists are trying to overthrow the government and set up a Caliphate, same as the commies and nazis.

                Secondly, just use the administrative state to keep out the Muslims. Set a quota on the number of refugees allowed in each year, and prioritize importing persecuted groups like the Kurds, Yazidis, Christians, Animists, etc. And for the three or four open slots left open, bring in a couple of rug salesmen named Mohamed.

                Note: I’m not arguing that this what should be done, just what easily be done.

                1. I know the example of discrimination based on other ideologies has many parallels, and that religion is in many ways an ideology in and of itself…but we have a very specific, very curt mandate admonishing Congress specifically against law with respect to religion. Maybe I’m legally naive, but I note that there is a distinction in this first clause among the others in that it is not discussed as an impact to free exercise (that is to follow). Rather, and I think very consciously, it is framed as a simple admonishment…”Congress shall make no law…” I take this admonishment to cover the actions of Congress as well as its primary function as a law-making body…my reading of the Constitution (albeit perhaps flawed) and the concept of limited powers therein suggest, to me, that Congress itself should act as a lawmaking body primarily, and where it has actual agency to implement the law, that it only act under specific legal framework as the exception to the rule. Now, I believe one can argue successfully that these are issues more rightly belonging to states, as outside the commerce clause there is little giving Congress the authority to operate on immigration (I think). That being said, on the question of whether Congress can discriminate based on religion in any of its endeavors, including immigration, I think there may be a clear, direct answer in the first amendment, and I fail to see the logic that suggests otherwise.

        2. Country of origin is mentioned in the immigration quotas in force when Herbert Hoover was seeing the laws were faithfully executed. Look up Hoover Proclamation 1953 of June 19, 1931 and you’ll see These States admitted 8.4 times as many of the Kaiser’s huns and Yugoslavians as loyal Frenchmen. Exactly 100 Persians (Eye-ranians nowadays) were allowable. Donald’s plan is GOP bidness as usual. I personally have no problem with the exclusion of amok-running berserker brainwashees measured for suicide vests.

  91. I’m not scrolling up. What’s the deal?

    1. Nothing. Some people went batshit about moozies and some other people are pearl-clutching and Well-I-Never!-ing and its all obviously pointless because its just more Trump-bluster.

      1. That doesn’t interest me.

        Going to Cabo on Sunday, just booked today. I’ll figure the rest out when I get there, but no fishing or surfing. Maybe next time.

        1. Good for you! Have a great time.

          yet you pain me by not even lying that you *might* fish. I (obviously) love it, and relish even the vicarious enjoyment of another person’s trip.

          re: Surfing… never heard of that off Cabo. There’s no break. You can barely *swim* because the depth drops off steeply mere yards from shore. maybe up the peninsula a bit there’s something i never saw.

          Do at least have some drinks in the marina @ one of those fisherman’s watering holes and ask whether there’s been any big marlin that season. For me.

      2. Still and all, Trump is sane and reasonable compared to the rest of God’s Own Pitiful mongrels. He also is preferable to the socialist democratic party candidates. Thank Allah for the LP, or I’d be tempted to vote for the cad.

    2. I told a few home truths about deep dish pizza, but people couldn’t handle the truth.

      1. That it’s actually casserole?

        1. That it is not mentioned in the Koran?

        2. Ah, you too have read the dread secrets in the musty pages of forbidden tomes, you too have discovered the nameless secrets lurking just beneath the tomato sauce.

          Having once learned these mysteries not meant for human eyes, I have not enjoyed so much as a fleeting moment of peace. The blasphemous horrors looking upon us with no friendly eyes are simply awaiting the time when they may emerge once again and reclaim what we had foolishly supposed to be our world.

          1. In a hidden room in the library of Miskatonic University there are volume upon volume of forbidden books, which should never have been written or, if written, ought to have been as soon destroyed. For it would be better for mankind to remain in ignorance than to acquire the dread knowledge locked between the pages of these codices.

            The most sinister and unspeakable of the forbidden books are in that room, as well as some hideous records which were preserved by abstruse mechanical processes…Tintin in Africa, the Star Wars Holiday Special…

            1. Ah, Doctor, you must not suppose me to be mad! Indeed, madness to me would be a relief. But, alas, it is no fever dream. What you suppose to be simple pizzas are, I now know to my sorrow, portals through which beings with infinite patience, and infinite malice, gaze upon our wretched planet and prepare for the time when they will…no, do not compel me to continue!

        3. I’d rather have a casserole than the sorry bookmarks and crackers these east coasters pass off as pizza

          1. Caniglias Restaurant in Omaha used to burn the top of the cheese. Never had that any where else. It was excellent. The place – after at least 25 yrs in business is now defunct.

  92. Nice job mammals, 900+ comments and no Artisinal mayo. Keep up the good work.

    1. No Mayo Cunt Lick either.

  93. Read every post.
    Reason is broken.
    I miss the old days when Old (New) Mexican would fill a thread with coherent, reasoned defenses of liberty.
    Too many Brietbartards and Federalist rejects now.
    Heck, I’d even take a good dose of Tony getting beat down right about now.

    1. Read every post

      Nah, I gotta work today.

      Warty summed it up nicely early on, no real need to read past his quip.

    2. There’s something to be said for what you’re suggesting. However, I do think a few people here have responded by going off the rails in the other direction – treating anyone who has even a whiff of conservatism about them as a class enemy.

  94. Fuck Trump and everyone who even attempts to apologize for him. I would honestly rather vote for Hillary Clinton.

    No, I would consider voting for Clinton a civic duty to prevent Trump from being elected and send the strongest possible message to his supporters that they are not welcome in our society. Giving these people a brutal electoral trouncing might be the one thing needed to finally purge them from the body politic, even if it means losing the fucking Senate.

    1. So you’re willing to sacrifice the entire country to socialism just to teach Trump a lesson, because he says things that hurt your feelings. Got it.

      1. He advocates doing things that are objectively worse for liberty than anything a Clinton administration would dare to try. Clinton would be four more years of basically the same shit we’ve got now. And there is no way the R’s will lose the house, so there’s no way they will get a blank check. It’s four more years of stalemate versus electing a fascist clown.

        1. He advocates doing things that are objectively worse for liberty than anything a Clinton administration would dare to try.

          That isn’t clear to me. It always struck me that they’re just fascists of a different stripe – Momma Fascist and Daddy Fascist, if you will.

          That said, I think your second point is key. Hilary would be facing hostile Congress. Trump might actually get to do wat he wanted.

          1. National socialists vs. International Socialists

        2. And the supreme court?

          The next president is going to choose at least two new justices — a position which arguably has far more long-term consequences for liberty than any single president. Considering the fact that we’re basically one vote away from essentially repealing the first, second, and fourth amendments, whom would you rather make that selection?

          At least Trump isn’t in the pocket of the social justice mob. Hillary would guarantee another Kagan or Sotomayor — or worse, considering the current mood of the left.

          With Trump (or any other Republican) there’s at worst a 50/50 chance of ending up with another Scalia or Thomas or Alito.

    2. Understandable, but still ingenuous. Voting for either version of the looter soft machine–the Inner Party or the Outer Party–is stupid. Voting for an upstart party is what changes the laws. Just as simian people talk about other people while the intelligent engage in conversation about ideas, so it is in politics. Parties are what write, pass and repeal laws, and candidates are merely their sockpuppet-hand in the till.

      1. I voted for the upstart party. But they couldn’t seem to get their up started.

    3. send the strongest possible message to his supporters that they are not welcome in our society

      Wouldn’t deportation send a stronger message?

  95. The worst part is if this was two random white dudes, or like some deranged teen shooting up an elementary school, all these people would be one here insisting that a few dead children is just the price we have to pay for liberty.

    1. Because the deranged crazies who occasionally shoot up schools aren’t part of a much larger, highly organized and well-funded political movement designed to undermine western civilization.

  96. Fascism is christian socialism. Ask any communist, or better yet, go straight to Doonesbury for the official CPUSA take on stuff. Trump-basher? Doonesbury was bashing Trump even before he liked libertarians or favored legalizing/decriminalizing weed. Commies also hate progressives. This week the strip has been backing Dr. Grop (duh, Prog) for making MDMA. Communism, mohammedanism and christianity all worship altruism & prohibition and despise freedom and reason.

    1. No – it is National Socialism. Leftist economic policies combined with nationalistic foreign and military policies.

      As opposed to International Socialism, as practiced the Obama Administration and the leaders of Western Europe. Same basic economic agenda, but they want to weaken and destroy national identities – hence the weak wasteful militaries, and policies that punish native populations and reward outsiders.

  97. Dudes got my vote! Screw the Muslims!

    http://www.GoneAnon.tk

    1. We need to end the ban on Holy Hand Grenades. The rodents are no longer afraid

  98. Cripes, people, what part of

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    is so hard to understand? And, yes, if you’re saying a person who practices a particular religion can’t come here you’re doing a whole lot of prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This joker is even saying our own countrymen who practice the wrong religion can’t be allowed to return to their homes.

    I understand. There’s a lot to be pissed off about here with militant Islam. Count me in on that. But, throwing away our God-given right and liberties to deal with it is the exact wrong answer. And, mark my words, the screw will turn. Do you really want a President Warren or a President Sanders vested with the power to have the government openly discriminate against religions?

    1. Next thing you know you will be all for them executing apostates in the town square. Wouldn’t want to inhibit “free exercise”.

      =====

      Me? No Soft Targets.

      1. There’s a difference. Killing people is violating someone’s rights. Having your own opinion about religion isn’t.

        But, hey, if that’s the say you want to go, why don’t we just insist Muslims wear a yellow crescent on the breast of their clothes. That way we know who they are. No soft targets, after all.

        1. How far along in the planning do they have to be before going after them?

          The real question is “Are We At War?” – all the rest follows.

          1. Zeig Heil, Simon. Zeig Heil.
            Nazi Pig.
            How’s life in the Idaho compound?

    2. Nobody is talking about Muslim citizens in the U.S. We are talking about immigration powers – granted to Congress in the Constitution.

      1. Nobody is talking about Muslim citizens in the U.S.

        Maybe you missed:

        When asked by The Hill whether [preventing any Muslim from entering] would include Muslim-American citizens currently abroad, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks replied over email: “Mr. Trump says, ‘everyone.'”

        And, yes, Congress has the power to set immigration policy. Within the context of the Constitution! And that happens to include the Bill of Rights.

        1. Anyone in the US is subject to the Constitution. Immigrants on the other side of the border can be suject to nearly any rule Congress decides. Past political association for instance.

    3. Islam is more of a political ideology than a religion at this point, and either way non-citizens outside the country are not protected by the constitution.

    4. since when does the constitution or the BOR apply to foreigners?

  99. Thank you, Donald Trump! You have gone one bridge too far, and have de-legitimized yourself as a serious candidate.

    He has peaked. Watch for his poll numbers to decline rapidly, leaving Cruz to take the lead. Maybe even Rand has a chance now.

    1. How much you want to bet?

    2. Thank you, Donald Trump! You have gone one bridge too far, and have de-legitimized yourself as a serious candidate.

      He has peaked. Watch for his poll numbers to decline rapidly, leaving Cruz to take the lead. Maybe even Rand has a chance now.

      You know. I have heard that before. My take? I don’t think so.

      1. He may just plateau. He has a low ceiling.

  100. Here’s a useful piece of advice. If you wake up one morning and find Dick Cheney has more respect for civil liberties than you do:

    https://goo.gl/5UfAoc

    you might want to take a step back and think a few things though.

    1. Actually – what Trump proposes is typical for a country at war.

      Are we At War? Well FWIW our “enemies” think they are.

      1. We are the Harbarians.

      2. We aren’t at war with all Muslims. And if you or Donald Trump think we should be making war on people, including a sizable number of our own countrymen, simply for their religion, you don’t have a lot of respect for the principles this country was founded on.

        1. Well some of them think they are at war with us.

        2. We are indeed at war with Muslims.

          What percentage remains to be seen, but It’s certainly more than half.

          1. More than 55% of all statistics quoted by nazi retards on the internet are completely pulled out of their asses.

            1. Every major poll of Muslims puts at least half of them supporting things like Sharia government, death for apostasy, and the establishment of a caliphate, with nearly a quarter supporting terrorism to achieve political goals in the west.

              So yes, if you believe in Sharia government, then you are my enemy and I make no apologies for that.

  101. The screeches of a popular billionaire cascading like gold-flecked white waters through the root-like channels of national pride can only be worshiped when your fucking halls of power are lined with goddamn brickheads and dolts consumed with mediocrity and collective adherence to mechanical governance that pushes few philosophical boundaries while these floods of highly-educated historical landmark-lurking apes can’t resist unzipping their Valentinos and spreading their meatchunks for their daily anal penetration from the establishment boyos.

    1. WBurroughs would be proud.

  102. Just think, if they don’t post AM Links on time, this thing could reach well over a thousand comments. And not due to rampant trolling or it being a lonely weekend post!

    This is what makes America great.

    1. Someone needs to put it out of its misery. Worst thread ever.

      1. It looks like ENB granted your wish by posting an article about internet porn I think.

        1. I always picture her naked when I read her articles so just as good:) jk. nk.

    1. Horrible murderous, hard as nails populist tyrant with empire on his mind and a soft spot for aboriginal foundlings? Rothbard actually refers to Jackson as a libertarian in his book on the history of money and banking in the United States due to his preference for specie.

  103. We have dealt with this kind of problem before. Except they wer called Indians. You know – Apache, Cheyenne, etc.

    It was quite ugly for a long time.

  104. I just dropped in to say: fuck all of you pants-hitting little fucking fascists. Fuck you and the goose-stepping horse you fucked in on.

    I hope all of you get stuck in each other’s assholes while fingering them.

    1. Perhaps you can have a word with your Dar el Harb friends and point out to them the merits of avoiding war. Explain to them that war is bad for liberty. Thomas Jefferson will be right there with you.

      =====

      Thomas Jefferson and John Adams reporting to John Jay, re upcoming Barbary Wars lead by Jefferson. Americas first “War on Terror”

      It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [2] [3] – Thomas Jefferson

  105. i don’t think about any man who get a big income throw net …. if you know how to get visit it … Income-reports48.com

  106. Is it just a coincidence that these “refugees” are fleeing countries that we’ve rubblized?

  107. I’m really hoping this guy just fades away. He’s becoming hard to defend on any level.

    If he wins, Shikha might post a tearful farewell article and move to Canada.

    1. Worth it just for that.

  108. I’m really hoping this guy just fades away. He’s becoming hard to defend on any level.

    If he wins, Shikha might post a tearful farewell article and move to Canada.

    1. and nothing of value will be lost

  109. The idea of separating immigrants is of course unconstitutional. But what Reason and our one political party don’t seem to get is if they had gotten our border under control as the majority of Americans have been demanding for years this wouldn’t even be an issue. When there’s no such thing as an illegal alien laws only apply to citizens. When a country has no control over its borders it’s not a country. Jobs to immigrants rose this month by an almost identical number to the decline in jobs for those born in the USA. All the pointing out of how crazy Trump is only serves to remind people how ignored and pissed off they are. Trump thanks you for all the free advertising.

    1. “…is of course unconstitutional”–I missed that chapter and verse.
      Don’t mistake this note as being favorable to trump. I merely favor constitutional accuracy.

  110. Let me ask you guys a question, how does muslim immigration benefit the USA?
    After how many people are killed by islamic terrorism , is it acceptable to ban muslim immigration into the USA?

  111. Trump plays a dumbass for populism. That said; To open-border libertarians:
    We cannot offer a constitutional world to the residents of our yard if we do not exercise some border control.

  112. “When asked by The Hill whether [preventing any Muslim from entering] would include Muslim-American citizens currently abroad, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks replied over email: “Mr. Trump says, ‘everyone.'”

    Uh huh. Reason joins the MSM and lies and lies and lies again when it comes to Trump.

    In the linked article, plain as day:
    “If a person is a Muslim and goes overseas and come back, they can come back. They are a citizen, that is different,” Trump said

    Every lie the MSM tells about Trump makes him that much more immune to fair criticism, should they ever bother with that.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.