4 hours ago
Three judges filed compelling dissents that will prove quite useful when, as Trump promises, the case proceeds to the Supreme Court. The continuation of the litigation is an unfortunate outcome, even if conservatives and other rule-of-law types, buoyed by Justice Neil Gorsuch’s appointment, may be right that the EO has a better shot in the High Court.
That’s because the EO doesn’t matter. You may not have noticed, but sharia supremacism has already won, regardless of what the Supreme Court does.
See, the EO was never an end in and of itself. It is a means — a fatally flawed one — to a vital end. That end is a vetting system that enables our security services to distinguish pro-Western Muslims from sharia supremacists. That’s the goal. The EO was conceived as a temporary pause while the vetting system took shape.The problem with Islam has always been that it is a political theory hiding inside of, and disguised as, a religion. Both Christians and Jews hold that to be successful (as they define success) one must surrender one's will to God's will. One must use one's will in the furtherance of God's objectives. We learn about God's objectives by reading sacred Scripture. To the extent that Islam requires the same thing, Christians have no problem. However, their Scripture is not the same as our Scripture. Our Scripture describes a God who loves us and all creation, while theirs describes a god who hates most of his creation, but there is no explanation why that is. He apparently hates dogs, pigs, Jews, Christians, Pagans, Shinto, Hindus, and on and on in a litany of hatred that causes a thinking man to suspect that the two different texts were inspired by to different beings. Furthermore, the god of Islam demands respect and obedience. To enforce these things, there is Sharia. Sharia makes the Pilgrims look like pikers. The Pilgrims sailing to America and setting up a theocracy seem in light of Sharia like liberal hippies.
There is a single battle that must be won. American culture must be convinced that Islam, while it has plenty of diversity, has a mainstream strain — sharia supremacism — that is not a religion but a totalitarian political ideology hiding under a religious veneer.
Intellectually, this should not be a difficult thing to do. Sharia supremacism does not accept the separation of religion from political life (which is why it is lethally hostile to reform Muslims). It requires the imposition of classical, ancient sharia law, which crushes individual liberty (particularly freedom — of conscience, of speech, and in economic affairs). It systematically discriminates against women and non-Muslims. It is cruel in its enforcement. It endorses violent jihad to settle political disputes (since such disputes boil down to whether sharia is being undermined — a capital offense)....snip...
Nevertheless, what should be easy to establish intellectually is difficult as a practical matter. Sharia supremacists and their progressive allies maintain that Islam may not be parsed into different strains. For legal purposes, they insist it is a monolith that is protected by religious-liberty principles — notwithstanding that a) progressives are generally hostile to religious liberty and b) sharia supremacists themselves would destroy religious liberty. Perversely, then, they argue that the First Amendment is offended by national-security measures against anti-American radicals who would, given the chance, deep-six the First Amendment in favor of sharia.
It is essential to win this debate over the political nature of sharia supremacism. Our law has a long constitutional tradition, rooted in the natural and international law of self-defense, of excluding aliens on the basis of radical, anti-American political ideology. Thus, if sharia supremacism is deemed a political ideology, we can keep out alien adherents of a cause that both inspires the terrorists of today and, wherever it is allowed to take root, produces the terrorists of tomorrow.And so we see that these judges are out of touch with the American people. They do not live in what Rush Limbaugh might call "Realville."
And the judges’ values tend not to be your values. You value American national security. They value a new, aggressive, and indiscriminate protection of religion — provided that the religion is Islam. Your value is a trifle. Their value is transformed into a right of Muslim immigration, derived from the new, judicially manufactured right of America-based Muslims not to have their self-esteem bruised.
Sharia supremacism and judicial imperialism: a combination that is breaking our will in a way no previous challengers ever could.
Questions for discussion:
1) Is admitting refugees from unvettable countries part of "Putting America First?"
2) If a refugee whom Trump admits to the U.S. later kills some Americans, will Trump supporters say it could have been worse because at least Hillary Clinton wasn't the one to admit them?
3) If Trump truly believes in security for our nation, can you think of any rational reason why he is doing thins?Good questions all. Discuss among yourselves along with this: Does Trump think this bow to the establishment will make them like him better?
The left loved Ledell Lee as it loves all its monsters. The ACLU and Innocence Project filing tenderly dwells on Lee’s victimhood. We are told that he repeated eight grade and his mother smoked when she was pregnant. But despite Lee’s supposed retardation, he was cunning enough to scout houses, contrive a pretext for finding out if women were home alone and then raping and murdering them. Despite his time in special education, he managed to conduct a rape and murder spree for three years.
The pro-crime lobby would have us believe that Ledell Lee is smart enough to rape and kill, but too stupid to die.
The stupidity defense has become the new insanity defense. Every killer on death row is suddenly diagnosed with lead poisoning, fetal alcohol syndrome and mental retardation. Once you hear an ACLU lawyer argue that his murderer is too stupid to die, you know that he’s guilty as hell.Greenfield goes on to make the point that this was a major reason we needed him on the Supreme Court, and thus was a major, perhaps primary reason for voting for Trump:
The case of Ledell Lee showed us again what was at stake in the Gorsuch battle. Legal debates sometimes seem abstract. And yet they are as real as a teenage girl being dragged out of her sister’s home into the woods, a woman being strangled behind a school and a housewife being beaten to death with the tool that her husband gave her to protect her.
The left is a pro-crime lobby. Behind the empty theater of its sham feminism and pink rallies, it is on the side of the rapists and the murderers. It is on the side of Ledell Lee and all the other monsters like him.
“If the six of you had been in that conversation, you would have come away not saying, oh these are some thugs or superpredators that I can’t relate to,” Obama smugly boasted. The left prides itself on relating to “superpredators”. It empathizes with Ledell Lee and not his victims.
That’s what Obama’s justices did. That’s what anyone else he appointed would have done.
Gorsuch’s successful appointment to the Supreme Court won justice for the women whom Ledell Lee raped and murdered. Over the objections of the pro-crime Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer.If Trump gets another shot at appointing a Supreme Court Justice, and it will change the balance of the Court, expect all hell to break loose. The Left plays for keeps.
Some may recall St. Andrew Cuomo, who in a secular interpretation of St. Patricks’ expulsion of snakes from Ireland, attempted an exorcism of people who were pro-life and pro-gun from the sacred soil of New York. If he had been able to put his threat into action as did kings of old, Cuomo, who considers himself Catholic even though he is almost violently pro-abortion, may have imitated Louis XIV’s revocation of the Edict of Nantes, effectively sentencing conservative and religious New Yorkers to exile or worse.
At the same time the newly established holy sites of progressivism are being promoted with an assiduity similar to priests’ promotion of the Christian ceremony of the stations of the cross, progressives continue their campaign to rid the South of anti-progressive graven images.All this would be worthy of comment for sure, but Voshell raises the specter of eventual banishment and exile, if we are lucky, or worse, death and destruction of Christian and Jewish populations, since these must be seen as weeds in the progressive monoculture. It has always been the same, whether in the Soviet Union, or Communist China, in Pol Pot's Cambodia, or in Communist Cuba. It is also true of ISIS, where Christian populations have been decimated after destruction of monasteries and church buildings.