https://www.blazetv.com/watch/featured/6ftUGyAQJgRR-lws-06-03-25
The above is an episode of the Liz Wheeler Show on BlazeTV.com. In it, she speaks with a CIA analyst who tells of terrorist plans now in progress, scheduled for some time this year. It's fascinating stuff compels higher scrutiny for people of certain nations, of certain cultures and certain ideologies which I insist are anathema to our way of life and a clear and direct threat to our nation. I am totally opposed to immigration policy by our government having any concern about "being nice". Immigration policy is for the benefit of Americans, not those who seek entry.
While I'm pretty much opposed to allowing entry to any muslim whatsoever, I can acknowledge that there are likely muslims in this country already who reject islamic teachings for the most part, while still maintaining they are muslim. They've done no harm and demonstrate no potential as far as anyone can see. Fine. Hopefully it's not a ruse. At the same time, there's Zuhdi Jasser, who I've heard speak many times, often interviewed by Mark Levin, and he claims he seeks reforms of islam. I hope that's the case and he's a compelling speaker who at least is honest about the violent, murderous attitudes so prevalent within the muslim world, particularly the arab muslim world (and Persian, given Iran isn't arabic).
But these exceptions simply do not compellingly argue for anything less than the strictest scrutiny of those seeking entry, or even the total prohibition against allowing their entry. We are not obliged to allow anyone to enter, and our government's first priority is the safety of its people above and beyond any considerations for those who seek to come here.
Give yourself an hour and watch the episode to which I've linked. I'll post more evidence in support of my position as I see fit to do so.
Saturday, June 07, 2025
More Which Supports My Position
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
One of the Muslim teachings is to pretend you are friends with neighbors, country, etc, until you are in a position of power. I think every Muslim in the USA is ready for jihad at any moment.
As cynical as that actually is, it's not without justification. I try to be objective, but that remains the logical and safe conclusion. But for those who are already here and behaving themselves, Craig's insistence upon treating them according to their deeds is best, and we just have to hope that the majority aren't anywhere on the jihadi spectrum. Situational awareness is key, and I don't worry about being labeled in any negative way for maintaining a unique degree of scrutinizing awareness with regard to the muslim population in this country. It's too bad for the good ones that they come from a culture which requires such from the rest of us.
Yes, that is a teaching of Islam. But focusing and judging people on this one tenet raises questions for me. I assume that we all believe that Muslims are also sinners that can be saved by the grace of YHWH through the finished work of Jesus Christ, do we not?
If we do, then how do you respond to a Christian who's converted from Islam? Isn't there always going to be some doubt about the sincerity or validity of their conversion? What exactly would render the conversion of a Muslim as beyond question in your mind?
I guess, I struggle with trying to focus on things that can't be seen, measured, or quantified in this realm. I can see someone's actions, I can't see (Dan can, but I can't) see someone's motivations. The notion that I should be eternally suspicious of a convert from Islam (or that we shouldn't share the Gospel with Muslims because they might lie about conversion) strikes me as a problem.
It all comes back to how we do things in our legal system, IMO. We punish people for their actions, not for their thoughts and beliefs, after the fact.
Look, y'all believe and advocate for whatever you want. I don't expect or particularly care about what you choose to believe or advocate for. I do think that raising questions is appropriate as is evaluating the responses to those questions as I process my thoughts.
I wish people would study history, especially politicians. Almost of of Europe, UK and Ireland are virtually taken over by Muslims and all you have to do is look how that is affecting these countries---and it ain't for good!
Glenn, the last data I saw was that the percentage of Muslims in the UK was @ 7% projected to rise to 17% by 2050, whereas in Singapore almost 17% of their population is Muslim. That raises the question as to why Singapore isn't seeing the same results as the UK. Could it be that country of origin matters as much or more than religion? Could it be the the UK is a much more permissive society than Singapore? Could there be other answers?
I agree that the UK and Europe have screwed themselves over royally, and should be deporting en masse. However, I think that the reasons might not be as simplistic as "Muslims all bad".
I can't help but wonder if part of the problem is that Europe and the UK allowed virtually unfettered immigration of third world Muslims because they wanted cheap labor, and found out that creating an exploited underclass causes it's own problems. Maybe if you treat enough Muslims shittily enough, they find solace in a more radical version of Islam and use that to rebel.
I'm just spitballing here, so don't get all worked up.
If Europe and the UK immediately deported every single immigrant who had been accused of or committed a crime more severe than a speeding ticket, or that was fraudulently collecting welfare, what might the result be?
Just a thought.
We're not talking about converting muslims...which is a good endeavor if one can attempt it without a negative physical response...but rather our government's responsibility to put the safety of its citizens above the "self-determination" of foreigners.
To that end I maintain the best solution begins with a blanket prohibition against welcoming muslims to this country. Note the word "begins", as in, "the first consideration". Again, as one with the responsibility of ensuring the safety of over 300 million fellow Americans, I can't be "responsible" without acknowledging that these represent the potential for harm to my people. Does that mean all of them? Of course not. But I'm not obliged to consider those who won't given how determined are those who will or are likely to harm my own. 19 murdered over 3,000 in 2001.
If their RoP didn't teach that it's OK to lie for their cause, the policy could be amended to match the policy with regard to all others, as no one else teaches that.
The real problem here is how we get around the exponentially higher potential for murderous acts by those who are muslim. What workable solution is there which prevents that possibility from a people who are taught that all must bow to their will? There are some breeds of dog which are considered very aggressive. Not all are, but the entire breed is met with the same suspicion and scrutiny because the potential is higher. The big difference is (aside from one being a dog and the other a person) the dog won't seek to murder as many as possible with a single action.
I'd very much rather that this not be so, yet there's 1400 years of history to support the basic policy. If I'm tasked with protecting America, they don't get in without some solid assurances. How do we get those?
You're not specifically, but in reality how can you ever completely trust a Muslim that has claimed to convert? If one of your foundational premises is that Islam encourages Muslims to lie to advance Islam, then what is the line where you stop distrusting?
Again, your premise is that there should be a 100% ban on immigration of all Muslms, and that the fact that they can lie about themselves, is a primary reason for advocating for this ban. I'm merely questioning when, if ever, you would trust someone with a Muslim background, given your previous positions. (I'm not denying the practice, I'm merely noting that your position doesn't seem to allow for trust of any Muslim under any circumstances)
Yes, I understand that you "maintain" that a 100% complete and total ban on any Muslim immigration under any circumstances is the easy, and expedient solution. You've been quite clear on this, and I fail to see the value in repeating it.
That you've now modified your position (or simply been more clear) is something. But, given your repeated reference to the fact that Muslims are allowed to lie about their faith, I fail to see how you could ever clear that hurdle of trust.
I'm going to go out on a limb and point out that the Soviets and Chinese have been training and supporting people infiltrating the West and lying about it for decades. How many students are here under false pretenses and are actually working for the benefit of the CCP?
By all means, let's hear what your "workable solution" is beyond the easy and expedient total ban on Muslims.
At the risk of repeating myself, I'll respond to your last question. You want "assurances", great. What "assurances" are you prepared to trust from Muslims? This seems to be the sticking point. You are hung up on the lying thing, and I see no way for you to ever trust a Muslim no matter what "assurances" they give you.
On a larger note, if the goal is to prevent "harm" to America, what other groups of people should be excluded from immigration?
As I've noted several times in different places, is it possible that the problem with Muslim immigrants is less about Islam and more about the culture of their country of origin?
It's clear that Pakistanis have serious cultural problems that are not necessarily related to the fact that they were conquered by Muslims. The inbreeding, and tribe/clan loyalty over all else have nothing to do with, and are antithetical to, Islam. Likewise, as most of our Muslim immigrants are Somali, we've seen some of the worst elements of Somali (not Muslim) culture on the rise here culminating in the massive food scandal that Walz and Biden allowed. Stealing government aid for the poor isn't a Muslim thing, it's more of an African thing.
I know you'll likely ignore any suggestion that involves anything other than ease and expediency, but perhaps it's just not as simple as "Assume all Muslims are equally bad.".
Well, since the teachings of Islam says to take over the world, no matter what the percentage there, that's all that's required to take over. UK has voted Muslims into office where they dictate the laws, which is why it is illegal in the UK to speak or write anything against Islam.
Interesting point. There are some Muslims who have been elected (you know through free and fair elections) by the people the constituents of their particular districts. People all over the world elect shitty candidates, so what's the answer? Get rid of elections? Impose artificial limits on candidates?
Art has made an impassioned and compelling argument that US states and congressional districts should be completely free to repeatedly elect the current crop of ancient congresspeople of diminished mental abilities. His argument is that people should be free to make stupid electoral choices and the government should not place limits (age or cognition) on candidates. If voters want to do stupid things, shouldn't they be allowed to?
FYI, is their a political, religious, or philosophical worldview which doesn't want to "impose" their worldview where it currently isn't being followed?
Obviously, as someone who's used to the US version of constitutionally guaranteed free speech, I've always opposed the UK version which has historically been less free. To the extent that this is codified into UK law, I disagree with it. Yet shouldn't the UK be free to make their own laws, no matter how bad they might be?
However, your adroitness in avoiding the actual point I made is impressive. The problem I see, and have expanded upon, is how much if the problems in the UK/Europe/MN are because of the national/cultural makeup of the immigrants and not the simplistic conclusion that it must be Islam.
Just out of curiosity, does Islam promote the theft of large sums of taxpayer money through the creation of fraudulent entities, or is that sort of corruption more of a Somali thing? Does Islam encourage or promote the marriage of close biological relatives, or is that more of a Pakistani cultural thing?
I think it'd be interesting to see what happened if the UK/Europe/MN simply removed (in any fashion) those who are actually causing the deterioration of their countries. Get rid of the child rapists, the rapists in general, those who are defrauding the government and others, etc. It shouldn't be too difficult to find them, then let's talk about what to do with the rest.
Something for you history and sociology experts to consider is the leveling affect of moving to the US. The data is hard to come by, but from what I've read, there is a trend for religious extremists to assimilate more and acclimate to nations like the US. Many arrive here, find out we're not totally the Great Satan and over generations, become less extreme and less volatile or likely to commit violence.
So, ironically, it may be the case that, if you're the type who fears Muslims being dangerous, welcoming them to the US may be the way to make them less likely to be dangerously radicalized.
As might be true for Christian extremists given to violence as well.
Good policy and human rights-supporting ideologies are, I suspect, the better answer. That, as opposed to being LESS supportive of human rights.
Glenn...
"why it is illegal in the UK to speak or write anything against Islam..."
Also, this isn't factual, by the way.
Reading history and current events IS a good thing. It just has to be fact-based.
(Speaking of religious people willing to use deception to win their case...)
Yes it is indeed illegal to say, write against Islam. Try reading the news sometimes. You even go to jail for praying outside an abortion clinic. There is no free speech in the UK any more.
When you let Muslims in the country, here's what you can look forward to;
https://pjmedia.com/undefined/2025/06/10/al-qaeda-leader-makes-chilling-demand-of-muslims-in-america-n4940675
While this sounds interesting, it does seem to contradict the actual evidence we see in cities where Muslims have taken over and imposed their lifestyle or where there are hotbeds of recruiting for terrorist groups.
I've long suspected that US culture will slowly lure children of Muslims away from their parents and grandparents beliefs. For a Muslim girl, it would seem much more attractive not to be forced to wear whatever your parents force you to wear, or to be able to get an education and pursue something other than a forced marriage. Given that Muslim boys are already privileged enough to have much more freedom in dress and their future, I'm not sure if the allure is quite the same.
It also seems like living in the US and being constantly told that you are an "oppressed" minority might actually lead to more radicalism.
But as it appears you're just making this shit up, who really knows.
Of course we could look at the UK and how they've "supported human rights" of their Pakistani immigrants and see how well that's going for them. Because rings of Pakistani men raping children and Pakistani men not being prosecuted for rape because they didn't know that the UK frowned on raping, isn't a ringing endorsement of "human rights". One must also consider the stellar track records of the countries these immigrants come from and their excellent records of supporting "human rights".
Wouldn't "good policy" involve immediate arrest, quick trials, conviction, and lengthy punishment for adult men who repeatedly rape young girls?
If one actually does follow the news from the UK, one would see that while it is not technically illegal to criticize Islam, people who do so are being arrested and punished for doing so. We are also seeing an attempt to pass "blasphemy laws" in the UK as well. Combine this with a history of leniency for Muslim rapists, it's not as cut and dried as some would like to pretend.
https://x.com/lizarosen0000/status/1932462697750094246?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
At least one MP is fighting for free speech in the UK, it'll be interesting to watch this bill.
Glenn,
I've been unable to find any evidence of specific laws making criticizing Islam in the UK illegal. I've found evidence of people being charged, and acquitted, but not specific laws. Perhaps a bit of specificity would be helpful.
While your suspicion may be True, there's a simple solution. Any time someone calls for specific harm to the US, they get deported. No questions asked.
Craig,
I just saw this post today and I was thinking the link was posted on your blog. While it actually isn't illegal, per se, as this video points out people have been charged as if it is illegal:
https://x.com/lizarosen0000/status/1932462697750094246?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Oh, so Glenn made a false claim, presumably mistaken (giving him the grace and benefit of the doubt). But rather than admit he made a false claim, he just continues on.
Good for you, Craig, for pointing out the false nature of the claim.
Craig...
Any time someone calls for specific harm to the US
May it be so! Will that extend to people like the racist Oathkeepers or Qanon types or others (including the Felon, himself) who want to see harm to specific US citizens? Or do you only mean "specific harm to the conservative parts of the US..."? I mean, Trump's policies are causing a great deal of measurable harm to the US and its citizens. His and Musk's attacks on the decent hardworking public servants, scientists, teachers, the free press, poll workers, law firms and others - falsely accusing them of treason, of corruption, firing them for no reason but falsely accusing them of corruption, all of which leads to harm to tens of thousands of US citizens (if not hundreds of thousands, less directly) are literally causing a great deal of harm to the US.
Craig:
Wouldn't "good policy" involve immediate arrest, quick trials, conviction, and lengthy punishment for adult men who repeatedly rape young girls?
Yes, of course, within the bounds of due process. As well as the refusal by responsible citizenry to vote for known and self-confessed sexual predators of women and children.
Even so, Lord, make it so.
Oh, so Glenn made a false claim, presumably mistaken (giving him the grace and benefit of the doubt). But rather than admit he made a false claim, he just continues on.
What was the false claim, foolish Dan?
And I see the link I used was in Craig's comment above mine. As noted in the link, although there is no specific law against speaking against Islam, it is assumed to by so by law enforcement, ergo to law enforcement it is illegal.
Your insistence in creating some sort of false equivalence between Trump and the rape rings (lord knows how many young girls who've been raped repeatedly by gangs of Pakistani Muslim men) is simply disgusting. That hundreds/thousands of young women and girls are regularly being raped across Europe while the various governments make excuses to let them go free or give them light sentences) and you're more worried about pretending that Trump is a "rapist" shows the depths of your biases.
I get it, as long as you can ignore what's happening in Europe, you can pretend that it isn't real.
Thanks for acknowledging your error. We're so used to our laws (which are being restricted) about free speech that it's easy to forget that the UK doesn't have the same protection. Add to that the fact that the UK prosecutors are absolutely discriminating against Christians and in favor of Muslims, it's a problem. thank goodness that there is one MP who's standing against this crap.
Glenn made an exaggerated claim, based on the reality that actual people in the UK have been arrested (and released) for saying negative things about Islam. That he wasn't precise about the details, doesn't mitigate the fact that the UK justice system is clearly engaged in discrimination as noted above. I've posted plenty on this and the links are available.
What's interesting in this is that you're more concerned about catching Glenn in a mistake, than in the travesty of the justice system in the UK, especially as it's allowed the systematic rape of young girls with minimal punishment.
If any group, BLM, ANTIFA,BlakBlok, or any others actually cause harm they should be prosecuted. If someone is "harmed" because of the natural consequences of violating that law, that's a result of their actions. We just had a big protest up here where a bunch of left wing idiots protested a drug bust which resulted in the seizure of 900 POUNDS OF METH, illegal weapons, and the interruption of a human trafficking ring. Hell yes, I want to see people like that harmed (through the legal process) So yeah, if someone gets an all expenses paid trip home because they broke the law, that's too damn bad if they're inconvenienced.
So far Trump's economic numbers looks good, much better then the predictions of doom from the MSM, his approval numbers are up, and other countries are negotiating better trade deals, sounds harmful to me.
POTUS is the Chief Executive Officer of the Executive branch of the US government. He is completely within his power to make personnel decisions regarding employees in the executive branch.
By all means let's get more worked up because Trump said some mean things, than over hundreds(?) of young girls raped while their rapists get a pass because they're Muslim.
Post a Comment