Lion of the Blogosphere

Immigration, Trump, and the Supreme Court

I warned you in June that liberals would use a liberal Supreme Court majority to force open borders onto the nation without Congressional approval.

We see that with the Brooklyn judge, and the former acting Attorney General, how the forces of the left would twist legal interpretation to get the open borders results that they want. We were only saved from a huge disaster because Trump won the election and Republican Senators hung tight and followed Joe Biden’s prophetic advice from the 1990s to not approve a new Supreme Court justice until the next president came into office.

When Trump names his new Supreme Court nominee, it’s the immigration issue that’s most important. The Court split 4-4 in June. A fifth justice who believes that the country is allowed to enforce its borders and place restrictions on who is allowed to immigrate here is essential.

* * *

Regarding the executive order by Trump to deny entry visas to people from seven countries, the Obama administration previously placed travel restrictions on those same countries because they have terrorist training camps or are state sponsors of terrorism, and no one on the left had even the slightest complaint. It’s within the President’s authority on matters of immigration both based on the Constitution and statutes passed by Congress for Trump to expand those restriction to deny all entry visas. Jimmy Carter did the same thing in 1980 with respect to Iran, and he didn’t need Congress to approve it, and it didn’t violate the Constitution.

So don’t be fooled by the mainstream media into having even the slightest doubt that Trump did something wrong here.

The only problem is that it’s only a very small step in addressing the bigger problem of immigration from all over the world, and yes, especially from Islamic countries. Look what happened to France after they allowed Muslims to become too large of a percentage of the population.

The Constitution doesn’t protect citizens of other countries who don’t live in the United States. That’s why Obama could order bombs to be dropped, thus killing a lot of people in other countries, whenever he deemed it necessary to protect the United States. Compared to killing people with bombs, not allowing them to immigrate here is minor stuff.

Regarding the First Amendment, when the Founders wrote that Amendment, there were only Christians living here who were able to get along with each other without resorting to inter-sect violence, plus a tiny number of Jews who kept to themselves and didn’t bother anyone. The Founders never envisioned that liberals 230 years in the future would say that the First Amendment requires us to allow unlimited Muslim immigration when an alarmingly high percentage of Muslims believe in jihadist terrorism.

It’s interesting to note how the liberals support a “living Constitution” when it suits their interests, but then argue strict adherence to the text when it also suits their interests.

And anyway, the Supreme Court has always held that immigration policy is for Congress and the President and not to be interfered with by the judicial branch. In Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952), the Supreme Court upheld a Congressional statute to expel non-citizens who were former Communists. If that didn’t violate the First Amendment, then the lesser action of not allowing non-citizens into the country in the first place because of their beliefs doesn’t violate the First Amendment. In fact, based on Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, we can logically conclude that it would be Constitutional for Congress to pass a law requiring the expulsion of non-citizens who are Muslim, even those with green cards. And therefore, the lesser action of banning all new Muslim immigration would certainly be Constitutional.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 31, 2017 at 9:48 am

Posted in Immigration, Law

78 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Major work has to be done to Un-Doom America. The goal should be an 85-90+% white population and that involves:

    -no non-white immigration; legal or illegal

    -deportations and repeal of anchor baby/family reunification insanity

    -heavy punishment on employers

    -NO WELFARE for illegals (or almost anyone; for that matter)

    And if my some miracle this all happened, women’s suffrage and women in workplace should be ended also otherwise it’s all for naught.

    Obviously, I don’t know if any of this is possible at this point as it seems all far too gone.. But still worth a try.

    fakeemail

    January 31, 2017 at 10:11 am

    • As long as people have the qualities of intelligence and civility, I don’t care if they are white or even Caucasian — they are good to have here. That would of course include Northeast Asians, some Southeast Asians, and the Indians who are not Muslim.

      CamelCaseRob

      January 31, 2017 at 10:27 am

      • @ CamelCaseRob

        Intelligence and civility are important, but equally important are traits like empathy, loyalty, and courage, because those are what allow a constitutional republic to exist. Those are also qualities noticeably lacking in non-whites.

        If intelligence and civility were all it took, then China would be a paradise, which it definitely is not. We are doing Asians a disservice if we do not let them live on their own, and independently develop the virtues needed for a decent society.

        Lowe

        January 31, 2017 at 11:33 am

      • Chinese aren’t necessarily that civil at all. They cheat a lot.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 31, 2017 at 12:23 pm

      • That’s bullshit. ALL non white groups vote for the anti white party.

        Otis the Sweaty

        January 31, 2017 at 11:42 am

      • Lion wrote: “Chinese aren’t necessarily that civil at all. They cheat a lot.”

        When I taught English in China, my first class was a group of professors who were planning to travel to the U.S. on some kind of exchange program. When we got to the final exam, there was a short essay section. Several pairs of students handed in verbatim essays; in one case, three of them had the same essay. Bear in mind that these people are professors at the Chinese equivalent of, I don’t know, Iowa State, something like that (i.e. not a Corinthian or Trump U. type situation).

        At the time, a popular propaganda theme was exhorting the public to be as wenming (“civilized”) as possible. Mainland Chinese are self-conscious that some of their neighboring countries have managed to be a lot less chaotic, although of course every country has its weak points.

        Greg Pandatshang

        January 31, 2017 at 2:12 pm

      • Chinese/East Asians are only found in the Anglo Sphere in large numbers, outside of their homelands.

        Now what are the reasons for this unique phenomenon? The same reasons why other groups immigrate to English Speaking Cesspools in search of a dime.

        JS

        February 1, 2017 at 12:52 am

  2. “The only problem is that it’s only a very small step in addressing the bigger problem of immigration from all over the world, and yes, especially from Islamic countries.”

    It is a small step and you can see the reaction it’s causing. There are protests all over the country, and the news coverage (almost all negative) has been constant on this subject for the past two days. So this shows that EVERY SINGLE STEP the administration makes over the next four years is going to be under constant attack.

    Mike Street Station

    January 31, 2017 at 10:57 am

    • It’s better it begin sooner, rather than later. Let them cry wolf, and make it clear who they are, and whom they serve.

      If not for this, would we have gotten to know so soon that the CEO of Ford is against us? That Uber might be a little less against us, than previously thought?

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but maybe Sally Yates would’ve gotten to stay on in the admin in some capacity, if her sanctimonious narcissism hadn’t gotten the better of her. Now there’s no way she can’t resign. Here’s to hoping they all follow her example.

      Lowe

      January 31, 2017 at 11:58 am

    • Honestly I’m already sick of hearing about it. I’m glad there’s this much outrage, because the more outraged the left gets about perfectly reasonable policies, the more it demonstrates how unreasonable leftism has become.

      Panther of the Blogocube

      January 31, 2017 at 10:57 pm

  3. One thing that’s interesting is that since the election I’ve seen some MSM pieces that say Garland was one of the most liberal nominees ever. Before the election it was all about how he was the most moderate moderate moderate moderate who ever moderated.

    Of course any Democrat judicial nominee is going to be an extremist down-the-line far-left hack.

    snorlaxwp

    January 31, 2017 at 11:23 am

    • “Moderate” just seems to mean pro-Wall Street and exploitative corporate policies. American liberals are going to get more and more comfortable with it, because there’s a clear symbiosis now between leftists pimping multiculturalism and corporations wanting to import foreign workers who’ll work cheap.

      Richard

      January 31, 2017 at 1:27 pm

      • Garland’s “moderate” credentials seem to be mostly based on his being a former prosecutor, which establishes that, meeting conservatives exactly in the middle, he’s somewhere to the right of Angela Davis and other advocates of prison abolition.

        Although maybe not even that, since his claim to fame is leading the prosecutions of Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols and Atlanta Olympics bomber Eric Rudolph.*

        *Not that they shouldn’t have been prosecuted, but I doubt ol’ Angie would object vigorously either.

        snorlaxwp

        January 31, 2017 at 4:17 pm

  4. I agree that the president has the authority to issue an EO like this. The only question I think is whether the process by which it was drawn up will give the courts pause. It was drafted in secret by a small team of people. Some Congressional staff were involved in drafting it, but had to sign non-disclosure agreements. It was not reviewed by any of the departments or staff that normally review EO.

    The EO is like an emergency response, but it is hard to identify the emergency. Aside from the Syrian refugee ban, all the other bans are temporary, 90 days or 120 days. The president can argue that the halt in refugees is necessary because of the attacks in Europe. Most of the attacks in Europe have not actually been by recent refugees and US refugee screening process is already much better than in Europe. Still Trump could argue that it needs to be better. This argument would be much stronger if Trump had actually consulted with the government agencies the screen immigrants. I have not seen anything about what the government is going to do in those 90 or 120 days. Is it going to put new screen procedures in place?

    The president may have the authority to ban left handed immigrants or immigrants with green eyes, but without a plausible reason for doing so, the courts might not uphold the ban.

    Terrorism is Trump’s “plausible” reason, but the clumsy way this EO was written and announced means it probably increases the risk to Americans rather than making them safer.

    mikeca

    January 31, 2017 at 11:47 am

    • There was nothing wrong with the EO as written, how it was implemented nor how it was executed. It all went swimmingly and as planned, improving the safety of all Americans. The courts will do nothing because they can do nothing. The only relevant discussion of the EO involves adding additional countries and making the ban more permanent.

      Andrew E.

      January 31, 2017 at 1:35 pm

      • Doesn’t Trump have to make the ban permanent, or at least extend it indefinitely until these countries are no longer in civil war? After all this ruckus it’ll be interpreted as a defeat if he lets it expire in 90 days.

        Richard

        January 31, 2017 at 2:03 pm

      • “There was nothing wrong with the EO as written, how it was implemented nor how it was executed. It all went swimmingly and as planned, improving the safety of all Americans.”

        It all went swimmingly if your objective was to pick a group of random people from mostly Muslim countries and poke a finger in their eye. There were at least a few hundred people who had gone through the process, applied for and been granted visas to visit the USA perfectly legally. Some even had green cards. While their airplanes were in the air, their visas were canceled. When they arrived at US airports, some of them were put in handcuffs and held in immigration jails till DHS could figure out what to do. These people were treated like criminals even though they had done everything perfectly legally.

        In the event of an emergency, like 9/11, that might be justified, but what is the emergency? The emergency is we have a new president. Nobody in the world thinks that justifies this kind of callous treatment of foreigners.

        Trump and Bannon are bullies. They delight in poking their fingers in the eye of people they don’t like. You are delusional if you think that kind of bullying of innocent people will make Americans safer.

        mikeca

        January 31, 2017 at 3:40 pm

      • @ mikeca

        With any luck they will feel so bullied they pack up their stuff and leave. The US has let in an enormous number of immigrants over the last few decades. It’s time to pull in the welcome mat, and Trump has given us every reason to think he knows that, and plans on seeing it through.

        The United States is not the world’s nanny. Foreigners should not feel welcome here, any more than I should feel welcome in their homelands. If they want to vacation here, fine. But coming here to benefit long-term from the safety and prosperity our forefathers worked for, while meantime eroding it with their every vote, has to be off the table.

        Lowe

        January 31, 2017 at 5:38 pm

      • It all went swimmingly if your objective was to pick a group of random people from mostly Muslim countries and poke a finger in their eye.

        Trump is being too lenient – all citizen Muslims everywhere across the West should have their citizenship revoked en masse and be forcibly expelled.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 31, 2017 at 6:17 pm

      • Lowe,

        Nanny? The US is a job board, a free clinic and a learning annex for the rest of the world. Democrats bring these people here to dilute the vote and to use these people as political and economic ringers.

        GTFO. They don’t need to be here.

        map

        January 31, 2017 at 8:42 pm

      • ISIS has engaged in sectarian and ethnic cleansing of Christian, Yazidi, Turkmen, Shabak, and many other groups. That is one of the things that make them the bad guys.

        In his farewell address Ronald Regan discussed America as a shinning city. He sad “I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it, and see it still.”

        I did not agree with many of Ronald Regan’s policy, but I do agree with his vision of America.

        If we engage in ethnic cleansing, how are we any better than ISIS?

        mikeca

        January 31, 2017 at 8:50 pm

      • mikeca,

        “I did not agree with many of Ronald Regan’s policy, but I do agree with his vision of America.”

        And Ronald Reagan’s vision of America was a fantasy, if not an outright lie. Nothing that Reagna said, did or believed addresses the underlying problem that we face: the left and the Democratic party is 100% committed to identity politics. That is their playbook. That is what they want to do. You can only defeat identity politics with an identity politics of your own.

        The question that faces every man is not “what sort of society do I want for myself and my children?” That’s a lie and it has always been a lie, like your concern about becoming “like ISIS.” The question is “What are my choices and how do I achieve my preferred option?” The choice pushed by our betters is a world run by Black Lives Matters and women dressed as vaginas. If the other option is white pride, white nationalism and white supremacy, it is not hard to see how this is going to go. Submission to the left on the left’s own terms is not an option.

        map

        January 31, 2017 at 9:28 pm

      • “The question is “What are my choices and how do I achieve my preferred option?” The choice pushed by our betters is a world run by Black Lives Matters and women dressed as vaginas. If the other option is white pride, white nationalism and white supremacy, it is not hard to see how this is going to go. Submission to the left on the left’s own terms is not an option.”

        That is a false choice.

        I live in one of the bluest parts of a very blue state. There is not a single Republican that hold state wide office here in California and the November Senate race for the open seat left by Barbra Boxers retirement was between two Democrats. I have not seen any signs of Black Lives Matter or women dressed as vaginas. That is a fantasy. I suppose there have been Black Lives Matter protests in Oakland or SF, I’m not sure. Maybe if i search in SF I could find a woman dressed as a vagina somewhere. So what. It has no effect on my life. They are not running my world.

        Get out, open your eyes and see the real world. You have more choices.

        mikeca

        January 31, 2017 at 11:46 pm

    • “I agree that the president has the authority to issue an EO like this.”

      And that’s where you should have stopped — everything after is puling, effeminate handwringing.

      You went full-NPR, sir. Never go full-NPR.

      hard9bf

      January 31, 2017 at 3:33 pm

  5. I agree with you about the Constitution, but it’s worth noting that plenty of liberals don’t. I have seen online discussion fora where liberals have argued that the Constitution does protect non-citizens and that discriminating among prospective immigrants on the basis of religion violates the first amendment. A liberal court could easily rule that way.

    Hermes

    January 31, 2017 at 11:57 am

    • Most of the liberals saying that are completely unfamiliar with the case law saying otherwise. But not all of them.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 31, 2017 at 12:26 pm

      • Only conservatives care about that sort of thing, which among other things is why conservatives almost always lose in the courts.

        snorlaxwp

        January 31, 2017 at 1:54 pm

      • Is there a subtle difference between case law and jurisprudence?

        roli

        January 31, 2017 at 5:41 pm

      • Does it matter? The Founders–or the framers of the 14th amendment, for that matter, which formed the basis of the Incorporation Doctrine–never envisioned that some small town having a Nativity scene in its town square, or a public school opening its day with a reading from the Psalms, would be construed as Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion, and yet here we are. Why couldn’t an immigration policy which discriminates on the basis of religion be construed as an establishment of religion?

        Hermes

        January 31, 2017 at 6:50 pm

  6. Immigration is the most important issue this country is facing. Trump ONLY won because he is anti-immigration. The elite and media hate Trump so viciously ONLY because he is anti-immigration. The Left has embraced Open Borders but refuse admit what they believe.

    This is why even the tiniest reduction in immigration has the media so riled up.

    1.1 million people (probably more) will legally immigrate to the USA in 2017. Trump delayed the immigration of 50K refugees by 120 days so his administration can figure out whats going on. 375 people were caught in limbo, 109 were detained for 1-2 days, and 20 are still being processed. This is the extent of Executive Order.

    Jimi

    January 31, 2017 at 11:57 am

    • “Immigration is the most important issue this country is facing. Trump ONLY won because he is anti-immigration. The elite and media hate Trump so viciously ONLY because he is anti-immigration. The Left has embraced Open Borders but refuse admit what they believe.”

      This is a factor, but don’t forget proleness. Prole whites love Trump because he acts prole, and elite whites HATE Trump because he acts prole.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 31, 2017 at 12:27 pm

    • “Trump ONLY won because he is anti-immigration.”

      Trump won because his economic nationalism played well in key battleground states in the industrial Midwest.

      Joe

      January 31, 2017 at 3:30 pm

      • I agree. I think economic nationalism was probably as big of a factor (maybe even a bigger factor) as immigration. The anti-free trade argument was huge in Penn, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. Anti-immigration was still big though.

        JerseyGuy

        January 31, 2017 at 8:25 pm

      • Immigration IS a part of the economic nationalism that brought Trump to victory.

        Mike Street Station

        February 1, 2017 at 7:26 am

  7. Mitch McConnell is a very shrewd politician. He coined the term “The Biden Rule” to stand for the proposition that the senate shouldn’t confirm a new SCOTUS Justice from a president in the last year of his term, because of course Biden did flippantly suggest a similar idea in the ’90s.

    Two in the Bush

    January 31, 2017 at 12:09 pm

  8. Lion wrote: “Chinese aren’t necessarily that civil at all. They cheat a lot.”

    And Chinese appear to have zero empathy towards animals. Even some of the cute young Chinese women we see toting and doting on their miniature poodles wouldn’t be fazed from eating dog meat.

    roli

    January 31, 2017 at 12:58 pm

    • One of my ex-girlfriends, who is an animal lover, used to say that the Chinese were the cruelest people on earth because of the way they treated animals. Michael Savage also makes similar observations. As a rule, third world people have little empathy for animals, while the middle class and more well-to-do whites have the strongest attachments (often bordering on being overly sentimental).

      Lewis Medlock

      January 31, 2017 at 3:56 pm

      • I’m Indian and have an abiding love for animals. But having said that I generally agree with your point.

        roli

        January 31, 2017 at 5:49 pm

      • It depends on how you define cruel. I read somewhere that the Chinese have never persecuted the Jews who have settled in their land, unlike parts of the civilized West that treat animals better than they do people.

        peace

        January 31, 2017 at 6:57 pm

      • Responding to Peace, I agree the Chinese are generally civil to minorities in their midst, but enlighten me about your statement “Parts of the civilized West.. treat animals better than they do people”

        Which countries have ever treated animals better than people???

        Roli

        January 31, 2017 at 9:25 pm

      • Black Africans skin donkeys alive for the Chinese market. Not clear why they have to skin them *alive*:
        http://mikesmithspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-cruelty-of-chinese-and-african.html
        (…)
        “This is not a one-off incident. The National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) has recently released multiple statements on donkeys being skinned alive in the Northern Cape, the Free State and Gauteng.

        NSPCA farm animal unit manager Grace de Lange said a metal object is inserted into the donkeys’ necks to paralyse them and they are then skinned alive. “It is a long and painful death,” she said.

        Donkey hide contains a gelatine which is claimed to be valued for medicinal purposes by the Chinese. The NSPCA statement said that, according to the China Daily Mail, the donkey skins have “anti-aging properties, able to treat insomnia and improve blood circulation”.
        (…)

        curri

        January 31, 2017 at 9:59 pm

      • Which countries have ever treated animals better than people???

        Lefties would say American slavery. And of course there are all the genocides and wars.

        snorlaxwp

        January 31, 2017 at 10:28 pm

      • See “Antisemitism in Europe” in Wikipedia.

        peace

        January 31, 2017 at 10:49 pm

  9. Here’s why I think the EO is flawed:
    -No exceptions for students/professors, even those who are exceptionally strong. For example, the Iranian Fields medalist from a few years ago is banned from coming to the US. What’s the sense in that? Also doesn’t make sense from HBD perspective.
    -Academic conferences may avoid going to the US, primarily because they want Iranians to be able to attend. Even if the order is reversed, the idea of avoiding the US will stay in people’s minds.
    -I think that it would have been rhetorically stronger if it had included immediate funds (even a shocking amount, like 2b usd) to help refugees in the middle east. This is what Japan did when they refused to take refugees. It would have provided stronger talking points and there’s actually a pretty good argument that the money would go further in low-cost middle eastern countries than in the US.

    alex2

    January 31, 2017 at 1:09 pm

    • @ alex2

      The Fields Medallist can do mathematics anywhere, and US mathematicians can read his work from anywhere.

      Nobody is fooled by this kind of special pleading. The only reason foreigners want to come to the US is to live fat on physical and social resources to which neither they nor their ancestors contributed.

      We real Americans are sick of this, and we are sick of people making excuses for it. If sending back immigrants costs us some academic conferences, who cares?

      Here’s the big secret. Nobody is doing any worthwhile science outside the US. Trump should encourage that to change, by encouraging foreign scientists to stay where they were born, and help their countrymen.

      Lowe

      January 31, 2017 at 2:37 pm

      • “The Fields Medallist can do mathematics anywhere, and US mathematicians can read his work from anywhere.”

        US universities will be shit-tier if they can’t recruit internationally. Even if the average US citizen is 4x better than non-Americans on average, the US will still only have ~20% of global talent.

        “Here’s the big secret. Nobody is doing any worthwhile science outside the US. ”

        https://arxiv.org/

        See what fraction of the papers are from the US. It’s a lot but less than 50%. You’ll see the same thing if you look at good conferences/journals.

        alex2

        February 1, 2017 at 12:59 am

      • @ alex2

        Foreigners are costing the US taxpayers much, much more than they are contributing in research.

        I have studied at a couple top tier research universities, and my experience was that most of the research (in a hard science, mind you) was stupid and pointless. I have no doubt that foreign professors and students are even guiltier of this, because they mostly come from mercenary, status-seeking cultures.

        Also, I am not going to fall for the notion that overseas publications numbers mean anything. If you have read or skimmed any of these papers, you know most are no good.

        Lowe

        February 1, 2017 at 11:20 am

    • The EO as written and implemented was a soft, fluffy little kitten compared to the full work that needs to be done. The left is insane. Do not make excuses for them. Just point at them, smile and remind everyone that they’re crazy and dangerous.

      Andrew E.

      January 31, 2017 at 2:55 pm

    • Response to your three flaws.

      – who cares
      – who cares
      – who cares

      peterike

      January 31, 2017 at 3:03 pm

    • If you think the USA should poach Iranian intellectuals, then you are a cognitive colonialist. There is no ethical justification for trying to steal the smartest people from the countries that need them the most.

      DataExplorer

      February 1, 2017 at 10:53 am

  10. when the Founders wrote that Amendment, there were only Christians living here…

    Even more so: I think there were only a handful of mainstream Protestant denominations operating in the U.S. when the Constitution was ratified. There were no Catholics to speak of, and the few that settled in Maryland were prohibited from practicing their faith. Mormons, of course, came much later.

    Mark Caplan

    January 31, 2017 at 3:06 pm

  11. “The Constitution doesn’t protect citizens of other countries who don’t live in the United States.”

    This can’t be said too often. Citizens of other nations have no constitutional due-process standing in US courts — noncitizens can be ejected from the US for any reason, period. That’s why we need a fence/wall to end the current catch-and-release idiocy with mexican and musloid welfare moochers/criminals.

    Kick ’em out, keep ’em out!

    hard9bf

    January 31, 2017 at 3:22 pm

    • On a somewhat related note, I was shocked to learn that there’s a federal law, the Alien Tort Statute, that, according to the Wikipedia article on it, since 1980 “courts have interpreted… to allow foreign citizens to seek remedies in U.S. courts for human-rights violations for conduct committed outside the United States.” It’s currently being used as the basis for a Ugandan gay rights organization to sue American anti-homosexual activist Scott Lively, in American court, for his alleged role in promoting a “homophobic” Uganda law. Seems to me to set a terrifying precedent.

      Hermes

      January 31, 2017 at 9:56 pm

      • The Ugandan law in question specifies that gays be put to death. (It was overturned in court and replaced by a statute prescribing life imprisonment). Exactly where do you draw the scare quotes line?

        Given that Lively quite literally was and continues to be doing his damndest to have people murdered, just having to face a lawsuit in civil court is getting off pretty easy.

        It might be that Lively’s case was brought up based on dubious legal reasoning, butI’m sure there are more sympathetic defendants.

        snorlax

        February 1, 2017 at 11:47 am

  12. The Bible says to kill people who don’t listen to priests (Deuteronomy 17:12), kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), death for cursing at one’s parents (Proverbs 20:20), kill non-believers (Chronicles 15:12-13), kill people of other religions (Deuteronomy 13:7-12) and kill people who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-15).

    The real difference is that most Christians today are not religious like Christians used to be. They’re nominally Christian but really secular and deistic, and some even agnostic and atheistic, in outlook.

    Tom

    January 31, 2017 at 5:22 pm

    • The Jews believe that only a meeting of the Great Sanhedrin can sentence someone to death, and that court no longer exists. And even when it die exist, the death penalty was extremely rare. No one has been sentence to death since the destruction of the Great Temple.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 31, 2017 at 5:32 pm

      • Most Jews are secular and agnostic or atheistic, more so than contemporary nominal Christians. So whatever the religion actually says matters less.

        Tom

        January 31, 2017 at 6:44 pm

      • It would’ve been Good for the Jews if they’d stopped with the death sentences [by proxy] a few years earlier…

        snorlaxwp

        January 31, 2017 at 10:26 pm

      • Very funny. There’s no proof that happened and isn’t just a made up story.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 1, 2017 at 12:46 am

      • The apostle Paul, Pontius Pilate and King Herod are people who provably existed; in Paul’s letters he refers to many of the other major New Testament figures as still-living people whom his recipients were also in correspondence with.

        Jewish historian and virtual contemporary Josephus refers to Jesus as well as John the Baptist in a number of detailed passages in his histories.

        Crucifixion was considered the most dishonorable and shameful death possible in Roman culture. If Jesus were an entirely made-up figure, he’d have died a more conventionally-heroic death, probably leading a revolt against the Romans.

        There are plenty of other embarrassing details that there’d be no need to include, for example that Mary was married at the time of her supposed virgin pregnancy.

        The numerous accurate historical, geographical etc details in the New Testament and non-canonical gospels indicate the original narrative must have originated in 1st-century Judea. Occam’s Razor indicates this strongly implies that Jesus was a real historical figure.

        All in all, you’re not likely to find better evidence for the existence of any other carpenters from 2000 years ago.

        The evidence for the historicity of Jesus is comparable to the evidence for the historicity of Socrates, for example. There’s way more evidence for Jesus’ having existed than for, say, Solomon’s Temple (a large building), or Solomon himself (a king) — which both probably existed, IMO.

        I’m not a believer so I don’t have a dog in the hunt, but there’s good reason it’s the consensus view among historians (a very left-leaning bunch) that Jesus was a real historical figure.

        snorlaxwp

        February 1, 2017 at 1:39 am

    • @ Tom

      The real difference is about 500 years of natural selection, which roughly separates Western bloodlines from Arab ones. There was never a Renaissance, a Reformation, an Enlightenment, or an Industrial Revolution among the Arabs, originally out of chance, or maybe geography. But after a few centuries the cause didn’t matter anymore. Their genes are different, and consequently so is their culture and outlook.

      Which is the same reason almost all races and ethnicities outside of Western Europe are temperamentally unsuited for a constitutional republic, or any real measure of the ideas presented during the Enlightenment, etc. They are not built for it, literally. Interbreeding can fix this problem, but only if it is done gradually, without Western nations being overwhelmed and disappearing.

      Lowe

      January 31, 2017 at 6:11 pm

      • This is an interesting topic, but it’s like the chicken or the egg question. since for example pre and post Industrial Revolution societies are different environments and thus have different selection pressures that produce different genes. It’s like saying the Industrial Revolution could have never happened since there was no industrial society at the time.

        Tom

        January 31, 2017 at 6:58 pm

    • The Bible says to kill people who don’t listen to priests (Deuteronomy 17:12), kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), death for cursing at one’s parents (Proverbs 20:20), kill non-believers (Chronicles 15:12-13), kill people of other religions (Deuteronomy 13:7-12) and kill people who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-15).

      Poor analogy.

      Old Testament laws only apply to Jews.

      The Muslim religion claims a right to force all of humankind to obey Islam or be destroyed. There is nothing in the Old Testament that commands Jews to conquer the world by force; its endorsement of violence is restricted to defending Israel and its vicinity:

      https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2017/01/30/muslim-immigration-the-false-equivalence-between-the-koran-and-bible/

      The essential difference between these justifications of Israelite violence and Muslim jihad is that Israelite defensive obligations are limited to only defending the land of Israel as promised by the Abrahamic Covenant.

      Unlike Islam there is no Old Testament obligation to forcibly conquer all of mankind under Judaism. Provided they are not at war with Israel or a threat in Israel’s immediate vicinity, Jews are nowhere commanded to subjugate or forcibly convert Scythians, Ethiopians, Greeks, Numidians, Chinese, Persians, Romans, Carthaginians, Gauls, Indians, or any other peoples contemporary with Ancient Israel.

      Islam however is commanded to militarily conquer the globe. Though they do not always follow this tenet of faith, they do strike at their non-Islamic neighbors whenever they feel they have the upper hand or are consumed with enough religious fanaticism that are willing to engage a superior opponent. This command is not only distinguishes it from Judaism and Christianity but it also distinguishes Islam from any other known major religion.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      January 31, 2017 at 6:21 pm

      • There are many Christian denominations and sects. They have different views on the Old Testament and on the OT laws. Some don’t even read the Old Testament, others take it very seriously and adopt many of its laws and ideas for themselves.

        But that was mostly in the past. Contemporary Christians are mostly nominal Christians who don’t take religion as seriously as they did in the past. They have a more secularized view that tends to deism and agnosticism.

        Tom

        January 31, 2017 at 6:49 pm

      • As I said to map –

        But the New Testament is borderline pacifist, hence Islam apologists who try to equate the Bible with the Koran usually don’t draw quotes from it. The commands Liberals point to in the Bible justifying religious violence are overwhelmingly from the Old Testament. This too is a false comparison because, as I pointed out, OT discussions of violence are restricted to Israel.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 31, 2017 at 11:22 pm

    • The Jews believe that only a meeting of the Great Sanhedrin can sentence someone to death, and that court no longer exists.

      And even if it did exist it would only apply to Jews in Israel.

      The only law of God in the Old Testament that applies to all of mankind are the Noachide laws that were given to man after the deluge, and the Jews have no religious or military authority to enforce those laws on gentiles.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      January 31, 2017 at 6:23 pm

    • Most christians follow the New Testament.

      map

      January 31, 2017 at 8:48 pm

      • Most christians follow the New Testament.

        But the New Testament is borderline pacifist, hence Islam apologists who try to equate the Bible with the Koran usually don’t draw quotes from it. The commands Liberals point to in the Bible justifying religious violence are overwhelmingly from the Old Testament. This too is a false comparison because, as I pointed out, OT discussions of violence are restricted to Israel.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 31, 2017 at 11:21 pm

  13. Let me remind you all that it was by the Grace of God and a few states in the rust belt that we won this thing. If we have any chance of securing a Homeland for our people we need to go all the way. We need the wall, mass deportations and nationwide voter Id laws within the next four years. This may be our last chance.

    B.T.D.T.

    January 31, 2017 at 7:06 pm

  14. Anyone who voted for Trump was stupid, plain and simple.

    Does Trump invest in the Midwest, where most of his constituency resides? He’s more likely to install a Trump Tower in Casablanca, Morocco, which is a Muslim country, than Indianapolis, Indiana, a beacon of proledom.

    And those fools in Staten Island who voted for him, they will get the same medicine — time and time again, American Elites view proles as expendables.

    JS

    January 31, 2017 at 7:26 pm

  15. Watching the introduction of Trump’s SC nominee. Any Dems who try to block him are going to look like jerks.

    destructure

    January 31, 2017 at 8:12 pm

    • I’m not sure of that. He will be portrayed as an “extremist.” Who is the media going to sympathize with, a Trump appointed extremist, or the Democrats fighting to save the Republic from Nazism?

      Mike Street Station

      February 1, 2017 at 8:07 am

  16. Lion,
    What if I told you that 15 years after 9/11, America was in the grasp of a cultural civil war over the rights of non-citizen Muslims immigrants from failed states?

    JerseyGuy

    January 31, 2017 at 8:31 pm

    • This is a critical point that showcases how white liberals are insane in terms of sadism toward bad whites and Stockholm syndrome type masochism toward violent enemy Others.

      An enemy people attacks, and libs *demand* that all their people be let in so as to prove that not all of them are like that! Because if we don’t let them in, then the terrorist win because they shattered our “American” values!

      Seriously, I hate liberals more than enemy others. It’s their natural strategy to ally with enemy others to gain power over bad whites; they are born liars, hypocrites, and traitors. Everything they say and do is in bad faith.

      fakeemail

      February 1, 2017 at 11:04 am

  17. Trump just nom’d Neil McGill Goresuch to the Supreme Court. If confirmed he would be the Court’s sole Protestant. Episcopalian.

    gothamette

    January 31, 2017 at 8:46 pm

    • His mother Anne Gorsuch Burford was a big media star of the early Reagan years.

      Very telegenic!

      Rifleman

      February 1, 2017 at 12:08 am

      • Pelosi is calling this a “hostile appointment.”

        Keep it up, Nancy. I love for the Democrats to be led by a ditzy socialite. The longer she leads them, the more Trump wins.

        gothamette

        February 1, 2017 at 10:53 am

  18. Gorsuch came off as extremely likable in his speech. That helps.

    Jokah Macpherson

    January 31, 2017 at 9:19 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: