The United States Supreme Court has partially lifted lower court injunctions against Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim travel ban and agreed to hear in October the Executive Branch’s argument for banning residents of six mostly Muslim countries and suspending the entry of refugees into our once-shining city on a hill.
The Court’s ruling allows the Trump White House to keep out visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen and refugees in general unless those individuals have family, jobs, university admission, or some similar “bona fide” relationship stateside. Absent any such bona fide relationship, the government’s compelling interest in national security prevails unchecked:
The interest in preserving national security is “an urgent objective of the highest order.” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U. S. 1, 28 (2010). To prevent the Government from pursuing that objective by enforcing §2(c) against foreign nationals unconnected to the United States would appreciably injure its interests, without alleviating obvious hardship to anyone else.
…An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded. As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security [Supreme Court of the United States, Per Curiam, Trump v. IRAP and Trump v. Hawaii, 2017.06.26].
The case may moot itself before the Supreme Court hears arguments on the merits in October, since the travel ban lasts only 90 days. The Economist reads sneaky genius on the part of Chief Justice John Roberts:
So, despite granting Mr Trump’s plea to hear his case and largely lifting the lower-court stays on the travel ban, Chief Justice John Roberts apparently worked out an ingenious compromise with his liberal brethren and the swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, that injects the Supreme Court only minimally into a big question on the scope of executive power in the Trump era. The chief justice has avoided making politically volatile judicial pronouncements on presidential immigration powers, anti-Muslim bias and the justiciability of tweets, and has positioned himself somewhere to the left of the court’s new conservative triumvirate [“The Supreme Court’s Curious Compromise on the Travel Ban,” The Economist, 2017.06.26].
A Twitter-tilt with Senator Stace Nelson over the weekend has me wondering if the Court may be accused by the Trump-right of missing the point. Last week I cheered Taneeza Islam and Indivisible Rapid City for counterprogramming the Islamophobia-fests plaguing our fearful state. In response, Senator Nelson said Ms. Islam and I “defend indefensible evil acts of terrorism by crying ‘racist/bigot’ while attacking those terrorized for being so.” I’m still waiting for Senator Nelson to point to any act of terrorism that I have defended or any victim or terrorism whom I have attacked (Senator Nelson says I defend “the infrastructure supporting these groups engaged in wholesale acts of evil“).
But let’s entertain Senator Nelson’s position. Suppose Ms. Islam and I are wrong. Suppose the anti-Muslim propagandists to whom we’ve been responding are 100% correct: Muslims are waging civilization jihad, every mosque is a bastion of jihadi occupation, every Muslim will lie and do violence for Allah, and every liberal or Christian who promotes honest dialogue with Muslims is a dupe supporting terrorism and Sharia. I am not exaggerating—such are the core tenets of every presentation made by the anti-Muslim speakers whom Senator Nelson praises and whom Ms. Islam and I have decried.
If Senator Nelson and those tenets are correct and Ms. Islam and I mere dupes, then today’s ruling by the Supreme Court leaves America open to jihad. The anti-Muslim slideshows in Rapid City, Aberdeen, Sioux Falls, and elsewhere teach that all Muslims our out to topple Western civilization. These slideshows make no exception for Muslims with “bona fide” relationships with American citizens or institutions. The Muslims among us are part of the threat, perhaps the greater threat, since they have already established homes, mosques, income streams, and (gasp!) citizenship that allows them to vote, run for office, and change our laws to Sharia. The Supreme Court’s partial implementation of the travel ban does nothing to stop those most dangerous Muslims among us from bringing in their sisters and brothers and other partners in jihad.
If Senator Nelson were right, if I were defending radical Islamic terrorism, if I were faking peaceful atheism to hide a craving for violent theocracy, then I would cheer the Court as nine more useful dupes in jihad. Far from supporting the Commander in Chief’s “number one responsibility… to keep the American people safe,” the Court’s ruling leaves the door open for evil Muslims in America to invite their evil cousins from overseas and for those scheming liberal universities to keep recruiting jihadi students and professors.
But since I’m a rational, decent American who understands as Ronald Reagan did that America’s greatest ramparts are its open doors, I look at the last five months and years prior with any Trump travel ban and see no threat to national security that should motivate the court to allow the idiot in the White House to sully our shining city by tacking up signs at the gates reading, “No Muslims, No Refugees.”
Mr. Heidelberger,
You misappropriate my support to people and their causes erroneously. I do not give blanket support to speakers and their speeches, especially since I do not know them or the content. The support you give at my expense was not offered by me.
My criticism of you and Ms. Islam deals with what I know. Specifically, I attempted to engage the legislature in a factual discussion of CAIR’s factual involvement and support of terrorism and the need to emulate the FBI’s distancing of our law enforcement from agencies we know to be supporting terrorism against our citizens and our allies. Ms Islam and her supporters (to include you Mr Heidelberger), instead of debating those factual circumstances, resorted to distractionary tactics of claiming I am a “racist” a “bigot” and screamed “Islamophobia” for daring to attempt to have a policy discussion about factual information in the Senate Concurrent Resolution I brought this last session:
“INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS: Requests law enforcement and governmental agencies to avoid and suspend contacts and outreach activities with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
To urge and request law enforcement and governmental agencies in South Dakota to avoid and
suspend all contacts and outreach activities with the Council on American Islamic
Relations (CAIR).
WHEREAS, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has suspended all formal contacts
with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) due to evidence indicating a
relationship between CAIR and Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization; and
WHEREAS, the United Arab Emirates included CAIR in its list of designated terrorist groups, along with al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, al Shabab and Boko Haram; and
WHEREAS, in 1994, CAIR head, Nihad Awad, publicly declared his support for Hamas, and at an August 2014 CAIR sponsored rally in Florida, demonstrators chanted, “We are Hamas!”; and
WHEREAS, one of CAIR’s directors was sentenced to a year in federal prison for
violating U.S. sanctions against Iraq; and
WHEREAS, a CAIR director in Virginia pled guilty to terrorism-related financial
and conspiracy charges, which resulted in a federal prison sentence; and
WHEREAS, a communications specialist and civil rights coordinator for CAIR
trained with an al Qaeda-tied Kashmir organization that is listed on the Department of State’s
international terror list and was also indicted on charges of conspiring to help al Qaeda and
the Taliban battle American troops in Afghanistan and was sentenced to twenty-years in
prison; and
WHEREAS, CAIR’s former community affairs director pled guilty to three federal
counts of bank and visa fraud and agreed to be deported to Egypt after he had funneled
money to activities supporting terrorism and had published material advocating suicide
attacks against the United States; these illegal activities took place while he was employed
by CAIR; and
WHEREAS, a CAIR fund raiser was arrested on terrorism-related charges and was
deported from the United States due to his work as executive director of the Global Relief
Foundation, which was designated as a fundraising front organization for a foreign terrorist
organization by the U.S. Treasury Department for financing al Qaeda and other terrorist
organizations; and
WHEREAS, CAIR opened its first office in Washington, D.C., with the help of a
grant from the Holy Land Foundation; and
WHEREAS, the cofounder of CAIR’s parent organization, Islamic Association for
Palestine, was sentenced to prison on terrorism charges for financing Palestinian Islamic
Jihad, a designated terrorist organization.
WHEREAS, CAIR failed to file federal taxes three years in a row, lost its tax-exempt status and has consistently disrespected U.S. laws and America as a whole; and
WHEREAS, the federal case against the Holy Land Foundation, a charitable
organization that was shut down by the United States Department of the Treasury for
funding Jihadist terrorist organizations, was the largest successful terrorism financing
prosecution in U.S. history, and the case identified CAIR as a Muslim Brotherhood front
group, and CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial; and
WHEREAS, the Muslim Brotherhood’s motto reads, “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”; and
WHEREAS, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) recently proposed legislation which labels the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization, stating, “it’s time to call this enemy by its name and speak with clarity and moral authority.”; and
WHEREAS, other prominent statesman, such as Rex Tillerson, secretary of state and Ben Carson, secretary of housing and urban development, describe the Muslim Brotherhood as “radical agents of Islam” and terrorist organizations; and
WHEREAS, the founder of the American Muslim Alliance, Sheikh Mohammed el Hajj Hassan stated that President Trump must list the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization because it “has practiced killing crimes and terror attacks in the Arab world.”; and
WHEREAS, the federal government and private social organizations are resettling Middle East refugees throughout South Dakota; and
WHEREAS, CAIR is heavily involved in the resettlement efforts of Middle East refugees throughout the USA.; and
WHEREAS, South Dakotans welcome all races, religions, and creeds to our beloved state who immigrate to South Dakota to mix with and to add to our great American melting pot; however, we reject as a people the brutal terrorists attacks and persistent threats to our fellow Americans by Islamic terrorists as well as any who harbor and promote such barbaric evil towards our fellow Americans in the name of any religion or belief; and
WHEREAS, the factual circumstances recited herein, repeatedly demonstrate that CAIR members are involved in and have been identified as actively supporting Islamic terrorism against Americans and innocent people across the world; and,
WHEREAS, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government:” however, the sacred duty of our state and federal government IS to protect the lives and safety of the citizens of South Dakota, and our great nation:
WHEREAS, recent Islamic terrorist acts across the world are a constant reminder that Islamic terrorist organizations continue to actively target innocent citizens of our country.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of South Dakota does urge and
request law enforcement and governmental agencies in South Dakota to avoid and suspend all
contacts and outreach activities with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), and to increase interstate efforts to protect the citizens of South Dakota from the real threats of Islamic terrorism.”
Merrimack-Webster
Definition of Islamophobia
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Islam or people who practice Islam
As I rightfully pointed out, it is morally wrong for you and her to attack innocent South Dakotans as “Racists, Bigots, Islamophobics” for rightfully being fearful of the Islamic terrorist attacks that were designed to incite their fears. Being fearful and wanting to avert being victimized is appropriate human instinct when confronted with the intentional shocking evils perpetuated to incite those fears in the Islamic terrorists attacks that are regularly occurring throughout the world.
I do not have an “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Islam.” My opposition to Islamic terrorism is rational, educated, and is based off of extensive professional training and experience conducting counterterrorism efforts to protect Americans from long before September 11th, 2001.
When you and she intentionally distract legitimate factual conversations from terrorism to dishonest ad hominem attacks? You are defending the terrorists and facilitating their ability to operate. It is you and she who conflate Islamic terrorists with Muslims through your actions and statements, not I.
That is a great example of why Mr. Nelson is among the least effective in the legislatures ever. He cannot pass real law bills and just wastes everybody’s time wishing and resolving and posturing.
So what are you saying actually Mr. Nelson? You seem to be lost in the spittle. Am I to believe you or Mr. grudznick? As Mr. grudznick seems to make more sense on many levels with his statement. I will say this though, I do respectfully disagree with him sometimes.
Whereas, you think that Medicaid Expansion was not worthy for your support.
Whereas, your direction is to reduce the very foundation of what America is, my alliance goes with Mr. grudznick. Be it resolved.
Never mind the fact that the Supreme Court decision was 9 – 0
Really, Tim? According to Newsweek and other observers, the unsigned per curiam ruling means we have no count. Do you have a source for this 9–0 count?
Give the man a chance. He was willing to present his views while your responses are exactly as he described. He said: “Ms Islam and her supporters (to include you Mr Heidelberger), instead of debating those factual circumstances, resorted to distractionary tactics of claiming I am a “racist” a “bigot” and screamed “Islamophobia”.
“wastes everybody’s time wishing and resolving and posturing.”, “lost in the spittle”.
I think he did a rather good job expressing his views along with numerous facts. If the rest of you were as articulate you would also be able to boost your argument. Give it a shot and see how it goes. Allow a debate. Not a foolish attack. It makes one look stupid.
I was at The Mall of America yesterday and there must have been thousands upon thousands of Somali Muslims there It was the last day of Ramadan and they were all there celebrating and spending money. Good for the MN economy . I’m sure plenty of South Dakotans would have been scared of them.
I saw plenty of beautiful gay male couples there also. There are load of them here. :)
Sometime I’ll notify Twin Cities Pride about the SD law built to discriminate against them.
Wait a minute, Stace. Your Tweet, the one I quote above, was a response to my June 20 blog post about Indivisible Rapid City and Ms. Islam’s efforts to counterprogram the Klan-lite meetings in Rapid City. My post did not address your swiftly and unanimously defeated time-waster resolution on CAIR. I’m not going to rehash old dead resolutions any more than I’m going to rehash the 2016 election.
The factual circumstances of the anti-Muslim meetings to which Ms. Islam and I are responding include the fact that the speakers and many of the participants are saying racist, bigoted, and most importantly untrue things that make them look like they are indeed racists, bigots, and victims of an irrational fear of Muslims.
But now, Senator Nelson, far from distracting, I’m saying, for the sake of argument, let us grant every claim that you and the anti-Muslim speakers and speech that you, in attacking my June 20 blog post and Ms. Islam’s speech, defend. To avoid distraction, let us accept all of those statements as true and ask the really important question: once we stop “defend[ing] indefensible evil acts of terrorism” (an incendiary charge, an effort to brand us as enemies of the state and exclude us from any consideration in civic discourse, not to mention employment… but wow, for the purpose of this discussion, I’m willing let that slide until we answer this question), what action are Ms. Islam and I supposed to join you in advocating?
We don’t get to call our neighbors conspirators, terrorists, and enemies of the state just for kicks and giggles. If we mean these words—if CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood really are the enemy, and if refugees and regular Muslim citizens are part of their plot (their “civilization jihad,” Clare Lopez calls it, a concept you have yet to deny), then we must act on these words or be complicit by inaction in the jihadis’ destruction of America. To what serious, practical action do your words and the words preached at the Rapid City, Sioux Falls, and ABerdeen anti-Islam-a-ramas lead?
Spending money at the Mall of America? Must be a conspiracy.
@Jenny: “I was at The Mall of America yesterday and there must have been thousands upon thousands of Somali Muslims there It was the last day of Ramadan and they were all there celebrating and spending money. Good for the MN economy.”
The $200+ million in remittances sent back to Somalia yearly … not so good for the Minnesota or US economy.
Add Coyote’s complaint to the list of practical policy responses: Do we ban citizens and non-residents from spending the money they earn at work as they see fit? Do we forbid the export of dollars?
Cory,
Your claims that your post had nothing to do with the SCR I brought last session is factually incorrect as you are aware. My tweets and comments were specifically to this part of your June 20th post: “Since January 2017 Taneeza has led a coalition to fight against two Islamophobic resolutions and an anti-refugee bill. This coalition is now 3-0 in winning this fight [Indivisible Rapid City, Facebook event details, retrieved 2017.06.20].” Which we both know references the SCR above.
Your efforts to inappropriately volunteer my support of other issues not with standing, I’ve made it crystal clear what I was referring to.
My point remains, when you and they use ad hominem dishonest attacks to distract from the factual needed conversations on terrorism that my resolution brought? Your actions aid the terrorists and conflate Islamic terrorism with all Muslims.
I do not have the time or patience to respond to YOUR extensive comments you attempt to inappropriately link me to in order to distract from the salient point that discussing factual Islamic terrorism issues is NOT “racism,” bigotry, or “Islamophobia.” I reject your extensive assertions, attributed as my thoughts or positions, categorically.
The salient point remains, since legitimate conversations about Islamic terrorism are not racism, bigotry, nor Islamophobia… Why do you and she persist in ad hominem attacks against those Of us presenting legitimate discussions of public policy issues in which because of your actions, YOU conflate the discussion about Islamic Terrorism with all Muslims?
In response to you and Grudz baiting about my accomplishments in the legislature. Happy to compare mine with both of yours, or anyone for that matter. 😉
As one of the few elected officials willing to interact with folks on here? I would recommend not wasting those opportunities by allowing the anonymous juvenile attacks designed to inhibit such interactions. Maybe others would be more inclined to engage if they knew it wouldn’t turn into the usual gauntlet of snarky ugliness.
Too many irons on the fire. If someone wishes further from me, you will have to call/text (605) 770-7461 or email: Stace.Nelson@SDLegislature.gov
http://www.twincities.com/2016/11/03/report-highlights-refugees-economic-impact-on-twin-cities/
If I were you Don Coyote, I would worry more about the SD economy once Twin City Pride starts a SD boycott, and trust me the LGBTQ are good at organizing boycotts. Remember the North Carolina boycott? They lost hundreds of millions.
Stace, you keep beating the horse that I said you’re free to ride. I’m not distracting: I’m asking what practical policy action your resolution and your fellow travelers at the anti-Muslim programs logically demand that we do. Why is that so difficult to answer?
I’ve offered several policy options. You don’t have to go in-depth. Just tell me which of those policy options effectively respond to the threat you and your fellow patriots are spending a lot of time talking about?
Cory, you present a very good argument, what is exactly Nelson and companies solution? The cult republican can only frighten and feign solutions to the lies and fear they have fanned. It is the same with their war on women, so much hate for their mothers is amazing. In Thune’s work of art called trumpcare, woman or women is not mentioned once, haters gotta hate. As an immigrant, Nelson is of the idea is to get elected by fear instead of legislating, is easier. Maybe the solution would be a trade off, we send a Muslim back to their home country and we send a zealot like Nelson back to theirs. For the trade off, we get a sane replacement for Nelson and also another vetted model citizen like the Muslim that we deported.
I’m just trying to be practical, Jerry. People can believe whatever they want in the privacy of their own noggins. What matters is the practical policy they want to impose on the public.
Being practical when the flames of lies and hate are being spread is admirable sir. I think Nelson has developed a strong sense of amnesia for the oath he took as a military man to defend the Constitution. In the meantime, we do have those same issues that never seem to be taken care of by this do nothing cult republican legislature that wants to get into everyone’s business but their own. They are more interested in getting elected in a few thousand dollar a year job for a few months than to take care of their obligations for receiving that money. Looks to me like their lobbyists are happy though, so on we go.
9 – 0 on the news yesterday Cory, maybe you should diversify a little
@Jenny:”Remember the North Carolina boycott? They lost hundreds of millions.”
Actually they didn’t, or at least the NCAA boycott (it wasn’t a LGBT organized boycott) didn’t impact NC GDP one iota. The boycott, as most economic boycotts are, was a bust.
“North Carolina may have lost out on the NCAA championships, the NBA All-Star Game and Bruce Springsteen thanks to its hotly contested transgender bathroom law, but the state’s economy didn’t miss a beat.”
“Economic indicators released for 2016 show that the boycott has failed to derail North Carolina as a regional and national powerhouse, despite the loss of high-profile performances and sporting events in response to House Bill 2, signed March 23 by then-Gov. Pat McCrory.”
“Tourism has thrived: Hotel occupancy, room rates and demand for rooms set records in 2016, according to the year-end hotel lodging report issued last week by VisitNC, part of the Economic Development Partnership of North Carolina.”
“Meanwhile, North Carolina ranked fourth in the nation for attracting and expanding businesses with the arrival of 289 major projects, and seventh in projects per capita — the same as in 2015, according to Site Selection magazine, which released its 2016 rankings in the March edition.”
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/20/with-bathroom-bill-north-carolina-economy-expandin/
Interesting how your linked article fails to mention anything about immigrant remittances and the billions of dollars ($56B in 2014) that flow out of the US every year impacting the state’s and the nation’s economics every day by removing real earnings from circulation. As Sen Everett Dirksen purportedly said, “A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you’re talking real money.”
Tim Higgins- The opinion was Per Curiam — that is, it was an unsigned decision, and the Supreme Court did not release the breakdown of the justices’ votes. But because there were also no dissents on the question of hearing arguments in the travel ban case, it’s assumed that that the decision to take it up is likely to have been 9-0, or unanimous. This is was the way that the president and Attorney General Jeff Sessions interpreted the opinion.
You have to assume it was 9-0 w/o knowing for sure. You will know when the case is adjudicated this Fall.
ps since Drumpf didn’t get everything he asked for one can assume there was some dissent along the line.
Well I’m going to work hard to make sure Minnesotans and all LGBT groups and civil rights activists all around the country know that discrimination hidden under religious beliefs are happening in SD again. Boy, you would think SD legislators would get it just once in awhile that discrimination is not popular.
Quit hiding behind God and Jesus, they said to love one another.
@cah: “Really, Tim? According to Newsweek and other observers, the unsigned per curiam ruling means we have no count. Do you have a source for this 9–0 count?”
Per curiam is a decision by an appellate court rendered by the court acting collectively and unanimously. By it’s very definition, a per curiam opinion acting in the court’s name is an unanimous one, so Trump is correct in stating the decision is 9-0 although there is really no finger counting involved.
The per curiam opinion is written by a single unnamed justice but in the case of SCOTUS, dissents are signed. The three dissents in the SCOTUS travel ban opinion were from Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch and were actually in part concurrence and part dissent. The dissent parts were essentially based on the belief that the court’s remedy would prove to be unworkable. The three justices would have preferred that the stays of the travel ban by the lower courts be overturned. Since even the dissenting justices wanted the lower court stays overturned, it is accurate to state the decision was unanimous. The fact that the justices would take half a loaf rather than none is superfluous to your argument that the decision wasn’t unanimous.
Gorsuch, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., dissented in part on Monday, saying they would have put the entire order into effect immediately
But there was dissent among the activist, right wing branch of the court. Including Go Suck who had fallen into line rather quickly, as he was appointed (illegally) to do.
No, Coyote, per curiam provides no information to justify calling it a 9–0 decision. There are no 9 and no 0 to count in a decisions specifically crafted to avoid individual responsibility. It is appropriate to say, as I do, “The Court ruled,” but we can count and conclude nothing about individual justices. If we are being exact in our use of language, we cannot shout “9–0!” with regard to this partial lifting of lower court injunctions.
In related news, Ira Robbins on SCOTUSBlog argued in 2012 that per curiam is also misused:
No threat of National Security? How much more of the Muslim Babylonian Color of Law that is murdering we the american people on daily basis is enough? So far as of June 2017, 575 american people have been gunned down and murdered with a traffic stop. No probable cause, no grand jury to issue a warrant, no justice of the peace hearing, no trial, just prohibited babylon muslim death sentence practiced by the BAR Association terrorizing we the national security protected public people. DRAIN THE CORPORATE SWAMP. BRING BACK THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE SERVE AND PROTECT REPUBLIC RULE OF LAW, AND REMOVE THE CORPORATIONS PRACTICING DUAL STANDARDS BABYLON MUSLIM COLOR OF DEMOCRACY.
It is interesting to read the various spin attempts to describe the Court’s ruling, especially as some sort of unanimous approval of the Muslim ban. Objectively, the ruling:
(1) granted the petition for cert, meaning that the Court will review the decisions of the 4th and 9th circuit. Only four votes are needed to grant cert, which means that the cert grant may well have not been 9-0;
(2) has not reversed, altered, or even addressed the lower court’s substantive rulings that the ban violates the Constitution and federal law;
(3) upheld the preliminary injunction, as modified, still preventing the ban from being applied as intended.
(4) modified the preliminary injunction so that it – the Muslim ban – cannot be used to stop most travelers to the US, as most travelers will come here with either or both legitimate connections to families, institutions, businesses, etc.
Apparently the Court’s ruling had the unintended effect of stopping my ability to subscribe to comments on Cory’s blog posts. Hopefully the Court will reconsider that aspect and put back into place the ability to subscribe to comments.
Nelson won’t answer the question. “What do we do about these Muslims that you say we must hate?” Do we just keep an eye on ’em? Do we stick them with a hat pin from behind if we can get away with it? Do we shun them and make them feel uncomfortable and unwelcome? Do we just hate ’em because we need someone to feel superior to?
~ Negative thoughts lead to the development of impostor syndrome, where these haters find themselves thinking, “I’m not really good enough, people are going to find out I’m a total fraud.” Psychologists point to non-nurturing experiences with their fathers as a common factor.
Haters gonna hate. The “Christian” haters aren’t any different from the jihadis. I confront hate by not giving it money. Just STAY AWAY FROM HATE, and urge everyone to do the same.
(bear! I’m aware of no SCOTUS ruling blocking comment subscription. I will look to see which widget I bumped!)
(there! try it now, bear! is the button back?)
In slightly similar rulings the right wing-nut court held on Monday and Tuesday that: 1) state support for Christian school playgrounds was fine, and 2) that state supported vouchers are fine for Christian schools.
Exchange the word ‘Christian’ for ‘Muslim’ or ‘Mosque’ – then watch the Court squirm to undue its nonsensical rulings
The right wing-nuts need to get back to the Constitution and the wisdom of Madison and Jefferson.
Ah, the Gorsuch court. Woe unto pluralistic democracy.
Does anyone know what Kopecky is talking about and where he got those stats? I don’t remember hearing in the news about hundred of Americans being shot down by Muslims at traffic stops.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/u-s-cities-experienced-another-big-rise-in-murder-in-2016/
Americans are sure killing each other though.
Unless he is talking about cops shooting down black folks. Yes racism is a huge problem in this country, but until Americans realize it and do something to stop it, it will continue. Philando Castile did not deserve to die at the hands of a cop, and does not deserve to have the NRA stay silent about his right to carry.
(Kopecky is talking about some pet crank militia/freeman’s theory of declaring the entire government illegitimate and who knows what. Don’t indulge him. I’ve tried to get direct answers and only get evasive and overlong tangents.)
You fixed it Cory – thanks!