Memo from Manchester: Don’t Let the Swamp Win on Immigration

The excruciating facts keep on coming in. Twenty-two are dead, many of them children. About five dozen others are wounded, such that the death-toll may climb. The Islamic State jihadist network, having exhorted its willing Western-based recruits to attack in place, has claimed responsibility. And now comes the revelation that the suicide-terrorist, Salman Abedi, is yet another known-wolf—a young Muslim man in Britain who was on the radar screen of security services as a potential threat.

The 22-year-old bomber was a British-born son of Libyan refugees, who grew up in the Whalley Range neighborhood outside Manchester—an area that became notorious when two girls, honor students at the local high school, moved to Syria to live under Islamic State rule. Abedi carried out the atrocious bombing of an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester with an improvised explosive device that sprayed high-speed nails at his victims. The bomb type is commonplace in what Muslim terrorists like to call “the fields of jihad”—Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and so on. It is too soon to tell what kind of paramilitary training Abedi may have had. What we do know is that he roamed free because he was judged by the British government not to pose an “immediate” peril.

Once a Western society is infiltrated by a critical mass of sharia supremacists, there are barely enough investigative resources to cover the immediate perils—especially when inquiries into their ideology are condemned as racist “Islamophobia.”

align=”right” Sharia supremacism, which demands that societies be governed by classical, repressive Islamic law (sharia), is a totalitarian political ideology under a religious veneer. It should not be regarded as a merely religious belief system as that concept is understood in our law.

It was to confront head-on that self-defeating approach that, following the San Bernardino jihadist attack that killed 14 Americans, candidate Donald Trump announced his much-derided intention to impose a temporary ban on Muslim immigration. As night follows day, Trump was branded an Islamophobe―a classic demagogic slur developed by the Muslim Brotherhood precisely to thwart examination of sharia-supremacist ideology. But the candidate’s intention was never to bar all Muslims from entering the United States; what he had in mind was a temporary measure until a workable policy solution could be devised (“until our elected representatives can figure out what is going on,” as he put it).

The policy solution Trump arrived at was enhanced vetting (which he at times calls “extreme vetting”). I know this not just from the now-president’s plethora of statements on the matter; I served on the commission (put together by Trump campaign adviser Rudy Giuliani) that counseled Trump. The point was never to ban Muslims, as has been misrepresented in press coverage and legal arguments over Trump’s so-called “travel ban” orders. The point was to ban those beholden to what Trump has called “radical Islamic” ideology (I prefer the more precise description “sharia supremacism”).

The strategy is based on what should be a widely known fact but, after a generation of willful blindness, remains obscure: Sharia supremacism, which demands that societies be governed by classical, repressive Islamic law (sharia), is a totalitarian political ideology under a religious veneer. It should not be regarded as a merely religious belief system as that concept is understood in our law.

Once this core premise is accepted, the legality of heightened vetting is plain to see. The United States has a long history of barring admission to political radicals who seek to overthrow our constitutional system. Indeed, to this day the oath taken by naturalized citizens requires a pledge of loyalty to our Constitution.

The public debate over this aspect of Muslim immigration has been numbingly uninformed. Federal courts and Islamist apologists have challenged the administration over the travel ban―a temporary measure to block entry into the United States by aliens from six Muslim-majority countries that are high-risk because their regimes are incapable of, or unwilling to, cooperate with U.S. immigration authorities. Ignoring the president’s sweeping constitutional and statutory authority to impose such temporary bans on national-security grounds, Trump Justice Department lawyers have been grilled on such diversions as the number of terrorist attacks committed against the United States by nationals of the six countries, and whether the president’s campaign rhetoric signals a closet agenda to ban all Muslims.

These questions miss the point. It is of course imperative to prevent the entry of trained jihadists who may have infiltrated groups of refugees and other aliens seeking admission. That, however, is a secondary problem.

align=”left” To prevent that fate, we have to be prepared to scrutinize aliens for sharia-supremacist ideology. That means heightened vetting for aliens who seek to enter the United States from any country, city, town, or enclave where this anti-constitutional ideology―so hostile to liberty and equality―is prevalent.

The threat we face is not merely terrorism. The main threat is the ideology because of which terrorism thrives. As we see in Europe, and are reminded of in Manchester, enclaves of assimilation-resistant aliens adherent to sharia supremacism become the safe-havens in which jihadism takes root. It is there, among sympathetic residents, that the message of groups like the Islamic State has resonance―making the enclaves fertile ground for jihadist indoctrination, recruitment, training, fundraising, and harboring.

Yes, we must root out the terrorists of today. But we must be at least as concerned about the 10-, 13-, or 16-year-old who will become the Salman Abedi of tomorrow—a young Muslim who slides seamlessly into jihadism because of the anti-Western ideological precincts we have come to indulge.

To prevent that fate, we have to be prepared to scrutinize aliens for sharia-supremacist ideology. That means heightened vetting for aliens who seek to enter the United States from any country, city, town, or enclave where this anti-constitutional ideology—so hostile to liberty and equality―is prevalent. The objective is not, and has never been, to ban Muslims just because they are Muslims. As the president correctly noted in his speech on Sunday in Saudi Arabia, jihadist terror regularly kills and persecutes Muslims. The objective is to protect the religious liberty of all Americans from sharia supremacists―ideologues who systematically discriminate against both non-Muslims and Muslims who do not adhere to fundamentalist construction of Islam.

In an essential analysis of sharia encroachment in Britain, the Gatestone Institute’s Soeren Kern details the push by growing Muslim enclaves for autonomy to govern themselves under sharia, rather than British law. Sharia courts are proliferating. Increasing percentages of Britain’s Muslim population (now 3.5 million, about 5.5 percent of total population . . . and climbing) express sympathy for jihadists. There have been cover-ups of sexual-assault scandals and the pressure put on women to conform to Islamic mores. In Manchester itself, residents have received leaflets in their mailboxes from a Muslim group calling itself “Public Purity,” demanding a ban on dogs (which are considered unclean under classical sharia). A 23-year-old Manchester man, Raphael Hostey (a.k.a. “Abu Qaqa al-Britani”), joined the Islamic State and became a key recruiter―of both jihadist fighters and jihadist brides.

align=”right” Atrocities such as the Manchester bombing are always shocking, but that does not make them unpredictable. Suicide bombers are enabled by suicidal policies.

It would be the height of folly to believe that what is happening in England cannot happen here. This is why the president’s travel-ban orders have been inadvertently counterproductive.

Because of the base allegations of anti-Muslim bias, the White House, Homeland Security Department and Justice Department have been goaded into defending themselves, in court proceedings, by claiming that the orders have nothing to do with Islam. The president’s orders, they maintain, relate strictly to the security shortcomings of the six particular countries cited. Indeed, the administration has bragged that the vast majority of the world’s Muslims (over 80 percent) are unaffected, and that the revised order scaled back the number of affected Muslim-majority countries from seven to six.

But how are we ever to avoid the influx of anti-American sharia-supremacists if our security personnel do not screen aliens seeking entry for ideological hostility? And how can that happen unless the Trump administration says, honestly and without apology, that we seek to subject Muslim alien visa seekers from sharia-supremacist hotbeds to enhanced vetting, in order to promote fidelity to the Constitution, assimilation, and the religious liberty of all Americans, including Muslim Americans—all of which are proper and essential goals of sound immigration policy?

Atrocities such as the Manchester bombing are always shocking, but that does not make them unpredictable. Suicide bombers are enabled by suicidal policies.

Content created by The Center for American Greatness, Inc is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact


About Andrew C. McCarthy

Andrew C. McCarthy is a former chief assistant U.S. attorney best known for successfully prosecuting the “Blind Sheikh” (Omar Abdel Rahman) and eleven other jihadists for waging a terrorist war against the United States – a war that included the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a subsequent plot to bomb New York City landmarks. He is a recipient of the Justice Department’s highest honors, helped supervise the command-post near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan following the 9/11 attacks, and later served as an adviser to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. His several popular books include the New York Times bestsellers Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad and The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America. He is a senior fellow at National Review Institute and a contributing editor at National Review. He is a frequent guest commentator on national security, law, politics, and culture in national media, and his columns and essays also appear regularly in The New Criterion, PJ Media, and other major publications.

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

91 responses to “Memo from Manchester: Don’t Let the Swamp Win on Immigration”

  1. Or we could just ban Muslims. Which choice would insure the best results?

  2. Mr McCarthy, you are missing the detail that the kids of refugees who are not sharia can be radicalized even more as they get some ethnic nostalgia that their parents never had.

  3. Pace, Mr. McCarthy, the solution IS to ban Muslims.

    The United States exists for the benefit of its citizens, just as it says in the Constitution’s Preamble (“… secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity …”). And there’s no right to immigrate to the U.S. — immigration is a privilege we grant to some aliens whose presence we see as a benefit. (At least since 1965, we’ve been awfully sloppy in granting the privilege.)

    Therefore, the sensible question to ask is “What good does the immigration of any Muslims do for us that would compensate for the lethal threat some of those Muslims pose?” Personally, I can’t see any benefits gained by admitting Muslims.

    This was all discussed in detail by the late Lawrence Auster in his speech-become-essay “A Real Islam Policy for a Real America”:

    • Exactly. All immigration laws by their very nature are discriminatory against someone. We need to admit people who share our values. It’s our decision to decide who is allowed to enter. Otherwise we are not a sovereign nation and our federal government is not legitimate, which is close to the case now.

      • Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours & have longer with friends and family! !sv300c:
        On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. Follow this link for more information
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialCashJobs590ShopOnlyGetPaid$97/Hour ★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫::::::!sv300c:….,….

      • No it’s up to stupid Snowflake judges and Democrats , not the citizens

    • Could not agree with you more. The other problem of course is that there is no guarantee that the descendants of a moderate Muslim will not become radicalized, which is more likely to happen with second generation immigrants.

      • Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj422d:
        On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash422ShopAmericaGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!mj422d..,…..

      • The second generation can’t do damage if we bar entry of the first generation so there is no second one.
        Use the Dem stalling of the terrorist ban to shut down refugee resettlement altogether. Stop processing citizenship now. Make plans to return them to their home nation or nations nearby. End all family/chain migration now. Cut legal immigration to fluent English speakers with advanced degrees, advanced skills, or rare skills.
        Use all resources necessary to get visa overstays OUT. Visa overstays committed 9/11, and that nonsense should have been shut down by Christmas 2001.
        Cut off student visas for every university that admits illegal aliens. Shut down the corruption that hurts our workers and families and gets Americans killed.

    • Democratic lice no longer consider themselves “Americans,” but, rather, “citizens of the world.” They should take up residence outside the U.S.

      • I suggest an extended stay in Cuba, Venezuela or Brazil. Theyed at least loose some weight hopefully at the apex of their body.

      • We should crowdfund travel to Yemen, Somalia, and Syria for them.

      • Ahhhhh… No. And don’t be a schmuck..Trump barely won the presidency and we will be coming back into power, probably after next year’s election.

        Anyway quit being such pussies.. America ought to stand for something good, and offering refuge to people threatened by ISIS, Damascus, and other aggressors in.the region is a thing most of us want to do. From what I am reading in.these comments, many are content to leave millions of innocent, regular people to be slaughtered rather than risk some of our own blood.. Shame on u

      • Nope. I and people like myself are the new America, the new Americans.. And if u don’t get with.the program it will be YOU who will be alone and afraid in the future. And u will wither and die in that wretched condition, all because u couldn’t make it in this country as the equal of other citizens. It will be sad if u end your life that way but it will have been your choice alone.

      • “… a thing most of us want to do.”

        Probably wrong that most of us want to do that.

        And you, too, might reconsider, once you stop emoting and start looking at facts. The six-minute “gumballs video” is the best place to start your mental awakening:

      • Yes, Dems will be coming back into power because look at all the elections they’ve won since Novem… Oh wait…. Never mind.

      • Ha! U guys don’t like being called stupid or uneducated, but u don’t understand our system, and why that was anidiotic comment.

        Anyway.. Time will tell

      • ROFL, you guys don’t like it when people point out you’re morons who don’t understand the Electoral College and harp on a mythical national ‘popular vote’ instead but it’s true.

    • I agree wholeheartedly — ban ALL Muslims: stop all Muslim immigration, and deport the ones we have here.

    • Couldn’t agree more. Islamism and Western values are incompatible.

    • You got it! Is our immigration policy supposed to serve our citizens, or just everyone else’s? We elected our government, we pay them, we grant them power. They’re supposed to be doing what’s best for us, not everybody in the world who thinks they can do better for themselves here.

      And I don’t want to hear about the text on the base of the Statue of Liberty. When did we ever vote on that?

      • Indeed. The famous statue’s actual title is “Liberty Enlightening the World,” and the statue has nothing to do with immigration.

        Here’s a terrific article that expounds upon this point, “She Was Never About Those Huddled Masses”:

        Even better, the article’s author is Roberto Suro, prof at the University of Southern California and, before that, founding director of … the Pew Hispanic Center!

  4. If you read these comments, it would be kind of you to answer this question, Andrew:

    Wouldn’t applicants have to swear they owe their loyalty to the United States Constitution rather than the ummah? More to the point, that American law is paramount to shariah law?

    I don’t see how very many devout Muslims could be admitted under the standard traditionally applied to all other peoples, but maybe you can explain how it would be possible. I didn’t glean it from your post above and perhaps that was oversight on my part.

    Thank you in advance.

  5. I read a good interview recently with a Russian Orthodox pope. Asked about why there are less terrorist attacks in Russia than in the West, he said:

    “Because in Russia when someone is arrested for extremist sentiments and terrorist inclinations and sympathies – he is never released again.”

    • Many jihadists are never actually captured for long by Russians. There are listed as “battle fatalities” [with bullets in the back of the head].

  6. We are reliving the 1930s in mutatis mutandis form.

    Namely, the two chief problems of the present day = [1] the disappearance of the world of meaningful work for ordinary people; [2] the encroachment of a murderous totalitarian ideology seeking to conquer and enslave the whole globe. In a broadcast to Germany during WWII Thomas Mann, arguably that country’s greatest-ever novelist, declared Nazism ‘a backstairs Islam’.

    Mr McCarthy is correct in focusing on sharia as the core horror of what is being campaigned for; but he still (as other comments here note) is missing the big picture.

    Islam – as such – is incompatible with the best traditions of ANY western country. In fact, no other culture can cope with it. Neither Buddhist countries (talk to the Burmese), nor Hindu (talk to the Indians of the subcontinent); nor any other tradition: Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Atheism, Agnosticism and, least of all, Judaism and Christianity – of which it is a deliberate perversion and which it was founded to defy.

    Its ‘sacred’ texts enjoin the subjugation of the rest of mankind, and unlike such commands in the Old Testament are not time and place specific. From one age to another there are bound to be periods in which a new wave of zealotry ensures that those commands are taken very seriously by multitudes of adherents. This happened in the 7th century, the Middle Ages, the 17th century, and now again since the fall of the Shah of Persia in 1979.

    What is needed is a binary world, in which all Muslims are required (and if need be forced) to dwell full-time in the 56 countries which are already Muslim; and all non-Muslims are allowed only to dwell in the 150 other countries which are not yet Muslim in name or majority-occupation. There should be little commerce, in all senses of the word, between them. The navies and air forces of the non-Muslim world should apply a cordon sanitaire between the two spheres.

    Such a policy will not stop Muslims committing atrocities and murder – they do this against each other at regular intervals and in a most sanguinary manner. There is always some new sect branching off and claiming a squeaky-clean purity and fanaticism of commitment which authorises it to slay fellow-believers en masse. (That is why a worldwide Caliphate would not stop the killings currently underway for more than about 5 minutes.) But these outrages would all occur among the Faithful and it would force them to start to come to terms with the heresy in which they believe.

    Is it likely that mankind can become so clear-thinking, stiff-spined and sensible in time to stop the world sliding into either the aforesaid Caliphate or endless gigantic civil war?

    Next question please.

    • A very cogent and wise post.
      Note that, given the means, Islamists would line up Liberals to be among the very first to “feel the blade”.

      • And the leftists, despite their claims to be the sharpest knives in the drawer, indeed would be the first to “feel the blade”.

        And they’re stupid enough to essentially invite in those who would slit their throats.

        Not very smart of them, in my estimation.

      • Yep. Look what the Islamists did in Iran once the Shah toppled: murdered or imprisoned their erstwhile communist, socialist and liberal allies who helped them depose the Shah. The Revolution ate its own. But unlike in France, in Iran there has been no swing back away from those who took hold of power after the Revolution. Cautionary lesson to those sanguine about Islamists taking over governments: once in power, Islamists will allow no non-Islamist or anti-Islamist opposition.

      • Its not hard to figure out. The elite and their cohorts were educated by the leftist professors and their anarachist buddies. Not the sparpest knives in the drawer. However the sparpest knives will slit their throats first, the professors that is.

      • U guys r a merry band of schmucks.. And I will tell u what– when the “Islamists” come to the US, I’m not gonna have them make u wienies “feel the blade..” rather, u fat, smelly idiots will be dresseed in conical hats and bells and paraded thru the streets with signs draped round your necks reading.. Idk, “sharpest knives,” maybe.

        Anyway forget about all this crap above.. U racist dweebs have no future in.this country

      • Muslims are like the common cold and leftists are like AIDS. It’s easy to get rid of a cold…unless you’ve got AIDS. -Milo Yiannopoulos

      • Yep. Look what the Islamists did in Iran once the Shah was out of the picture: murdered or imprisoned their erstwhile communist, socialist and liberal allies who helped them topple the Shah. The Revolution ate its own. But unlike with the French Revolution, there has been no swing back away from those who took hold of power after the Revolution in Iran. Cautionary lesson to those sanguine about Islamists taking over governments: once in power, Islamists will allow no non-Islamist or anti-Islamist opposition.

      • and the sad part is that the useful idiots think islam will help them destroy Christianity in Europe and America so progressives will have free reign, but they are convinced islam will not turn on them or so arrogant that they think they will somehow “manage” it.

    • the problem is oil. if it weren’t for oil, would we be allied with the Saudis? Or care about Kuwait? I would love your solution to be tried, though.

      • Thank you for your words of encouragement.

        As regards oil, is not the non-Muslim world’s dependency on Near Eastern oil dwindling away?

        It is of course the case that since 1945 all nations should have been going all out for energy-independence and self-sufficiency, chiefly through the pursuit of safe renewable energy; and this on two counts: (1) good
        geo-stewardship and (2) ability to make national policy which is not blackmailed by the requirements of foreign powers. That energy aim, properly resourced, enthusiastically pursued, ought still to be a priority with every government.

        Even with the 72-year failure to do that bulking grimly behind us, already North America is energy-independent and self-sufficient, what with fracking and Canadian oil/the Keystone Pipeline.

        Other non-Muslim lands have their own sources of gasoline and oil-for-other-purposes. For instance:-

        The United Kingdom has probably got a Saudi Arabia of oil (and natural gas) in the sea-shelves around the Falkland Islands, and it also possesses the know-how and machinery for extracting same, given that it has done that since the mid-1970s in the turbid deep waters of the very cold and blustery North Sea. Australia, as well as being the world’s second-largest coal exporter and third-largest natural gas exporter, has abundance of crude oil.

        Norway and Russia can supply the whole of Europe with natural gas. That would leave the matter of automative petrol-engines unaddressed in that continent, but then most observers reckon that within ten years most vehicles will be electric-powered; and presumably, even if my policy-suggestion were adopted today (!), it would take ten years peaceably and humanely to effect the exchange of populations which I recommend.

        This might mean that the Arabs returned to wandering around their deserts in caravanserais, living on dates and camel-milk rather than fast food and junk music; but what that be a bad thing?

    • If a noncitizen comes here they should be free to starve to death. The country should give them $0. That’s the American way. That’s the self sufficient way. The Brits bring them then support them so they can multiply. A suicide from within. Stupid is as stupid does.

      • Oh, sure Jim, I bet the British people , and our leadership here, will be eager for your advice on how to be as smart as u r

      • Well have nothing against immigrants. We just don’t need any more peasants and serfs. The illegals are slaves or on the dole with free educationan in their own language. Or they are criminals. U can pay for them.

      • Most of them are harder working than u have ever been. And undocumented immigrants as a whole have lower rates of criminality than white Americans.

        Anyway, as far as the education of their children’s concerned, yes, i don’t mind helping to pay for it. And you’re going to pay, too; whether or not u wish to

      • Typical liberal BS concerning criminality. SJWs always lie.

      • Except that it is not a lie. You would know that if u weren’t too big a wienie to get out among your countrymen and know the current reality. And u wouldn’t need to deny what are well known, well documented facts about demographics of crime.

        See, if u had any balls u would deal with facts as facts and develop a cogent conservative view of what those facts mean. But u don’t do that, do u.. As the years have gone by the American right has backed itself further and further into the corner, unable to live in the actual world, where the climate is changing, where the mainstream has diversified, where Hillary and Obama have been accused of and investigated ad nauseum and never found to have committed any crimes.. Which is your preogative, I suppose, tho it makes u a fool

  7. Thank you, Andrew, for a thought provoking article. Of course we need to recognize the threat for what it is and institute extreme vetting, but that, I fear, may not be enough. It’s hard to understand the deep and powerful resistance to unfettered immigration. As I consider the possibilities several things come to mind, some obvious, some, not so obvious. Of course the left considers the “browning” of America as a counter force to the indigenous population that has been highly resistant to their message of socialism, class warfare, and identity politics. Immigration for the left offers the hope of establishing permanent rule. The Chamber of Commerce wants cheap labor. They recognize that markets are global, and labor is also a global market. They won’t say it out loud but they feel that the American worker earns too much by world standards and they mean to rectify that.

    Now lets look at some not so obvious factors. Globalists consider nationalism, sovereignty, and national borders as old fashioned and regressive. Filling the country with people who do not feel any special loyalty to America fits their bill rather nicely. Also, Arab nations like Saudi Arabia and the Emirates are deeply involved in American politics and government. It would be truly revealing to see who among the political class here receives large donations from these sources. Don’t just follow the money. Take a look at how many people working in and around government have ties to organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood that the Obama administration and the left championed so passionately.

    The swamp is deep indeed, and draining it may not be so easy.

    • allangen wrote, “It’s hard to understand the deep and powerful resistance to unfettered immigration.”

      I think that’s the opposite of the meaning intended. If so, this fixes it: “It’s hard to understand the deep and powerful resistance to ending unfettered immigration.”

      • Thanks Stan for the very helpful observation. If I had a Mulligan and could take another crack at it it would look like this: It’s hard to understand the deep and powerful support for unfettered immigration and the well financed and overpowering opposition to any attempt to impose rationality on the process, or something like that.

        Any way, thanks again. It’s really great to know that there are still “good guys” out there willing to lend a helping hand.

  8. I think it’s become clear the Deep State won’t allow immigration of any sort to be curbed.

    We’ve lost the country. It’s time– indeed it’s past time– to face that fact and admit it openly. The country cannot be fixed; the best we can do is try to take over parts of the country and then secede.

    • Finally some good sense of u right wing chickenhawks- Yes, yes, and yes. This ^ guy here is right and should do exactly as he suggests

  9. “The objective is not, and has never been, to ban Muslims just because they are Muslims.”

    Why not?

    “Sharia supremacism, which demands that societies be governed by classical, repressive Islamic law (sharia), is a totalitarian political ideology under a religious veneer.”

    Radical Islam is practiced by Muslims whose aim is not sharia supremacism. Look at Muhammad. Sharia supremacism is a feature of Islam not some evil mutation within the so called religion of peace. Islam is a political ideology wholly incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. We Americans ignore the truth at are own peril. Muslims are using our religious freedom to destroy our religious freedom.

    If we can’t be honest about Islam for fear of radicalizing Muslims, why would we want more Muslims here?

    • The problem is that, at it’s core Islam is the basis for a Theocratic State.

      The requirement to “tax” unbelievers is in the Quran. The Quran is full of instructions for governance, and Islam unlike Christianity, has not yet gone through the Reformation that removes the clergy from governance. Until it does, we will have these problems.

      • it can’t go through a reformation………’s set up to not accept anything but the original scripture

    • “for fear of radicalizing muslims” Do you think their radicalization has anything to do with you? They are radicalized because they believe in islam. They are radicalized because their parents taught them to hate all non-muslims and all things non-muslim since the time they were old enough to walk and talk.

    • Actually American.Muslims are generally more educated, more intelligent, more sophisticated, and more successful than anybof the fat, sweaty wienies posting here.

      • Data?

        That guy in Buffalo that started a public access cable channel to dispel common rumors about Muslims seemed educated, intelligent, and sophisticated … until he sawed his wife’s head off. Omar Mateen seemed right as rain until he shot up that Orlando nightclub. Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik were model citizens until the San Berardino shootings … but they were provoked … they were invited to a Christmas party. Nidal Hasan was a Major in the Army, but he was also a Soldier of Allah. His “workplace violence” claimed 13 at Fort Hood.

        These are all very successful Muslims.

        Sweating is good and the overweight can diet. The fewer prospective terrorists we import, the better.

  10. Muslims are not the issue. America’s number one enemy is the democrat party.

    • So what are u going to do if we retake congress next year?

      You’ll shove a big fistful of greasy pork rinds in your disgusting mouth and then type anti democrat stuff on some other message board

    • And that is the question, isn’t it! Is it right to insist that we live with multiculturalism? Can there ever again be just one culture within sovereign borders? Was Europe wrong for 1500+ years? Can the era of American immigration with assimilation ever be duplicated?

      • In Europe your identity is tied to your birth place where your ancestors have lived for 50 generations. In America, it was a new land and there were no ties and for many still no ties. You were born is Chicago, picked up and moved to Seattle, maybe you will head to North Carolina if Seattle does not suite you. There is no family history to tie you down. No land that has been in the family for uncounted generations that is held onto at all cost. .
        In Europe, you are not German, you are Saxon from a particular town. In Ireland, you are not Irish, you are a Galway man or woman. Galway is who you are. So when strangers come in, they just are not part of the fabric and cannot become part of the fabric.

  11. The Federal Courts, specifically the 4th and 9th Circuits, have seemingly determined that..,

    despite attempts to obscure the real objective of The President’s Executive Order, objectives well known and enthusiastically supported by most those commenting on this “American Greatness” (ironically named) social media site..,

    Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim” campaign rhetoric will be taken into their respective judicial considerations.

    Accordingly, when the court takes in to consideration Donald Trumps campaign promise to ban Muslim Entry into the United States, any Executive Order issued by the same Donald Trump, which significantly prohibits Muslims entering the U.S., will be considered by the court as UnConstitutional – due to The Presidents previously stated religious discrimination intent.

    Apparently, in the court’s view, publicly spoken words indicating intent have consequences and “diarrhea of the mouth” carries significant consequences. Kinda like when Trump promised, if elected, he would lock up Hillary.

    Publicly promising to “lock up Hillary”, his opposition in a presidential campaign, in fact insured that Hillary can never be succesfully prosecuted by the Trump administration. The courts would [similarly] take into consideration Trump’s campaign promise “to lock her up” and they would likely rule that any prosecution of Hillary (a Career UnIndicted Criminal) by this administration, to be prejudiciously motivated.

    Trump’s mouth is his and our biggest problem.

    • And of course the other problem with locking up Hillary is that she has been investigated thoroughly and has always been found to be guilty of nothing but marriage to a guy more sexually successful.than right wing half men.

      That’s not a good enough reason to lock her up

  12. How are we to resolve ourselves and our immigration policy to the fact that the bomber’s behavior was so disturbing to some that they informed British authorities about him in 2010? That his own father sought to keep him in Libya after he’d been radicalized in Britain? Even if a ban is absolute, POI can slip through the net — those who, like the Manchester bomber, are radicalized in the West and will never cross a border in or out of their Western homelands before committing these sorts of acts. Immigration may be the least of our problems when dealing with the spread of ideas — good or evil, religious or not.

    • Are you then suggesting ethnic cleansing within society? Or simply tolerance of the new normal?

      • Neither. A better use of resources. In the large metropolis where I live, we have one of if not the largest Somali population in the States. For decades we’ve had to use very careful local policing as well as national resources to keep the young men who are radicalized here from either committing acts of terror in the US or going back to join and recruit for ISIS. This is why I bring up the fact that the authorities were alerted to the Manchester bomber long ago. If someone is of concern here, they would be closely surveilled by Muslim religious leaders, the community, and the authorities for ever after. I do not see one ethnicity/religion or another as the problem, but the breakdown of communities — of whatever composition, but I prefer mine mixed — who can bring up their youth and look after their neighbors, as we have here.

      • At what point does the majority say that the resources to continuously and permanently monitor people in the population become too much? You describe a police state. Horrific in my view. Since when is it my responsibility to pay police to monitor you from blowing me up? Much rather all those police/FBI/NSA/CIA resources be put into hospitals. When does the price of multiculturalism become unbearable?

      • We won’t pay police to do all of that Cuz won’t be any reason to. We have had, what– maybe 60 Americans killed here by Muslims since 9-11? That’s like what, maybe a tenth of the number of people killed accidentally by good guys with guns each year?
        If u r worried about American lives, gun.control is your stronger suit. Racism against Muslims is a huge waste of your energy

      • But you said lifelong surveillance. 5% of Muslims are radicalized = 50,000 to track in the US alone! Quite a task. As for guns, do you mean taking them away from law-abiding citizens against the second amendment or house to house confiscation or what? Bad guys always can get guns when there are 300,000,000 to choose from in the US. You seem to have the standard, liberal, utopian, feel good ideas that can find absolutely no practical implementation. Ask England and Germany how turning their backs on the Muslims within their countries are working out. Why would we knowingly turn America into a similar sh$* hole?

  13. The Western love of equality exceeds the love of life. These event happen because we allow it to happen like a battered housewife. Simply put, we would rather die at the hands of Radical Islamic terror than admit to ourselves all religions are not equal. We have willingly invited communities into our midst that think it just to kill in the name of religion. Nobody forced us. We made our choice that all religions are equal and now we are paying the price and living with our choices. No mystery here.. We have ourselves to blame. WE support ideologies that practiced as taught are illegal under our own constitutional law and then are shocked that they do what thay have been doing for over 1000 years.
    Only Westerners are say things that have been going on for 10 centuries are ” shocking”. ” unexpected” etc.
    As Heine told us, The real danger is when all this Christian pacifism fades, ” the cross crumbles” and Nordic fury springs forth.

    • A lot of us did not “make that choice” The choice was made for us by Soros and the Democrats. It was they who brought in the “refuges”.

      • Thats right. And in.not too.many more years will be a minority here. U can then.joi the rest of us Americans or u can with and die in.some corner.

        And will be it– no third choice

  14. When something like this happens in San Francisco or Seattle, The Fourth Circus will have blood on their hands

    • As long as it isn’t THEIR BLOOD?

      They couldn’t care less, because stopping them is what Trump wants to do.

      And, they can’t have that.

  15. As Anyone can plainly see, by the non-actions of Liberals on both sides of The Pond, when it comes to dealing with the goat fornicators who wipe theirasses with their left hand and stone their women to death with their right hand?

    Liberalism is NOT just a Mental Disorder.

    It’s a SUICIDE CULT.

    How else does one explain why The Liberals HATE Christians, amd CAN’T GET ENOUGH of the Mohmmedens who would KILL ALL OF THEM – The Homosexuals, The Lesbians, The Transgender Freaks and The Promiscuous S l u t s, if they ever got their feces covered hands, on them.

  16. I want to ban muslims. It doesn’t matter if they are violent or not. They don’t want to assimilate and they demand that we acquiesce to their backwards culture. Also many of them are on welfare. I don’t want them here. They offer nothing but chaos death and destruction

  17. I have an Assyrian friend at work in Chicago who once told me of an honor killing in his town near Baghdad when he was a boy ( He’s in his mid fifties and has been here for 33 years ). He said there was a family living a block away where the daughter was having an affair with a neighbor boy.

    Both families were Muslim. The girl had an older brother who was a butcher. When this older brother found out about his sister’s affair he grabbed her by the hair and dragged her out of the house into the street.

    The neighbors heard her screaming and when they went outside to see what was happening they saw the brother using a butcher knife to cut his sister’s throat. When she was dead he dipped both hands in her blood, went to her boyfriend’s house and smeared her blood all over their front door.

    I asked my friend what the police did about this. He said the police considered it a family matter so they didn’t get involved. Trump says Muslims from cultures like this should be banned from coming here. Trump’s critics say he’s a racist. I think Trump’s critics are insane.

  18. From Winston Churchill’s unabridged The River War:

    How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

    The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science—the science against which it had vainly struggled—the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

  19. First of all can we dispense with the liberal apologist nonsense “he was radicalized by the internet”.
    NO he was radicalized by his islamic extremist Father who is a sympathizer if not member of terrorist group al quiada. This kid was taught hate of all things and people who are not muslim from the time he was old enough to walk and talk. Most muslims teach their children hate. The fascist system of islam is not compatible with western values or democratic principles. We should stop any immigration of muslims immediately and encourage those already here to migrate to a mulsim majority country.

  20. that’s right
    let’s ban everyone whose parents came here 30 years ago and who were born in out own hospitals

  21. The liberal judges in this country are siding with terrorists, AGAINST US. The American People have made it clear what direction they want THEIR COUNTRY to go in, by stripping Democrats of ALL government power, and by electing Trump so that he can undo EVERYTHING OBAMA DID. You establishment Republicans who don’t have the stones to do what has to be done now, THANKS TO OBAMA bringing these killers into OUR COMMUNITIES, should RESIGN, NOW.!!!!!!!! we’ll do what needs to be done, yall just run on to your little safe place, while REAL AMERICANS try and fix this damage you have allowed to happen, even though you’ve had control of the house and senate for years.

    • Actually many more Americans voted for Hillary than trump the chump.

      And ha–too bad we can’t have a rematch today, just for fun. Trump would win maybe 35% and u idiots would c what a small fraction of the whole u r

      • The American People have stripped your party of ALL government power, so you run on along now son and bother somebody else. Have a nice day.

      • Uhuh, girlfriend.. We gained seats in both the house and senate last November, and 3 million more “people” voted for Hillary over trump the chump. You don’t know what u r talking about.

        So u won’t cite the”people” to make that wrongheaded point second time will u..

        And btw that movie sucked.

      • The fact that your party picked up a seat or two back in November, is as irrelevant as your party just lost two special elections in a row, because neither change the fact that, The American People have stripped your party of all government power.

  22. The bottom line is that the people doing the terrorist activities are Muslims. Essentially ALL terrorists are Muslims but not all Muslims are terrorists. Unfortunately nobody has found a way to tell which Muslims will be terrorists and which will not. Even more unfortunately the terrorist actions are common, deadly and increasing. Europe is study with millions of Muslim immigrants some millions of which have not assimilated. America is in a much better situation. The bottom line is that the US should not allow immigration of Muslims until we can identify the Muslims we want it and the Muslims we do not. We do not need any more Boston Marathon bombers, of Florida or San Bernardino shooters or 9/11 types. The frontier closed in 1898. America is fully populated, the third most populated in the world. We do not need more people. We may want to admit people with special skills we want but immigration should otherwise be sparse so we can focus our energy on building our country, not rescuing people whose own countries have turned bad. And we certainly do not need to be bringing in large numbers of Muslims knowing that even if only 1 in 100 becomes a terrorist it will mean large numbers of unnecessary American deaths. I might note that I would have and did say the same thing about Irish immigrants during “The Troubles”.