Brussels Attack

Ted Cruz Wants Special Police Patrols in Muslim Communities. Ask NYPD How That Went for Them.

(Spoiler: It alienated people and didn't uncover radicals.)



So now Sen. Ted Cruz is in favor of "New York values" after all? In response to the terrorist attack (ISIS is now claiming responsibility) in Brussels, Belgium, Cruz repeated his campaign talking points about President Barack Obama refusing to say "radical Islamic terrorism," but he also added, "We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized."

This treats radicalization as though it is some sort of transmittable virus. It also expresses an attitude of inevitability to it. Cruz suggests that if the police don't do anything, Muslims in their neighborhoods are all destined to turn into violent radicals regardless of how they currently feel.

We know that's not true, and we know what this mindset ends up leading to, because the New York Police Department already pulled this post-Sept. 11. Their idea of "securing" Muslim neighborhoods before they "become radicalized" involved mass surveillance of Muslim communities in New York and New Jersey, the use of paid informants, and in the end it actually damaged the police's relationship with the community once it was exposed. What it didn't do is actually uncover so much as a single radical plot by potential Muslim terrorists in the community. Eventually, after being sued, the NYPD agreed to end the program.

Cruz is nominally against some mass surveillance. He supported the USA Freedom Act, which scaled back some of the mass metadata surveillance authorities the National Security Agency (NSA) seized under the PATRIOT Act. Treating about three million Muslims in the United States as potential terrorists on the basis of affiliation with a particular faith is yet another justification for mass surveillance.

The reality is that there is no simple, easy solution to fighting possible homegrown radicalization, and this is an election cycle that revolves around declaring problems can be fixed by assertion and fiat. We'll close our borders! We'll kick out all illegal immigrants! We'll just make college free! We'll "defeat ISIS." Most of the political responses to the Brussels attacks have been to repeat the same things these people have been saying all along. There is no introspection here from a candidate who claims to support religious liberty. Imagine if police responded to a Christian domestic terrorist attack by mimicking this model proposed by Cruz. He would make an advertisement out of it as evidence of Christianity being "under attack" and campaign on it. And he'd be right.

The response from those who fear Muslim radical violence is that the comparison isn't fair because there are many more of those terrorists than the occasional Christian who runs amok. While this is true, that doesn't logically mean that Muslim radicalization is therefore some inexplicable disease that randomly takes hold of practitioners of the faith and turns them dangerous, like some sort of demonic possession. If there were a massive uptick in Christian terrorism, it's still extremely unlikely that Americans would accept mass surveillance as part of the solution and they certainly would not embrace an argument that contends that communities need to be "secured" from magically spread radicalization. Whatever the solution to Muslim radicalization is, New York City has already shown us that it is most certainly not treating the faithful as though they are potential threats.

Update — The Cruz campaign elaborated on his comments, courtesy of Sahil Kapur of Bloomberg:


I think the senator has confused snooping on Muslim communities with working with them.

NEXT: China Bashing Is a Bipartisan Sport and It's Back With a Vengeance

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Count on Ted to remind you every chance he gets that he was a prosecutor. He’s a hammer, and everything looks a like a nail.

    1. You know who else…

      1. I was thinking about Chris Christie, who although no facist, certainly has authoritarian tendencies.

        1. He’s more of a stomachist.

    2. Yes, by all means let’s stop the police from establishing basic law an order in all our communities. Then we too can have episodes like that experienced by the 60 Minutes crew in Sweden. The one where they requested a police escort only to be told by the responding officer that he would not accompany them into the Somali neighborhood, lest his mere presence be a provocation of the locals.

      1. I agree with you in that even in a libertarian utopia, for rule of law to exist, the law of the land must extend into all communities within the geographic boundaries of the country.

        In other words, we CANNOT have no-go zones where law enforcement does not extend within the boundaries of a country. Yes, this sounds anti-libertarian, but the libertarian response to this is to reduce the number of laws that law enforcement has to enforce to the very bare minimum.

        What Shackford appears to be talking about (but that Cruz may not be talking about, if the clarification is to be believed) is special police patrols focusing on Muslim communities (or inner city communities, for that matter). This raises challenging problems. 1) Does ANY neighborhood deserve special scrutiny? Predictive policing with Big Data analytics is proving that there ARE problematic communities that for whatever reason commit more violent crime. That is a fact, but is it fair or just to target them? No, not according to ethics theory. 2) PR and community relations WILL be impacted by the perception of extra scrutiny, no matter what the results may be. We see this in NYC’s stop-and-frisk tactics. Crime went down, provably, but it made blacks hate the cops more.

        These challenges aren’t easy to solve. In fact, I would say they are impossible to solve.

        1. Actually we don’t need ‘predictive policing’ or ‘big data’, we just need common sense.

          And common sense tells us that it’s prudent to pay special attention to the Muslim community these days. Period.

          Maybe they’ll find nothing, maybe it’ll offend some people, but there is literally no harm in paying extra attention to Muslim-majority communities, considering that many of these communities tend to not assimilate, become insular, and breed radicals.

  2. So…he wants to effectively create banlieues where there are currently none?

    1. What’s wrong with more bathrooms?

      1. Nothing, I suppose. It gives your mom more places to work. Those glory holes don’t man themselves.

        Dee: Why would you want to have sex with someone you can’t see?

        Dennis: Well, Dee, I think the real question is … why wouldn’t you want to have sex with someone you can’t see?

        1. I’m not sure “manned” is the correct term here, given that it’s your mom. “Staffed.”

          1. Well then I have some news for you.

            1. Oops, your mom, not Epi’s. Sorry.

          2. You might want to do a gene panel on her. She’s a hermaphrodite. She’s also my dad.

            1. So you’re what happens when someone who can is told to go fuck themself?

              1. In the flesh, baby!

                I also have a tail.

                1. I also have a tail.

                  Yes, we know. Growing out of your left temple.

                  It’s disturbing.

                  1. It’s a tail that’s WAY too ticklish to tell… Ah haz been tickled by it, but doNAH tell ANY ONE abou tit!

  3. So, not that I’m a fan of mass surveillance, but I would note as a counterpoint here that a heavy dose of undercover infiltration by the FBI certainly helped neuter the KKK, once upon a time.

    1. The same FBI that is now the #1 instigator of terrorist plots foiled in the United States?

    2. According to who? The FBI? The same FBI who stops “terrorists” by getting some 23-year-old loser to agree to follow a plot completely instigated by an agent?

      1. At this point I would not be surprised to find out most if not all radical groups in this country were actually started by the FBI as false flags meant to snare potential terrorists.

        1. A good documentary on an example of that: The Newburgh Sting.

          1. It’s not paranoia if they are really out to get you. *adjusts tinfoil hat.

    3. These proposed Muslim patrols aren’t undercover.

      1. You see, it drives them into the hands of the undercover agents who are acting as fake terrorist recruiters to capture them.

        1. Wasn’t that an episode of The Americans?! *Looks at commentariat* Great show, by the way.

          1. Jesus why are their so many good shows. I still haven’t finished Deadwood yet.

              1. Finally!!!! Yes!!!!!! I will do the James Brown allllllll over your mother effin LAWN!!!!! And do the Mashed potato all in your flower garden!!!!!!! And the bugaloo too!!!!!

          2. Americans prediction for tonight’s episode: The mail robot dies.

    4. The KKK was culturally integrated enough with the US that infiltration was more feasible (same for other domestic groups). The number of agents who can infiltrate an Islamic group is more limited, and, insofar as they are qualified due to their cultural similarities with the terrorists, they are probably a bigger risk of being double-agents or being subverted.

      1. ^This. It was easy for the FBI to find white protestants.

    5. So, not that I’m a fan of mass surveillance…

      Except when you are.

      1. Undercover infiltration isn’t mass surveillance by definition, because you only have so much manpower.

        1. Agreed. Also, isn’t this the “old-fashioned detective work” that is commonly presented as the successful alternative to electronic mass surveillance?

          I would say targeted police infiltration is exactly what we need, so long every action they take is backed by a warrant from a non-secret court.

  4. The reality is that there is no simple, easy solution to fighting possible homegrown radicalization, and this is an election cycle that revolves around declaring problems can be fixed by assertion and fiat.

    Sez U! I don’t care about solutions unless they are final.

    1. You know who . . . oh, fer christ’s sake, this is just too easy.

      1. AP Calculus final exam graders?

    2. Fiat’s don’t fix anything! If you’re gonna go Italian, and non-exotic, go Maserati.

  5. that doesn’t logically mean that Muslim radicalization is therefore some inexplicable disease that randomly takes hold of practitioners of the faith and turns them dangerous, like some sort of demonic possession.

    Sounds like an area where you should do some more research. Maybe some other factor is at work. (hint: read the Koran)

    1. Did you know that with an almost 30% Arab population, Dearborn has fallen completely to Sharia law? True story. We were all warned.

      1. Look Doyers, collectivizing people is hard work. You have to work hard at being an intellectually lazy shithead.

        1. If I said ‘lots of bad things happen as a result of Communism’ would you say I was collectivizing people on the grounds that you know a bunch of Marxists at the local community college who have never starved anyone to death?

          I personally met a Communist who, to my knowledge, has never shot any Kulaks to death but that doesn’t change the fact that the ideology is dangerous. I don’t know why it’s suddenly collectivizing to point out that an ideology is dangerous once that ideology calls itself a religion.

          1. Ideologies don’t kill people. People kill people.

            1. However, ideology was the motivation in over 100 million murders in the last century.

              1. How many hundreds of millions were motivated by romantic love and sexuality?

                BAN FUCKING!!!

                1. BAN FUCKING!!!

                  Finally you say something I agree with.

          2. Many people are “religious” without it being an ideology. Look at all the people who call themselves Christians and have about as much ideology as Taylor Swift. Or Jewish. Or…wait for it…Muslim.

            1. and have about as much ideology as Taylor Swift

              You leave Swizzle out of this you wretched freak!

              1. Tadolf Switler is indeed worse than Hitler.

            2. I find it interesting that in your mind religion isn’t a ideology. It’s like you’ve spent so much time with Christians that you’ve forgotten that hypocrisy is their standard operating procedure.

              1. Nothing like anti-christian bigotry to brighten up the day.

            3. “Many people are “religious” without it being an ideology. Look at all the people who call themselves Christians and have about as much ideology as Taylor Swift. Or Jewish. Or…wait for it…Muslim.”
              I get the feeling most contemporary members of many religions feels this way, even if they can’t always vocalize it.

          3. Agreed. Ideologies can be dangerous without ever killing anyone so long as they advocate the taking of resources from other persons. As such, both Democrats and Republicans are dangerous because they like “tax and spend” or “borrow and spend and tax later” strategies that effectively prevent future generations from being born (see Japan’s demographic collapse).

      2. What does that mean?

        1. Seems fairly obvious. The Koran doesn’t transform people into raving radical terrorist lunatics and it’s possible to have a large Muslim population without terrorism and Sharia law inevitably following.

          1. I was asking Los.

            You seem hell-bent on defending Islam with minimal information.

          2. I was asking Los.

            You seem hell-bent on defending Islam with minimal information.

            1. You seem hell-bent on collectivizing all Muslims with minimal thinking. So I guess you two are even.

              1. I’ll wager I’ve spent more time in Muslim countries and more time reading Islamic scripture than you or Zeb.

                Actually had a fairly positive opinion of Islam in 1990 when I arrived in Saudi Arabia and started reading the Koran on page 1 out of boredom. I really bought the “few bad apples” theory.

                The reading and the people gradually changed my opinion.

                1. I really don’t think anyone here is saying that Islam is a nice, friendly religion of peace.

                  The objection to some of what you and others say is that even if you do have a better understanding of the fundamentals and scriptures of the religion (which you probably do), you assign collective guilt to a large, diverse and largely peaceful group of people who mostly just want to live their lives. The Dearborn example is quite relevant in that there you have a US city with a very large Muslim population that is not a hotbed of beheadings, terrorist plots and Sharia law.

                  1. Can we assign collective guilt to Nazis who didn’t work at concentration camps, KKK members who never participated in a lynching, etc…? Where’s the line?

                    1. The line is anything that currently supports:

                      Open borders no matter what.
                      Unrestricted immigration no matter what
                      A blanket indictment of all foreign military indictments
                      A blanket indictment of all police activity
                      Condemning Trump
                      Mexican hookers
                      Mexican pot

                      I probably missed a few things. But you get the idea.

                    2. People are largely born into a religion. And if they are born in a Muslim country, they do not get to choose their religion at any point. Joining the Nazi party or the KKK took effort and was done specifically because of the ideology. Especially in the case of becoming a real member of the Nazi party.

                      I don’t think it is comparable. While, if you are in a reasonably free country, religion is ultimately something people can choose, it mostly is not something that people choose. People have the religion of their parents for the most part. Children don’t learn religion by having the ideology and rules laid out for them. They learn the rituals and traditions through family and community. You talk about it as if every Muslim has read the whole Koran and made a rational decision that that is what they are going to believe. But that’s just not how religion works for the vast majority of people. For converts (or those converted to a radical form of a religion) the story is a bit different. I’d be a little more inclined to be suspicious of them as a group. But (personal anecdote) the one or two Muslim converts I actually know are some kind of Sufi thing and I’m pretty sure they weren’t attracted to it for the conquest and death.

                      A better analogy might be to assigning collective guilt to all German citizens who didn’t renounce their citizenship once the Nazis came to power.

                    3. Well, given the number of muslims worldwide who agree (and act on) with Mohammed’s command to kill those who leave the faith…there might be a bit of a disincentive for converting in a lot of areas.

                    4. I don’t really care about the egg, i care about the chicken. Whatever their motivations, whether it was indoctrination by a culture that’s Islamic, whether it’s because they’ve read the Koran cover to cover a dozen times. It doesn’t matter. What matters is their actions.

                      Trying to suggest that “well, you know, it’s OK that they’re throwing gay people off of roofs, genitally mutilating girls, and honor killing daughters who have premarital sex, because, you know, they were born into that culture, so that absolves them of responsibility for their actions”, is absurd.

                      They CHOSE to throw the gay guy off the roof, they chose to honor kill their sister/daughter. Even if they didn’t do it themselves, they CHOSE to stand idly by and allow it to happen. The reasons behind why they chose to do these things are utterly fucking irrelevant.

                      Someone gave a good example, if someone handed you a glass of water, and told you that it was only 5% shit to 95% water, are you still gonna drink it? Furthermore, do you really care how or why the shit got into the water when you are deciding whether or not to drink this water?

                      You operate off the information and the reality of a situation, you don’t sit in the corner and jerk off and philosophize reasons as to why someone is doing what they are doing, you operate off of what they ARE doing.

                  2. How does one subvert Federal law with township law exactly? I’m very curious how a local town can enact Sharia Law here in the United States. Is there a form to fill out to ignore our founding documents?

                    1. There is this term called “de facto”. Read up on it. Basically the point is, if they do sharia law, and nobody challenges it, then whether they are breaking the law or not is irrelevant. Laws only matter when they are enforced.

            2. No, actually I think Islam is a lousy religion and I have no interest at all in defending it. I am interested in defending the individuals who subscribe to a particular religion as individuals.

          3. You’re pretty sure to not have terrorism and Sharia law if you don’t have a Muslim population at all. And it helps if you don’t spend taxpayer money to import them from halfway around the world.

            1. You’re also sure to not have gun deaths if you don’t have any war-mongering gun fapping crypto-Republican retards in your neighbhourhood.
              So, do you agree to fuck off and die, Suicidy?

          4. Well, no, the book doesn’t do that. It’s an object. Specifically, it’s believing a certain percentage of the words in it are the word of sky daddy.

            1. Bitter atheist says what?

              1. I should have added…”Gawd-fearing Christ humper…

        2. It means that they’re already here, have already infiltrated our government, and have undermined our American way of life, and it stops now.

          1. If you need the government to protect your culture, your culture is already dead.

            1. And if the government is the one selling out your culture with a vengence?

      3. Buuuut, a lot of those Arabs are Maronite Catholics who fled, or whose ancestors fled, religious persecution.

        1. Like Congressman Justin Amash.

        2. Catholics? Even worse.

          1. Do you get your crosses retail or wholesale ahead of the lawn burnings, Los?

    2. So what are you saying? It is complete chance whether Muslims become radical terrorists or not? Since every Muslim reads or follows the Koran in one way or another, and the vast majority are not terrorists, there must be some other factor involved if it’s not random chance (which can easily be refuted).

      1. Here is what I think it is written better than I could. It isn’t “if” they want to re-establish a Caliphate, it’s “when”. Or, where does each group and individual fall on the “Caliphate curve”.…..curve.html

      2. Random? No. Maybe something to do with an overdose of gamma rays. I hear those can turn you into a giant green rage monster. So becoming an exploding murdering Muslim martyr monster isn’t too far fetched.

    3. Kay.

      “There shall be no compulsion in acceptance of the religion” 2:256

      Yeah. That book’s definitely the reason for radicals.

      1. Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

        Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”

        You should also read the Hadith which includes Mohammad ordering the assassination of a poet who offended him. According to Islamic tradition, Mohammad once burned a man with hot metal until he gave up his treasure, at which time Mohammad killed every member of that tribe and raped the man’s daughter.

        You’ve got your one out of context quote though, so I’m sure you’re right.

        1. “You should also read the Hadith”

          Bitch, Drake said “KORAN”. You want me to go into all the ways Hadith is bullshit, I can spend an hour typing up the fact that it rains on houses even if you put dogs inside of them, contrary to the Hadith, but that’s NOT RELEVANT to the singular point I was discussing, because ~get this~ I was responding to the claim that the Koran is the source of the problem!! Perhaps Hadith IS the source of the problem!! I’m totally not against THAT particular claim!! BUT THAT WASN’T THE CLAIM I WAS ADDRESSING, NOW WAS IT.

          You’re an //idiot// who thinks just because I object to the idea the Koran is the source of radicalism that I’d also object to the Hadith being the source. Are you capable of realizing that NOT ALL PEOPLE SHARE A VIEW ON Y WITH THE SAME PEOPLE WITH WHOM THEY SHARE A VIEW ON X??

          1. Technically I don’t feel it’s worth it to go on, but if you want to continue talking QURAN and not HADITH off topic as if I should share the same opinions on /every/ Islamic scripture because I uttered a defense for one particular book in one instance, let’s continue:

            Quran (2:216): “Fighting can be good for you”. Without context, I totally agree. If someone is trying to murder me or someone I love and the means of self defense is available, I would totally advocate fighting. Only some always-pacifistic fool would disagree, devoid of context. What is the context of 2:216 I wonder??

            For context: let’s look at the next verse “Say, ‘Fighting therein is great sin, but averting from the way of God and disbelief in Him and preventing access to the Sacred Mosque and the expulsion of its people therefrom are greater evil in the sight of God. And strife is greater than killing.’ And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they are able.”

            So contextually: the Quran in this particular verse tells you to fight if someone expels Muslims from the Sacred Mosque and bars access from the site and tries to fight you to forcibly convert you. That is in my opinion a valid reason for fighting.

            1. Quran (3:151): OH NO!! UNBELIEVERS GOING TO HELL!? WHAT A HORRIFYING THING NOT FOUND IN ANY OTHER RELIGION ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET!! /Buddhism/ (non-Theravada at least) teaches that bad people go to Hell. This isn’t exactly a /novel/ belief, nor does it separate extremists from non-extremists. If you want to identify the problem, a belief in sinners being punished is way to broad of a scope and shows you nothing.

              “One out of context quote”. When I think a quote is “out of context”, I will prove it by citing the context. Do the same, or shut up. In full context it pretty much says “There shall be no compulsion in accepting the religion, because Islam’s rightness is so evident, that there is no need to force anyone to accept it.” The reasoning for the no-compulsion rule is very debatable, but the rule clearly stands. If you disagree, provide the context around the quote, and explain why it is contextually different than what I am reading. Put up or shut up.

              1. You’re working very hard to defend the Quran. That energy could be out to productive use. Like not defending the Quran.

                1. Taking aim at the Quran is counterproductive. The thing causing extremism is not that particular book, it is the teachings of the Wahhabi/Salafi movement. A movement we support in Saudi Arabia, the movement tearing apart Syria and Iraq, the movement responsible for attacks on American soil.

                  Focusing on a target as broad as ALL of Islam is only slightly more counterproductive then focusing on ALL Abrahamic Faiths as the problem to this issue. We KNOW the sect behind the vast majority of terrorism. We refuse to openly name the Wahhabis as the source, because for SOME unholy reason we have decided to ally WITH the Wahhabis and fund their head-chopping theocratic monarchy. Our focus on “Islam” has repeatedly led us to target secular Muslim states and empower Salafist rebels. We need to focus on the religion truly responsible, the specific sect, not the overarching religious group. We need to focus on the Wahhabis and their “reformation”. We need to cut our alliance with Wahhabism.

                  Focusing on Islam itself, or the Quran, is blatantly unhelpful. It’s not working. And we’re stuck in a situation where both sides refuse to acknowledge the problem group. One doesn’t want to target any sect because “racism” and the other is to busy targeting every religious group even slightly related to the problem one because heaven forbid we use nuance and focus on the sect at the root of these problems, because then we might have to acknowledge that most terrorism comes from our /ally/.

                  1. I mostly just take aim at muslims. And having less of them in close proximity to me and mine is a great start. American muslims have the same rights as everyone else. But importing MORE of them is a shaky proposition at best. We need to keep their numbers as low as possible.

                    One day, the de-muslimifier ray will be invented. And these monsters can be changed back to normal.

                  2. Sura 9. 5 nuff said.

          2. He’s also a racist.

      2. I don’t think a mere book is a reason for the radicals, but that’s just some cherry-picked part of it. There are surely horrible and violent parts of it which contradict that part, much like with the bible. People can choose to selectively follow only the parts they want, sure, but that doesn’t mean the bad things don’t exist.

    4. People like you confuse the issue. Do you really look at the Muslim non-terrorists and Muslim terrorists and conclude that the difference is that the terrorists are the ones that read the Quran??

      The idea of looking for the thing that turns people to terrorism would be competent if you people weren’t convinced of your conclusion from the get-go.

      It’s as if the Westborough Baptist Church started shooting people you’d think that the thing that made them terrorists must have been the Bible.

      You want to find the source of the problem, but are unwilling to dig any deeper than “Islam”. Meanwhile the West is busy toppling secular Muslim nations and propping up Wahhabi dictatorships because you’ve utterly failed to realize that a movement WITHIN Islam is the root of this problem, and are trying to broadly target the whole thing.

      1. The Westborough Baptist Church has a few dozen members (at best) in one location. Radical Islam has tens of millions of practitioners around the globe. Many with well organized and well funded terror networks. They also control states like Lebanon and Iran. Therefore your comparison is spurious at best, and also downright ridiculous. Really, it appears as if you are suffering from some severe delusion as regards this subject. Similar to the kind of personality disorders the affect hardcore progressives.

        1. Excellent response.

      2. If you read the Quran literally it tells you to kill people.
        If you don’t you are a bad Muslim.

        Mohammed is your guide, and the evils he committed you should follow.

        Daesh quotes the Quran. Don’t tell me you’re a better Muslim then them because you’re not. And they would tell you so at the point of a sword.

  6. Are you a Sunni or a Shit?

      1. Feel the burn.

  7. The real tragedy in Brussels is that Ted Cruz says stuff. Right?

    1. I’d pair this comment with a nice aged English cheddar, and maybe some onion jam.

        1. Onion jam signals exquisite taste.

        2. It’s’s signature recipe. Rohypnol levels vary.

          1. That would explain the odor.

          2. Clearly not high enough. You seem to be building a tolerance.

        3. Oh, I was experimenting with caramelized onions done in the pressure cooker. Nice and buttery, broke down to a jam-like texture. Went really well with just about everything.

          1. That makes a bit more sense.

            1. OMWC suggested that I cut the onions longitudinally if I want more traditional caramelized onion texture, so that’ll be the next try. I also need to experiment with making a huge batch and freezing it in an ice cube tray for easy chunks to throw into recipes for flavor bombs. The jam-like texture may actually be better for that.

              1. Yes, when you slice along latitude, the onions tend to melt. Longitudinally (i.e., north-south cuts), the pieces stay more separate and distinct. It’s a matter of the grain.

                My onion soup is legendary.

                1. I’ve never heard of it.

          2. broke down to a jam-like texture

            *stifles vomit*

            Raw or GTFO

            1. Your brokenness is duly noted.

          3. Also makes an awesome base for an Indian style curry.

    2. The bottom line is another mass murder by Islamic cowards. And lots of people here doing mental gymnastics to gloss over the whole thing and condemn Ted Cruz’s reaction to it. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between the rpReason Commentariat and the orogressives.

      1. Idiots like Cruz want to spend time and money policing all Muslims when we know the one group that is responsible here. The same movement that is behind ISIS and the same movement that we SUPPORT in Saudi Arabia.

        You want us to focus on ALL Muslims when we’d be better served, both in time, money, and efficiency, merely focusing on the Wahhabi/Salafi movement, where the problem is coming from.

        But nah, you’d rather waste money policing every Muslim. Heaven forbid we use nuance and narrow our focus.

        1. Yes, that is exactly what Cruz said “police all the Muslims.”

          And you are a genius for noting it.


    3. All this pants shitting over Cruz, and no mentions about Chocolate Stalin ignoring it to take in a baseball game during his shameful, treasonous, and idiotic trip to Cuba.

      1. Now now, criticizing Obama is what the terrorists WANT us to do. We’d be playing right into their hands.

    4. Now you’re getting it.

      We mustn’t overreact here. Wouldn’t want anyone to think we’re warmongers or anything, especially the people who say they’re at war with us. We need to just get a copy of Ayn Rand into their hands, and it’ll be smooth sailing after that.

  8. This is the religious freedom candidate.

    1. Islam isn’t a religion, it’s a political movement. Duh.

      1. You say that like there’s a difference.

        1. Well, no one would be the political freedom candidate.

      2. It’s a floor wax and a dessert topping too.

  9. The US doesn’t need this. Europe does, though, given the very open attacks on people that enter certain neighborhoods.

    Waiting for some dumbass crew of journalists to head in, and then opening up Punisher-style on the mob that comes out to assault them seems like a more viable policing strategy than patrols in the long run, though. Evolution at work.

    1. Patrols are…dumb. Of course they can see them coming and pass the word. Then once the patrol leaves the locals know they won’t be back for a while.

      1. Exactly, hence the Punisher thing. I mean, it would need to be an ambush, obvs.

      2. There are other goals of a police presence besides catching or eliminating the bad guys. It can also allow the non criminal element to exist in the area as well. It can even allow that non-radical element to enjoy a modicum of Liberty.

        But hey, wherever did we get this silly idea that governments might exist to protect and promote such an ideal?

      3. Establishing a presence isn’t dumb. Especially after entire neighborhoods have been conceded.

    2. And Europe has those problems because of they foolishly allowed mass immigration by Muslims into their countries for decades. Look how that’s turned out. And people here trying to justify unlimited Islamic immigration here.

      1. Europe has these problems because Britain and France decided that propping up a Wahhabi rebellion and helping to bring about a Wahhabi nation was a good idea. They’re not propping it up primarily anymore, now the US is propping it up with billions and billions in aid.

        When you fund religious extremists, you reap what you sow.

        But, hmmm, rather than stop funding the Wahhabis, you think the more sensible solution is blocking any-and-all religions similar to the Wahhabis from entering is a good idea. Why not ban Christians, Jews, and Baha’is as well. Those groups are vaguely similar to the Wahhabis. They all follow Moses, after all.

        1. Lol vagely similar. Keep reaching. Maybe you’ll catch something one day.

    3. Yeah, where IS Frank Castle when you need him?

  10. The more you look at Ted Cruz, the more he resembles Richard Nixon.

    1. His bastard son is pretty good at basketball. And an asshole.

    2. I can never unsee Grandpa Munster now.

    3. Tragically, Nixon would be an improvement over what we’ve had this millennium.
      Can you imagine what would have happened if Nixon had adopted a policy of extrajudicial assassination without any hope of judicial review? By comparison with the last 20 years or so, Nixon was a pussy cat lightweight.
      The tragedy of my generation is to see that transition happen. The horror is how many cheered.

  11. I really have to update my “jump to conclusions” mat.

  12. You know who else wanted special patrols for religious minorities…

    1. The Caliphate Tax Collectors?

    2. The High Septon?

    3. Emperor Tiberius?

    4. King Abu Kariba of Himyar?

    5. The Spanish Inquisition??

    6. Loretta Lynch?

    7. Yeah, because those Jews were blowing up shit left and right. That’s the same…….

  13. “We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.”

    Ugh. *facepalm*

    1. Right! The police just don’t have enough power! How dare you insinuate otherwise!

    2. Yeah, “patrols” up and down the street are really going to cut down on radicalization happening in people’s houses and mosques.

      1. Maybe start kicking in their doors in the middle of the night and dragging their family members away for questioning. Or lock down their mosques during worship and make everyone kneel with their hands on their heads while you toss the place. That ought to keep the radical elements out.

        1. This should be fine considering blowback is just a myth.

      2. No, what we need are internment camps pending deportation. Get the muslims out of the country, period.

  14. I’m in favor of having special Muslim patrols in police communities.

      1. If you’re going to say French model, at least link a picture.

      2. What is this about French models?

      3. The French population is heavily armed?

        1. I hear the armed population is heavily French.
          Haha! Who are we kidding, we’ll beat them back with flowers!

          Tolerance! The poison that kills.

      4. I would like for French models to come patrol my place. The female French models anyway.

        1. Bonjour Suicideeee, want to taste my baguette?

          1. Hon hon hon!!!!!

    1. I like it! Staten Island would get weird.

      1. It would “get weird”? C+ millennial trolling

        1. First wave millennials are above trolling.

          1. They were into trolling before it was cool, but it’s like so over now.

  15. I’ve often mocked Gillespie when he once adoringly suggested that Cruz might be the future of the Republican Party.

    But between Cruz and Trump they overwhelmingly enjoy the majority of Republican votes. That GOP brand of xenophobia is strong and is not the future of the party, it’s in fact the present.

    Good job, Nick! Unfortunately, you should have saved your adorations.

    1. Are you a Muslum?

    2. joe, you can’t mock anyone when you’re under four feet tall. Try again.

      1. Hey Epi, did you know that Corey Lewandowski is also from Lowell?

        1. Nicole, it’s really collectivist to imply that being from Lowell makes you retarded. I’m sure there are Massholes from Lowell who are just semi-retarded. Like, imbeciles or something.

            1. What did you just call me?!?

              1. A simple farmer. A person of the land. The common clay of the new West.

      2. Are you saying he has a small dick and makes up for it by being a complete shithead?

        1. Hey, it accounts for Hillary.

          1. Hillary doesn’t have a small dick.

            1. Hillary speaks shrilly and carries a big dick.

    3. Here’s a tip. Nick writes an article about how every candidate might be a sign of the future of their party.

      1. Good point.

    4. Someone remind Jackand Ace Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and one of the architects of the refugee crisis, is running for president.

      Islam is not viewed positively anywhere outside of the middle east. Your retarded, knee jerk cries of “xenophobia” will become but an echo is a silent room as most of the world will start to favor radical measures (right or wrong) to prevent these attacks.

    5. Nothing says xenophobia like a progressive. You shitbag faggot cookies are completely toxic towards anyone or anything that isn’t in lockstep with your bullshit religion. And that’s what it is, a religion. The Church of Progressive Orthodoxy. With your AGW, your Marxism, and your unending racism.

  16. You guys know there’s an election on and a fight over the nomination with Trump–who ‘s the front runner in spite of because of the ridiculous shit he says, right?

    Cruz would be an idiot not to say some stupid shit ahead of the next round of primaries. Stupid shit sells.

    1. This guy gets it! ^^^^^^

  17. Raise your hand if you’re depressed.

    1. I would, but just can’t be bothered to care anymore.

    2. I can’t be arsed to make the effort.

    3. This is one of those days in which I wish I kept bourbon in my office.

    4. I only raise mine when I’m Sure?!

    5. (adds new criteria, “Raises Hand”, to DSM)

    6. Q: How many hipsters does it take to screw in a light bulb?

      A: Dude, the light bulb was much cooler before it changed.

      1. Q. Did you hear about the hipster who burned the roof of his mouth?

        A. He bit into his pizza before it was cool.

        1. Q: What is the best way to kill a hipster?

          A: Drown them in the mainstream.

          1. If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody’s around to hear it, will a hipster buy the soundtrack?

            1. Depends. Is it on vinyl?

        2. (quietly unholsters pistol, screws on silencer)

          1. It’s like you’re not even trying anymore with these masturbation euphemisms.

            1. Are we not doing phrasing any more?!?

              1. Did we ever?

                1. You’re not my supervisor!!!

            2. Just like those blind gypsy woman said!

  18. The attacks on Cruz have gone way over the top!…..dida-52562

  19. Meh. Sure reading a lot into one sentence. “Empower” sounds scary perhaps. “Secure” might mean anything. “patrolling” the streets is what they’re supposed to do already.

  20. Surely there will come a candidate who never panders??!

    1. Show me a candidate who never panders, and i’ll show you someone who is and will remain unemployed.

  21. Raise your hand if you’re depressed.

    You can’t fool me. It’s a trick so you can call me a Nazi.

  22. So Cruz too believes that the primary purpose of our government is to keep us safe? Not that governments are instituted to secure our rights or some dopey crap like that? Or does he understand that our safety is already prioritized by being somewhere on the list, somewhere lower down than liberty?

    1. Ted Cruz believes in limited government… for people like Ted Cruz.

    2. Pretty sure that if the muslims aren’t dealt with, there won’t be very many rights left to secure.

      1. Pretty sure that if we scrap our rights in order to ‘protect’ them, we will have an even worse result: No rights, and we will have violated our principles. The Muslim bogeyman might be bad, but they still can’t make us choose to violate our principles, which is worse than any other result.

        1. Yeah, but it’s really not worse than any other result.

          There have been plenty of instances where we compromised our principles temporarily to deal with an immediate threat, going right back to shortly after the country was founded.

          And yet the republic still stands.

  23. Meanwhile, Obama will do exactly this and the left will go from condemning it to calling it a “common sense measure to stop terrorism.”

  24. police presence is great at slowing petty crime but is useless against ideas. What will police presence do. Unless they search every person every day then all they can be is bomb fodder.

  25. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

  26. much better to exclude muslims from entry to the United States. Since a significant number of muslims prefer Sharia Law and support violence against infidels it would be prudent to stop allowing muslims to immigrate to America.

    There have long been ideological restrictions on immigrants in US law. This long history has resulted in statutes that requires naturalization applicants to be “attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States” (a requirement that has existed since the earliest US immigration laws) and forbids them from adhering to several more specific ideological principles such as totalitarianism, communism, and anarchism.

    Theodore Roosevelt’s first Congressional address urged the exclusion of aliens who even espoused anarchist beliefs. The effort came to fruition in the Immigration Act of 1903, the first act barring immigration solely on the basis of political belief. Islamists are a totalitarian political movement and thus should be banned , just as we continue to ban past and present NAZI members from entering the United States today.

  27. If Muslims don’t start at least trying to integrate Post Enlightenment liberalism into Islam very soon, than Islam doesn’t have even one-hundred years before it goes completely extinct (can’t say I’ll be too sorry to see it go).

  28. I think some of the Reason posters a having a difficult time distinguishing between honest and much deserved criticism of certain Islamic practices and beliefs (despite the best efforts of Progtards to muddy the waters with baseless accusations of “Islamaphobia”), and allowing government attack dogs to mercilessly pursue millions of innocent people with no over-site and recourse for victims. Believe it or not, toadying dhimmitude and fascist police state are not our only two options.

  29. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..


  30. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.