Muslim immigration ban is constitutional

Furthermore, there is even precedent for it:

Is an immigration ban on Muslims unconstitutional? Probably not. The Supreme Court has held consistently, for more than a century, that constitutional protections that normally benefit Americans and people on American territory do not apply when Congress decides who to admit and who to exclude as immigrants or other entrants. This is called the plenary power doctrine. The Court has repeatedly turned away challenges to immigration statutes and executive actions on grounds that they discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, and political belief, and that they deprive foreign nationals of due process protections. While the Court has not ruled on religious discrimination, it has also never given the slightest indication that religion would be exempt from the general rule.

There is even precedent for Trump’s plan. In 1891, Congress passed a statute that made inadmissable people who practice polygamy (directed, at the time, at Mormons), and in 1907 extended this ban to people who “who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.” While Congress later repealed the latter provision (the former seems to be still on the books), no court–as far I know–ruled it unconstitutional.

Plenary power doctrine. Shove that in the face of every cuckservative who blathers ignorantly about the unconstitutionality of Trump’s proposed policy. There is more than a century of precedent demonstrating otherwise. Anyone who says a religious immigration ban is unconstitutional is either ignorant or lying.

Furthermore, the Federalist Papers make it clear that the several States have the ability to pass religious bans as well. And in a MSNBC poll, 92 percent of Americans 18-24 said Trump is not going too far in his proposal to ban all Muslim immigration.

After all, they’re the ones who would have to live with them.

How many dead Americans are you willing to pay?

In order to permit Muslims to live in the West? Scott Adams calls out the virtue-signalers:

I propose that instead of calling fellow citizens racists or idiots we do a deeper dive into the risks and put a price tag on our preference for religious intolerance. If the risk of future terror attacks is tiny, most of us would prefer maintaining our respect for religious differences.

But if the risk is more than tiny, can you put a price on your love of religious tolerance? In other words, how many dead Americans are you willing to accept? I’ll go first.

Personally, I would accept up to 1,000 dead Americans, over a ten-year period, to allow Muslim non-citizens to enter this country. My calculation assumes we are better off accepting some degree of tragedy in the name of freedom. That is often the case with freedom.

If you believe there is no risk from allowing Muslim immigration to continue as is, please explain that thinking in the comments. I have not seen that argument yet.

And if you believe there is some risk of a Muslim terrorist slipping through our current system of screening, what level of American deaths do you consider an acceptable tradeoff?

And keep in mind that you are not offering to die for freedom, since your personal odds of dying in a terror attack are negligible. What you are offering is a higher risk that other people will die so you can live in a country with uncontested religious freedom.

My answer is straightforward: Zero. We don’t have uncontested religious freedom; we already have people refusing to let Christians on sports teams freely pray. That being the case, we Christians have absolutely no duty to abide any religion or religious practice of which we don’t approve.

As The Duck observed on Twitter: “If you told American colonists they had to allow mosques because
religious diversity they would have laughed, then tarred & feathered
you.”

Cuckservative: initial responses

The sales have been exceptional. The reviews have been excellent, by which I don’t mean that they said the book is great, although they mostly do, but in their attention to detail and their substance. Sadly, some observers are just not taking it well.

Phil Sandifer ‏@PhilSandifer
Man, Vox Day must be spending an awful lot of his daddy’s money to drive up his new book’s Amazon ranking this high.

To which there can really only be one response.

Otherwise, the usual SJWs have been stunned into silence; the observable fact that I not only have considerably more support than they do, but actually happen to be in harmony with the popular zeitgeist at the moment is rather more than they are equipped to rationally process. The success of SJWs Always Lie was bad enough, as far as they were concerned, but to follow it up with an even bigger success of broader appeal is simply beyond imagining.

There has been only one real criticism aimed at the book to date, namely, the absence of footnotes. It’s a legitimate point, and I will address it, first as if I were Red Eagle, and second in my own inimitable fashion.

Cuckservative makes a strong rhetorical appeal to defend historic America, but its weak point is that you have to read it as an appeal addressed to you, the reader. It’s not factual ammunition for you, the already-convinced reader, to use in a debate with the unconvinced, because the authors have omitted footnotes. Cuckservative uses a lot of facts, and Vox Day has said on his blog that he’s got solid sources for everything, and that omitting references gives critics less to attack. That’s fine if you believe he’s not bluffing, and I do; but “one of the authors says he has a source for that, but he won’t say what it is” doesn’t fly in a serious argument.

Ann Coulter’s Adios America will supply facts by the ton when it comes out on Kindle. Meanwhile Cuckservative is the best current statement of the militant right-wing case against mass immigration and against ineffective “respectable” conservative politics regarding it.

Imagine, if you will, that you are a married man. You’ve worked a long day. You’re tired and you’re not in the mood for explaining yourself or getting into an argument with your wife, so when she asks you if you want Chinese for dinner, you have two choices. Either A) you simply say no, or B) you tell her no and you explain why.

If you say no, that ends the debate. Perhaps she suggests something else, perhaps you do, either way, there is no need for discussion. But if you go with option B), you have given her the opening to take issue with why your position is incorrect and to attempt to convince you that you really do want Chinese. Whether she manages to convince you or not, you’re in for an argument, and most likely, you’ll end up eating Chinese even though you didn’t want to.

Now, in case the analogy has escaped you, the reasons for not wanting Chinese food are the footnotes and the wife is the critics. Here endeth the lesson.

From my perspective, books are discourse. I expect and anticipate criticism both fair and foul. I remember when Ann Coulter was absolutely pilloried for having endnotes rather than footnotes. I also know that not having footnotes allows me, or the Cuckservative reader, to call out the critic who attempts to cast doubt on them.

The correct response to the critic who claims that something in Cuckservative is wrong is to ask him what the correct answer is. If he wishes to deny that the Danish army’s measured average IQ has fallen by 1.5 points, ask him for the correct delta. Ask him if it has risen, fallen, or stayed the same. He will not be able to do so, thereby discrediting himself and revealing that he is not an honest interlocutor.

The only people who actually need the footnotes are those who are attempting to undermine the arguments presented in the book by disqualifying the source data. Red Eagle and I simply made their task more difficult by denying it to them. If you want to cite a source, then cite our book. That is sufficient.

But perhaps my chief reason for not providing my sources, which are, of course, impeccable, is my experience with TIA. Simply because I cited my source, many people who read the book took my original arguments and credited them to the source, who, ironically enough, made precisely the opposite argument in the face of the data they had collected.

For much of the world before the 17th century, these “reasons” for war were explained, and justified, at least for the participants, by religion.
– The Encyclopedia of Wars, p. xxii

No, they really weren’t. I make mistakes, but I seldom make the same mistake twice.

UPDATE: My co-author speaks for himself:

This isn’t an academic treatise, it isn’t a book report we’re submitting for approval and critique by authority, and it isn’t a defensive, plaintive rearguard work in the cuckservative style.

We’re on the attack. Let the lefties and cuckservatives be on the defense. Let them impotently quibble and whine about us failing to cite our sources. Let them do their own homework if they want to argue or nitpick, and let them be the ones who try to qualify themselves.

Preach, preacher!

He hit send?

An incredulous Spacebunny asked the obvious question after Shaun King made the quixotic decision to email the indefatigable Milo about his attempt to bury the skeletons in his social media past:

Shaun King Just Sent Me The Greatest Email Any Journalist Has Ever Received

Here is a set of responses Shaun King just sent me after I asked why, following our report today, he was deleting thousands of tweets from his social media profile.

Shaun King, readers will recall, is a salaried employee of the New York Daily News, where he is employed as “senior justice writer.” In the email, he claims:

  • Volunteers from 150 countries are manually deleting every one of the 70,000 tweets King has sent
  • King has spoken to “legal counsel” at “several British media companies” all of whom told him I have “actual psychological challenges/difficulties”
  • I am “strangely obsessed with him” and that I “love, hate, worship and despise” him
  • “White supremacy” drives NRA gun policies
  • “Racial symbolism is present throughout the world” … including “depicting Jesus as an effeminate European”
  • The “game of pool” is another example of “racial symbolism”
  • I am “obsessed” with King’s children because I “want kids but know that you would be such a terrible father that you choose instead to be obsessed with Shaun’s kids”

Presented without further comment — because I am currently struggling to form words. Except to note that King’s latest strategy of responding in the third person, making vague allusions to an “administrative team” who apparently helps him out with his email, is almost as funny as his claim that people from 150 different countries are currently logged in to his Twitter account manually deleting every tweet he has ever sent…

I can’t say I’m not a little disappointed. But I hope that the photo montage I sent of my “Burt Reynolds on a bearskin rug” impression in honor of Milo 100k still managed to make the top ten.

Kicking the cuckroaches

Donald Trump knows what the American people want a lot better than the cuckroaches in the media who claim to be “opinion leaders” do:

Donald Trump acknowledged Monday during a raucous South Carolina rally that his call for barring all Muslim foreigners from entering the United States is “probably not politically correct.”

But he had three words for his critics: “I don’t care.”

And if his South Carolina rally — with its whoops and cheers — was any indication, that support will stick.

Six of eight Trump supporters at the rally who spoke with CNN said they supported the Muslim travel ban, which has drawn swift criticism from other Republican and Democratic presidential contenders alike who slammed the proposal as contrary to American values of religious tolerance. And the two supporters at the rally who disagreed said they were still likely to vote for Trump.

By contrast, here is the Littlest Chickenhawk’s take on what he calls Trump’s desperation, which is only one of the many cuckservative hissy fits being thrown in response to Trump’s moderate proposal.

Desperate Trump Drops Ugly Policy Bomb: Ban All The Muslims Abroad

That can mean only one thing: it’s time to trot out a headline-grabbing, nonsensical policy proposal.

To that end, Trump released a statement today calling for a ban on entry to the country for all Muslims. He said this would include Muslim servicepeople serving overseas, as well as Americans traveling abroad. He did not create a timetable, or a list of requirements to be met at which point such a ban would be lifted. Instead, he explained, “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred [of Americans by members of the Muslim world] is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it faces, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

Asked about what prompted the statement, Trump said simply, “death.”

In other words, Trump believes the only way to stop terror attacks like those that happened in San Bernardino would be to ban Muslims from entering the country. That’s idiotic, for at least three reasons.

American Citizens Have Citizenship. Trump is not referring only to foreign Muslims. He says his ban applies to “everyone.” If that’s the case, why would he quash the rights of millions of Muslim Americans, many of whom serve in the police and armed services? How would he propose to take away rights without due process? And why in the world would he? This is truly frightening  and disgusting stuff. Up until now, it’s been the left calling for Americans to give up their rights. Not anymore.

There Is A Difference Between Profiling And A Religious Ban. Looking at religious practice as one component of Islamic terrorism makes sense, given the association between religious practice and Islamic terror. But Islamic practice is necessary, not sufficient, for Islamic terrorism – in other words, there are lots of Muslims who aren’t terrorists, obviously. Being Muslim should not be an outright disqualifier for entering the country if we are actually capable of vetting you. That’s why Ted Cruz’s suggestion of a moratorium on Muslim immigration from countries like Syria makes sense, but Trump’s global ban makes no sense. Our security services will have to be much better than a total Muslim ban if we hope to keep Americans safe anyway, considering the threat of homegrown terrorism – we’ll have to discriminate between Muslims who are a threat, and those that aren’t. There are a billion Muslims on planet earth. Banning all of them is simply impractical, as well as immoral.

Kiss Our Intelligence Apparatus Goodnight. We need to work with Muslims both foreign and domestic. It’s one thing to label Islamic terrorism and radical Islam a problem. It’s another to label all individual Muslims a problem. That’s what this policy does. It’s factually wrong and ethically incomprehensible. Donald Trump has just transformed into the strawman President Obama abused on Sunday night.

So no, this isn’t a good idea. It’s a rotten idea all the way around: legally, ethically, practically. Trump’s supporters need to realize at some point that knee-jerk extreme reactions to events of the day don’t substitute for good judgment. It’s ugly when it’s President Obama looking to grab guns from American citizens without due process, and it’s ugly from Donald Trump. Given the poll numbers, it’s not clear whether Americans will get wise to that truth.

It’s a bit disappointing to see that Ben Shapiro, who has admittedly grown up a bit since his Littlest Chickenhawk days when he was all keen on sending all young male Americans who weren’t Ben Shapiro to war in the Middle East, falling back into generic #cuckservatism here. Ben wasn’t in my league back in our mutual WND days, and he still isn’t today. Allow me to demonstrate:

  1.  Trump isn’t “desperate”. It is his critics, like Shapiro, who are growing increasingly desperate. Ben is projecting. “The latest Rasmussen Reports (Dec. 4) weekly Trump Change survey finds that 68%
    of Likely Republican Voters believe Trump is likely to be their party’s
    nominee next year, up from 53% two weeks ago.”     And recent events in San Bernardino only helped Trump’s cause.
  2. It is not “idiotic” to say that banning Muslims from entering the country is the only way to stop terror attacks like the one that occurred in San Bernardino because doing so would have stopped the terror attack in San Bernardino. That being said, it’s true, that won’t stop all Muslim terror attacks; the only way to do that will be to repatriate all Muslims to the Dar al-Islam. Which, sooner or later, is exactly what will eventually happen across all the parts of the West that stay West.
  3. The Preamble to the Constitution trumps both the Constitution and the Amendments. The citizenship that can be granted by the stroke of a government pen, can be taken away by the stroke of a government pen as well. Citizens are not nationals and the Nation trumps the State.
  4. There are a billion Muslims on Earth. None of them have to live in the West. It is neither immoral nor impractical to suggest that Muslims should live in the House of Submission and to refuse to permit them to bring war to the House of War. Furthermore, it is not only impractical, it is both ahistorical and utterly impossible, to expect large quantities of Muslims to live in the West in peace. They will not. They never have. Shapiro is demanding the Muslims stop being Muslims, a much greater offense to them and their religion than not permitting them to colonize the West.
  5. Our foreign intelligence apparatus in the Muslim world is practically nonexistent anyhow. And it obviously escapes Shapiro that we will not need a domestic intelligence apparatus spying on Muslims if there are no domestic Muslims on whom to spy.

Speaking of cuckservatives and their propensity for betraying the American national interest, Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America has risen to #134 on Amazon, and after surpassing the 2015 nonfiction National Book Award winner by Ta-Nehesi Coates, is now the #1 bestseller in all Politics & Social Sciences. It is also the #1 hot new Nonfiction release.

    Reconquesta 2.0 is coming

    Donald Trump’s proposal is a good start, but it is only a start:

    Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump on Monday called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” the most dramatic response yet to the string of terrorist attacks that have Americans increasingly on edge.

    Trump released a statement citing polling data he says shows “there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population.”

    This isn’t the first time that the West has had to deal with the challenge of Muslims invading the West. There are two choices, the Bosnian way or the Spanish approach.

    Pick one.

    “Western civilization is under attack”

    The author of the Foreword to Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America, Mike Cernovich, throws down the gauntlet in introducing the book to his readers.

    Western civilization is under attack and we have no support from mainstream conservatives.

    Republicans control Congress. They are the majority party in both the House and Senate. What have they used their power for? Are they advancing American interests? They call themselves conservatives, and yet it seems there is nothing about America that the wish to conserve.

    Conservatives insist we open our borders to all who come. We must change our ways for immigrants, which has led to poor rates of assimilation.

    All too often immigrants bring values from their inferior countries to the United States.

    Saying Western Culture is superior, according to prominent figures on the right, is racist, xenophobic, and bigoted.

    How did I go from someone who hates writing politics to one of the leading figures of the right?

    I had no choice but to take up arms after being betrayed by so-called “conservatives” and others on the “right.” No one would stand up for my rights – for our rights as men.

    Rather than have our backs, conservatives watched with glee while SJWs tried screwing us over.  Even though Republicans control Congress, radical feminists appeared to discuss “rape culture” and how to destroy the rights of men. Not a single Republican spoke out against the hysteria of rape culture.

    We all sensed we had been betrayed, although we didn’t know what to call our new enemies.

    Then, in at the heights of Olympus, a meme emerged. This meme was brought to the light – Cuckservative.

    Read the whole thing over there. Mike is second to no one, not even Milo, in setting the tone. And I very much like his idea for dropping the term “Alt Right” in favor of “Militant Right”. Not only is it reminiscent of the Church Militant, but because we are more than the alternative to the traitorous cuckservatives, in fact, we are the only remaining answer, the only possible chance for survival, and political militancy is increasingly required if Western civilization is to survive intact.

    Tens of millions of Americans are not gunning up because they are concerned about an overpopulation among the deers and squirrels on the continent, but because the Zombie Apocalypse is approaching.

    Evidence of a false flag

    ISIS commended the “three lions” of San Bernardino. All the early news reports talked about three shooters. I personally heard the police on the scanner talking about three suspects, including one taken into custody. So, where is the third shooter? And more importantly, why did an eyewitness report seeing three tall male shooters?

    We now know that ATF investigators recovered police issued firearms from the alleged shooters. This key detail was leaked by 2016 GOP Presidential Candidate Carly Fiorina during a press interview after she had overheard a newsroom report that doesn’t fit the official narrative.

    We also know that active shooter drills actually took place near the crime scene just days before and possibly even on the same day of the mass shooting as reported by Mac Slavo.

    Additionally details from an eyewitness, who came forth on the day of the shooting, may have been overlooked by investigators and suggest that there were actually ‘three white shooters’ instead of the radicalized husband and wife natural-born killer team portrayed in some mainline reports.

    The witness, Sally Abdelmageed, worked at Inland Medical Center where the attack took place and saw it all unfold firsthand. It’s also important to note that Abdelmageed is likely not lying and that this quite possibly might be the most accurate eyewitness account publicized to date. After all how can two shooters, a man and a petite woman, be mistaken for three white military men with athletic builds?

    In a phone interview with CBS Abdelmageed explained:

        “I heard shots fired and it was from you know an automatic weapon. […] very unusual. Why would we hear shots? As we looked out the window a second set of shots goes off […] and we saw a man fall to the floor. Then we just looked and we saw three men dressed in all black, military attire, with vests on they were holding assault rifles. As soon as they opened up the doors to building three […] one of them […] started to shoot into the room.”

    When asked what the gunman that shot into the room looked like the eyewitness replied:

        “I couldn’t see a face, he had a black hat on […] black cargo pants, the kind with the big puffy pockets on the side […] long sleeve shirt […] gloves […] huge assault rifle […] six magazines […] I just saw three dressed exactly the same”.

    “You are certain you saw three men,” the newscaster asked Abdelmageed.

    “Yes,” said Abdelmageed.

        “It looked like their skin color was white. They look like they were athletic build and they appeared to be tall.”

    Now, who is more likely to be lying, this woman or the government? Which party has a longer track record of being less than entirely honest. And the strange behavior of the married couple makes a lot more sense if one considers the possibility that they were simply patsies who were flushed and then identified; the way in which the police found them struck me as just a bit odd at the time.

    France’s new Joan of Arc

    The Front National has a rising star, Marion Marechal-Le Pen:

    Last week, she raised a storm when, in Toulon, a Mediterranean city with a large number of citizens of Arab descent, she said Muslims could only be French ‘if they follow customs and a lifestyle that has been shaped by Greek and Roman influence and 16 centuries of Christianity.’

    ‘We are not a land of Islam,’ she said. ‘In our country, we don’t wear djellaba clothing, we don’t wear a veil and we don’t impose cathedral-sized mosques.’

    She’s Christian, she’s blonde, she’s attractive, she’s fearless, and she’s on the verge of becoming a significant political figure in France. However, as we’re seeing in the USA, the French equivalent of the bifactional ruling party, who are supposedly such tremendous rivals, have united to try to stop the nationalists.

    The vote confirms what previous ballots suggested, but which official commentators did not want to admit – the National movement is without any doubt the first party in France, but meanwhile it is hardly represented in parliament,’ Marine Le Pen said.

    In a speech to supporters in the early hours today, Ms Le Pen added: ‘It is the only party to defend the authentic French republic the development of our traditions, and the defence of all the French, especially the most vulnerable.’

    Marechal-Le Pen, meanwhile, scored above 40 percent in final estimates for the vast Provence-Alpes-Cote-d’Azur region in the south, placing her on course for a landmark win next week.

    Both women, however, face an uphill battle to clinch the run-off vote after the Socialist Party withdrew candidates in the key regions and called on its supporters to back conservative rivals.

    Now, why would the Socialist Party be withdrawing its candidates and backing its “conservative rivals”? For exactly the same reason American “conservatives” are backing Hillary Clinton rather than Donald Trump. As detailed in Cuckservative, both socialists and self-styled “conservatives” are globalists who are virulently opposed to nationalism and the national interest of every European peoples, including the American people.

    Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America

    Fifty years ago, America was lied to and betrayed by its leaders.

    With virtually no debate, Congress passed the most radical change to immigration law in American history. Since 1965, America has endured the biggest mass migration of people in human history, twice the size of the great wave of immigration into the USA between 1870 and 1930. As a result, Americans are being displaced in their own land by an ongoing invasion that dwarfs Operation Barbarossa, is two orders of magnitude larger than the Mongol hordes, and is one thousand times larger than the First Crusade.

    America’s so-called conservative leaders and the conservative media have joined forces with liberal internationalists in openly celebrating this massive invasion, relying on bad theology, outdated economics, and historical myths to falsely claim that immigration is a moral imperative, an economic necessity, and in the national interest. Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America is a powerful defense of America’s right to exist as a nation by two Native American authors, as well as a damning indictment of a conservatism that has failed to conserve America’s culture and traditions.

    In Cuckservative, John Red Eagle and Vox Day warn Americans that if they do not defend their culture, their posterity, and their nation, they will eventually find themselves on their own Trail of Tears.

    I don’t think it would be going too far to say that this is an important book. One reviewer has even called it “The most important book Americans can read going into 2016.” In many ways, it is a book that has been years in in the making, which was one reason Red Eagle and I were able to write it so quickly. The basic premise, which is that a) nations are people, and, b) people can be rapidly replaced by other people in any given geographic location is both offensively controversial and historically undeniable. In this way, it is thematically connected to SJWAL, as both SJWs and cuckservatives are intrinsically at war with observable reality.

    From the reviews:

    • “This book is hard to accept, but it is worth your time.”
    • “This book provides an amazingly thorough and honest explanation about the catastrophic effects of mass immigration throughout history.”
    • “A look at how America is being moved towards
      becoming another nation that is American in name only, with the help of
      many who pretend to be “conserving” our nation and its culture of unity.”
    • “At times it is an uncomfortable read. It looks at things we don’t talk about as a society.”
    • “The sum of the book is much bigger
      than all of the parts combined and is an absolute need-to-read for
      anyone who isn’t interested in seeing the downfall of Western
      Civilization.”  

    More than anything, the book is about the puncturing of myths, including many myths that I myself once not only believed, but held inviolate. For many readers here, this will be a distinctly uncomfortable read, in some cases, perhaps even an infuriating one. And for those who are inclined to take some of the aspects of the book too personally, I would remind you that while the macro is not the micro and the exceptions are not the rules, it is the averages, the rules, and the macro that determine the fate of nations.

    The emails have gone out to the New Release subscribers, and I would like to thank Jonathan Moeller and Fenris Wulf, both of whom are supporting this launch with their books. I hope you will enjoy their books as well; they are certainly more purely entertaining than Cuckservative.

    As far as the launch goals, two of the four goals have already been achieved. Thanks to those who hunted it down on Amazon prior to this announcement, the book is already #1 in both the Political Philosophy and Nationalism categories. It still remains to be seen whether it can crack Amazon’s top 100 on Day One.