Saturday, July 23, 2016


Someone recently raised concern about how the US was "spiraling out of control" and in a dangerous place. I mentioned that the data does not support that fear. We are all certainly concerned about the very public violence that has been in the news recently, these acts are truly tragedies. But that doesn't change the fact that violent crime is trending downwards. This person responded saying, "Hey, if you feel safe, go ahead and vote for Clinton..."

I'm pointing out: It's not that I "feel" safe - although there certainly is some validity to that idea - but that, in reality, according to the data, we ARE safer. Violent crime (murder, assault, rape) is down and trending downwards. According to FBI violent crime statistics...

"Today, the national crime rate is about half of what it was at its height in 1991. Violent crime has fallen by 51 percent since 1991, and property crime by 43 percent. In 2013 the violent crime rate was the lowest since 1970. And this holds true for unreported crimes as well. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, since 1993 the rate of violent crime has declined from 79.8 to 23.2 victimizations per 1,000 people."

Read that again:

since 1993 the rate of violent crime has declined from 79.8 to 23.2 victimizations per 1,000 people.


"In 1970, during Nixon’s presidency, the violent crime rate (number of crimes per 100,000 people) was 363.5. It had been rising since 1961, and ROSE every year of NIXON’s “law and order” presidency.

It kept rising through the Carter, Reagan and Bush presidencies, peaking in 1991 at 758.2. During the Bill Clinton presidency, the violent crime began to decline, down 33 percent on his watch. It dropped another 9.5 percent under Bush II. As of 2014, the most recent year of national data from the FBI, during the Obama presidency violent crime is down 20.3 percent, for a rate of 365.5."

Also important to note in that data: Crime began dropping during the CLINTON years (DOWN 33%) still trended down during the Bush years, but at a slower rate (9.5%), then the rate of decline picked back up during the OBAMA years (20%). We are just factually a safer people, at least as far as violent crime goes.

This is actually quite an important point. Some in the GOP/Trump's campaign are portraying us as fundamentally unsafe ("Make America SAFE Again"), to a degree that is almost silly (as Trump read through his list of disasters that are barking at our feet, I could hear Bill Murray in Ghostbusters adding, "Cats and Dogs... Living together! MASS HYSTERIA!!").

These people are betting that people will ignore the data and listen to their fear-mongering because, what else do they have? We ARE safer, now. The economy IS improving. The unemployment rate IS down. We ARE better off now than under the Bush administration. Human rights are being extended more in keeping with our better values.

Don't buy the fear-mongering and let's work to educate people. Things ARE better in so many ways, and certainly moreso than under the Bush administration.

Also (and this is important, too), ask people, "When you say Make America Safe Again... to what time period are you alluding?" If they're speaking of the Nixon/Reagan/Bush years, they are just mistaken. If they are referring to the "Golden Age" of the 1930s-1950s, well, violent crime may have been down, but moral crimes - Jim Crow laws, discrimination, the denying of rights and abuse of minorities... those "good ol' days" were pretty monstrous. Black folk, gay folk, other minorities were NOT safe during those days in very real ways.

Even if you think this, you should recognize that a large percentage of your neighbors hear you longing for the good ol days when "the blacks" and "the gays" knew their place and stayed in it and women recognized their place in the home... ie, you should recognize you will sound like a bigot when you say "Make America Safe, or Great, Again."

Look, I come from a conservative and traditional people. These are very good people, don't mistake what I'm saying here. Moral, concerned about justice and taking care of those who need to be taken care of... NOT bigots. Good, decent people. I'm not complaining about "the conservatives" and how awful they are as a group. I'm warning against those few in any group who'd use fear to divide and tear down. I'm warning against those few in any group who would say, "I am the one with the answers. I am the one who will save us from this apocalypse that will surely come without me!"

What I'm saying is that we're all in this together, that things are not as bad as some make them out to be, and that we need to unite, not divide, to solve the problems we do have and we WILL continue to do so together. Not because one man who says that things are going to hell and he's the only one to save us. That is something to be wary of.

I would hope we'd all be able to agree.


Marshall Art said...

I believe in that discussion I pointed out some very salient details that suggest concern is not without basis. You wish to look at overall trends over the last twenty years, and particularly highlight the trend slows during the Bush years (as if perhaps that is meaningful because it is Bush's time when drop in crime slows) to suggest that concerns are foolish or fear-mongering for votes.

It is far more important to look, not at the last twenty years, but the last one or two, where there is a rise in violent activity of a criminal/terrorist kind.

Dan Trabue said...

I wish to look at all the data. Yes it feels like there have been a bumpy couple of months here. And maybe that data will eventually show a trend where safety is slowing down.

But the point is to look at the data not just say "things are worse under Obama! The apocalypse! The world is ending! If only we could elect Donald Trump then we would be safe!"

The point is to be wary of anyone who says "I and only I have the solutions and if you don't pick me when the world is going to hell in a handbasket."

Especially not when the data does not support such silly claims.

Marshall Art said...

But the data DOES support the claims. You ignore it in favor of data that reflects a longer period of time. We live in THIS time, not the past. This is the same type of nonsense that results in charges that a political official didn't do enough to prevent X,Y or Z. But when evidence mounts of a negative trend, it's fear-mongering? Cops are being assassinated NOW! Blacks are murdering blacks NOW! Jihadists are murdering people NOW!

Craig said...

Data shows that violent crime has been on a significant downward trend for decades, but has spiked up over the last few years.

It's interesting that you want to strictly follow the data on this, yet when the data shows that more gun control doesn't reduce crime, you don;t seem to want to follow that data quite so closely.

Craig said...

"The rate of U.S. violent crime went up last year for the first time in nearly two decades due to a jump in assaults, the Justice Department said on Wednesday.
Data collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in telephone surveys showed a 22 percent increase in assaults, pushing up the overall rate for violent crime for the first time since 1993."

"Dr. Rosenfeld relies on available evidence from multiple sources, to document the 2015 homicide increase in 56 large U.S. cities, finding that the 2015 homicide increase was “real and nearly unprecedented.” He also outlines several empirical indicators and methods to examine the possible explanations for the 2015 homicide increase as well as the challenges that exist to empirically evaluating these explanations."

OK, so now we have data that shows a disturbing rise in violent crime during the P-BO administration. It's unfortunate, but the data is the data.

As to the bigger question, is P-BO directly responsible for this rise and can Trump magically reverse it, the obvious answer is most likely no in both cases.

Those little datas can be tricky. If you look at them one way they seem to say one thing, but if you look deeper maybe things aren't quite what they seem.

At least part of the problem is the increasing news coverage of the more spectacular crimes/terrorist attacks which give the impression that crime is more pervasive than it is. The question that raises is, "Is there an agenda, or is this just good old "If it bleeds, it leads" journalism?"

I'm not speculating, but it seems a worthwhile question to ask.

Dan Trabue said...

It's interesting that you want to strictly follow the data on this, yet when the data shows that more gun control doesn't reduce crime, you don;t seem to want to follow that data quite so closely.

Clearly, you don't know what my position is. I hold no position on gun control other than I'm quite confident that if we get rid of this gun or that gun or ALL hand guns, that violence will still be done. So, now you can see that your assumption was mistaken.

I agree that part of the problem is that we are hearing more about violence and some people appear to be taking that reporting as a sign that we're less safe, when the data does not support that.

Dan Trabue said...

Blacks are murdering blacks NOW!

Black folk have been killed by black and white folk forever.

White folk are being killed by white folk NOW! And have been by black and white forever.

Jihadists are murdering people NOW!

Religious extremists have been killing people forever, as well. We certainly are having a bad summer with some Muslim extremists, globally, if not in the US (where I believe such attacks are down).

What's your point?

Marshall Art said...

"Black folk have been killed by black and white folk forever."

Craig just provided links to support the position that the data shows an increase in violent crime. Murders in the city of Chicago over the last two years are up and both the perpetrators and victims are mostly black people.

Cops are being assassinated with much greater frequency over the last year or two than has been considered average, with their murder being the point as opposed to being the result of police intervention during the commission of a crime.

Jihadist attacks are up worldwide considerably:

With more muslims entering our country, the rate of attacks cannot help but increase as well. To suggest that we are safer with lefties seeking to allow more "refugees" into the country, with little to no action on securing the border and/or improving vetting of immigrants, to pretend that we are safer is delusional.

Anonymous said...

With more muslims entering our country, the rate of attacks cannot help but increase as well.

This is a biased hunch based on nothing but your prejudices against Muslims, as if More Muslims automatically equals More Violence. Perhaps you can see why those in support of religious liberty and opposed to prejudice would find such language offensive and immoral on the face of it.

As to terrorists attacks being on the increase, that certainly appears to be the case. And we need to work to find the best solutions possible. I don't see much at all tying this to Obama, however. And I see a great deal that links such attacks to policies like the ones that were in place when Bush was in office. To the degree that Obama has continued some of Bush's mistakes, then we can possibly make that case (drone attacks, causing the deaths of many innocent bystanders, for instance) and learn from that.

And to the degree that violent crime is up in some cities, we certainly need to work on improving that.

The point remains, we are safer from violent crime now than in the past. So, those in the GOP who are trying to blame progressive policies on an apocalyptic view of the present do so in opposition to the facts and that is less than rational.


Bubba said...

The Hillary PR Team says it best:

"It's simple, guys: America is a racist oligarchic police state unless you need to contradict Trump in which case it's the best country ever."

Dan is right about one thing: it's sheer prejudice to think that murder in the name of religion would increase simply because we're importing more people who accept as scripture texts that command killing infidels.

Remember, "Allahu Ackbar" is Arabic for, "this has nothing to do with Islam."

Anonymous said...

Allah Ackbar, of course, means God is great. It has nothing to do with "let's kill all those who disagree with us..."

Bubba, you are mistaken and what you have said is a gross slander unless you can step up and prove that those Muslims who might want to migrate here accept YOUR interpretation of their holy texts that it "commands" killing infidels. YOU may interpret it that way, but that does not say that they do. Of all the Muslims I've met - including recent migrants who fled escaping their religious extremists - and my friends have met, we've only heard those who reject such an interpretation as anti-Islam.

So, please, unless you have some verification, do not slander innocent people that you do not know in the slightest. Not here on my blog. Fair enough?

How many Muslim immigrants have you met and gotten to know, Bubba? Just curious.


Bubba said...

What, specifically, have I said that is slanderous? I guess you missed it, but I AGREE WITH YOU, Dan.

I'll reiterate that nothing but prejudice could lead people to believe what Muslims routinely tell pollsters in how quite a few of them approve terrorist organizations, the oppressive ends they're trying to achieve, and even the violent means they employ to reach those ends. Your anecdotal data trumps those responses, just as your interpretation of their texts is surely what they follow, never mind the mullahs in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

And of course "Allahu Ackbar" has nothing to do with killing infidels! That's why it's pure coincidence that people keep yelling it while they kill infidels.

I AGREE with your warnings against those few people "who'd use fear to divide and tear down," and I agree with you that those people are found entirely within the GOP -- those few people who support that "dangerous" politician, Donald Trump -- and that NONE of them are found in the millions of Muslims who have already immigrated or would immigrate into the US and other Western nations.

The US currently admits around 250,000 Muslims annually -- we did the right thing after 9/11, increasing Muslim immigration -- and if 1% of 1% of that number has been or will become radicalized, that's only 25 terrorists a year. If New York, Orlando, Nice, and now Normandy teach us anything, it's that terrorists cannot accomplish anything in small numbers, so we have nothing to worry about.

I commend you for your clear thinking, Dan.

Anonymous said...

Interesting research from Gallup:

Predominantly Muslim Societies Reject Violence at Least as Much as Other Societies

Since 9/11, voices arguing that Islam encourages violence more than other religions have grown louder - most recently in the manifesto penned by Anders Breivik before he gunned down more than 70 people in Norway. In his manifesto, Breivik argues that Islam is intrinsically violent and peaceful Muslims are simply ignoring their faith's injunctions to kill. He cites dozens of European and American pundits to support this assertion. If this popular claim were true, it would logically follow that Islam's adherents would be more likely than others to condone violence, even if most find it easier not to follow through on their beliefs, as Breivik contends.

The evidence refutes this argument. Residents of the Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states are slightly less likely than residents of non-member states to view military attacks on civilians as sometimes justified, and about as likely as those of non-member states to say the same about individual attacks.

The point remains: It is slanderous to suggest that we are somehow especially endangering national security by letting in Muslims specifically to our country because Muslims immigrants specifically are more likely (says those who argue this) to have some minority part who will want to cause harm. It is biased and ignorant, looking at the data.

I repeat my question, Bubba: How many Muslim immigrants have you made the effort to get to know? To have over for dinner or invite out for coffee? Perhaps you'd benefit from becoming more informed first hand?


Bubba said...

Dan, you reiterate, "It is slanderous to suggest that we are somehow especially endangering national security by letting in Muslims specifically to our country," etc.

Since I do not make this point, and since I EXPLICITLY AGREE WITH YOU that there is no danger in opening our doors to untold millions of Muslims, I don't know why you're making this point to me.

Tell someone who disagrees with you!

Anonymous said...

From that same gallup article, it points out that...

A clear majority in Asia and MENA (Middle East/North Africa) find military attacks against civilians unacceptable. This is not surprising considering the acute conflicts raging in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and other parts of the Middle East...

In contrast, regionally, residents of the U.S. and Canada are most likely to say that military attacks against civilians are sometimes justified. Americans are the most likely population in the world (49%) to believe military attacks targeting civilians is sometimes justified, followed by residents of Haiti and Israel (43%).

Let that sink in a bit. Perhaps it's US citizens who we should ban from immigration?


Anonymous said...


...I EXPLICITLY AGREE WITH YOU that there is no danger in opening our doors to untold millions of Muslims

Glad to hear it. To clarify, then:

You are saying, then, that YOU SUPPORT LETTING MUSLIMS in our nation? And are opposed to those who'd use religious bigotry to create bans against one religious group?

Will you vote against Trump, then, because of his outrageous bigotry on this point?


Bubba said...

How many times must I say the same thing, Dan? Of course, I believe we should allow mass Muslim migration. What could strengthen our protections of religious liberty and freedom of speech more than a dramatic increase of people who support sharia law? What could more quickly defeat the Republicans in their War on Women than importing a group of people whose coreligionists have done such remarkable work in Rotherham and Cologne? And what could defuse the process of radicalization more thoroughly than cultivating entire communities where the mullah's weekly proclamations become de facto law?

And of course I oppose Donald Trump, because it *IS* outrageous bigotry to believe that Muslims may be, by even the slightest possible degree, more prone to religiously-motivated violence than Buddhists, Methodists, and Anabaptists.

And I'll reiterate that WE MUST NOT put any trust whatsoever in any poll that makes a people group look worse than others, unless that people group is composed of Americans. That's actually another reason to have open borders, because the tolerant and peaceful views of the Saudis and Syrians are sure to moderate the hateful, violent views of native Texans and Georgians.

It might be a bit much to expect millions of foreigners to come to this intolerant, murderous hellhole, just to serve as missionaries to us backwards rubes, but if they're willing to make that sacrifice, we should welcome them with open arms. After all, if we don't embrace Islam as a religion of peace with sufficient enthusiasm, Lord only knows what they might do.


Dan, I can't believe you don't trust what I write here. I'm never sarcastic or satiric, and I'm as serious in my commitment to multiculturalism and mass migration as I believe you're serious in studying Scripture.

It's almost as if you think I'm not being entirely straight-forward with you, and that my ironic style is clear enough that you can conclude that I'm not being sincere.


You've previously spoken quite eloquently on the difference between a word's presence in a text and the text's meaning, implying that there's never a single answer beyond all reasonable doubt to that question, What do those words mean?

"Once we're dealing with question of meaning, then we have human opinion.

"Once we have human opinion on unprovable topics, then we have room for reasonable, good-faith disagreements.

Indeed, and if people like Marshall and Craig have no good reason to read your words and conclude that you don't mean what you say -- that you're being dishonest -- you surely have no good reason to read my words and conclude that I don't mean what I say -- that I'm being sarcastic.

The way you're questioning me, Dan, it's almost as if text isn't as obscure as you elsewhere insist that it must be. Huh.

Anonymous said...

How many times must I say the same thing, Dan? Of course, I believe we should allow mass Muslim migration. What could strengthen our protections of religious liberty and freedom of speech more than a dramatic increase of people who support sharia law?

To properly use sarcasm or satire, it should be at least a little amusing, Bubba. Failing that, one just sounds like an irritating twit or a spoiled brat who doesn't know how to use language effectively.

it's almost as if text isn't as obscure as you elsewhere insist that it must be.

Ironically, you've read my words and reached a conclusion that I mean the opposite of what I have said. Go figure.


Anonymous said...

What you're doing [WHATYOU'REDOING] here [HERE]
is the equivalent [ISTHEEQUIVALENTOF...] of an annoying brother [ANANNOYINGBROTHER]
repeating everything [REPEATINGEVERYTHING YOU SAY!] you say.

I've read your writing. You are capable of so much better humor than that, Bubba. Try again.

Or not.


Craig said...

If eating and spending time with Muslims is a measure of ones expertise, then I must be a freakin' expert. I guess that means I can extrapolate my experiences out over the other billion or so Muslims in the world now.

It certainly make complete and total sense to ignore the extensive data I provided at a related thread, in favor of one singular poll commissioned by a Muslim group, because one poll always beats multiple polls.

I also guess that living here in jihad central has maybe influenced my views, but if the FBI concentrates if efforts to track those who recruit for jihadist groups here maybe I should be concerned. But by all means lets bring on another 500,000 immigrants from Muslim countries. Hell, at a 1% extremist rate, that only 50 more fanatics per year. How could that be a bad thing.

I also must note how much data has been ignored in this thread, not surprising, but interesting.

Bubba, well done. The fact that it took that many comments to figure out speaks volumes. Congratulations.

Craig said...

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the French might be regretting their immigration policy.

Dan Trabue said...

You have spent some time with some Muslims, Craig? How many have you met that were supportive of killing innocent people?

Dan Trabue said...

Also, do you all realize that some might see it as ironic that you don't trust Muslims because some small percentage of them nay support killing innocent people in certain circumstances and ye, you all support killing innocent people in certain circumstances?

You see, the problem is that we could say in any group some segments may be ok with hurting innocent people and may be ok with bad behavior... but on what basis would we pick out one group and say they are especially untrustworthy?

Craig said...

Yes, I spend considerable amounts of time with Muslims. Just one more of your stereotypes blown to hell.

Honestly I've never really discussed how my Muslim friends feel about killing innocent people.

The problem with your assumption is that you are assuming that I don't trust Muslims in general, which is something you've just imagined since I've never said anything close to that.

Of course no one is actually suggesting that all 1.3 billion Muslims are untrustworthy. But I'm glad you have such an active imagination.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, the only assumptions I'm seeing are yours. I made no assumptions about how many Muslim friends you have. You can tell by the way I never made a spoken assumption about that. I made no assumption that you don't trust Muslims in general.

What I was speaking of was the distrust of many conservatives as evidenced by their support for Trump's proposal to "ban Muslims." The proposed ban is a ban on ALL Muslims coming from certain regions. It is a ban against an entire religion, not some segment of it.

I have no doubt that the mistrust is not against ALL Muslims that they're proposing banning (although I also know that that is the case for some conservatives), but there is a fear (an irrational fear, I'd suggest) that because maybe 1% (or 5% or 25%, who knows??!!!) of Muslims MIGHT be advocates of violence, then we can't risk letting any Muslims in... at least for "a time" until "it's safe..."

So, I've made it clear that you are making several mistaken assumptions and since you were prepared to accuse me of making bad accusations, I'm sure you'll apologize for making yours.

As for me, with my Muslim friends and acquaintances, and the friends and colleagues and acquaintances of my friends and family, it is a primary topic of conversation. In many cases, they are hear because of violent Muslims and they make it clear that they are opposed to killing innocent people because they have experienced it.

Craig said...

So, you're unable or unwilling to differentiate between what you perceive as a lack of trust on the part of all conservatives, and my personal friendships with Muslims.

You do realize that the actual proposal Trump made was a tiny bit more nuanced than the simplistic version you've chosen to latch on to.

For starters, the proposal was to temporarily suspend immigration until such time as a more robust vetting system could be implemented. But who cares about details when we can just label people evil.

Still haven't seen any basis for your claim that Trump is objectively evil.

Dan Trabue said...

Yes, I do realize that the proposal from Trump was for a limited time. You can tell I knew that by the way I've said "even for a limited time" in multiple places. Again, an assumption on your part that is mistaken. No problem. People make mistakes.

So, you see I've made no assumptions and the assumptions you made were mistaken. Just so you're clear.

Bubba said...

Dan, I don't know what you're talking about, saying I'm trying to use sarcasm or satire or humor. I've explicitly told you that I'm being sincere, and when you asked if I oppose Trump, I told you that I was. I'd like you to see the explicit and recognize it as reality, so far as you can tell.

At any rate, I do see what you mean about repeating what you say. There's some Internet adage -- maybe Dameron's Law? -- that says, if two people agree to a sufficient degree, the second person's new arguments in support of the first person will eventually resemble that first person's original statements. Or something like that.


There's a 2008 book by Robert Spencer called Stealth Jihad, and even though he's one of those Islamophobic nutcases who gets death threats for denying the peaceful nature of Islam, he mentions a few things that might be worth considering, quotes that are meticulously sourced in endnotes. I quote at length, from pages 117-119, which is visible in Google Books; emphasis is mine, along with any typos.


While non Muslim Westerners may assume a particular meaning for "terrorism," "innocent lives," and "civilians," these are in fact hotly debated terms in the Islamic world.

For example, Anjem Choudhury, a spokesman for a leading jihad group in Britain, told an interviewer that the victims of the July 7, 2005 bombings in London were not "innocent," because they were not Muslims: "When we say innocent people, we mean Muslims. As far as non-Muslims are concerned, they have not accepted Islam. As far as we are concerned, that is a crime against God.... As far as Muslims are concerned, you're innocent if you are a Muslim. Then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are non-Muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God."

This argument is by no means uncommon in the Muslim world. A Palestinian Arab jihadist expressed a similar sentiment in justifying attacks on Israeli civilians. "There are no civilians in Israel. All the Israelis are military, all of them," he insisted. "They are all military and they all have weapons and guns, and the moment they are called up they are going to be using their weapons against me." The Tunisian jihadist Rashid al-Ghannushi has issued a fatwa to the same effect, declaring, "There are no civilians in Israel. The population -- males, females, and children -- are the army reserve soldiers, and thus can be killed."


Bubba said...


What's more, this view -- that there are no innocent civilians among Muslims' perceived enemies -- is not confined to some extremist Islamic fringe. The internationally influential Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has won praise from Islamic scholar John Esposito for engaging in a "reformist interpretation of Islam and its relationship to democracy, pluralism and human rights," addressed the morality of suicide bombings against Israeli women and civilians thus: "Israeli women are not like women in our society because Israeli women are militarised. Secondly, I consider this type of martyrdom operation as indication of justice of Allah almighty. All is just. Through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak what the strong do not possess and that is the ability to turn their bodies into bombs like the Palestinians do."

And this viewpoint is by no means limited to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to the Middle East Media Research Institute, the day after the Lond bombings, Dr. Hani Al-Siba'i, director of the Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies in Lond, said on Al-Jazeera, "The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law.... I'm familiar with religious law. There is no such term as 'civilians' in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb [House of War] or not."


An Islamophobe might read this and think that we shouldn't put too much faith in polls that purport to show how Muslims oppose civilian casualties, since some of them might take the term "civilian" to mean ONLY their fellow Muslims.

I say that, even if that's true, it's another strong reason to open our doors to Muslims by the millions, because the handful of potential terrorists are less likely to kill anybody if there's a risk of killing the coreligionists whom they consider to be civilians.

AFTER ALL, look at Saudi Arabia: it's hard to imagine a country that's more tolerant of Muslims, and I don't believe there are ANY acts of terrorism within their borders!

Dan Trabue said...

Bubba, how many Muslims have you sat down with and had dinner or coffee with? Visited their home?

If you haven't got to know even a single one, I'll be forced to write your preference to find writers who tickle your ears with things you want to hear, but not really be interested in serious conversation on this topic.

As to your one source, I see your quote and raise you one...

"If you think Christian polemist, David Wood is the only man that has devoted his life to trying to refute Islam, think again. A Conservative writer, Robert
Spencer gets the prize for spitting out misrepresentations of Islam. But between David and Robert, At least Robert Spencer is a bit more scholarly...

...Anyways In 2007 Robert Spencer wrote a book, The Truth about Muhammad: The Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion. After reading the book I wonder
if Rob seriously considers himself a scholar on Islam. If Rob wants to be a scholar on Islam, he has a long way to go. Not only is his book mainly polemical
but its hard to take seriously in the light of acamedics and scholarly reserach. I don't even think he knows a word of Arabic (a common problem among
Christian critics against Islam...)

...A lot of Non-Muslim scholars don't take Rob Spencer seriously. Among them are Dinesh D'Souza (a conservative Christian), Louay M. Safi, Khaleel Mohammed,
Cathy Young Carl Ernst (a Professor of Islamic studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) and Stephen Schwartz have very negative views about his work. I didn't even mention Karen Armstrong here. Wikipedia states: "Ernst notes that Spencer's articles have never been published in peer-reviewed academic journals, nor are his publications similarly reviewed or edited by a qualified scholar and published by an academic or university publishers but by conservative presses such as
Regnerny Press Publications...

You can read more if you want to actual educate yourself on Islam, instead of just find fodder for trying to tear down people you do not even know.

You can also go to "" to learn more about Spencer.

But seriously, until you do some actual education and meet some actual Muslims and have some data supporting your wild claims that we can't trust "the Muslims...," when what you mean is that YOU FEAR that there are a tiny portion of Muslims that MAY BE dangerous and that scares you so much that you're willing to support a ban of the whole group of Muslims (at least from a portion of the world and for a time period, as yet undefined...), even though, like the terrorists, you also agree that sometimes it is morally acceptable to kill innocent bystanders, including children... until you recognize some of the irony and ignorance of all this, I'll invite you to stop commenting on this post.

Don't consider it punishment, though. Education is a good thing. It's a reward you can give yourself.

Craig said...

I made no assumptions, many people are unaware that the "Muslim ban" isn't really a ban, and that the term is an inaccurate simplistic representation of a more complex proposal.

I also note that your response to Bubba is more in the nature of s personal attack against this Spencer as opposed to a regelation of his claims.

I was unaware that eating with a small number of Muslims was the path to expertise on Islam. I guess I'm glad to be an expert at something.

Craig said...


If, in fact, you end up being subjected to a ban from commenting here based on mistrust or fear about what you might say please be assured that I will establish a refugee camp (a sanctuary city as it were ) to allow you the freedom to comment however you choose.

Craig said...


Since you've eaten with Muslims and feel like that gives you a certain level expertise on Islam. Can you explain why the following doctrines of Islam might make it challenging to gain an accurate view of Islam based on simply conversation?

Biblical Corruption
Living Obediance

Are these topics you spend lots of time discussing with your few Muslim aquaintences?

Dan Trabue said...

Bad assumption number one... I did not say having Muslim friends makes one an expert on Islam. Do you understand now that this is not what I'm saying?

Bad assumption number 2. I did not say I would ban Bubba. I was respectfully asking him to stop commenting unless he had something appropriate to say.I'm assuming Bubba is a respectful adult and will cooperate. Are you assuming he isn't and won't?

Beyond that, I am well aware of what some conservatives have to say about those topics and I'm guessing - making an assumption - that this is where you get your information on these topics and not from your discussions with your Muslim friends... am I correct?

Anonymous said...

I made no assumptions, many people are unaware that the "Muslim ban" isn't really a ban

I have been quite clear when I've commented on this that this was a time limited ban from a certain number of (now, ever-expanding) countries and regions. In spite of that (or perhaps because you missed me saying this in previous comments), you thought perhaps that I was one of those who were unaware of the details of the Muslim ban (Trump's word, not mine). That is, you literally made an assumption. No problem, just another mistake, it happens.

Acknowledging these repeated bad assumptions is probably a good idea, though. Just to keep things respectful.

As an aside, perhaps I travel in more well-educated circles, but I don't know anyone I've talked with about this who was not aware of the supposed "temporary" and "limited" status of Trump's un-American and ridiculous proposal.

If you all would begin by at least acknowledging how this is a strike against religious liberty contrary to traditional US ideals (and largely unenforceable), that would help establish some good-faith.

Oh, and to answer this question:

Are these topics you spend lots of time discussing with your few Muslim aquaintences?

Yes, as a matter of fact. It comes up when they're laughing at the stupidity of some Americans (and others) who'll believe just anything negative written about Islam if it comes from a pastor or another conservative on the internet.

(And to be clear, we have one good friend who is a Muslim immigrant and several acquaintances and colleagues we've worked with, as well as a very close friend who is the President of the Evangelical association in Muslim Morocco and who is, coincidentally, actually meeting with the king of Morocco here in a few days in her role as President!) Most of my information comes from her and her husband, as a first hand expert on Islam and living life amongst Muslims...)


Bubba said...

Dan, you act as if I mean the exact opposite of what I'm writing. Over and over I have written that I agree with you, and you continue to act as if I don't.

I would ask you to please stick with what is explicitly written, I think you'll be much better served than trying to guess at my motives or my "actual" meaning.

I see nothing wrong with my commenting here to express my agreement, and I could think of nothing more respectful than saying that I agree with you.

Since you surely wouldn't mind my respectfully agreeing with you, I intend to continuing commenting at my discretion.


Beyond agreeing with you, I will answer your question and follow up on that book I quoted.

How many Muslims have I encountered? Obviously enough, because we agree, just as it's obvious that Craig doesn't know enough Muslims -- or know them well enough -- because he disagrees with us. We can dismiss his conclusions out of hand.

Certainly, Spencer is a loon, I was just pointing out how the quotes he gives actually support our position for mass Muslim immigration. I just overlooked the obvious point that you're making, that because he's an Islamophobic lunatic who doesn't share our position, nothing he says is trustworthy, including quotes that are sourced in endnotes which could be independently verified. There's no reason to address what he actually says.

Because Craig disagrees with us, he couldn't possibly have enough knowledge to reach an informed opinion.

And because Spencer disagrees with us, he couldn't possibly convey any knowledge to us.

They disagree with us, therefore they are uninformed.

How true that is, and it's a beautiful expression of the principle toward which we all should strive, that when we disagree with ideas, "attack THE IDEAS, but not the person."


And, on top of everything else, I'll support you in response to Craig.

Criag, obviously Dan isn't threatening to ban me.

He wrote, "until you recognize some of the irony and ignorance of all this," -- of some position that I haven't actually defended -- "I'll invite you to stop commenting on this post."

He'll invite me to stop commenting. Surely that's an invitation I can refuse.

Again he writes, "I did not say I would ban Bubba. I was respectfully asking him to stop commenting unless he had something appropriate to say. I'm assuming Bubba is a respectful adult and will cooperate."

That assumption is true -- I'm a respectful adult who intends to cooperate, and what could be more respectful and appropriate than agreeing with Dan? -- but he doesn't imply a ban if that assumption would prove to be unfounded.

HE DID NOT SAY HE WOULD BAN ME, and so we cannot infer that he would.

Please stick with what is explicitly written, I think you'll be much better served than trying to guess at Dan's motives or Dan's "actual" meaning.

His invitation and request is OBVIOUSLY voluntary, ENTIRELY voluntary.

There is no implied hint of a ban, which is why Dan will let this and every subsequent comment of mine stand without question.

Craig said...

Re assumption #1, I'm sorry. The only criteria you've mentioned as a way to know anything about Islam is to eat with Muslims. I apologize for thinking that there was something hidden beyond the plain meaning of your words.

Re#2. Feel free to quibble over semantics. The fact remains that I have established a virtual sanctuary city or virtual refugee camp for Bubba to comment freely and with no restrictions. In essence I am allowing him to immigrate to my blog, without the restrictions you are imposing. Whether it's fear of what he might say or lack of trust, I don't know. Either way, there is refuge available.

It's interesting that after you chastise me for making bad assumptions, that you then jump right in and make a horriblely bad , unfounded assumption of your own. The answer to your question is that I get my information from a variety of sources, including directly from the Koran.

Perhaps you would benefit from following your own advice about making assumptions. I pointed out 5/6 over at my blog, plus this one.

Craig said...

Thanks for acknowledging the fact that the ban on Muslims is more accurately a pause on immigration from certain countries. Essentially what Carter did but on a larger scale. Further the purpose for the ban is not to discriminate against Muslims but to install a better process to vet immigrants.

Craig said...


My problem with not understanding your position on Trumps immigration stance is not as much assumptions as it is basic grammar. I have no reason to believe that your use of the term "ban Muslims" (or similar) means anything other than what the plain meaning would indicate. Clearly my failure is that I have not scoured everything that you have written in nuanced analysis of Trumps immigration proposal, and made the assumption that all of that analysis is packed into your term "ban Muslims". My sincerest apologies.

It's heartening that you've gotten most of your information from one source, that makes me feel much better about the 50+ Muslims I've talked to. Obviously your one guy (who gets to meet with the King of Morocco), must be an encyclopedic source for unbiased accurate information on Islam.

Personally, I feel like a broader group of sources might be better, but that's just me. That's especially true for doing something like reading the Koran. Again, that's just me, and I can't compete with your breadth of personal knowledge (or anecdotal information).

Craig said...


How could I have gone so far off track. However, just in case, I have prepared a place for you to comment without restriction or criticism. I will not presume to tell you what the rules of satire are. Nor will I make assumptions.

In short, you will always have a place of sanctuary if you ever feel persecuted or unwelcome.

Craig said...

RE: Basing anything on the King of Morocco.

Are you aware that apostasy is a crime in Morocco. That converting from Islam is actually a criminal offense?

"Morocco does not impose the death penalty against apostates under the provisions of its Penal Code. However, in April 2013, the Supreme Council of Religious Scholars issued a religious decree (fatwa) that Moroccan Muslims who leave Islam must be sentenced to death.[53] Religious decrees are significant because Islam is the official state religion under article 3 of the Moroccan Constitution of 2011.[54] Additionally, under article 41 of the Constitution, the Supreme Council of Religious Scholars “is the sole instance enabled [habilitée] to comment [prononcer] on religious consultations (Fatwas).”[55]"

So if you think getting information about Islam in general from one guy whose experience is in one of the multiple countries where it is possible to be put to death for converting from Islam is the best option fine.

Unfortunately for you, I live in one of the cities with a high Muslim population and spend a significant amount of time with Muslims. Unfortunately for me we don't talk a lot about killing people

Anonymous said...

First of all, I should clarify that I misspoke when I said "Most of my information comes from her and her husband, as a first hand expert on Islam and living life amongst Muslims..." I should have said that I get a great deal of important first hand information from her and her husband, and having first hand information is important, especially coming from an unbiased source.

Thus, my friends and acquaintances who are familiar with Muslim nations and their human rights failures IS an important bit of information to have. This is why it's good to speak to people first hand, rather than relying upon some conservative telling you what Muslims do and don't believe.

So yes, Craig, I am familiar with Morocco's human rights failures, as are my friends who live and work there, living and working as they do to make improvements on that front. Hopefully, we could agree on this.

As to much of what other things you've said, I'll let it suffice to say that you still are often not understanding what I'm actually saying.

I do very much approve of your idea of providing sanctuary. God bless that idea and let it grow. It is, after all, why I am so glad to welcome Muslims and others to our nation... providing true sanctuary at a serious level (even more serious than a blog sanctuary) is vital to improving human rights in the world and making us all safer.

To the point of this post.


Anonymous said...

In short, you will always have a place of sanctuary if you ever feel persecuted or unwelcome.

Craig, do you mind addressing a reasonable and on topic question...? Do you also welcome Muslims and others to our shores here in the US if they are feeling (or ARE, moreso than "feeling") persecuted and oppressed? Or is your generosity in providing sanctuary limited to conservative bloggers who are behaving childishly?


Bubba said...

Craig, I appreciate your offer. I've been meaning to reach out to you, so I'm sure I'll see you online one way or the other, at your sanctuary thread or no.

Personally, I think we should offer asylum to all Muslims fleeing the oppression of tolerant and non-violent Islamic states, and we should institute blasphemy laws and other aspects of sharia so they feel right at home.

What we should never do is offer quarter, sanctuary, or safe spaces to those who "childishly" agree with Dan.

I denounce myself!

Craig said...


Of course I support legal immigration. Maybe you missed where I said that I spend large amounts of time with Muslim immigrants.

I find it fascinating that you are 100% sure that your one source is 100% unbiased, while continuing to presume that I get all of my information from exclusively conservative sources, who you further assume are biased.

I guess you'll never address the 4 Islamic doctrines I mentioned and how they might affect conversations with Muslims.

Craig said...

Bubba, you're always welcome.

Craig said...

I would prefer that we screen out potential immigrants those who are criminals, extremists and terrorists, but beyond that I welcome immigrants.

If I wasn't clear earlier, I don't look at the political orientation of my sources as a primary reason to believe them. In fact, when I see something that comes from a source with an agenda, I habitually spend additional time to confirm the factual details. It's just the rational thing to do.

Marshall Art said...

Spencer is but one man who cites actual islamic apologists from the earliest days forward to substantiate his position on islam. I recently cited a source from a site run by people who were raised in the islamic faith but have since rejected the faith altogether. Dan demonized these people as well simply due to their "anti-muslim" bias (which is daft given the fact that their explicit purpose is to correct the false description of islam as a religion of peace---kinda makes them "anti-islam" more than "anti-muslim", since it is the religion against which they speak). Many other sources exist as well, such as former terrorist Walid Shobat, and women who have suffered under the oppression of islam, one of whom still regards herself as a muslim but recognizes the violent aspects of the faith, not to mention how widespread is the agreement with such by the muslim population.

The bottom line is that due to the tenets of the faith, and its long history of violent forced conversions, oppression and murder, there is more than a little logic, reason and common sense behind any call to keep the muslim at arm's length until their "Christian-like" behaviors and beliefs can be established with some degree of confidence. This is neither prejudice or paranoia. Dan is perfectly free to open himself up to any level of violent potential in order to convince himself of whatever it is he likes to believe. I prefer to keep my family and friends safe.

Marshall Art said...


The door of my blog is always open as well, as Dan and feo can confirm.

Dan Trabue said...

I remain unimpressed with Christians who wish to assure me they are the ones to tell me what Muslims believe. Hopefully we can all recognize the wisdom of this.

Dan Trabue said...

Here's the thing, fellas: You all are having the very same problem with Islam as you do with Christianity... that is, on WHAT BASIS and on WHOSE AUTHORITY are your version/interpretation/opinions about Islam the "right" ones? And the thing is, there IS no one authority, no Muslim Pope who can tell us with absolute certainty: THIS is the one true interpretation of those ideas, just as is true with Christianity.

Christians and Muslims believe a wide range of things and no one is in a place to authoritatively answer, "No, those people/ideas aren't Muslim/Christian." So, YOU can say all day long, "That isn't what Muslims believe..." but as long as there are Muslims who disagree with you, you are just factually mistaken.

Hopefully, you can see the wisdom of recognizing reality and that you do not have the authority to speak for Islam.

Craig said...

I guess your comment means we won't be seeing any analysis of the 4 Islamic doctrines I mentioned and how those might affect conversations with Muslims.

I guess it's just easier to make your stand against something that isn't happening, than to deal with what is.

You're right that Islam isn't monolithic, that doesn't preclude reading and understanding the words of the Koran, and the words of those who speak publicly about Islam. You act as if quoting the Koran and quoting Muslim leaders is somehow out of bounds when they disagree with your perceptions. I can't help but note that your entire response to Bubba's comment was not to dispute the accuracy of the quotes or point out problems with the substance, it was attacking the author who compiled the quotes and Bubba.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, the point of this post is not Islam. The point of this post is not what some Christians or conservatives say Islam says. To what end would talking about that matter?

I get that you think that some conservatives and some others think that Muslims think that it's okay to lie. I don't believe your collective opinions. Whatever you may say Islam says you do not speak for Islam. Do you understand that?

So, no. You do not get to set the topic of my conversations on my blog. Frankly, you simply do not get to speak authoritatively for Islam.

Do you understand?

Anonymous said...

You're right that Islam isn't monolithic, that doesn't preclude reading and understanding the words of the Koran, and the words of those who speak publicly about Islam.

1. We agree that Islam is not a monolithic, one voice group.
2. We almost certainly agree that, just as with Christianity, there are some within Islam that say it is okay to lie.
3. There is no data to support any suggestion that those who support lying are in any way a large group in Islam or in Christianity. Can we agree on that?
4. We can almost certainly agree that, just as with Christianity, there are some within Islam who say it is okay to target innocent civilians (you all, for instance, think there are times where this is acceptable Christian behavior)
5. There is no data to support any suggestion that those who support killing innocents are in any way a large group in Islam or in Christianity. Can we agree on that?

And just to reiterate, lest it's not clear: The point of this post is how the data shows we are in a safer place by most counts. That's just what the data shows. The point of this post is not "the tenets of Islam, according to some who are opposed to Islam."



Craig said...

I've never once said that I speak exhaustively for Islam. I have asked you for your opinion on how dialogue with Muslims is affected by the 4 doctrines I mentioned. Now you can dismiss those doctrines however you like, and respond or not. The problem you have is that by blaming every discussion of the aspects of Islam that don't fit your narrative as some conservative conspiracy, you simply join the tinfoil hat brigade. Whether you choose to acknowledge the reality that those 4 doctrines of Islam affect how one converses with a Muslim or not, the reality is that if you suspend all doubt and blindly and uncritically accept what one or two people say, then you're just doing what you criticize.

When you conflate your belief with reality, and dismiss everything that doesn't support your prejudices about conservatives, that's fine as long as you don't ever confront reality.

If you want to dismiss the words of the Koran as well as Islamic leaders in favor of a couple of friends of yours ( who likely share your biases) go for it.

It's all a vast right wing conspiracy.

Anonymous said...

Craig, do you have anything at all to say on the topic of this post? If not, I politely and respectfully ask that you quit the off topic nonsense (and truly, what you have said is utter nonsense and an attempt to misrepresent what I've said... whether that's intentional or just from a complete and utter inability to understand my words, I don't know, but non-sense, it is) and let it go and go away.


Craig said...

I guess that you're still ignoring the data that shows a spike in violent crime since 2009.

1. That's what I said.
2. Yet no one in Christianity is suggesting that the Bible teaches lying to advance the faith. Are there Christians who would suggest that lying can be ok in certain limited circumstances, sure. But not in the way the Koran teaches.
3. Ok, if you say so. I notice that you give no data to support your fact claim. Which makes it self refuting. Oh, and your still ignoring the teachings of the Koran and actual Muslim clergy.
4. Please feel free to twist my position into whatever contortions you feel necessary to try to support your hunches.
5. Again, until you show some data to support your claim, your statement is pretty much self refuting.

I'm just following the conversation as it develops. Again, the data shows that there has been an upswing in violent crime since 2009 or so, so by following the data it seems reasonable to conclude that we are less safe than we were.

You also have to realize that in making this argument, you're undercutting the "guns make us less safe" argument many on your side make.

Finally, I love how your small group of like minded Muslims are automatically 100% credible and bias free while anyone who doesn't agree with you is biased, conservative, and anti Islam. I guess that calls your objectivity into question.

Craig said...

It's obvious that you place a greet deal of faith in the information you get from your two like minded friends. It's further obvious that you are willing to categorize anyone who suggests something different is a conservative, anti Muslim. So, since thee two are such a fount of objective information about Islam it raises questions.

Who's right, Sunni or Shia ?
Are the Whahabists right?
On what basis does one determine which version of Islam to take seriously?
Theocracy or not ?
Sharia or secular law?

Given your extensive experience with 2 Muslims, I'm sure you have some thoughts on this.

Marshall Art said...

"So, YOU can say all day long, "That isn't what Muslims believe..." but as long as there are Muslims who disagree with you, you are just factually mistaken."

It isn't so much a case of saying what muslims believe. It's quite clearly, rather, THE case that we speak of what the religion teaches, as verified by many who study the holy books of islam, as well as by their own apologists since the religion first formed. That some muslims believe or don't believe every teaching is quite irrelevant, especially with regards this topic. What is relevant is the danger posed by and from those who DO believe what those holy books are said to teach (and ca be verified by an honest study of them).

Thus, when we continue to welcome those who call themselves refugees from muslim-dominant countries, where all that Dan's friends claim as un-islamic is part of their civil law and largely the reasons many muslims flee those countries, it is logical and reasonable to conclude (quite sane, actually) that we are now less safe by the presence of an unknown number of radical people (radical by our standards, but quite devoted to the "faith" by their own). As has always been the case where terrorist acts have been carried out, as well as in those instances where they've been prevented, the numbers of violent muslims needed to murder large numbers of civilians is low (merely 1 will do as the recent Orlando crime proves). 14 scumbags took out 3000 people in '01. Thus, 14 such people entering our country puts at least that many at risk.

What's more, as there are an unknown number of places where such behavior can be inspired right here in this country, and the lone wolf examples bear this out, to pretend we are safer simply because numbers over several decades have been trending down is to ignore the reality of the present in favor of wishful thinking based upon that decades long trend.

And this just speaks to the dangers of Islamic radicalism and its potential for suffering in this country. It says nothing about similar radical behaviors encouraged by the lies and distortions of reality by the BLM movement and other race-baiters. And of course, in the next breath, we're supposed to believe that homosexuals live in constant fear of their very lives due to rampant homophobia.

Marshall Art said...

"2. We almost certainly agree that, just as with Christianity, there are some within Islam that say it is okay to lie."

Well, you're certainly lying here, pretending that Christianity somehow teaches that lying is OK in order to rationalize that some Christians might say it is OK to lie. The point is why one might lie, as Craig points out as well. Is it to advance the faith or to prevent harm? islam encourages the former, while Christianity allows for the latter. BIG freakin' difference!

"3. There is no data to support any suggestion that those who support lying are in any way a large group in Islam or in Christianity. Can we agree on that?"

Irrelevant, for while that might be true (assuming here for the sake of argument) one must, ironically, take them at their word given the teachings of their holy books.

" 4. We can almost certainly agree that, just as with Christianity, there are some within Islam who say it is okay to target innocent civilians (you all, for instance, think there are times where this is acceptable Christian behavior)"

Evidently, your serious and prayerful study of Scripture has led you to believe it is OK for YOU to lie. Not a one of us thinks it is acceptable Christian behavior to target innocent civilians. Here again you conflate two very different intentions to draw a false and purposely deceitful moral equivalence.

" 5. There is no data to support any suggestion that those who support killing innocents are in any way a large group in Islam or in Christianity. Can we agree on that?"

My post By The Numbers cites a video that speaks to just how large a group in islam that is. And again, 1% of the 1.5 billion muslims is still 15 million people. How many is required for you to acknowledge what a "large group in islam" is?

Bubba said...


Dan's right, the subject here isn't the Islam's oppressive belief system, which we cannot analyze much less criticize without being guilty of prejudice: it's the long-term drop in crime, notwithstanding the recent and statistically significant spike in murders and other violent offenses.

1. There's no telling what's causing that recent increase in violence, no matter how many times ISIS takes credit for another mass murder or how often politicians demagogue the police and give credence to protesters' clamoring for dead cops. Because that increase in crime is, for all intents and purposes, statistical noise, it's NO reason to vote for Donald Trump or any other challenger to the status quo.

2. We do however know EXACTLY what has caused the long-term drop in crime: it's neither the three-strikes laws and mandatory sentencing that have resulted in the longer-term incarceration of people who actually commit these crimes, nor is it Guliani's proactive policing that addresses petty crimes to eliminate an atmosphere of lawlessness, nor is it the greater availability of concealed-carry permits and other efforts to permit law-abiding citizens to be less vulnerable and less easily victimized, ALL OF WHICH Democrats have rightly opposed as (respectively) racist, racist, and dangerously racist. No, crime has fallen because of Democratic leadership, the mere presence of Democratic officials who have had such a profound influence on utopian cityscapes like Detroit and Baltimore, and so this low crime rate is a VERY good reason to vote for Hillary Clinton as the near personification of business as usual.

3. Looking further back, we see that this low crime rate is a significant drop from two different eras where the annual homicide rate would reach as high as 10 per 100K people, compared to a rate of 1 per 100K in the late 19th century, but as with #1, we have no idea why these spikes occurred. The first one had nothing to do with the introduction of Progressive policies like gun control and Prohibition, and the second one had nothing to do with the radicalism of the 60's and the subsequent anti-poverty programs of the Great Society which didn't live up to their billing. And at any rate, none of this is relevant, because the Left isn't trying to repeat the late 60's: Occupy, Black Lives Matter, and repeated calls for socialized medicine (and, less prominently, guaranteed income) are ENTIRELY new movements wholly indpendent of the work of Alinsky and Ayers and the other mentors and heroes of politicians like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

THAT'S the point, Craig. Everything points to the continued stewardship of the Democratic Party, and every argument to the contrary is dangerous fear-mongering.

Bubba said...

And I hope nobody minds my bringing up the other, unstated point:

The problem is guns, not crime.

Guns are the problem, even when they're used for self-defense rather than for committing crimes, and that's why we should elect Hillary: she promises to take care of the gun problem.

Crime is NOT the problem, even when it's carried out with guns rather than, say, boxcutters used to hijack and weaponize passenger jets or -- more recently -- an axe and knife to injure passengers on a train in Germany. Trump wants to address crime rather than guns, and we should oppose him because that position is not only idiotic, it's racist. "Law and order" are code words, "gun-free zones" are a happy reality easily achieved in every school, theater, and night club.

Somebody commits a crime with a gun, obviously the problem is the gun, not the crime.


I hate to sound like an echo chamber, but there's one thing Dan is right about, and it's worth reiterating and elaborating.

Christians CANNOT speak about what Muslims believe, at least not when they're the wrong kind of Christians who hold the wrong kind of views.

Dan and I are the right kind of Christian, and we do believe the right kinds of things, and that's why we can refer to our acquaintances AND to poll numbers to insist that Muslims are even more committed to peace and non-violence than we are.

You aren't, you don't, so you can't.

You don't have the right to contradict what we say, to suggest that we take jihadists seriously in what THEY say.

Craig said...

How foolish of me to want to look at as much data as possible and filter out partisan bias from my decision instead of simply accepting the conclusion of you, Dan, and the democrat party.

It's foolish to look at the data that caused John Lott to conclude that more guns equal less crime. But, when Dan makes the very same point it makes so much more sense.

I think the best option is for me to repent of my racism and immediately advocate for open borders with minimal screening beyond simply asking immigrants from Muslim countries if they ascribe to the religion of peace. Certainly no Muslim would ever lie to INS in order to gain access to the US, it's just unthinkable.

Finally, I must congratulate you and Dan on this new construct where you don't actual deal with the message, but instead dismiss the message because of perceptions about the messenger. That is a much better way to evaluate things and I will embrace this worldview change immediately.

Craig said...

Actually not actual. In the ER on my phone.