August 5, 2016

Paul Nehlen, the man challenging Paul Ryan in the primary in his congressional district, said we should "have a discussion about" deporting all Muslims in this country.

This is awful:

150 comments:

Mark said...

He's Trump's guy.

So much so that all the major WI republicans are avoiding the Trump rally today in Green Bay. Which is amazing, as they're so easy to pander to up there at the beginning of football season.

coupe said...

We could send them to Liberia...

dreams said...

Here is some info for you, more Muslims have come to our country since 9/11 than all the Muslims that came before.

Bob Boyd said...

Drunk?

AReasonableMan said...

France should definitely have this discussion.

Unknown said...

As awful as wanting to deport the Chinese way back when and the Japanese during WWII. The Blacks have been threatened with deportation since they arrived as slaves. I'm sure Hispanics and Latinos have been on the deported list at some point. Jews for sure. The Native Americans were deported onto reservations. And so it goes on. Wonder who's next after the Muslims?

Unknown said...

This is Trump's guy. He dumped Paul Ryan for him. So Constitution be damned, if you're a Muslim, you're either going to be deported or you're going to have to convert to another religion, or you're going to have to wear a crescent moon on your lapel. Still swooning over Trump? Trump still so appealing? Yes? Then you better take a good hard look at yourself.

traditionalguy said...

If you read the interview, it looks like he did not say we should deport citizens that say they are Muslims. But he said we need to have a discussion about the "religion" that is 100% designed to be used as a disguise for a military guerrilla conquest of new territories for alah.

And why are we afraid to discuss that? Are we afraid we will be forced to oppose Muslim domination or submit to Muslim Domination.

Choices, choices. Somebody get a big Persian Carpet to sweep this one back under.

Rusty said...

Unknown said...
So we shouldn't be able to control who we allow within our boarders?

Freder Frederson said...

Khizr Khan needs to lend this guy his copy of the Constitution. And traditional guy needs to bone up on it too.

Lyssa said...

Sigh. There's really no consideration of the First Amendment on any side of the political world anymore. Not on (current incarnation of) the right, certainly not on the left, not even the current libertarian candidate will stand up for it.

I do not like where we're going here.

Unknown said...

Bullshit, Traditional Guy. He didn't say these deportations wouldn't be directed at Muslim citizens. He spoke of Sharia law, Muslims, citizens or not, would fall under that description in his estimation. How much longer will people support Trump? How easy it must be for them to ignore the obvious, or how easy it must be for them to delude themselves about what Trumpism is. It is unconstitutional and unAmerican.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Martin Niemoller

Bay Area Guy said...

The issue is what to do about radical Islam's terrorist attacks against innocent people (Paris, Charlie Hebdo, Nice, Orlando, Fort Hood).

For political reasons, this issue keeps getting distorted into something broader (general immigration policies regarding Muslims).

I Callahan said...

There's really no consideration of the First Amendment on any side of the political world anymore.

What part of the first amendment deals with immigration?

john marzan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
I Callahan said...

Bullshit, Traditional Guy. He didn't say these deportations wouldn't be directed at Muslim citizens.

What was the exact quote?

Tregonsee said...

This is part of the much larger discussion we should be having. When my mother came here, we were a melting pot where you assimilated while adding a bit of flavor to the mixture. By the second generation, you were American in fact, not just by citizenship. (The obvious failings are the result of failing to give a group that opportunity, not the principle itself.) Somehow we have not only changed from the melting pot to chunks in a salad bowl, but we are telling people it is wrong to assimilate. I don't recall any debate. It just happened while most of us were not looking. The probably NOT unanticipated consequence is that the immigrants, some much more than others, act as infiltrators to change our country to something they like. This is the wider conversion which we should have.

Hagar said...

What Tradguy said.
Nehlen did not quite say what the article says he said.

And there does need to be "a conversation" about allowing people who believe the Koran supercedes the U.S. Constitution to immigrate.
But then how do you determine that? Etc., etc.
But pretending the problem does not exist gets us nowhere.

john marzan said...

only those who belive in sharia law ann. calm down!

Unknown said...

So if a Muslim came to America legally, has lived here for a generation or two, lives peacefully, works, but practices Islam as his/her religion they could expect to be deported based on how they worship. This is ugly and dangerous stuff, people. Didn't we learn a thing from Germany 1933?

Gahrie said...

Didn't we learn a thing from Germany 1933?

The Jews weren't at war with Germany.

Hagar said...

You have to understand that some of these people not only say sharia law rules the world; they mean it.

Gahrie said...

Islamic immigration is an invasion. They refuse to co-exist with other cultures or religions. We can and should end Islamic immigration and deport all Muslims who are not citizens or legal permanent residents (including those on student visas.)

dreams said...

We're already experiencing reverse assimilation which will only gain momentum. Like it or not, we're becoming a Muslim country and women and children will be most affected.

William said...

The position is wrong, and this politician will be roundly and deservedly condemned for it. Fair enough........Here's my problem though: there's much about the Muslim belief system that is also wrong. How can I voice these opinions without being condemned as a bigot......It is far easier for a Muslim to characterize me as bigot than for me to characterize him as, say, a sexist. This is upside down. I shouldn't have to twist myself backwards to prove that I'm not a bigot. He's the the one who should be twisting and turning to adjust to American life.

I Callahan said...

So if a Muslim came to America legally, has lived here for a generation or two, lives peacefully, works, but practices Islam as his/her religion they could expect to be deported based on how they worship. This is ugly and dangerous stuff, people. Didn't we learn a thing from Germany 1933?

Once again, Unknown, your knee is jerking. Where did Nehlen imply or state that this would happen?

Jack Wayne said...

Assuming that "This is awful" means everything in the discussion, I'm glad to see that Althouse finally recognizes how awful it is to not have a discussion about allowing more Muslims into this country. I agree that it's awful to do that indiscriminately.

Unknown said...

"The Jews weren't at war with Germany."

American Muslims aren't at war with America. Japanese Americans weren't at war with America in WW2 either. Oh hell, maybe Trump's buddy should just put them in concentration camps.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Probably not a winner but an interesting political experiment. When you stake out a controversial anti-Muzzie position and are widely reviled for it, do you benefit when events suddenly suggest you're right? Or is it even possible to penetrate the frantic PC media obfuscation? What are the chances of a major Muzzie terrorist attack between now and Election Day? The media will, of course, tie itself in knots trying to blame you but will your prescience be noted by the person in the street? Does your opponent box themselves in a corner when, smelling blood, they stake out a loud pro-Muzzie position and then events suggest they were naive or opportunistic? Not sure what the answers are but when it all shakes out it'll probably gel into something known to political scientists as Khan's Law.

David said...

Mark said...
He's Trump's guy.


?????

In your mind.

William said...

First they came for the people who spoke out against immigration.....

Sebastian said...

This is an example of how Trump and the Trumpkins set back the opposition to PC, to dhimmi anti-terror policy, to open orders, and so on. There are good arguments to be made about all three, but if you come across as boorish and stupid, and of course the MSM will help you, all the nice and respectable people will flee to the PC left. So you end up with the entrenched one-third of the population, tradguy, Achilles, and the like, stewing in anger while wondering how their savior produced the exact opposite of what they wanted--more PC, more Muslim-loving, more immigration.

David said...

So Ryan's safe--I hope. I don't like what Ryan has done with Trump but this guy is an idiot.

Most Muslims in this country are citizens. Can you deport a citizen? I don't think so. Where to?

trumpetdaddy said...

There is a reason that Ryan will beat this clown by 50+ points on Tuesday. This is a desperate plea for attention from Nehlen. Say something stupid and outrageous and hope that the alt-right scum crawl out from under their rocks in sufficient numbers to pick up a few points in the polls.

I see some have popped their heads up in this very thread.

dreams said...

"So if a Muslim came to America legally, has lived here for a generation or two, lives peacefully, works, but practices Islam as his/her religion they could expect to be deported based on how they worship. This is ugly and dangerous stuff, people. Didn't we learn a thing from Germany 1933?"

You have it all wrong, don't you realize that you will be the equivalent Jew to the Muslims' Nazi.

Once written, twice... said...

Maybe we should deport all Hillbillies?

Unknown said...

How might it look to deport millions of Muslims, don't forget about the Mexicans, they need deporting too.

What sort of country have we become?

trumpetdaddy said...

Actually, I underestimated it. New poll out today in WI-01 shows Ryan with 80% of the Republican vote in his district.

Ryan will not win by 50+ points. He'll win by closer to 65+ points. Hell, with this latest idiocy, Nehlen may not break single digits.

Lyssa said...

I Callahan said: What part of the first amendment deals with immigration?

I'm just going off the quote above. Deport all Muslims goes far beyond an immigration issue. If the statement was "We should have a conversation about considering potential immigrants' beliefs and whether they are compatible with our country," that would be a different story. If the fellow's been misquoted, I'll rescind my statement.

I agree with Sebastian. There are a lot of really big issues here that we risk getting swept under the rug by overreaching.

Patrick said...


"I do not like where we're going here."

2016 continues to be a massively ugly year. Its getting worse, not better.

Sebastian said...

It's all well and good for the nice and respectable Althouses of the world to express revulsion at the thought of expulsion, but of course the nice and respectable people have no solution either. And no, denying that there is a problem is not a solution. At least some Europeans have moved to that stage. France has. Pierre Manent has. They know they have a large unassimilated, perhaps unassimilable minority in their midst, and that a minority within the minority actively wants to do harm. Even the non-Islamist Muslims remain an alien presence -- much more likely to be anti-semitic, homophobic, and yes, pro-sharia. Even the relatively reasonable Turks are more passionate about islamist Erdogan than any part of the culture into which they are supposed to integrate (see recent German demonstrations). Both the flailing by Trump and the Trumpkins and the knee-jerk PC-ism in response only reinforce the sense that there is no solution. The US may be better off (only 1000 FBI terrorism investigations! Yay!) just because we have fewer Muslims so far.

WSJ today: "Welfare cash aided plotters." Now who would have thought that immigrants might take advantage of the welfare state and use our own resources to attack us? Couldn't happen in the U.S., could it? I mean, all those Somali "Minnesota men," just convicted on terror-related charges, don't really want to abuse and attack our system, do they? I mean, when one of their women gets out of court and tells us all to go to hell, she doesn't really mean it, does she? Shove a little more welfare cash their way, and all will be well.

Unknown said...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/donald-trump-paul-ryan-paul-nehlen-election-2016/

"(CNN)Donald Trump on Monday offered very public praise for a political candidate vying to unseat one of the top Republicans in Washington -- House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Trump, who is facing an onslaught of criticism from Ryan and other top Republicans for his comments about the Muslim family of a deceased US soldier, thanked Ryan's Republican primary challenger, Paul Nehlen, on Twitter Monday for his "kind words.""

Freder Frederson said...

Here is some info for you, more Muslims have come to our country since 9/11 than all the Muslims that came before.

This might be information, but is it a fact? Citation please. Of the top ten countries for sending immigrants to the U.S., only one (Iraq) is a majority Islamic country (and it is number 10 with about 20,000 immigrants compared to Mexico with 134,000). India and the Philippines are the only other countries in the top ten with a significant Muslim population. Approximately 1% of the U.S. population are Muslim, and a good chunk of those are native converts and/or natural born citizens.

I think you are full of shit.

YoungHegelian said...

I admire the eternal optimism of our resident lefties who remain certain that, as the percentage of Muslims & other socially & religiously conservative third-worlders grows in US society, the hard-fought gains they have made for women & gays will remain intact.

How's that going to happen? Through assimilation? It's not clear that the forces of cultural assimilation are now what they once were.

No, underlying the Left's optimism is the naive belief that once these immigrants get here & live among us, they will see the wisdom of Left-wing multiculturalism & adopt a live & let live approach. They are certain that liberal secularism will ultimately take hold in any & all immigrant communities. It's just a matter of time.

How's that idea working out in France? Or, Britain?

James Pawlak said...

In and before Spain had a large minority of aggressive Muslims who were most loyal to the Koran and other teachings of Islam and not to the opponents to that criminal-terrorist ideology.. That minority was a clear and present danger to the other People of Spain---Especially as Spain was a new nation with other dangerous divisions. Being Catholic-Christians and wishing to avoid further war and its likely result of genocide, the rulers of Iberia exiled all Muslims.

Today, France and other Western nations face the same threats.

That threat is increasing in the USA.

Alexander said...

Why can't we have a discussion about it? We're supposed to be open to a "discussion" of abolishing the 2nd amendment every time a democrat cries it could save EVEN ONE LIFE. So why is it not at all reasonable to have a discussion about the fact that Islam is a parasitical ideology and must be removed from the west? If it might save even one life.

If Paul Nehlen is automatically DQ'd, then I submit so are at least half of the current congress, the current president, and the current Democratic nominee.

Also - tangentially - I always here that "The United States is a proposition nation". A nation based on a unifying idea versus unifying blood, language, common history, common culture, etc.

If that is in fact the case, then what, exactly, is this unifying idea. If American citizenship is based on such, then:

1. What idea is required to be believed in order to gain citizenship?
2. What idea if prohibited to be believed, on pain of losing citizenship?

Surely, surely, there is nothing wrong with us having this discussion?

David Begley said...

I understand the election is Tuesday, but any polls on this contest?

YoungHegelian said...

I also will submit that many of the folks hyperventilating here (e.g. Unknown) have absolutely no idea of what's in Muslim theology. For them it's just some mishmash & it's probably a lot like Christianity.

But maybe they do know. So, tell us, oh ye preachers of tolerance -- what does a Islamic martyr gain by his martyrdom?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

He spoke of Sharia law, Muslims, citizens or not

If you are a Sharia law Muslim, then you are not abiding by the laws of the land and have decided to ignore the laws, live by your own rules and break the laws of the Country. Muslims either live with the laws in the country or go to another country...one way or another.

Sharia law, which extends well beyond being internal religious practices, is either treason or rebellion. Religious practices which do not violate the laws or harm others are a right of freedom. Sharia Law is a separate code of laws that are antithetical to that of the US. People who are in rebellion against the country in which they live, citizens or not, are at War with that country and the people have a right to demand that they be controlled or removed. Or....have a right to join with that rebellion. I guess we know your choice in the Sharia/Islam war on civilization. Choose wisely.

However, since Jefferson has stated and rightly so, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure," He was speaking, at that time, about the people rising against a tyrannical government and despotic king.

I suppose "you" can side with the Sharia Law and ISIS types who are shedding the blood of innocent people going about their business. You probably consider that the blood of the average citizen is usable to advance the oppressive, medieval regime of Islam. That would also make you a traitor to the concept of liberty and freedom.

We can't have several levels of laws for various religious groups, ethnicities or anyone else. This is chaos and chaos leads to more chaos. It is already apparent that there are laws for some and not for others. Hillary Clinton and her email scandal that would have put anyone else in jail, is a prime example of this.

Islam, especially Sharia law, is incompatible with a free and civilized society. We have the right to control who is inside our house (our borders). We can do it through the laws, which is the preferable method. There ARE other methods you know. I think we should try the laws first.

Sebastian said...

@Alexander: "1. What idea is required to be believed in order to gain citizenship? 2. What idea if prohibited to be believed, on pain of losing citizenship?" Re 1.: None. Nor do skills etc. matter, generally. Family ties matter most. Belief or contribution are irrelevant. Re 2.: None. Of course, this does get into the YH problem: lefties are enamored with the Muslim-as-Other, then being shocked that the Other really has other ideas, as in UK, France, etc. So far the US only differs in scale.

Trump's intuition that "something needs to be done" is right.The way he and the Trumpkins act on it will only make it worse.

trumpetdaddy said...

"I understand the election is Tuesday, but any polls on this contest?"

Mentioned above. New poll out today of WI-01 has Ryan at 80%, Nehlen at 14%, other/not sure the rest.

Nehlen is a carpet-bagger loon Trump supporter running against the Speaker of the House, in a district the Speaker's family has lived in for generations. A district that beat down Trump by 20 points when the presidential primary was held.

Yeah, Paul Ryan isn't exactly shaking in his boots.

rhhardin said...

Muslims are optimizing for the next world, Americans are optimizing for this world.

Otherwise known as the reformation.

David Begley said...

Poll. Ryan up 66 points.

Gahrie said...


American Muslims aren't at war with America


Tell that to Ft. Hood, Orlando and San Bernardino.

gspencer said...

Muslims repeatedly tell us that subjecting us is their aim. And their texts tell them to do this, in countless places in those texts. Muslims have followed this pattern for the 1400 years of Islam's existence.

And this isn't cause for concern since today's Muslims and their behaviors towards the non-Muslims are identical with the manner of all previous generations of Muslims?

So if this isn't discussed, and a workable plan of action developed, then Muslims will predictably continue to give the West more and more lessons on Islamic supremacy. Meaning more terror attacks.

Original Mike said...

Poll. Ryan up 66 points.

Looks like a lot of posters here may have wasted their money.

Unknown said...

So all American Muslims are to be held responsible for what the Fort Hood shooter did? Do we hold all American Christians responsible for American Christians who have committed mass murder?

virgil xenophon said...

DBQ@9:39am is on the right spoor here. frontpagemag.com has an excellent article about EXACTLY this subject entitled: " Does the First Amendment Protect Warrior Religions?" LINK

YoungHegelian said...

But maybe they do know. So, tell us, oh ye preachers of tolerance -- what does a Islamic martyr gain by his martyrdom?

Let me answer my own non-rhetorical question.

Everyone in the west knows about the 72 virgins, because that's lurid & basic enough that your average reporter can understand it. But, contained in the same Hadith that describes the 72 Virgins are two much more interesting teachings:

1) The martyr does not "sleep in the dust" until the Resurrection of the Body before the Last Judgement. He goes directly & immediately into Heaven. Islam doesn't have per se the Hellenic/Christian notion of an immortal soul & bodily resurrection . What it has for an afterlife is what Rabbinic Judaism has --- the Resurrection of the Body. All good Muslims will be resurrected & then taken to Heaven, but until that time, they, including Mohamed, "sleep in the dust".

Not so the martyr. He "has a seat in Heaven", and at the moment of his death, is immediately taken up to Heaven. He never "sleeps in the dust".

2) The martyr can, on the Day of Judgement, intercede with Allah for the fate of 70 of his kinfolk. This, in a faith that has almost no intercessionary theology at all, is amazing. It's also why Muslim families send a son out as a "designated martyr", so that he can help get the rest of them into Heaven. Here's an example, in text and in video.

Here's the Hadith I'm referencing:

That the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "There are six things with Allah for the martyr. He is forgiven with the first flow of blood (he suffers), he is shown his place in Paradise, he is protected from punishment in the grave, secured from the greatest terror, the crown of dignity is placed upon his head - and its gems are better than the world and what is in it - he is married to seventy two wives along Al-Huril-'Ayn of Paradise, and he may intercede for seventy of his close relatives."

[Abu 'Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan Sahih.

Unknown said...

"Does the First Amendment Protect Warrior Religions."

"Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus, going on before..."

Lyle said...

What about not letting Salafists and Wahhabists immigrated to the U.S.?

Lyle said...

immigrate

Curious George said...

"YoungHegelian said...
How's that idea working out in France? Or, Britain?"

Or Germany? Or any European country with Muslim immigration or refugees.

They are all fucked.

Curious George said...

"Unknown said...
So all American Muslims are to be held responsible for what the Fort Hood shooter did? Do we hold all American Christians responsible for American Christians who have committed mass murder?"

Dude seriously? #1 it's more...a lot more...than Nidal Hasan. And give me the names of American Christians who have committed mass murder for JESUS CHRIST.

buwaya puti said...

Its not just Sharia law. That is the academic side of their religion, and most of these people arent trained in it, and many of their typical attitudes and behaviors violate it.
Sharia is incompatible with coexistence of course, but thats just part of it.
It is mostly a question of culture, of the attitude, deeply held, about how to regard outsiders. Their cultures have the trait of viewing outsiders as fair game.
It is remarkably persistent.
Your grandchildren will have this problem with their grandchildren.

Gahrie said...

So all American Muslims are to be held responsible for what the Fort Hood shooter did?

Islam demands the subjugation or death of all non-Muslims. Christianity preaches co-existence.

Don't worry though...I'm sure you'll be the last non-believer to have his throat cut. Dhimmi.

mockturtle said...

I read the interview and did not infer what the headline implied. The media now intentionally mislead casual readers of 'news' as part of their propaganda campaign.

Unknown said...

Paul Ryan much like Cruz dumped himself. Why would loyal party members support someone who has shown they are not loyal party members.

Curious George said...

Waiting for that list Unknown.

Original Mike said...

"1) The martyr does not "sleep in the dust" until the Resurrection of the Body before the Last Judgement. He goes directly & immediately into Heaven.

2) The martyr can, on the Day of Judgement, intercede with Allah for the fate of 70 of his kinfolk."


Interesting. Would explain a lot.

buwaya puti said...

The present climate of whistling part the graveyard, on all sorts of matters - see government pensions for one - means that problems like this are aggressively ignored. The prophets aren't merely Cassandras, they are heretics.
Thats because everything is closer to the edge, and the powers that be are whistling very, very hard.

Hagar said...

We are used to "the people of the Book" - Jews and Christians - going to church on Sunday or synagogue on Saturday for an hour or so and declaiming their belief in creeds that they do not show any sign of even having heard of the rest of the week. A substantial part of the Moslem populations in the world do not look at Islam that way. They are serious about 7th century bedouin fundamentalism.

I Callahan said...

Maybe we should deport all Hillbillies?

Sorry, Dude, but they were here before just about anyone else.

I Callahan said...

Do we hold all American Christians responsible for American Christians who have committed mass murder?

Do we hold all American Christians responsible for American Christians who have committed mass murder IN THE NAME of Christianity.

You lefties always miss that part. If that were to happen on a regular basis, then you'd have a point. But it doesn't, and it won't, and you know it. Christianity is a religion; Islam is a system of life from birth to death. Christianity doesn't tell its founders to go out and kill non-believers. Christians have had a reformation.

A completely and utterly unrelated comparison. Plus vs. Watermelons. Try again.

320Busdriver said...

Nehlens a nut. Good riddance. But our "leaders" insist the only way to help Syrians is to bring them here and make them US citizens. I don't see the logic in that, unless, on balance we expect these refugees to contribute more than they take.

Do you believe that will be the case?


http://thehill.com/policy/defense/290514-obama-on-track-to-bring-in-10000-syrian-refugees

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-admin-extends-asylum-syrian-refugees/

Roughcoat said...

When taking the Oath of Citizenship, the soon-to-be naturalized American swears that "I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion so help me God."

The "so help me God" part makes this a sacred oath. If a naturalized citizen in any way violates the terms of the oath he has broken faith with God, his country, and his fellow Americans. Ideally his citizenship should be revoked and he should be deported. But that will never happen, of course.

Clayton Hennesey said...

Much of this discussion is odd. We of course can deport non-citizens for any reason as long as we apply the will and resources to do so. We of course cannot deport citizens either for their religious beliefs or even for their declaration that they hold Sharia above the Constitution. Christians routinely proclaim they are Christians first, Americans second.

What can be done without anything but self-imposed restraint is to view Muslims, all Muslims, as suspicious so long as Muslims-as-Muslims are willfully murdering people. Americans would do the same thing with regard to Chinese, blacks, Presbyterians, or any other group.

Want to stop being viewed with suspicion if you are Muslim? Lend an aggressive and well-known hand to stamping out Muslims-as-Muslims murderers.

We would never have 10+ million illegal Hispanic aliens within our borders if citizens surrounding them didn't constantly aid and abet them. Jihadists are no different; they depend on local communities of support in order to function. Remove those communities of support - ideally, have those communities of support aggressively remove themselves - and jihadists are reduced to only those lone wolves or small cells which can function on an entirely self-contained basis.

Tribal suspicion of outsiders evolved as a survival trait for a reason.

Hagar said...

A hundred million John Browns of Harper's Ferry fame would be a serious problem for the world if there were such. But there isn't.

david7134 said...

Looking at the comments, it is very easy to see those who have not been to Europe in the last few years. It is also very evident that most people don't understand Islam and have not worked or lived around Muslims. The people under Islam constitute different ethnicities and different countries, but one thing that they all have in common is a desire to take over the country or area in which they migrate to and they have no problem with violence and the killing of innocent individuals. They also constitute the lower elements of any society in which they live. I have traveled, lived by Muslims and worked with them and can assure you that their thought process is warped by the religion, or should I define it for what it is, a geopolitical cult. There is little religious element to this as Jews and Christian know. Take the Kahn's, they inappropriately lashed out at Trump using their dead son as a shield. Well, I have 3 members of my family in the military and in harms way so I have the same exalted status rendered to these folks and I say that they lied about Trump and distorted the message that he is trying to deliver. At the same time, Trump said nothing inappropriate in reference to these people. And, the Kahn's are extremist of the worst sort and work for Hillary. So, our righteous indignation should be against the Kahns. Now consider the 40's and an American family are Nazis and there son is drafted and killed in the war, should we stop the war because they don't like our prosecution of Nazis. Many have mentioned the internment of the Japanese in the war, guess what, there were no terrorist incidents on the west coast and there were many reasons for suspecting that the Japanese would support the emperor. For one, the Japanese in Hawaii helped downed Jap pilots during the Dec. 7 attack. Then remember the alternative is lyin, crooked, incompetent Hillary.

virgil xenophon said...

Yet another REALLY good article on the psychological differences between muslims and westerners because of differences in their religion/culture and the implications for assimilation is an article by Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels who treated muslims in the Danish prison system. LINK

virgil xenophon said...

The comments of David7134, above, are greatly supported by the findings and experience of Dr Sennels in the article I have just linked, above..

Original Mike said...

Blogger trumpetdaddy said..."Actually, I underestimated it. New poll out today in WI-01 shows Ryan with 80% of the Republican vote in his district.

Ryan will not win by 50+ points. He'll win by closer to 65+ points. Hell, with this latest idiocy, Nehlen may not break single digits."


I assumed Ryan was in trouble because the only "news" I got on his race was from comments here from some posters. It's probably relevant that those same posters are the ones predicting that Trump will beat Clinton.

buwaya said...

"Nehlens a nut. Good riddance. "

There are worse things than being a nut, or rather, not a good interviewee vs a hostile press.
I doubt most of us would do better under those conditions.
But the "nut" of the case remains.
There is no alternative to "nuts", as defined by the enemy system; the option on offer is simply poisonous.

Martin said...

There are a lot of discussions we should be having, not least about accepting Middle East refugees and how they are vetted, or surveillance of mosques, esp where Saudi or UAE money is involved.

But criminalizing belief in Islam, absent any overt criminal act, is NOT one of them.

buwaya said...

Also, what we see here is more paid internet outreach efforts as part of the organized system.
Perhaps, in this case, a different outfit given the political race in question -
Mr. Koch, is that you?

buwaya said...

"But criminalizing belief in Islam, absent any overt criminal act, is NOT one of them."

Lets say that anything else you have mentioned is a half-measure at best.
And NONE of these are likely to be implemented.
Anyone NOT making nutty suggestions is utterly incapable of resisting the forces of status quo, nor of mustering the will to force even a half-measure.

Also, you aren't talking of a problem of a year, or a decade.
This is a perpetual, never ending matter that operates on a scale of centuries.
In my own country, four or five centuries, and going strong.
Let in a significant population of these people, or permit this population to grow, and you will have bequeathed a perpetual low-level war to your great-grandchildren.

Freder Frederson said...

We of course can deport non-citizens for any reason as long as we apply the will and resources to do so.

No you can't. Legal residents (and for most purposes, even illegal residents) are protected by the constitution to the same extent as citizens.

boycat said...

I wonder about the intelligence or the mental health --take your choice-- of any non-Muslim who believes having this conversation is "awful."

YoungHegelian said...

@Freder,

No you can't. Legal residents (and for most purposes, even illegal residents) are protected by the constitution to the same extent as citizens.

In time of war, we can, Freder. Korematsu is settled law, despised as it may be.

virgil xenophon said...

And then there is the little problem of the dysfunctional aspect of Muslim health-care practices which are degrading our public health (think infection control and sanitation, for starters) There is an excellent art. today in the American Thinker about this very topic LINK

Roughcoat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roughcoat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
buwaya said...

"Legal residents (and for most purposes, even illegal residents) are protected by the constitution to the same extent as citizens."

The grounds for deportability are determined by statute and have limited reference to constitutional protections. There are a very large number of reasons available and most don't require criminal convictions. These aren't often used but thats a matter of policy. Also, statutes can be changed.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/grounds-deportability-when-legal-us-residents-can-be-removed.html

Roughcoat said...

I'd like to clear up some misconceptions about the detainment of foreign nationals in wartime.

In World War 2 a great many Japanese ethnics residing in America -- not a majority, but a significant number -- were not American citizens: they were Japanese nationals/citizens living and working legally in the United States on extended visas. Their legal status was that of resident aliens. Their residence was more or less permanent but even so they remained citizens of Japan. When war broke out between Japan and the United States on 7 December 1941 the United States was required by law and by the protocols of no less an authority than the Geneva Convention to detain them.

The terms and length of detainment varied with the circumstances. Usually the people in question were allowed to leave the country, and their departure was typically arranged by the U.S. and strictly supervised. But they could be detained for an indeterminate period up to the formal cessation of hostilities between the belligerent nations. A large number, as I said, of ethnic Japanese who were detained in camps were held because the United States was obliged to do so by its own law and by international law, and also because of legitimate security concerns. The children of the detainees accompanied their parents for obvious reasons, even though they were American citizens by virtue of having been born in the United States. Their presence significantly increased the numbers of detainees and in so doing created legal problems as well as a public relations nightmare for the government.

This is not to gloss over the fact that many second- and third-generation Japanese-Americans, i.e., American citizens of Japanese descent, were also detained. Their detainment was a terrible injustice, not least because they tended to be intensely patriotic and loyal to the United States. They also proved to be great soldiers -- e.g. the 442nd Regimental Combat team composed almost entirely of Nisei volunteers fought with distinction in the European Theater, becoming what is said (probably correctly) to be the most decorated combat formation in U.S. Army history. Other, smaller Nisei units and individuals fought with equal courage on the battlefields of Europe and in the Pacific (in the case of the latter, at great personal peril).

All resident aliens from Axis nations were detained: Germans, Italians, Bulgarians, Rumanians, e.g. They weren't held in camps built for that purpose because there weren't that many of them, compared with the huge numbers of Japanese ethnics. Most were deported soon after their detainment.

We should be cautious about being overly judgemental toward the U.S. government concerning the detainment of Japanese-Americans. We were at war and we were losing it. The Japan-Japanese were a ruthless and cruel enemy, as the nations that had been conquered and occupied by them inevitably discovered. And, although this fact is downplayed by revisionist historians, there were indeed spies among the Japanese nationals who were rounded up and detained.

Original Mike said...

Jesus Christ on a Harley; we can not deport illegal residents?

mockturtle said...

David7134 has rightly asserted that Islam's ultimate goal is world domination, at the point of the sword, if necessary. The fact that Muslims are infiltrating every nation on earth, not just those offering improved standards of living, should be one clue. I have known, dated and worked with quite a few Muslims. Two objectives they all share are the destruction of Israel and worldwide Sharia law. They don't see themselves as evil. They see US as evil! Allowing an additional 10,000 'refugees' into our country further sows the seeds of our own destruction, as Europe is experiencing.

Dust Bunny Queen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dust Bunny Queen said...

But criminalizing belief in Islam, absent any overt criminal act, is NOT one of them.

No one has suggested criminalizing belief in Islam (as a religion). The issue is supplanting, ignoring and flaunting the laws of the United States for the Law of Sharia. If the laws of Sharia are opposite and contrary to our laws, then the Muslims adherents of that legal system are breaking the Oath of Citizenship.

"I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion so help me God."

Assuming of course that they are here "legally" and not illegal aliens or imported so called refugees.

Christians, Jews, Mormons, Wiccans are all expected to abide by the laws of the Country. Those religions do not have their own courts of law, their own punishment and judgement systems as does Sharia law.

You cannot have several systems of laws for different groups. Either Muslims abide by the law of the land......or they are criminals who should be deported or jailed. If they refuse to abandon a separate system of laws, then they should not be allowed to enter the country.

mockturtle said...

You cannot have several systems of laws for different groups.

Which, as you probably know, is being done in the UK with their Sharia courts.

Freder Frederson said...

David7134 is a liar and a raging lunatic. I have been to Europe in the past few years (including that supposed no-go zone of Birmingham), and he either went to some alternate universe Europe, is paranoid and full of hate, or is simply lying. I think the truth is the latter. I doubt he has left his mom's basement in West Bumblefucked, Iowa, in the last several years.

buwaya said...

"Those religions do not have their own courts of law, their own punishment and judgement systems as does Sharia law. "

The Catholic Church does. Judgements and punishments are applicable only within the church and apply to those matters under the control of the church.

Some others have similar functions/procedures, for the removal of clergy for instance.

Anyway, Sharia is only part of the problem. The trouble goes much deeper. Your standard issue Moro villager who gets the idea to kidnap tourists (with the intent to behead) three provinces over probably does not know Sharia from Shinola. And if he were to hunt up a standard-issue Muslim ulama he'd probably get an earful about the impermissibility of such an enterprise.

Freder Frederson said...

The issue is supplanting, ignoring and flaunting the laws of the United States for the Law of Sharia. If the laws of Sharia are opposite and contrary to our laws, then the Muslims adherents of that legal system are breaking the Oath of Citizenship.

There are two problems with this "logic". First, you are simply wrong. Even if you weren't wrong, not all Muslims are naturalized citizens and to become naturalized you don't necessarily need to take the oath (e.g., if you are naturalized as a minor).

Furthermore, I doubt you can find one naturalized citizen who has had their citizenship revoked for violating their citizenship oath. The only way to get your citizenship revoked is to have lied on your citizenship application (like Melania might have), and even then it is for really egregious lies, like not mentioning you were a member of the SS and a concentration camp guard.

Jon Burack said...

Reading the comments here, it is clear to me that BOTH Obama and Trump have participated equally in dumbing down the citizens to a point that is positively dangerous on this issue. Obama's incomprehensible distaste for speaking honestly about Islamist radicalism means many citizens have no capacity any longer to distinguish between Muslims and Islamists, hence we get Donald Trump. Instead of pretending to believe all Muslims are peace-loving, he pretends to believe they are all dangerous.

As a result, we get lines like this, even here: "only those who believe in sharia law." Only? Deporting out of the country people because of their beliefs? Of course, since beliefs are easy to hide, and Nehlen assures us Muslims will lie anyway, perhaps we should have a "one drop of blood" test for them. I used to think charging someone with "fascism" was wrong usually because of how extreme the term is. In Nehlen's case it is not extreme enough. He has gone all the way to Nazism, which was the most extreme variant of fascism. And a lot of people even here seem incapable of recognizing how close to that line they are themselves.

Freder Frederson said...

Which, as you probably know, is being done in the UK with their Sharia courts.

Bullshit, there may be some informal Sharia courts in England that deal with domestic matters, but there decisions do not have the force of law. You do realize that certain religious groups in this country (e.g., Orthodox Jews) also have their own courts that deal with domestic matters (especially divorce). Although a Get is not enforceable in a court, an Orthodox Jew can not remarry without one. It pretty much works the same if you want to remarry in the Catholic Church.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"Allowing an additional 10,000 'refugees' into our country further sows the seeds of our own destruction, as Europe is experiencing."

It sows the seeds of the backlash, which will happen long before Muslims are here in overwhelming numbers. The weird thing is that, either way, the Left loses. They lose if Muzzies push their theocracy, and they lose if Muzzies are driven from the country. It's very strange that encouraging Muslim immigration is a Lefty virtue.

Anglelyne said...

Sebastian: This is an example of how Trump and the Trumpkins set back the opposition to PC...

And the opposition to the monstrous reign of PC was going so well...

...to dhimmi anti-terror policy, to open orders, and so on. There are good arguments to be made about all three, but if you come across as boorish and stupid, and of course the MSM will help you, all the nice and respectable people will flee to the PC left.

It's the cowardice of "nice and respectable" people, not the boors, who've stymied any discussion of these issues in the West, for *decades*.

It's an immense tragedy, what "nice and respectable" people have done and are doing to Western civilization.

buwaya said...

"And a lot of people even here seem incapable of recognizing how close to that line they are themselves."

There is a vast range of political positions. Extreme policies are possible to all of them.
"Ethnic cleansing", the popular modern term, was a policy of many sorts of governments and ideologies.

Was the government of Philip III Fascist when it expelled the Muslims from Valencia in 1609?

Or this very important case -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey
Fascists, either side?

mockturtle said...

Is 'honor killing' a domestic issue? Is polygamy a 'domestic issue'?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The Catholic Church does. Judgements and punishments are applicable only within the church and apply to those matters under the control of the church.

Yes. Under control of the Church. The laws of the land. The State and Federal government are not overturned by the Church. Unlike Sharia Law which wants to have its own separate laws and punishment systems that they want to trump or overide existing law.


If Jews want to have an internal system that is different for their religion that is their choice, however to get divorced in the US you need to go through the legal channels.

Honor murder or paying the family of a person whom you have harmed to let you off for crimes committed including murder is allowable in Sharia. Neither are allowable under our system of laws. If you murder someone, you don't get to get a pass because they offended your honor or you pay them a bribe to forgive you.

buwaya said...

"Is 'honor killing' a domestic issue"

Its illegal in Sharia.
This is one of those "tribal" matters underlying Islam that are not part of Islam.
But for most Islamic peoples they come with the package.

The problem is the package.

Also consanguinity, opportunistic raiding/robbery/murder/rape, stealing women, exploitation of nonbelievers, etc.

Anglelyne said...

Jon Burack: Obama's incomprehensible distaste for speaking honestly about Islamist radicalism means many citizens have no capacity any longer to distinguish between Muslims and Islamists, hence we get Donald Trump.

Ah, is that why some people think lots of Muslim immigration into Western countries might not be such a good idea? Not only are they so retarded they don't have the capacity to distinguish between Muslims and Islamists, but they're so retarded that their perceptions of the world are based entirely on a reaction to some smarmy pol's blather?

Well, that certainly seems a satisfying and comprehensive explanation to me. I can't think of a single reason why any well-read, well-traveled, observant and objective individual, who can certainly distinguish an ordinary law-abiding Muslim from an Islamist, might hold the view that lots of Muslim immigration into Western countries might not be a good idea.

mockturtle said...

@buwaya "Is 'honor killing' a domestic issue"

Its illegal in Sharia.
This is one of those "tribal" matters underlying Islam that are not part of Islam.
But for most Islamic peoples they come with the package.


I has been condoned by at least some imams. Perhaps they are unfamiliar with Islamic law.

Kyzernick said...

Well, this guy's toast.

buwaya said...

"Not only are they so retarded they don't have the capacity to distinguish between Muslims and Islamists, "

There isn't one, other than circumstantially. Every Muslim population, peaceful enough on the surface, with no more than the usual quirks (Rotherham, and mass-rape/groping/random street crime for instance), has frequent outbreaks of "Islamism", where some random group of individuals/families will become "Islamist" and go on a rampage. This can vary in scale from individuals to mass-movements. This is history, it happens over and over.

buwaya said...

Honor killings as per the Al Azhar Fatwa committee -
And this is my understanding of the legal process in Sunni Islam.

http://www.islamawareness.net/HonourKilling/fatwa.html

And for that matter, even such worthies as Al-Quaeda and ISIS couch their propaganda in judicial reasoning and often present decisions from such as Quadrawi as justifications. Thats one reason ISIS and Al Quaeda both try to present themselves as state authorities, as this is necessary to justify their acts.

This does not mean that other rulings by this august body (or similar bodies) will sit comfortably in a Western cultural/legal system, because there is a conflict of systems. But that conflict isn't the only conflict.

The flip side is that the folk understanding, and the cultural package it comes in contains BOTH the legalistic-textual analysis system that is formal Sunni Islam as well as the actual value systems that dictate such actions. And many others.

hombre said...

Frederick: "Khizr Khan needs to lend this guy his copy of the Constitution. And traditional guy needs to bone up on it too."

Would that be the Constitution Jimmy Carter was reading when he prohibited Iranians from immigrating and ordered 50,000 Iranian students to report to immigration offices to face deportation?

Which is not to say Nehlen should not clarify his stand on Muslims who are American citizens since they cannot be deported for preferring Sharia Law.

Joe said...

Why is it awful to ask to debate hard questions that make us squirm uncomfortably?

mockturtle said...

buwaya, your points are well stated and well taken. I understand what you are saying about the Qur'anic law vs. individual interpretations and implementation of that law. My point was that some of the 'domestic issues' consigned to the Sharia courts are pretty serious issues.

mockturtle said...

...it is a fact that many honor killings are never even reported to civil law enforcement, much less prosecuted by civil courts.

I Callahan said...

I doubt he has left his mom's basement in West Bumblefucked, Iowa, in the last several years.

Can you ever comment without being a raging asshole?

knighterrant said...

"The Jews weren't at war with Germany."

Hitler said the Jews were at war with Germany.

buwaya said...

"Why is it awful to ask to debate hard questions that make us squirm uncomfortably?"

Because the ultimate value in this decadent society is to avoid occasions when one must squirm uncomfortably.

Original Mike said...

"Can you ever comment without being a raging asshole?"

Nope. It's who he is.

Rance Fasoldt said...

Possible antidote for the motives for suicide attacks by Islamists: desecrate their carcasses, like Black Jack Pershing did a century ago to the Muslim terrorists of that age. He wrapped the bodies of the dead in pigskins. It worked back then.

mikee said...

All that needs to happen to solve the problem of Muslim terrorism and conquest and sharia is the same thing that happened to Christian religions over hundreds of years:
Make the religion about one's personal salvation after death, not about power here on earth.

Of course, it did take religious wars over hundreds of years to achieve this with Christianity, and as recently as JFK people were worried that his religion would supercede his official responsibilities (aside: indicating just how well the media back then covered up for Democrats who like to screw around a lot).

buwaya said...

"desecrate their carcasses, like Black Jack Pershing did a century ago "

Well, it was not just Pershing, and it went on for a couple of decades. This was done at various times by the Philippine Constabulary also.

buwaya said...

"Make the religion about one's personal salvation after death, not about power here on earth."

This was always the point of Christianity. There was no element of power on earth until it was attached to Roman Imperial politics. And then it managed to keep itself as a parallel institution, most of the time in most ways. And there were always a host of internal critics of any secularizing tendencies. There are an awful lot of reforming saints on the Catholic calendar.

buwaya said...

Note also, that all that burying in pigskins did very little to solve the fundamental problem.
It calmed things down - somewhat - for a generation, but not more than that.

In the 1930's my grandpa and grandma were standing watch, with rifles, on Palawan, against Moro raiders. Just like their ancestors were doing the century before, and the century before that.

mockturtle said...

Exactly. Nothing has really changed in the jihad sphere since Muhammad. Some tactics may change but the goal has remained the same.

mockturtle said...

"Make the religion about one's personal salvation after death, not about power here on earth."

Jesus said: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's."

Also: "My kingdom is not of this world."

Freder Frederson said...

And then it managed to keep itself as a parallel institution, most of the time in most ways.

Guess you have never heard of the Holy Roman Empire. Sheesh, do a little research before you make ignorant statements. Until, World War I the church and the state in much of Europe were inextricably intertwined. And the Queen of England is still the head of the Church of England.

Freder Frederson said...

it is a fact that many honor killings are never even reported to civil law enforcement, much less prosecuted by civil courts.

Can you provide any evidence of this fact. It would be nice to know how big a problem this is.

buwaya said...

"Guess you have never heard of the Holy Roman Empire."

And how often was the "Holy Roman Empire" at war with the Pope?
Guess you never heard of Canossa? Guelphs and Ghibellines?

The state and church in much of Europe were intertwined as a result of power struggles between them, in which each came to some sort of accommodation as a result of centuries of conflict. Get down to cases and I will explain the how and why. Perhaps Spain would be of interest.

Teach not your grandma to suck eggs.

YoungHegelian said...

@Freder,

Do not try to assimilate the ecclesiology of Islam to Christianity. They are completely different. Christianity has always run with parallel bureaucracies & internal laws to the secular regimes around it. Islam has not.

Imagine Islam as a hegemonic Orthodox Judaism, both in terms of having behavioral codes for all aspects of life & in terms of having a very loosey-goosey clerical hierarchy. That's closer to Islamic ecclesiology.

mockturtle said...

Can you provide any evidence of this fact. It would be nice to know how big a problem this is.

I can but I won't.

Earnest Prole said...

Don’t like the view through Mr. Trump’s newly enlarged Overton Window?

buwaya said...

http://www.newenglishreview.org/Nicolai_Sennels/Muslims_and_Westerners%3A__The_Psychological_Differences/

I second the recommendation of Virgil Xenophons above re the Sennels article.
Very interesting indeed. A psychologist who has worked with 150 Muslim criminals in Denmark.
Much of this is very familiar, re attitudes to the outsider.

"Many of my Muslim clients were second or even third generation immigrants, but, still they did not feel Danish. Actually it seemed that many of them were even more religious and hateful towards non-Muslims than their first generation immigrant parents. It was clear to me that they saw themselves as quite different and even better than non-Muslims."

Much more. Let enough of them in and you will have many generations of trouble.

Sennels insight -
"There is another strong difference between the people of Western and Muslim cultures; their locus of control. Locus of control is a psychological term describing whether people experience their life influenced mainly, by internal or external factors. It is clear from a psychological point of view that Westerners feel that their lives are mainly influenced by inner forces – ourselves. ....
People who have been taught throughout their entire lives that outer rules and traditions are more important than individual freedom and self reflection, will ask: "Who did this to me?" and "Who has to do something for me?" ....
In a very concrete way this cultural tendency, shows itself in therapy, as a lack of remorse. The standard answer from violent Muslims was always: "…It is his own fault that I beat him up. He provoked me." Such excuses show that people experience their own reactions as caused by external factors and not by their own emotions, motivation and free will. Even though one's own feelings, when experiencing an insult, can be moderated by one's own point of view, this kind of self reflection does not happen to the same degree among Muslims as it does among Westerners....
The difference in mentality is clearly stated by the old Indian proverb:
You can walk around softly everywhere by putting on a pair of shoes, or you can demand that the whole Earth becomes covered by soft leather."
...
"If integration just consists of learning the language and finding a job, it is not so difficult. But if integration also includes developing mental habits of equally respecting non-Muslims it is simply impossible for most Muslims. They see themselves as special, will always try to live together, create their own Muslim/Islamic parallel societies, feel separated and have less respect towards non-Muslims. True integration doesn’t have to, necessarily, imply religious conversion. However, for Muslims it certainly presupposes cultural conversion. Clearly, very few Muslims have the will, social freedom and strength of personality to go through such a psychologically demanding process."

This is not religion, or only religion, as such. This is rather fundamental psychology that soaks through the whole society, regardless of religious belief, or degree of it.

mockturtle said...

Islam is more ideology than religion, IMO.

virgil xenophon said...

buwaya puti@10:42am/

Well, your'e only half right. The "Powers that be" are presently doing something I heretofore thought physically impossible, ie., whistling past the graveyard whilst simultaneously sticking their head in the sand, such is their overweening desire to avoid the reality of Islam and all of the implications that follow. It appears that our hedonistic society no longer has the collective will to gird its loins for the coming--hell current--struggle for its own survival ahead.

Matthew Blaine said...

I don't think we should entertain deporting all Muslims. Just stop bringing them in.

And legislate a First Amendment exception for the Qu'ran. The book, in its present state, is basically an incitement to violence.

rcocean said...

Roughcoat - great post.

In World War 2 a great many Japanese ethnics residing in America -- not a majority, but a significant number -- were not American citizens: they were Japanese nationals/citizens living and working legally in the United States on extended visas.

The Japanese in Hawaii and living east of the Mississippi were not interned. Further most Nisei on the West Coast were under 18 and went where their parents - who were Japanese citizens went. After a time in the relocation camps, those who signed a pledge of loyalty were free to go anywhere except the West Coast and at the end of the war were allowed to go there too.

6,000 Nisei refused to sign a loyalty oath and at the end of war, voluntarily, went back to Japan.

mockturtle said...

Unfortunately, many Japanese Americans lost homes and businesses while incarcerated in 'relocation camps'.

Unknown said...

That's nothing, imagine what would have happened to them if they had gone back to Japan on December 8th.

Gahrie said...

Guess you have never heard of the Holy Roman Empire.

The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, Roman nor an empire.

Gahrie said...

And the Queen of England is still the head of the Church of England.

And she doesn't kill apostates, infidels or heretics.......

Unknown said...

Very simply, the United States is having a problem...with what exactly? Well, with Muslims, Islam, Islamism, Islamofascism, Arabs, something like that.

When the United States has a big enough problem for long enough, its attention gets drawn to the problem, and then it generally solves the problem a la mode du Hulk. Generally, at this point, eggs are getting broken.

The confusion over who *exactly* the enemy is will not long delay the solution of the problem.

If someone wants the targeting to be better, someone should help with the targeting. Saying "Christians did it five hundred years ago too" is not helping.

Ultimately it's as Curtis LeMay said. If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting.

People who don't want to be in the blast radius with the enemy should move away from the enemy.

mockturtle said...

That's nothing, imagine what would have happened to them if they had gone back to Japan on December 8th.

'Back to Japan'? Those whom I know were born in the US.

Unknown said...

I beg your pardon, if they had been in Japan.

steve uhr said...

The guy is a kook who has lived in Wisconsin for only two years. Doesn't the state have the power to export him to some Muslim country where he can live out his few remaining days?

Rusty said...

Original Mike said...
Jesus Christ on a Harley; we can not deport illegal residents?

Not after they're on the democrat voter rolls.