A beautiful and important speech in Berlin yesterday by Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Wilders is almost alone among European politicians (although that is changing) in taking Islam seriously. Liberal politicians don't take Islam seriously because they don't take themselves seriously.
"In 1848, Karl Marx began his Communist Manifesto with the famous words: 'A specter is haunting Europe - the specter of communism.' Today, another specter is haunting Europe. It is the specter of Islam. This danger, too, is political. Islam is not merely a religion, as many people seem to think: Islam is mainly a political ideology. ...
[T]he renowned Oxford historian J.M. Roberts wrote in 1985: 'Although we carelessly speak of Islam as a 'religion'; that word carries many overtones of the special history of western Europe. The Muslim is primarily a member of a community, the follower of a certain way, an adherent to a system of law, rather than someone holding particular theological views.' The Flemish Professor Urbain Vermeulen, the former president of the European Union of Arabists and Islamicists, too, points out that 'Islam is primarily a legal system, a law,' rather than a religion. ...
These are not just statements by opponents of Islam. Islamic scholars say the same thing. ... Abul Ala Maududi, the influential 20th century Pakistani Islamic thinker, wrote - I quote, emphasizing that these are not my words but those of a leading Islamic scholar - 'Islam is not merely a religious creed [but] a revolutionary ideology and jihad refers to that revolutionary struggle ... to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth, which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam.' ...
(Listen to part three of Brian Fairchild's "Salafism: Understanding a Strain of Radical Islam" on "Reclaiming the Culture" to learn more about Maududi.) Wilders, continued:
"Politicians from almost all establishment [parties] today are facilitating Islamization. They are cheering for every new Islamic school, Islamic bank, Islamic court. They regard Islam as being equal to our own culture. Islam or freedom? It does not really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire establisment elite - universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians - are putting our hard-earned liberties at risk. They talk about equality, but amazingly fail to see how in Islam women have fewer rights than men and infidels have fewer rights than adherents of Islam. ..."
Wilders then addressed his German audience specifically:
"It is not up to me to define what Germany's national identity consists of. That is entirely up to you. I do know, however, that German culture, like that of neighboring countries, such as my own, is rooted in Judeo-Christian and humanist values. Every responsible politician has a political obligation to preserve these values against ideologies which threaten them. A Germany full of mosques and veiled women is no longer the Germany of Goethe, Schiller and Heine, Bach and Mendelssohn. It will be a loss to us all. It is important that you cherish and preserve your roots as a nation. Otherwise you will not be able to safeguard your identity; you will be abolished as a people, and you will lose your freedom. And the rest of Europe will lose its freedom with you."
h/t Powerline
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Monday, October 4, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
Immigration and Dictatorship
The totalitarian nature of the American left and the Democratic party grow clearer by the day. That clarity is the only upside of the current one-party rule in the White House and both houses of Congress.
We've seen the will of the people overridden by courts time and time again on the issue of same-sex "marriage"--courts forcing a counterfeit version of marriage down the community's throats-- and in Massachusetts and Washington DC refusing to even allow the people to vote on the issue.
Now we're getting the same thing on illegal immigration, with an added twist. As everybody knows, Judge Susan Bolton put Arizona's SB 1070 on hold. Legal scholars have eviscerated her ruling, which is so bad that people like Heather MacDonald and Andy McCarthy are disagreeing over which part to attack first. McCarthy says:
"We are a body politic not a body legal. Federal law is (and is supposed to be) very limited in what it can prevent a sovereign state from doing. Beyond those narrow limitations, the state has discretion to govern itself as its citizens see fit. Similarly, the federal executive branch is vested with vast powers but finite resources, and it has discretion over how it will husband the latter. When a state’s lawful discretionary action conflicts with the president’s lawful discretionary decision not to enforce a congressional statute, that is not a legal issue. It is a political issue.
In such a situation, the job of the federal courts is to stay out of it. Then, in the court of public opinion, Arizona gets to demonstrate why illegal immigration is a huge problem, and the Obama administration can try to defend the de facto amnesty it seeks to confer on the illegal immigrant population. Indeed, it is only when the law throws back its veil and politics is allowed to operate, that we actually get to see that de facto amnesty is the president’s objective. That’s why the administration and its Justice Department want you to think of this as a legal case — if it’s politics, they lose . . . big."
The added twist is the newly discovered memo from Immigration services. Robert VerBruggen, writing in National Review:
"According to an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo going the rounds of Capitol Hill and obtained by National Review, the agency is considering ways in which it could enact “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action” — that is, without the consent of the American people through a vote in Congress.
“This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,” it reads."
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress — and only Congress — the authority to decide federal immigration law, but the Obama administration has come up with an extensive list of ways to ensure that a majority of the illegal aliens in the United States are allowed to remain here."
She then lists a number of the most offensive of the memo's recommendations (follow the link) and which can be summed up "make(ing) sure no illegal alien is left behind."
Gibbons J. Cooney
We've seen the will of the people overridden by courts time and time again on the issue of same-sex "marriage"--courts forcing a counterfeit version of marriage down the community's throats-- and in Massachusetts and Washington DC refusing to even allow the people to vote on the issue.
Now we're getting the same thing on illegal immigration, with an added twist. As everybody knows, Judge Susan Bolton put Arizona's SB 1070 on hold. Legal scholars have eviscerated her ruling, which is so bad that people like Heather MacDonald and Andy McCarthy are disagreeing over which part to attack first. McCarthy says:
"We are a body politic not a body legal. Federal law is (and is supposed to be) very limited in what it can prevent a sovereign state from doing. Beyond those narrow limitations, the state has discretion to govern itself as its citizens see fit. Similarly, the federal executive branch is vested with vast powers but finite resources, and it has discretion over how it will husband the latter. When a state’s lawful discretionary action conflicts with the president’s lawful discretionary decision not to enforce a congressional statute, that is not a legal issue. It is a political issue.
In such a situation, the job of the federal courts is to stay out of it. Then, in the court of public opinion, Arizona gets to demonstrate why illegal immigration is a huge problem, and the Obama administration can try to defend the de facto amnesty it seeks to confer on the illegal immigrant population. Indeed, it is only when the law throws back its veil and politics is allowed to operate, that we actually get to see that de facto amnesty is the president’s objective. That’s why the administration and its Justice Department want you to think of this as a legal case — if it’s politics, they lose . . . big."
The added twist is the newly discovered memo from Immigration services. Robert VerBruggen, writing in National Review:
"According to an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo going the rounds of Capitol Hill and obtained by National Review, the agency is considering ways in which it could enact “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action” — that is, without the consent of the American people through a vote in Congress.
“This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,” it reads."
So now you don't even need a judge. Just make law via a group of bureaucrats. Rosemary Jenks, also in National Review, writes:
"The four authors of the memo, titled 'Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform,' are political appointees USCIS chief of policy and strategy Denise Vanison (a former immigration attorney and partner at Patton Boggs) and USCIS chief counsel Roxana Bacon (former general counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association), and two career employees of USCIS director Alejandro Mayorkas, another Obama appointee.
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress — and only Congress — the authority to decide federal immigration law, but the Obama administration has come up with an extensive list of ways to ensure that a majority of the illegal aliens in the United States are allowed to remain here."
She then lists a number of the most offensive of the memo's recommendations (follow the link) and which can be summed up "make(ing) sure no illegal alien is left behind."
Gibbons J. Cooney
Friday, May 14, 2010
Arizona / Illegal Immigration Update
Andy McCarthy at National Review Online takes down Attorney General Holder over Arizona's SB 1070:
The Most Transparently Irresponsible Administration in American History
How could the Attorney General of the United States malign a state law as raising profound constitutional questions, imply that the lawmakers who drafted it are racists, and direct a Justice Department review of the law without having read the law?
If you thought Mr. Holder's stubborn refusal to speak the words 'radical Islam' was bad during yesterday's House testimony, get this one: 'I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the [Arizona immigration] law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is.'
Mr. McCarthy goes on to point out that SB 1070 is only 17 pages long, and that the provisions about which controversy has been stoked run only a few short paragraphs. Surely the Attorney General could have bothered to read it before shooting off his mouth.
________________________________________________________
Meanwhile, the two men arrested in connection with the Times Square bombing plot are (you guessed it) illegal immigrants. From Times Online:
"Two Pakistani men arrested in raids in Massachusetts yesterday have a direct connection to the Times Square bomb plot suspect, officials said. The men, held on immigration charges during one of a series of FBI raids, are alleged to have provided funds to Faisal Shahzad through the hawala system of Islamic money transfer.
Officials said that a third man was taken into custody on suspicion of immigration violations during raids believed to be the result of the questioning of Mr Shahzad, who was arrested last week when he attempted to fly to Dubai.
The two men were seized in a dawn raid on a house in Watertown in the Boston suburbs. One had overstayed his visa and the other was already the subject of deportation proceedings."
The Most Transparently Irresponsible Administration in American History
How could the Attorney General of the United States malign a state law as raising profound constitutional questions, imply that the lawmakers who drafted it are racists, and direct a Justice Department review of the law without having read the law?
If you thought Mr. Holder's stubborn refusal to speak the words 'radical Islam' was bad during yesterday's House testimony, get this one: 'I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the [Arizona immigration] law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is.'
Mr. McCarthy goes on to point out that SB 1070 is only 17 pages long, and that the provisions about which controversy has been stoked run only a few short paragraphs. Surely the Attorney General could have bothered to read it before shooting off his mouth.
________________________________________________________
Meanwhile, the two men arrested in connection with the Times Square bombing plot are (you guessed it) illegal immigrants. From Times Online:
"Two Pakistani men arrested in raids in Massachusetts yesterday have a direct connection to the Times Square bomb plot suspect, officials said. The men, held on immigration charges during one of a series of FBI raids, are alleged to have provided funds to Faisal Shahzad through the hawala system of Islamic money transfer.
Officials said that a third man was taken into custody on suspicion of immigration violations during raids believed to be the result of the questioning of Mr Shahzad, who was arrested last week when he attempted to fly to Dubai.
The two men were seized in a dawn raid on a house in Watertown in the Boston suburbs. One had overstayed his visa and the other was already the subject of deportation proceedings."
Posted by Gibbons J.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Phoenix Suns: Phony Posers
You've probably seen that the Phoenix Suns donned "Los Suns" jerseys the other night in opposition to Arizona's common-sense and popular Senate Bill 1070. The Suns' hypocrisy was exposed by a writer on the "At the Pen" blog.
"How does the Phoenix Suns organization ensure that not just anybody gets into their games?
Well, they issue tickets. Tickets ( IE, THEIR PAPERS) are an identification that people have paid the price for entry into their arena.
How do they enforce ticket collections?
Well, their arena acts as a closed-in border wall with guarded doors being the only way people with tickets ( IE, THEIR PAPERS) can enter.
Isn’t it funny how borders and proper id ( IE, THEIR PAPERS) matters to THEIR bottom line, but not America’s."
h/t American Thinker
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
"How does the Phoenix Suns organization ensure that not just anybody gets into their games?
Well, they issue tickets. Tickets ( IE, THEIR PAPERS) are an identification that people have paid the price for entry into their arena.
How do they enforce ticket collections?
Well, their arena acts as a closed-in border wall with guarded doors being the only way people with tickets ( IE, THEIR PAPERS) can enter.
Isn’t it funny how borders and proper id ( IE, THEIR PAPERS) matters to THEIR bottom line, but not America’s."
h/t American Thinker
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Friday, May 7, 2010
61% of Americans SUPPORT New Arizona Law
A just-released Fox News Poll shows that Americans, across the board, support Arizona's AB 1070.
Why this should surprise anyone is a mystery to me. Back in 2007, the government was trying to push through what they called "Comprehensive immigration reform." It was supported by President Bush, members of both political parties in both houses of congress, the media, the universities, etc., etc. But a New York Times/CBS News poll taken back in May, 2007 found that:
". . . 69% of Americans believe that illegal immigrants should be prosecuted and deported; 82% of those surveyed said the federal government should be working harder to ""keep illegal immigrants from crossing into this country." And according to a Rasmussen poll, by a two-to-one margin (60% to 28%), Americans set a higher priority on gaining control of the nation's borders than regularizing the status of illegal immigrants, while 75% opined that it's very important for the United States to "improve border enforcement and end illegal immigration."
In 2007 the only group that was opposed to so-called "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" was the American people, and our voice prevailed. Has anything changed since then? Well, here's the Arizona question from the May4-5 Fox News poll:
36. Do you think Arizona was right to take action by passing its new immigration law and not waiting any longer for the federal government to act, or do you think securing the border with Mexico is the responsibility of the federal government and Arizona should have waited for the federal government to take action on immigration?
61% of all polled said Arizona was right to take action, 27% said they should have waited and 12% weren't sure. Among Democrats the results were 43%, 41%, and 15%. Among Republicans 77%, 14%, and 9%. Among Independents 72%, 21, and 7%.
The full poll is here.
Why this should surprise anyone is a mystery to me. Back in 2007, the government was trying to push through what they called "Comprehensive immigration reform." It was supported by President Bush, members of both political parties in both houses of congress, the media, the universities, etc., etc. But a New York Times/CBS News poll taken back in May, 2007 found that:
". . . 69% of Americans believe that illegal immigrants should be prosecuted and deported; 82% of those surveyed said the federal government should be working harder to ""keep illegal immigrants from crossing into this country." And according to a Rasmussen poll, by a two-to-one margin (60% to 28%), Americans set a higher priority on gaining control of the nation's borders than regularizing the status of illegal immigrants, while 75% opined that it's very important for the United States to "improve border enforcement and end illegal immigration."
In 2007 the only group that was opposed to so-called "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" was the American people, and our voice prevailed. Has anything changed since then? Well, here's the Arizona question from the May4-5 Fox News poll:
36. Do you think Arizona was right to take action by passing its new immigration law and not waiting any longer for the federal government to act, or do you think securing the border with Mexico is the responsibility of the federal government and Arizona should have waited for the federal government to take action on immigration?
61% of all polled said Arizona was right to take action, 27% said they should have waited and 12% weren't sure. Among Democrats the results were 43%, 41%, and 15%. Among Republicans 77%, 14%, and 9%. Among Independents 72%, 21, and 7%.
The full poll is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
