The new Speaker of the House, open-border advocate Paul Ryan (R-WI), who believes in unrestricted immigration, and has said that every American job should be in competition to anyone from any country, is now lecturing us on what is conservatism is and isn’t, and on “American values.”
The occasion of Speaker Ryan’s lecture was Donald Trump’s statement that all Muslim immigration should be temporarily stopped until “the country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”
“This is not conservatism,” Ryan instructed at a news conference Tuesday. “What was proposed yesterday [by Trump] is not what this party stands for and, more importantly, it’s not what this country stands for.”
Pardon me, where is the heavy lifting that qualifies Ryan to judge what the conservative movement thinks and values? The ocean that separates Ryan’s rhetoric from his actual voting record can be seen in his Conservative Review Liberty rating of “F.” He is to conservatism what mystery meat is to filet mignon; he simply hijacked the label, while performing as a big-government aficionado.
And what is all this nonsense about “American values” as it relates to excluding Muslim immigration? This country has a long history of adjusting its immigration policy to circumstances; including during two wars, and for many decades in the last century the U.S. had virtually no net immigration – on purpose – to allow for the massive influx of immigrants earlier in the century to assimilate. Two recent Presidents, Truman and Eisenhower, even deported millions of illegal aliens. Gasp!
Congress has absolute, plenary power over immigration policy and can, and has done historically, as it pleases. The idea that Trump’s proposal as it regards non-citizens is unconstitutional is absurd. And he has specifically said it would not involve U.S. citizens.
The establishment, of course, is wrong, again. They are the problem. We have an immigration nightmare right now, and we have a serious problem with Islamic radicals, because of the indifference and incompetence of the establishment, Democrats and Republicans alike.
Uncontrolled Muslim immigration, many of whom have not been properly examined prior to entry in the U.S., and a large portion of whom immediately go on public assistance, present a major security and economic challenge to actual American citizens, regardless of religion. It is self-evident. And the polling that Mr. Trump referenced, along with substantial other polling, demonstrate that a minority of Muslims in the U.S. believe in violence as an instrument of jihad, and that there is a surprising support for sharia law.
The American establishment and their European counterparts are a flighty lot, and infatuated with multiculturalism and utopianism. It has been very obvious to the average citizen that it is a bankrupt concept, which is why Americans have been screaming for a generation to close the wide open borders and reestablish reasonable immigration standards concerning self-support, education and the prospects for assimilation.
The radicalism is not on Mr. Trump’s part in this controversy; it is on the part of those who suggest that to deny immigration or refugee status to Muslims for any reason, including the protection of U.S. citizens, is somehow unworthy of us as a country.
Considering the shameful operational incompetence of our visa system (40% of illegal aliens simply overstay their visas), the complete breakdown of law and order in Northern Mexico and the ongoing drug war in proximity of a wide open border, and the proven danger of Islamic radicals acting individually and in groups, some of us would go Mr. Trump one better; place a moratorium on all immigration for a period of time until we regain control of our immigration programs. Period.
83 comments
This immigration system which is completely incompetent and what competence it has is limited by fools like Ryan and the Democrats in total is likely going to produce yet another spectacular disaster. Obama has pretty much indicated that when he had to acknowledge that this wasn’t a man made disaster…
Muslim Mingle:
Sayed: I’m a young
good looking 20-something who lives the good life in CA. I like ice
cream, walks on the beach, and Jihad. Tell me a little about your
interests, Tasfeen.
Tasfeen: I also
like ice cream. Can’t say anything about walks on the beach, because I
live in Pakistan. Not many beaches here, but I also am really into Jihad.
Let’s meet, marry, have a baby, and then blow ourselves up while we made war on
the West.
Sayed: Sounds like
a plan. Let’s get together. Whadda say?
That’s funny, but wrong in a PC way. But it does bring up the point of radicalization — Is it that Muslims have a greater vulnerability to radicalization? Or perhaps no immunity to it? What is it exactly that ‘Radical Islam’ is/does that makes it different from regular good old-fashioned just plain folks Islam?
The immigration system is a complete joke which has gotten worse with Clinton, W the Idiot and Obama the Chicago politician. That is a fact. It is vetting no one… you come and squat and never go home… not even criminal aliens are sent packing. Obama’s DHS ICE director could not explain last week why deportations of get this DavidH… CRIMINAL ALIENS has dropped to record low levels… And DavidH it isn’t because we have less criminal aliens.
And this system is supposed to vet immigrants from the Mid East? Like the San Bernadino Mom last week?
And Ryan, a guy who is auditioning for the next job he will have, collecting millions in lobbying fees, is a useless part of a broken system.
I think if USA were really committed to human rights, some attempt should be made to help the minorities in Iraq and Syria such as the Christians and Yezidis. People are worked up about Trump but don’t seem to care about minority groups over there who are bearing the brunt of the chaos we helped create.
“many of whom have not been properly
examined prior to entry in the U.S., and a large portion of whom
immediately go on public assistance”
Data on this?
It is a fact. As a refugee you are entitled to payments via HHS
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/01/3-in-4-refugees-on-food-stamps-many-using-other-forms-of-public-assistance/
Obama’s Auntie was on public assistance until her death… and she wasn’t supposed to get payments until she finally won asylum after trying for over ten years..
Your friends the Tsaernev boys in Boston remember them? And their mother and father collected over 100,000 dollars in the decade they lived prior to blowing up the Marathon. And oh by the way–refugees? Mom and Dad returned to Chechnya…
Thank you for the reference to the report (by way of the Breitbart article).
The rest of your comment doesn’t pertain to the question or merit a response.
Yes it does. The Tsaernev boys were asylees as were their parents. You questioned whether there is data on US taxpayer provided benefits to refugee immigrants… The Boston Globe of all places did an analysis of how much the family collected. And that vetting process? It was so thorough that the boy’s parents went back to the very country that they claimed asylum from…
http://www.refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com
plenty of information there on this scam and the dangers it poses America.
The station of sociopolitical issues in Islam, is clear and eminent and a bedrock of the creed. One cannot consider these issues outside the jurisdiction and applicarion of religion and believe that they have no effect in the happiness and/or wretchedness of believers. A core Islamic premise is that separating even mundane affairs and temporal issues from the jurisdiction of religion will lead to the denial of Islam and has no other outcome. EVERY action contributes to felicity or wretchedness, as the case may be. So, we need to more fully understand and acknowledge that Islam can and must give its opinion on all matters in a believer’s life as well as stating their ideological value. As the Prophet said: “There is nothing that would draw you toward paradise and keep you away from hell except that I commanded you and there is nothing that would draw you toward hell and keep you away from paradise except that I prohibited you.”
This is in clear and complete juxtaposition to our cultural and political heritage as documented in our governing rule of law embedded in the US constitution and its philosophical precedents in thinkers like John Locke, who maintained; “The liberty of man in society is to be under no other legislative power but that established by CONSENT in the commonwealth, nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what the legislative shall enact according to the trust put in it….freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it.”
If there is a way to reconcile these beliefs and their associated underpinnings I completely fail to see or understand it. Therefore that the Republican political establishment is floundering is no great surprise to me as I don’t see they even grasp the irreconcilable conflicts at the basis of the issue. If two chemical reagents predictably create an explosive reaction when in each others presence the prudent individual would find a method to keep them separated or accept the explosive predictable consequences.
It is interesting that parties like the Swedish Democrat and the National Front Party in Europe are fast gaining ground in elections. Many Europeans apparently rather boldly face and deal with the problem of their impending cultural genocide as a people rather than worry about the word control games which their largely Marxist – Socialist elites habitually play against them. Europeans are finally asserting an unalienable right to existance. Bending the knee on the self-effacing altar of “fairness and compassion,” as our elites both ‘Right’ and ‘Left’ would have us do, clearly does not purchase survival.
When Republicans alienated by allegiances placed elsewhere elect Ryan Speaker of the House, they contemptuously spit upon you.
Ryan supported TARP and the Auto Bailout.
“place a moratorium on all immigration for a period of time until we regain control of our immigration programs. ”
Aye.
But where will Democrats get their votes? Where will Big Business get their cheap labor?
Seriously….
Totally agree with everything in this article.
Muslims are not our friends, keep them out and deport with undo haste any who have overstayed their visa no matter the nationality. Ryan, Comstock 2 nut in a shell both are amnestyholics, don’t drink their kool aide!
There are quite a few Muslims in this country, either born here or emigrated here, who are our friends. There are many more not in this country who are targets of the same terrorist that hate America. You racism is uncalled for and will not help defeat Hillary.
You’re ignorant. That’s not meant as an insult, just a fact.
“Muslim” is not a race. And the vast majority of them hold very unenlightened views of liberty, Jews and infidel, and likewise see jihad and terrorism as proper approaches to the infidel world. Andy McCarthy wrote an excellent article on this recently. It’s not that you can’t find “nice” Muslims –I’ve had many “nice” Muslim friends — it’s that few of them understand the rights outlined in our Bill of Rights.
“And the vast majority of them hold very unenlightened views of liberty, Jews and infidel, and likewise see jihad and terrorism as proper approaches to the infidel world.”<- THAT IS JUST NOT SO
David– I’d suggest you read Andy McCarthy’s article, or just google gallup polls Muslim beliefs worldwide
Like President Obama, I have heard the Muslim calll to prayer — at dawn, with the city streets of Mombasa still and waking; in my case, while serving in the Peace Corps — and found it beautiful. I have enjoyed the fruendship of Muslims — I was the one who told a group of Muslim VT students in the 1980s where to get a goat to slaughter for Eid. I think that’s still done in Blacksburg to this day. This is not a matter of animus or bigotry or racism. It is amatter of understanding that there are real differences between our culture and history and theirs.
Wonderful sentiments, but I just don’t have any confidence in this fuzzy warm thinking, as generous of heart as it may be.
Numbers dictate. And then there is Lebanon, once a Christian country, now a Muslim Rule.
and what is wrong with Lebanon progressing away from Christianity? If that is what the citizens are, then who are you do say this is bad?
The obvious counter is: who are you to say, “and what is wrong with Lebanon progressing away from Christianity?”
The truth is that there is no such thing as cultural neutrally. All is ultimately a realpolitik for dominance from the position of one world view or another, the rule being that two things (worldviews) cannot occupy the same place at the same time (multi-culti notwithstanding). Ultimately, one and only one will prevail.
The more direct answer to your quiry is that my authority say is derived from the world view upon which I claim standing as backed by my substance. This is how it always was in America until we became delusionally egalitarian.
So, you basically are favoring spreading Christianity around the world and keeping it that way. Funny. This is what the crusades tried to do and what got the Muslims angry with the Europeans in the first place. We still are living the nightmare from that failed policy.
Is Christianity bad? Are Maronites and Orhodox bad? Should not the Lebanese Christians be entitled to their country?
Entitled? Since when does the GOP support entitlements?
Funny. I will put it better: Lebanese Christians have a right to their country.
And what were Muslims doing BEFORE and AFTER the crusades? My advice is that you read some Gibbon as a start on overcoming the deficit of a public school education.
Know that you have been deceived in almost everything that has been taught to you. From my own experiece, regaining possession of one’s own mind is no simple task. Deprogramming involves re-learning ways of knowing as much as learning facts and histories which has been deliberately been kept away from your eyes.
If you knew with historical accuracy the rise and growth of Islam, you would not have spoken the way you did.
What daverkb said. Here’s the Cliff’s Notes version for you. North Africa was Christian until after the death of Mohamed. The Islamic holy books call for a physical subjugation of the entire world. Early converts took this quite literally and marched west across North Africa killing everyone in their wake and continued to conquer across the Straights of Gibraltar up into Europe until Charles Martel defeated them at the Battle of Tours in 732. Islamists also conquered Jerusalem and the surrounding areas. At one point hundreds of years later, the Pope rounded up his posse and said, “Hey, we want that back.”
And they tortured and killed anyone who refused to say they were Christian. How is that strategy working out now?
You are so full of fecal matter it is unbelievable. The Moslems invaded Europe first. Get your head out of your arse and start putting some FACTS into it. The Moslems overran Spain and portions of France and Italy a few centuries before the Europeans mounted the Crusades. Prove me wrong, or otherwise shut up. I have no patience anymore with you PC morons.
Are you denying the crusades? Are you really saying that the Church did not kill and torture “non-believers” and that so many were forced to either convert, lie about their beliefs or hide? Here is a cool site about the torture http://www.medievalwarfare.info/torture.htm
But the bigger point is that you cannot simply wipe out an entire people.
Tell that to the non-Muslims in the Middle East. Demographics will disagree with your faux logic.
Otto In ‘A Fish Called Wanda’ comes to mind.
Yeah, you really don’t get this whole history thing do you? Do you have any idea how Lebanon was progressed away from Christianity? Do you see how this pattern is repeating in Europe and now here?
Okay, and. .. lol… seriously this is America a melting pot of culture. I can not and will not discriminate. I’m sorry that I am not sorry for that. If it is the death of me, so be it, I will stand before God and say that I tried to honor him. Will you?
Really? Could you be more sanctimonious?
Do you deny that 17th and 18th century Americans routinely made such profession of faith? And do you think that their contemporaries reflexively deemed them ‘sanctimonius?’
I have noticed that you have in past worshiped at the Church of Apology for remarks that could have been credibly defended. So profuse were these ritualistic-like apologies that the word sanctimonius very nearly comes to mind.
By the way, the ideal the ‘melting pot’ is that we meld together in to a singular people, that we might descrimate, we being Americans as opposed to any other people of the earth.
You do realize that Islam doesn’t go anywhere near the pot right?
Absolutely, lslam and Christianity are to each other as oil is to water.
The problem is that Christianity in the West has been so watered down as to become a merely nominal worship. As a result ‘Christians’ can no longer intelligently exegete or effectively engage in apologetics. Islam, at least in some quarters, appears to have very little trouble in knowing its mind, it’s ambitions, and the tracks it must necessarily go down.
America is like old Byzantium, crippled in the mind, diseased in the heart, and this in the face of a seemingly rising crescent.
I therefore do not look kindly on Islamic import into the American landmass.
Nope, that’s plenty. Seriously do you believe that we should ban an entire religion, some 1.5 billion people for the actions of a few?
IIRC. The Andy McCarthy article is entitled “The myth of the extremist few.”
Certain level of irony, his last name is McCarthy.
So you are saying that Tail-Gunner Joe was wrong??
14% of 1.5 billion is 2.1 million right? So in order to not allow the 2.1 million to go off, and considering that apparently it doesn’t take much for some of the 1.5 billion to join the elite, what would you have us do?
How many more incidents or deaths have to occur in order for banning to seem like a good idea? 50? a Hundred? More than a Thousand?
I would concentrate on those that are a threat, not those that can defeat the threat. Why make new enemies of potential friends? Why not use the only weapon that will work, getting the world to take up the fight against extremist thugs. Attacking the entire religion is wrong and won’t work.
According to commonly accepted wisdom, only the radicalized are the threat, the yet-to-be radicalized are only support and protective coloration. And if you think it’s just a religion, you have much, much more to learn. Please explain the extremist differentiation please.
Where’s the 14% come from
I ballparked it — Pew Research says only 14% of Muslims support Suicide bombers — you pick a number you like, then tell me how many more Islam-originated casualties are acceptable to you.
Wonder how they got that number. Calling Muslims? Regardless i prefer none, but I realize that isn’t going to happen.
Poll magic — either it’s right or its wrong — I’ve heard 10 and I’ve heard higher than 20 — let’s call it 15 — So when does banning become acceptable to you?
How many more deaths and maimings? They had pipe bombs, they were on their way to a gun free zone school.
Nope, how many of your 15% are currently living in a desert in Iraq or Syria
Okaaayyyy. So what percentage of Muslims in the US are radicalized? What percentage of Muslims in the US are yet-to-be radicalized? What number is acceptable to you? We know it greater than zero and for some unknown reason you won’t accept a uniform dispersion.
How about 1%? For every 100 there is 1 that is a ‘radical’ and X that is yet-to-be ‘radicalized.’ Think that is too low?
One ‘pair’ shot up 35 Anericans and we’re heading towards more targets of opportunity.
So how many more incidents have to occur before we treat the cause and not the symptom?
I agree with Ryan, (and you presumably) that Trump’s remarks are unamerican, and hideous. (Not to mention impossible to implement.)
However, Race doesn NOT equal religion. It just doesn’t. Discrimination against a particular religion, however unconstitutional, is NOT racism. Dislike or hatred toward a religion is not racism. The hallmark of the left is to re-purpose pejorative words to include things they don’t like, bypassing reasonable discourse on the issue. Lets not start doing that on our side too. You can fight fire with fire, but you’ll just burn the country down.
Just in Col. Peters calls Ryan a big pussy!
If you are playing the sematics game, I will allow that there should be a better word than racism. I will point out that in the 70s, the UN named Zionism as racists so there is precedent for using the word along with religion. The issue here is not one of which word to use but the impact hate of non -Christians. This is getting us nowhere except further in trouble.
The UN was wrong to equate Zionism with racism, because Jews and Arabs are the same race – Caucasian. They are DNA-wise cousins. Jews are really Arabs with a different belief system.
You win!!! That is the worst thing I have read on this site for quite some time. Not surprising, no one from TBE is attacking your terrible comment. I suspect that they share your hatred for all non-white, Christians. Good job being the worst person on this site.
You just should probably study a lot more and refrain from posting until you can better follow topics and discussions — know your terms.
Rocinante. I am still not sure what you are arguing. I take it that you support Mark J and his terrible post, correct? Or are you still on the wide-spread use of the word racism? If the former, that there is nothing anyone can say to you to restore your humanity. If the latter, then you are deflecting the topic to a simple word search and away from bigotry and hatred.
Don’t be silly, he’s not racist, you’re not racket, I’m not racist.
Jawsz is right in his terms and definition.
Your absolute moralizing is inappropriate and wrong.
Throwing terms around like ‘racist, projecting and attempted intimidation with PC mindsets equally so. Your condescending implications are also rejected.
Homey don’t play dat!
Feh. Real Americans say what they want. Real Republicans 66% agree with The Donald.
Hideous? No more ugly than the 14 and 21 dead and wounded by legitimate practitioners of Islam.
Can you read, I said nothing about residents of the United States. The majority of terrorists are muslim, attack the attackers with everything politically and with the military. Don’t bring vermin in cure it there! What is SD, some dumbass?
Nothing like a little civil discourse to start off the morning, eh?
you said “Muslims are not our friends.” You never focused your hatred outside the US. The bigger point here is that if we want to defeat Hillary this next election, we cannot allow hate speech to be the only thing defining the GOP.
Hate speech? Define please. Do you mean that you will not stand idly by while someone slanders Islam or the Prophet Mohammed PBUH?
Sigh, Islam is not a race.
How many is ‘quite a few?’
How many of the ‘many more’ targets also hate America?
There is nothing better for ISIS than embracing the US vs. Islam/Muslims narrative. Congratulations on aiding terrorists.
When your IQ reaches triple digits get back to me.
Because it will be something for you to shoot for?
It was nice that only one of the Paris shooters was an actual recent Syrian refugee wasn’t it? The rest were European grown.
It’s a nice non sequitur you’ve got there.
Not a non sequitur. You make the statement that vetting and pausing immigration from the Mid East is aiding terrorists. We have home grown radicalized terrorists who seem to have done so despite being here already. Major Hasan, the San Bernadino couple (he was born in the US.) So how exactly does pausing Mid Eastern immigration stop people who are already here and have benefited from being in Western countries from killing people? Oh they are going to be any more radicalized than they already are because of something Trump said??
This argument you make is a non sequitur in itself… it is what is called deflection. The real issue is why does that religion tend toward acts of terror? Do you want a list to prove the point?
Well I guess it would be better if we did nothing to prevent them from bring their insane death cult here?
You’re right – clearly there is nothing in between ban-all-Muslims and doing nothing at all.
It was you who said there was nothing better, and it was you who accused others of aiding terrorists. Islam, Radical and otherwise is antithetical to Our culture and Western Civilization. Do you know any Muslims that believe that the Constitution and our Codes and Laws supersede Shariah Law? Are they willing to publicly declare so?
Ban All Muslims is an extreme, yet effective measure — Nothing at all or worse, aggressive settlement is what we have now. What have you got that’s better? How many more incidents before you climb aboard the ban train? Banning is triage, and we’re bleeding now.
Ban all Muslims is a stupid, indiscriminate response that likely won’t be effective and that only makes things worse, in at least two significant ways.
First, there are at least 1 billion Muslims in the world, including millions of American citizens. Alienating that vast group over the tiny sliver that are actual terrorists is incredibly stupid. ISIS would like nothing better than for the US to set itself on one side and all Muslims on the other. Our allies around the world have condemned the idea, and it would harm our relationship with them. And since the millions of Muslim American citizens have constitutionally guaranteed rights of travel, gun ownership, etc., banning all Muslims won’t guarantee anything.
Second, banning all Muslims broadens the focus when we need to narrow it. Intelligence agencies’ problem hasn’t been that they don’t capture data or have enough electronic surveillance; it’s been that they can’t analyze it and follow up appropriately on a large enough group of people. Efforts need to go into analysis and manpower, not broadening our focus to all adherents of a religion while ignoring all of the significant distinctions among that group.
So nothing then.
That’s what you got out of that, eh? You’re amusing.
You made the statement, you deflect or duck issue. Ban all Muslims is extreme but effective. Draconian yes, so what is your solution instead? Amusing feh.
Great article & spot on! Speaker Ryan is a huge disappointment and I RESENT the Freedom Caucus who allowed him to become Speaker! (Excepting, of course, wonderful Dave Brat & 8 other patriots who voted Nay for Ryan).
Paul Ryan is a pandering, P.C. putz who does NOT speak for me or the majority of Americans!
#Trump2016 Trump/Cruz
I am looking for the vote and so far … NO luck.
What do you make of this?
http://bearingdrift.com/2015/10/26/breaking-brat-kneels-will-vote-ryan-for-speaker/
Lots of resonance on this article!