I always like it when Jon Stewart gets hammered for taking people out of context, and both Bolling and Beckel do it here:
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
This is the problem with the PC culture. When you identify the problem with the world wide jihad movement you have appeasers like Stewart, ethnic front groups like CARE attack, mock and villify you. The heck with them. This country needs more politicans and media people to grow a pair and be willing to confront this garbage. This has nothing to do with the Constitution Stewart. These are non-citizens. I lost two friends in the World Trade center attack. The open borders PC crowd will get more Americans killed. We need politicans, the FBI, CIA and military to stop with this PC garbage.
BearNJ Well the living suspect is a naturalized U.S. citizen.
DarkKnight2016 BearNJ Can’t wait to see Terrorist #2 meet some jailhouse justice up the plumber’s pathway before he hangs
Orangeone DarkKnight2016 BearNJ It’s not sure of he will get the death penalty. The last citizen terrorist to receive the death penalty was Timothy McVeigh.
DarkKnight2016 Orangeone BearNJ Read the post again, I didn’t say anything about the death penalty, although I hope he does but I’d go for electrocution on low voltage to make it long and painful.
Orangeone DarkKnight2016 BearNJ He’ll be in protective custody, or “seg” as they call it inside.
Dr. Strangelove Orangeone DarkKnight2016 BearNJ
Can’t see the cops not turning a blind eye. Even some famous serial killers like the Boston Strangler got some prison justice and if it can happen so a nice fella like that, this terrorist is on the shortlist for some too… I sure hope!
WolfieUSA Dr. Strangelove Orangeone DarkKnight2016 BearNJ Jeffrey Dahmer too and he didn’t live to talk about it! Jailhouse Justice, nothin’ better :
Orangeone WolfieUSA Dr. Strangelove DarkKnight2016 BearNJ
Oh DeSalvo was stabbed to death in prison too and his killer never found. Best justice served!
Eric, you’re wasting your breath because Jon Stewart wouldn’t have the courage to face you and Beckel. To go on with O’Reilly is one thing but face the two of you is quite another.
Full moon was this week
Too bad Beckel will be back to normal next week
YoJoe Isn’t this 2 or 3 from Beckel? I believe, I truly do believe, he receives a little message from our Lord…..
Bob Beckel, much to his chagrin, is kinda-sorta being mugged by reality lately. Liberals mugged by reality sew great big bulls eyes on their jackets and become targets of other liberals like… Jon boy Stewart. Can Beckel continue to take the heat? Stay tuned!
Las1 Bob Beckel belongs to the old school democrats who at least had some degree of sensibilities, but there a dying breed. He refuses to see his party has been hijacked by the progressives and continues to cheer them on like some die hard sports fanatic no matter how much they suck.
Watchman74 Las1 Beckel is a Kennedy Democrat, like many other in my grandparents generation.
Great shoot down that idiotic moron of a “comedian” with facts guys!
Pity the tape ended before Greg had his say. I’d like to have heard his take on it too.
WolfieUSA Pity Bob wouldn’t just pay up to the swear jar he has and rip Stewart a new one.
WolfieUSA Me too!
WolfieUSA Gutfeld is the brains of the outfit.
Maybe Beckel is learning how the Left twists words and arguments of those they don’t agree with. Especially, how dishonest they can be … ask any Republican and/or conservative who ever ran for office. (Not a Romney fan) but remember what they did to him?
PhillyCon Given that Beckel at least plays a Marxist on tv, I’m sure he knows.
“Jon Stewart and his team of liberal writers delivered this piece of shhhh…. satire.” Haha!
Watchman74 Yes sh.i… atire. At least that is what I heard. I agree that was funny. Might have been the extra t in there but not really sure about that.
Of course I detest this show just as much as Jon’s show. Both are ultra liberal with whitewashing liberals being their primary purpose.
Jon Stewart is funny. But the problem is that he’s an idiot on most subjects and too far left to find his way it seems. I appreciate both Eric and especially Bob taking him to task on this. Stewart throws bombs for a laugh and thinks it’s alright… it’s not! And I hope he gets called out every time he’s a moron like this… because he lives in the sad place all the time.
The Sentinel The problem with Stewart is he thinks the entire world is made up of people like him which is to say ‘limousine liberal’ and any nod to anyone else form any other background is only for political purposes. Leibowitz (Stewart) really needs to get out more.
Laurel A The Sentinel
Limousine Liberal… love it.
It’s a political litmus test John! and I think this is a case where we need to get control of the language so that it more accurately reflects reality. As others have pointed out, Islam is a religion with a political component. A strong and radical component, I might add, and one that is at war with us.
Would we have a litmus test on students coming from North Korea, or Iran? As a society we need to recognize that Islam has a radical political component to it. That political aspect of Islam, which seek to deny others of their unalienable rights, should not be protected by the constitutions religious protections.
The failure to point out that Islam is more than a religion, but a hostile political idealogy (just like communism and nazism) allows left wing sophists like John Stewart to keep people misinformed and to disarm them into inactioin regarding a simple common sense understanding that true Islam is a political system at war with us which needs to be confronted for our own security and survival.
By pushing the simplistic narrative that Islam is soley a religioni with no hostile political aspects, leftists attempt to mock and discredit us amongst the low information voters by touching upon the taboo of religious descrimination. This intimidates and stops the low information voter dead in his tracks, from acknowledging an otherwise obvious threat. We must not let the language of the left prevail.
mike3e4r7 Tell it brother!
Beckel is like a blind squirrel…yes we need to stop student visas but it needs to be ALL visas until we can get a grip…not just the Muslim visas. And notice that Beckel didn’t connect the dots of his statement on visas to his advocacy of liberal borders and immigration for the last thirty years.
The bulk of the problems of the last forty years in this country are due to progressive liberalism and the idiotic opposition thinking they can continually play Solomon and split the baby in half or mitigate bad legislation. They do it with every issue. For example: Obamacare they want to repeal and replace. Bush’s prescription drug plan was a re-work of a bed Democrat idea, not an outright rejection of it. There are plenty more examples of this. Immigration they just come up with yet another plan instead of enforcing the law on the books. Yet another law about enforcing the law. I wonder if the country is channeling the California State legislature because that is what they have been doing for decades.
And Stewart needs to realize that not only are Bolling’s numbers right…but those numbers while they amount to a small percentage of Muslims they end equating to a very large army.
Ditto! Ditto! Ditto! Laurel A.
I concur with mike3e4r7 – “Good Points” – excellent points.
John Craven – New Orleans
IIRC, that sort of ‘litmus test’ was usual for anybody who wanted to visit the USA – never mind going as a student! – for anybody that is who was a citizen of any European country in the 60s, and 70s, and even in the naughties. I know, because I had to make my way to the US consulate, fill in a very long form, confirming that I was not ever had been a member of a communist party. You had to had that form in – and had to wait two weeks because they checked you out. A lie, a falsehood, and not only did you not get the visum, you were never ever going to be allowed into the USA from that day onward.
What has changed? I can tell you: prog bureaucrats have taken over, and they couldn’t give a d*mn.
“I was a liberal activist and a progressive before you were out of your pampers” – Robert G. Beckel
DarkKnight2016 Some say Stewart still wears pampers.
RobHorine DarkKnight2016 Perhaps Stewart could send a box or two of adult pampers or depends to Terrorist #2. I do believe he’ll be needing them in prison…..
It’s about time more people stood up to Stewart. I find him one of the most disgusting liberals out there. Oh, and when you call him on taking facts out of context and outright lying about what people said, he looks at you innocently and says that, “Hey, I’m just a comic and this isn’t a news show.” Bunk. Then why does he present his “facts” as if it IS a news show and real news? But this is what liberals do, they lie, they cheat, and they perpetuate propaganda to smear people that don’t agree with them into silence. Obama is a master at that. Rather than confront people with facts, they make up their own “facts” to try and marginalize the opposition. Then they ridicule them. So it’s about time people stand up to these thugs. Call them out for what they really are, liars and frauds.
Stewart isn’t only a tool, but it is a common tool of the left to ridicule any point on the right so that the sheeple that listen to that garbage as their source of news find anything they say as just silly. (long sentence I know) It’s their way of showing their “moral superiority”. Most people on the left won’t have an actual conversation, they will try to shout you down to prove their point, or just make fun of your point of view to dismiss it.
TracyMitchell The left ridicule the right because it easier for the left then selling the lefts historically failing agendas.
If someone cannot build up their own side they knock down the opposition without referencing their side to the audience. Let those watching infer your side is different or on the supposed high ground. Stewart does not sell his side, he simply attempts to make the opposition look bad, or like a joke, there by suggesting they are wrong, not that his side is correct.
“I actually turned Fox News off after the botched 2012 election…”
I believe a lot of folks did the same.
DonnyBlackmore clockwindingdown There are more conservative channels coming and other places to get news.
currently, there are 15,000 people who came here on student visas but never even checked into the college or university that they are supposed to be studying at……it shouldn’t be controversial to want to know where they are and what they’re up to!! that’s not even taking into account anyone that could have come here through the open border with Mexico
Ditto! Ditto! Ditto! And thank you for posting this.
John Craven – New Orleans
man spend 2 days building new server for site and you miss tons of stuff LOL
ah well least I got dual xeons running now.
I’ve got friends who get all their news from Stewart. Very,very dim bulbs.
Wow… Jon Stewart’s out of his Pampers? Learn sumpfin’ new every day.
DonnyBlackmore I turned Fox off, too but I still miss Dick “Landslide” Morris. Boy, was I duped.
Dr. Strangelove DonnyBlackmore The whole country was duped, but not by Fox. Read the latest stories on Democrat election fraud that only took five years to surface. Then tell yourself that they didn’t do the same in 2012. Funny how elections can be stolen by dead people and non-citizen voters, not to mention those that voted 10 or more times in the same election. It’s the “Chicago Way”.
It’s my understanding that at least half of the cemeteries in Chicago are eligible to vote in any given election and who knows just how many times the Boston Marathon bombers voted for Nero Obama in the last two presidential elections!
The surviving bomber was more than happy to admit he was happy with Nero Obama’s election. Maybe that’s why he used his Obama phone to detonate those pressure cooker bombs.
John Craven – New Orleans
When a liberal pisses of Beckel, you know there’s a problem.
I’m going to get flack for my comments and tagged as a liberal but for the record, I’m not a liberal, nor a conservative.
I checked into Eric Bolling’s points and he is correct in what he said about those two studies. I mostly wanted to check to make sure his math was right and that he wasn’t misusing statistics as Fox often does. But the NH woman’s study does agree with him. So egg on Stewarts face there.
However, note that none of them addressed any of the other issues that Stewart raised which I think are all legitimate. The suspect is an American citizen. He committed the crime on American soil, he has all the rights of due process, including Miranda. End of story. Fox can’t have it both ways as they so often want. The rest of Stewart’s “bit” makes some very legitimate points. Too legitimate for Fox to address apparently.
I remember Hannity one time shouting someone down for being un-American for not supporting the President (Bush) It’s a different tune when it’s a president he doesn’t like. I also remember his outrage about Common’s trip to the White House because of a song he wrote that was “anti-Bush” yet Ted Nugent tells Obama and H Clinton to suck on his machine guns and Hannity says Nugent is a patriot, or something to that effect.
Who was it Ann Coulter who said the woman should be in prison for wearing a hijab? First amendment down in flames.
Fox is very anti-constitutional, very frequently, yet quick to be shocked, offended and accusatory of anything that could be somehow construed as such when it’s someone else that does it. That was the main point Stewart was making, and I think he nailed it.
I’m not a Fox hater, that’s just how I see it. And I’d love to see Fox try and say they don’t do what Stewart accused them of.
The link to huffpo: Argues the virtue of Stewart totally missing the hypocrisy of Stewart, the article even has to take a dig at Sarah Palin…
You claim you are not liberal… Next time you’re near a mirror I suggest you take a better look at yourself, it would appear your fooling someone.
Oh an I should point out it was the leftist gore clan that spear headed lyrics censorship and age appropriate ratings… Of course huffpo forgot all about that in their agenda to discredit fox.
According to all of the reports I’ve heard on FOXNews, the US Supreme Court has stated that there is a legitimate 48 hour “public safety” exception to reading someone their Miranda rights.
The FBI according to all accounts which I have heard of on FOXNews was no where near that 48 hour time limit set by the US Supreme Court when Nero Obama got Eric Holder to send in a US Magistrate into the surviving Boston Marathon bomber’s hospital room to read him his rights at which point the Islamic jihadist promptly clammed up preventing the FBI from learning anything they could from him about other, possibly imminent terrorist attacks.
By your own admission, Eric Bolling, with Bob Beckel in concurrance, was correct that there are some 15,000 foreigners in this country on student visas for whom no one seems to know their whereabouts since they never showed up at the schools they said they were going to attend. Perhaps you might know where they are. Please tell us if you do, Superanonymous, since Boston Bomber #2 no longer will thanks to Nero Obama and Eric Holder.
John Craven – New Orleans
I didn’t hear Eric or Bob refuting the actual segments that Stewart was talking about. Is it okay to just throw away the constitution when you feel like it? The Bomber is an American citizen who has his Miranda rights because he’s an American citizen.
What you saw was the two challenging Stewart to come on their show and debate it. Stewart is an ideologue, when he debated O’reilly Stewart didn’t know the difference between the national debt and deficit. That is intelligence of the person you are choosing to throw your support behind?
“Is it okay to just throw away the constitution when you feel like it?”
Is it okay to only enforce the laws POTUS see’s fit, or to only obey the laws one see’s fit?
“The Bomber is an American citizen who has his Miranda rights because he’s an American citizen.”
The “Bomber”is an enemy of this nation, taking up arms against this nation, in support of and for the cause of an enemy that wish nothing less then to destroy Our Nation.
Does one, or should one, retain citizenship when they take up arms and choses sides with the enemy of ones Nation (in this case adopted nation) and causes harm to what were his fellow citizens?
Of course like all leftist believe it must be Americas fault, there can never be another reason. Such as the followers of islam have been at war with the rest of the world since long before America was a Nation, or even the continent in which America is located was know to those of Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.
Eric Bolling doesn’t have the credibility to “destroy” ANYONE, much less Jon Stewart; and Bob Beckel doesn’t have the SENSE. Let’s start with Bolling, proudly displaying his NON-sources, which are limited to two documents. One points to a single professor who may be making a similar statement but not presenting any factual data to back it up, and the other is a collection of data that actually REFUTES his argument. Where he says 13%, the Pew Research Center says 8% at best. So it turns out “Johnny Boy” was right; Bolling DID get those numbers out of his ass! And we could go forever pointing at lies Bolling has told, things he’s gotten wrong, and things he ought to apologize for but never will because HE doesn’t have any “cojones”, but let’s move on to Beckel, shall we?
Here’s a guy who just has a really unAmerican idea. You don’t go “cutting off” people from this country on the basis of their race or religion. That’s not what this country is about nor should it ever be. And I could care less if he INVENTED liberalism (BTW, a “liberal activist and a progressive” before Jon was out of his Pampers? What a deceptive way of saying “I’m 14 years older than you!”) Regardless of what he used to be, right now, he’s a moron.
I believe trolling requires a fishing license, is Soro’s Central issuing those now days?
I’m not trolling, unless you’re taking it upon yourself to give it a new definition? I’d say someone who’s just targeting a person and not a point is “trolling”, however. So you tell ME all about the activity
Both Eric Bolling and Bob Beckel have nothing to support their lies and propositions but an extreme case of unfounded confidence fueled by groupthink! Neither of Bolling’s sources back him up, yet he has the nerve to claim on national TV that he’s one-upped Stewart (and so many just believe him without checking the facts themselves).
If you’d like to learn more about Bolling’s lack of credibility, just lemme know 😉
Your link to the pew article agreed with Bolling’s statement in the video above, so apart form trying to smear Bolling all you did was provide validation to his argument…
Well done, you added to Mr. Bolling’s credibility!
Incorrect. Bolling’s claim was that the Pew Research Center found that 13% of Muslim Americans are “cool with suicide bombing innocent civilians”. This is a gross misrepresentation of the data, as it groups three different responses together. For example, to say something is “rarely justified” is not the same as saying it IS justified. But the way Eric Bolling chose to report it was intentionally misleading to further his political views. But that is what he is known for. He has NO credibility and I’m shocked that you would deny this. Again, if you’d like to learn more about how often Bolling gets things wrong, just let me know. I’d be glad to fill you in. Might want it in an email, however, his history of screwing up is pretty lengthy!
Also, the gist of both their arguments is that we should act against Muslim Americans for the sake of protecting ourselves, and the entire point of the Pew Research Center document is that the overwhelming majority of Muslim Americans do NOT approve of suicide bombing or other violence, hence the reason why their proposals and scare tactics are so ridiculous.
” For example, to say something is “rarely justified” is not the same as saying it IS justified.”
It is the same as saying it is “rarely justified”, which is to say it is justified at times! So when is it justified?
I fail to see anything misleading at all. Those polled, by such a response claim that there are times it is justified, that is something that should disturb people.
Getting hung up on semantics doesn’t change the fact that there are some that believe there are times they are justified. What you are doing is attacking the messenger while ignoring the message, which is the issue!
It’s misleading because the message is distorted. “13% are cool with it” = “They think it’s justified, PERIOD, regardless of the situation/cause.” Make no mistake, I’m not saying it’s ever justified. My only point there is that Bolling can’t report anything without getting it wrong, however slightly.
Semantics, you say he’s “wrong”, I see it as accurate, honest, and a warning…
13% basically said they were not against it, therefore they are for it… forget about quantifiers, those can and will change given time and circumstances. Point is there is a percentage that are supportive.
Think of it this way, if each state has 1,000 muslims, then each state has 130 muslims that support terrorism at some level, and that may involve committing it themselves.
Break the 130 into groups of 10 and there 13 groups that support terrorism at some level and may commit it themselves or be actively in the process.
If we look at this in simple terms it is easy to see there are potential risks, based on facts. We like to think that this isn’t happening, however statistically it is happening, we just don’t know at what level or when. At what level or when being the problem that we as a nation face.
All this is understood. I still say cutting Muslims off from obtaining citizenship is way overboard. Please find my other reply to you and a new one I’m about to make. I’m going to post it and let you people do with it what you will. Peace out.
Weighting the risks of loosing family and friends in a terrorist attack on our soil over people that are not citizens of our country but wishing to come here, some whom may be intent on causing death and destruction, to me it seems a no brainer! I would choose health and safety of friends and family and fellow citizens, even those that disagree with me…
According to what has been revealed by various investigators in and out of government, including the FBI, there are approximately 15,000 foreigners who have come here on student visas from Islamic countries for whom no one seems to know their whereabouts since they never showed up at the colleges and universities they were supposed to attend.
Now I see no citations from you refuting that.
And today, your emperor Nero Obama has apparently issued an executive fiat which makes it a courtmartial offense for anyone to spread the word of God as proclaimed in The Bible throughout the military. To do so in Nero Obama’s eyes is an act of sedition. http://www.therightscoop.com/unbelievable-pentagon-to-ban-religious-proselytizing/
You, as an obviously low-information poster, support that don’t you?
John Craven – New Orleans
Let the records show I’ve give you no reason to think I’m a “low-information” poster, but you’ve given me plenty to think you care more for libel than liberty. I won’t comment on the military thing because it is irrelevant to the topic here. And I will point out that you yourself didn’t provide any supported refutation to the arguments I made that ARE on topic.
I stand what I said about not cutting people off from the U.S. strictly because of their religion. That’s not what this country is about, regardless of what justification is thought up. It shouldn’t be hard to come up with other reasons to deny either temporary or permanent access, and that is what should be done when ANYONE may be a threat. But according to the numbers I’ve directed you to, there is no justification for discriminating against Muslims. None.
Face it, Mr. Bolling got his facts wrong (again), got called on it (again), and refused to admit it. Nothing new there either.
I know it’s hard for those on the left to wrap their heads around this, however the fact remains that a group of people declared war upon America. Like it or not these people have one common thread, they just happen to be members of a militant group called, wait for it, “Muslims”, and they pose as, “The Religion of Peace”, although their actions are the exact opposite of peace.
Since this group of warmongers are actively waging battles within our borders the responsible thing to do would be to restrict them access to our citizenry.
Those on the left to try to make it about religion, it is not, it is about war. Those calling themselves “muslims” have a manual called the “koran” and in it instructs them to kill infidels. It is a very simple concept, why does the left try to distort it? The “muslims have been at waging war for hundreds of years, their history and teaching are full of it, currently they are trying to bring that war onto our soil.
So in case you missed it the first time, “it is not about religion, it is about war, they want to kill us”, that is it, nothing more!
OF COURSE it’s about religion, specifically someone having a religion other than your own. Guess what OTHER religion has a book that says to kill
people? Christianity/Judaism! The bible tells you to kill nonbelievers,
homosexuals, psychics, people who don’t listen to priests or judges, kids who
hit their parents, prostitutes, adulterers, blasphemers, promoters of other
religions, women who aren’t virgins on their wedding night, people who work on
the Sabbath; it even says to kill an entire town if one person worships
another god. And yet strangely, we all find it easy to view Christianity as a
good religion rather than a hurtful one. Why? Because thinking individuals
realize that when the vast majority of people in a given group are not carrying
out such hateful acts as instructed by their religion, we should leave them the
hell alone! Offense in the name of protection. That might describe Islam… or
Fox News, depending on which side you’re on *rolls eyes*
But see, the point Jon Stewart was actually making in his clip when NOT
nitpicked to death was that these people at Fox only seem okay with targeting
the rights of people who think and believe differently. It’s why they don’t
bother to regulate remarriage in the modern day Christian church (although the
bible explicitly forbids it in many cases) but they want to make sure gays can’t
get married (although the bible doesn’t explicitly forbid this). Hmmm, it’s
called a bias, and all the people Stewart was mocking are infected with it.
No, it is war. If the group waging the war call themselves a religion it does not change what they are doing!
Christians, Buddhist, Sheiks, Hindu’s, etc., as religious groups are not out killing non-believers all over the world, just one group is, that would be Muslims.
I really don’t wont go in to the marriage debate. I will say it is about redefining language and legal contracts, if you cannot see or understand that then I don’t know what to tell you. Marriage is a legal contract, it has a definition by law what parties are able to enter into that contract. If the kinds of parties in the contract are changed then a different contract is required. Homosexuals can make up the same type of contract if they choose, but by contract law it requires a different set of papers and different name. I’m done with this subject, it is off course, which is typical of the left to shift subjects.
How is it about war when you have people like Beckel wanting to keep Muslims out of the country, not because they are especially likely to harm someone but because of their RELIGION? In light of the actual point of the Pew study Bolling used to further his own agenda, which is that extremism among Muslim Americans is quite rare, there is no justification for grouping them together, as “cutting them off” from U.S. citizenship would be doing.
“they”. Who might “they” be again? *rolls eyes*
Muslims being the cause of many of our attacks is the result of following the evidence, not making the evidence fit the desired results. Like it or not it is what it is.
Looking at it starting with the attacks, who perpetrated the attacks, what the motivation is. This leads us to one thing, a commonality, if that commonality that is the motivation can be dealt with, shouldn’t we deal with it? If we can keep it from Our streets, isn’t that the responsible and common sense solution? Wouldn’t it makes sense to stop it?
The thing to do is stop mass killings, that it is being perpetrated by Muslims seems to be a common thread, hence stop the importation of Muslims until we can get a handle on this.
Again, it is not about Bolling and Beckle, get over it, that’s just being bigoted.
“…which is that extremism among Muslim Americans is quite rare, there is no justification for grouping them together, as “cutting them off” from U.S. citizenship would be doing.”
It isn’t quite rare, in fact it is very common. http://www.globalincidentmap.com/map.php, unfortunately the site now requires membership. The site is not Muslim specific attacks, however incidents can be broken down into categories. There are more incidents then that, those are just ones reported, many go unreported due to location and logistics.
As for Our country we seem to have an issue with muslim perpetrated attacks killing multiple and maiming more , at least one a year over the past five years. We also have an issue it appears involving pharmaceuticals and mass attacks, but that is a different discussion.
Is there a better way then closing our borders?Yes, will it be done? No, there is no will too, if there was it would have been done years ago. If we look at the Boston event we were warned at least one of the perps could be a problem, and that warning came from another country that has problems with the same group of people.
Muslims do perpetrate terrorism, here and across our planet. To deny that is to willfully ignore facts and truth. If someone wishes to do that I cannot stop them, but it does not alter the facts or truth.
“”they”. Who might “they” be again? *rolls eyes*”
Dismissive sarcasm noted…
“Is there a better way then closing our borders?Yes, will it be done? No, there is no will too, if there was it would have been done years ago.”
Same can be said for closing our borders. This is not likely to happen either, but it seems to be the preference for some.
“If we look at the Boston event we were warned at least one of the perps could be a problem, and that warning came from another country that has problems with the same group of people.”
Exactly. The most recent account of a suspected Muslim terrorist attack is itself a prime example of how there are better solutions than trying to keep Muslims in general out of the country. My “sarcasm” was an attempt to get you to realize that Muslim Americans are not the problem; that small percentage of Muslim Americans who actually want to kill American citizens are.
” My “sarcasm” was an attempt to get you to realize that Muslim Americans are not the problem; that small percentage of Muslim Americans who actually want to kill American citizens are.”
How does one tell the difference between who is a risk and whom isn’t? Evidence shows their holy book known as the “Koran” is where their motivation is derived? Evidence suggest the more devout the more risk of a terrorist attack.
We are not seeing the Muslim American community coming forward and suggesting whom maybe a potential to commit terrorist attacks. Neither do we see this same community denouncing these actions as a whole, marching the streets for America. What we are seeing is fighting form them for “Koran” based laws which are not compatible with our laws of society.
We have also been warned that we will be seeing more “home grown terrorist”, meaning non immigrant. However that does not mean Immigrants will or would not be involved in the acts at some level.
Until there are actual solutions offered up and tested to be successful it is not unreasonable to consider all Muslims to be a potential threat, therefore a potential problem. Anything less would be putting our citizens at an unnecessary risk.
Whether we like it or not there is a war being waged against the USA. Those waging the war are not fighting what is a conventional war, they are not in uniform, rather they are small groups that strike. However they are large in organization and well funded, they also are actively recruiting and training.
If we choose to deny the reality we do so knowing our enemy is out there and is planning another strike as we communicate. They will not stop until we decide to fight back, take control and force them to cease hostilities. History has shown that our enemy does respect power and force when shown against them, other wise they will show it towards us.
If we close our eyes they will still be there.
I guess it comes down to the subjective, then, defining “unnecessary risk”. Letting ANYONE in the country is an unnecessary risk. Many of the things we do ourselves and stand for are unnecessary risks, some of which cause a lot more deaths than Muslim Americans ever could. Sure, according to the d ata we have, maybe Muslims are the single group most known to be a threat. However, nowhere near the majority of them show that potential and certainly nowhere near the majority of them fulfill it upon becoming U.S. citizens. Based on that, I still think the entire idea is unwarranted and I will until the REALITY of it changes. Until, say, attacks by Muslim Americans outnumber deaths by non-Muslim Americans by use of the handgun, there will be no more need to keep Muslims from obtaining citizenship than there is to ban guns… that is, if a Republican’s aim truly is to prevent the killing of innnocent people. I recognize the aim as something totally different, sorry. You can take the last word.
The problem is the muslim terror attacks on our fellow citizens injures and kills large numbers. There is not away known to tell which member is likely to be a terrorist, until there is for public security this group must all be considered potential terrorist and treated as such.
Interestingly you brought up handgun (gun) shootings (one in recent history being committed by a muslim), why is gun ownership infringement being discussed when muslim terrorist attacks on our fellow citizens (with injuries and deaths equal in number or greater) is generally dismissed as taboo or right conspiracy theories?
There is a difference between personal risk and a risk to the citizenry, to conflate the two is dishonest. Someone choosing to take part in personal risks of bungee jumping is not equal to taking a family to spectate a sporting event, parade, or public park.
There is risk in letting anyone into this country. We have immigration laws that when followed aided greatly into making this Nation the most desirable place to live for many people. Unfortunately enforcement of our laws have been relaxed or outright ignored, the system has failed by choice.
Facts show that terrorist attacks on our soil are traceable to a group in singular commonality regardless of their origin. This group having being identified the logical, reasonable, and sensible thing to do is to address this group with the greater good of the public in mind and stay vigilant.
Apparently, even the US Justice Department must think you are a “low-information” poster because they agree more with Eric Bolling than you because now after Mr. Bolling has exposed the cold, hard truth that there are some 15,000 people in this country on student visas from Muslim countries for whom no one seems to no the whereabouts of since they never showed up at the colleges they said they were going to, the Nero Obama administration has suddenly taken a very hard line on people coming into this country on student visas requiring multiple verifications of who they say they are and where they are going to since they obviously didn’t care about that before and at least one of the new suspects arrested in Boston had an expired visa and apparently came and went at will to other countries.
John Craven – New Orleans
Let’s try to keep it all in perspective:
Facts of whom is actually perpetrating attacks speaks contrary to the talking points of this article. In other words the poll shows one thing while reality shows completely different, actual application of real acts points to one group willing to follow through, Muslims!
Why take a poll and write an article when there is evidence in abundance to show whom and what is really happening? Could it be to distract and provide cover for those whom actually are committing the deeds, it would appear so on the surface…
Someone can write an article that claims there isn’t such a thing a gravity. Supply vast amounts of information to support their data and talking points. Do you think the same author would stand under a piano that is suspended by ropes 50 feet over his/her head and let someone sever those ropes. Would it not be reasonable to conclude the author lacked conviction to stand behind his article… In other words regardless of how well the author writes and backs up his/her writings, facts and reality say otherwise, the piano will crash down upon the authors head, article or not…
Join other followers