Friday Firesmith – Who should we ban?

For reasons that are lost on me, terrorism is blamed on Islam and certain countries and the way we counter this is to ban people who have that religion and are from those countries from coming to America. Following this logic, we ought to profile people who use guns to shoot other people within America and then ban the largest groups of them, or the deadliest groups, from staying in this country.

You have to see where this is heading and I won’t hit you over the head with it or belabor the point. But at the same time when it comes right down to people killing other people through intentional acts of violence, you can’t find a more dangerous animal on the face of the planet than the American Male. People other than females make up the overwhelming majority of people who kill other people with guns and they do so, seemingly, for little reason at all, or for convoluted reasons, or for reasons that escape the rest of us entirely.

Moreover, Christian males also make up the majority of males who go out and kill other people, even if it isn’t in the name of their religion, most of the shooters in America claim, and it is a dubious one, to be of the Christian faith. Now, this is odd, because most of the Christian males are very decent people and I know of not one of them who has killed anyone. Yet the stats show another story, and can we really afford to ignore the facts here? Dare we?

What’s even worse is a quick Google search for serial killers and those Americans who seem bent on killing as many humans as humanly possible reveal that white men are more often the owners of the fingers who pull the triggers. I’m a white man and I have never shot anyone, or even thought about shooting anyone, if Justina Beaver is excluded in the data, yet there I am, grouped with Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, the Columbine Killers, and Ronald McDonald, who used congestive heart failure as his weapon of choice.

So what are we to do about me? We could deport me to my ancestral lands, somewhere in Scotland, or Ireland, somewhere in one of those hard-drinking countries. I could wear an armband that had an image of a gun on it or something like that, so people would know I belong to a very dangerous group of human beings. I wonder if I’ll be put on a “No fly” list and not allowed to be on an airplane or a “No buy” list so I can’t buy guns.

I can still get a Big Mac legally. Ronald has the system gamed, I tell you.

Last week someone accused me of fear mongering, and I felt it was unjustified because I know what fear mongering looks like and what it feels like and what it does.  Banning people is nothing less than fear mongering and it might just be a little racist while it is at it, too.

Get those armbands ready. “Either way, patriot or treason, it’s going to be one long hard ride”.

Take Care,
Mike

 

That’s it from B&P Headquarters in St. Louis. What’s going on in your world?
 

63 comments to Friday Firesmith – Who should we ban?

  • Moreover, Christian males also make up the majority of males who go out and kill other people

    Even tho I know this to be true, you do understand that the bigots and racists out there will deny this fact.

    When confronted with real facts as opposed to “alternative facts” (aka lies) they choose to believe what they need to believe in order to enforce their prejudices. After all, it’s easier to hate someone whose skin color obviously looks different.

    By the way, if you need to see how the “game plan” works, read this.

    Now Republicans are working on making murder legal.

    Get those armbands ready.

    The brownshirts are already out there. And they will be posting their drivel here defending their hate in short time.

    • CAI! I was hoping to find you here today. I suspect you and I shall be very busy for a while.

      Let’s get to it, shall we?

      • Youbetcha… and here’s another tidbit to add to the insanity…literally:

        The House just approved the right to own guns for the mentally ill.

        Because “Republican lawmakers argued that the regulation reinforced negative stereotypes that people with mental disorders are dangerous.”

        How thoughtful of them.

    • duuude

      25 American animals hated your post. All I have to say is… Good for you! You got my support. Let’s move into the 21st century with some pride instead of being like a bunch of cavemen. And now, thanks to the Republican morons in congress, MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE CAN GET THEIR GUNS TOO!! I bet the aliens are laughing their asses off right about now.

  • Disapointed

    I typically ignore your posts due to their political nature, and I wish that I had done so this time.

    • Troglodyke

      I’m curious. Why? Do you disagree on the validity of the content, or does it have facts you dislike? Is it only because it’s political in nature, and you want B&P to be fun? Do you see it as “yet another clueless liberal wanting the US to have porous borders,” or “yet another clueless liberal who hates Trump”?

      I am a critical thinker. That means I can see all sides of an issue and I want others to be able to, as well. Let’s have a discussion.

      • If the title alone of the essay didn’t suggest its political nature then they are truly clueless to the point that any discussion, much less asking to engage in critical thinking, would be futile.

        • uhm hum

          If we’re talking critical thinking it appears the poster said they usually ignore such posts but didn’t this time, didn’t say they felt tricked into reading it thinking it wasn’t political.

          • Sure. Like the person who knows that putting one’s hand in a burning flame will hurt, but they do it anyway expecting a different result.

    • Dis,
      Yet here we are.

      Odd, isn’t it?

    • duuude

      If you’re dumb enough to not read the title of the post, then you shouldn’t be allowed to vote either! Too late though!

  • that1chick

    As an Atheist I think all religion is shite. I can’t wait to see the comments on this one, Mike.

    I,however,do feel our new “leader” has some sort of mental disorder, besides the obvious narcissism he displays. Why pick fights all over the globe? Once again America is the laughingstock of the world. I mean we all love a good joke, but does it have to be our president?

  • Rico

    You say the logic is lost on you. Does it help to point out that the ban is about countries that are home to those who have sworn to kill westerners, and who actually have. Those who adhere to radical islam have demonstrated their willingness to attack and have declared war against us. As such they do present a danger, unlike white Christian men, who have not declared war on us. Indeed, radical islam does not represent islam and neither do murderers who happen to have come from a Christian background represent Christianity. The only difference being, of course that the white men you’ve cited, aren’t murdering in the name of their faith. Not to mention that their are many strains of Christianity. The nature of a serial is also vastly different than killing someone in the name of religion. One is based on a profound psychological disorder, and another is a reflection of a cultural and/or ideological adherence. While it might be difficult to determine psychological health, it is easier to identify those who come from a region which produces adherents to a certain viewpoint that advocates killing as religious expression.

  • Rico

    HJ, the list comes from Obama. He determined that those countries represent a danger. Not that there are terrorist acts in this country from those, but rather in other countries. We don’t really want to risk that, is what his point is, I believe. The notion that Trump only picked nations that won’t harm him financially, is weird, since as I said, Obama named those countries.

    CAI, yes, of course I know of the differing strains of Islam. This is why we see so much Muslim versus Muslim violence in other countries.

    So, it isn’t a “now that I know” situation, I’ve known Islam for a long time. Personally, I think the problem has less to do with religion as it does with culture.

    CAI, did you know that culturally, many of those nations practice Anti-woman, Anti-gay practices? They also have deeper cultural issues as manifested in genital mutilation and the bacha bazi practice? Again, I don’t think the issue is Islam, I think there are regional cultural practices that are dangerous and have the potential to cause us harm.

    Do you guys think that a temporary halt in immigration so that we can better vet them is bad?

    • the list comes from Obama.

      What Little Nero said was, “The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror.”

      Note the bolded text. That’s the lie. As the law was enacted, the Obama administration announced that journalists, aid workers and others who traveled to the listed countries for official work could apply for exemptions. There were no special U.S. travel restrictions on citizens of those seven countries because of terror threats.

      A Republican-led Congress voted to require visas and additional security checks for foreign citizens who normally wouldn’t need visas — such as those from Britain — if they had visited the seven countries: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Yes, Obama signed it, but not as matter of terrorism but because it was in a massive spending bill. Just like the Republican deletion of the “risk corridor” in the Affordable Care Act. They put it in a massive spending bill knowing it would raise rates just in time for elections.

      Right wing bobble heads don’t give the details because misleading information is their forté. Besides, is Little Nero that lazy and stupid to ignore the other countries that actually produced the terrorists that flew the planes on 9/11?

      did you know that culturally, many of those nations practice Anti-woman, Anti-gay practices?

      Yes, and so do many of the Islamic countries not on the list. So what’s your point?

      I think there are regional cultural practices that are dangerous and have the potential to cause us harm.

      Which is why christian terrorism is a bigger threat here in the US than any Islamic religion. Lucky for you, Little Nero is working on removing white supremacists group from the terror watch list.

      Do you guys think that a temporary halt in immigration so that we can better vet them is bad?

      Before Little Nero’s executive order, there already existed an extensive vetting process that can take nearly two years. Little Nero’s ban doesn’t do anything to change that, it just prohibits them from entering the country even when they have been subjected to the process and have been approved.

      What you are failing to come to terms with is that Little Nero and his entire administration does nothing but lie and mislead. If you don’t fact check him, you’re just being duped. As Little Nero said on the campaign trail — he loves the uneducated— it is his base, after all.

  • Architect

    In 2013, about 15,000 “murders”, but about 660,000 abortions, very few of which I suspect were carried out by Christians. If white male Christians are so dangerous, why do you live among them? You’d be much safer in Syria, Somalia, or Afghanistan I’m sure.

  • Architect

    I’m done. Enjoy your circle jerk.

  • Rico

    Mike
    That comparison is a bit of a non sequitor. I hope you can see that. The number of Americans killed abroad by ISIS or other radical Islamic groups would be dependent on the number of Americans there.

    If you’d rather compare in a reasonable way, you would have to ask, how many Middle Easterns were killed by white American Christian males in the name of holy war over there versus how many people here were killed?

    Your turn. I’m not going to say I have time. I don’t, and that little rhetorical flourish of yours was a bit silly and childish.

    • Rico,
      Not at all. If we are going to legislate danger away, which is fear mongering, then we damn well ought to start with the largest danger.

      Keeping the dangerous people out in the point, no? It either is the point of the ban or it is not the point of the ban, which I suspect it isn’t because no one is banning armed white male Christian Americans from doing a damn thing.

      What you are doing is trying to apply logic to a ban that isn’t meant to ban anything but rather is being put in place to teach people to fear those who are desperately trying to get the hell away from the people you imagine we need to fear.

      Division, Rico. Divide and control. Fear the enemy and obey the government! It’s been used time and time again, but speaking of time…

      Were I you, I would start name calling and leave. That is simply all you have left to do.

  • I am going to go off topic here and present some historical precedence.

    Back in 1933, Hitler used the Reichstag fire as his means to complete power. It has been debated this was a false flag operations executed by the Nazis. I don’t wish to debate that, but rather connect it to the present.

    Berkeley may just have been a trial false flag.

    Van der Lubbe (who started the Reichstag fire) was said to have been brought in by the Nazis via a tunnel system. Coincidentally, DC has tunnels.

    Little Nero is an expert at media manipulation and lying. False flags from this administration may come fast and furious until the one they need to put forth an emergency decree happens.

    It’s been said he had a book of either Hitler’s speeches or Mein Kampf. It’s no secret he used the same demagoguing techniques of Hitler during the campaign. Congress is one step closer to allowing the mentally ill to have guns.

    So…….

    Just putting forth my progressive version of an Alex Jones conspiracy theory. 😉

  • Bella

    Aww crap, that was me that made the “I might totally be reading this wrong but sounds like fear mongering at it’s finest.” comment but I thought we had talked it out. It was more a question that a statement. I’m totally in agreement with that1chick. Between the violence, political discourse, guns laws, crime rate and your President…. no one wants to take a vacation to the USA at this point in time to just put themselves in harm’s way. Mike, I honestly meant no offence to you. Sometimes I don’t word things right and this just may be one of those times. I apologize.

  • Rico

    Mike,
    The ban is about those who have promised to do us harm. We know that this is their intention. We have seen it manifested at Ft. Hood, at the Boston Marathon, San Bernardino and Orlando, to name the most familiar. Some of them were home grown, some were not, but what was common was their adherence to radical islam. So we do know that this strain of ideology is bad news. The difference with you point about white men being dangerous is that all that is random danger. There is nothing that would allow us to be on lookout for triggers to this violence. Indeed, one cannot legislate all danger away. However, it would be foolish to know of an ideology that is sworn to do us harm and ignore it.
    As for you comment about name calling and leaving…my but you seek to provoke, don’t you. I don’t really care for that line of attack. I would appreciate if you could refrain from it and rather discuss this in a more civil manner.

    • HJ

      That’s an interesting list. What say we add Columbine, Aurora, Oklahoma City, Sandy Hook, Charleston, and Virginia Tech?

    • Rico,

      millions of people threatened us? Refugees have threatened us?

      Gosh, these people escaping war and terror and starvation and death have threatened us?

      Well, that means we ought to ban them all!

      Oh thank you so much for protecting me from the displaced women and children yearning to be free.

      I feel so much better now.

  • Rico

    Mike,
    The problem with your examples is that they weren’t committed in the name of an ideology. Nor were we forewarned that they were promising to kill us. Had that happened and we did nothing to prevent it, then it would be worthy of comparison. We can’t stop all those who hate from acting out on it. But if we are threatened and see those threats carried out abroad and here, then we are obliged to protect ourselves.
    Do you not see that ISIS is a real threat and that they’ve promised to kill us? They’ve done so abroad in many instances and have promised to do so here. So, the caution seems reasonable.

  • Rico

    Also, to be clear, when you speak of a ban…you actually mean a temporary halt so we can better vet…correct?

  • Rico

    Also, you guys seem to be indicating that being Christian was the main element in killing. I am unaware of that being the case. The fact that most white males in America are Christian has nothing to do with whether or not they’ve killed anyone. In fact, one would argue that killing others would demonstrate that they are not in fact Christian.

    • You have selective memory and an incorrect idea of how religious terrorism works. Speaking to the latter, religious terrorism includes attacking others who do not have your same religion and acting upon it.

      Cases in point: Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre and the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting

      Then there are those who murder in the name of religion: The Dr. George Tiller murder; The murder of Dr. John Britton and his bodyguard; The Centennial Olympic Park bombing who happened to bomb several abortion clinics before that; The murder of Barnett Slepian; The Planned Parenthood bombing in Massachusetts; The murder of Alan Berg—it’s important to note that the KKK is a religious group; which brings us to the Oklahoma City bombing as McVeigh was a KKK supporter.

      Many of these killed solely because they believed they were doing God’s work or were defending their religion’s existence.

      What the ban does is lump one religion as an enemy. This gives recruitment fodder to the actual terrorists. So now instead of putting the focus on existing terrorists, it gives incentive for new members who, instead of fleeing the terrorists so they can peaceably away from such insanity, join them because they (the terrorists) preach how the West is at war with their religion and now the ban proves that.

      Our Constitution provides for freedom of religion and the ban denies that. You either believe in the Constitution or you don’t. This administration does not.

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/15/yes-there-are-christian-terrorists.html

  • Dave in Battle Ground

    Two weeks into the Trump administration and we have him all figured out. Amazing! Any who are so willing to enlighten us as to how (place your favorite anti-Trump name here) is already ruining our country, tell me this: do you also know the winning numbers of the next mega lottery? Because I would love knowing so I can purchase the winning ticket.

    • Dave, so what’s your take on this? Do you think we’re right, wrong, or close or far away?

      And if I had the winning numbers why would I share them with you?

      Not that I don’t like you, don’t be offended, but until I know what you’re going to do with the money, I cannot make a commitment.

      • Dave in Battle Ground

        Mike – My take on this? I think Donald Trump is an enigma that is going to require some time to figure out. Let’s face it: he is the first non-politician to achieve what many once believed possible and yet have seen it slip away due to the tremendous lock career politicians have in government today: that anyone can grow up to one day be President. That and he achieved what another business man attempted to do and saw us end up with Bill Clinton because he split the vote. Ross Perot. I think we should all be vigilant and yet patient. Allow some time to pass before spouting off one way or another. After all, he has absolutely no political track record to look to as to how he will do the job, unlike Obama who was at least a Senator with some political history. As for you telling me the winning numbers to the lottery: I wouldn’t want them. All lottery winnings are cursed. Just ask pretty much anyone who has hit the jackpot and ended up worse off as a result. That and lottery monies are a result of those who can least afford the tickets.

        • Dave, on one hand I agree with you that it’s a good thing we have a president who isn’t a politician, yet on the other hand his lack of experience in foreign affairs is troubling, to say the very least. This travel ban is a pretty good example of how it’s a bad thing, as far as I am concerned and the man has yet to do anything I think will benefit most Americans.

          We’ll see if you are correct in the long run. I do appreciate your wisdom in regard to unearned wealth; those with it seldom survive it.

        • he is the first non-politician to … be President.

          Nope. Hoover was. You might want to research how that turned out.

  • Rico

    Mike
    First of, it isn’t a ban. Secondly, nobody is seeking to ban refugees. It is about a vetting process, but I think you honestly understand all this. Judging by your comments, though, it seems you are a bit blinded by an ideology that prohibits you from looking at things objectively and instead causes you to react a bit reflexively.
    I’m asking you to please read the order and judge it on its merits, not a misrepresentation of it. Please don’t describe something it is not and then attack that thing you’ve described. I won’t defend your misrepresentation of it. And if you won’t engage in actually discussing the order itself, then please continue with your rant against something that doesn’t exist, but I guess I’ll drop out of this discussion, as it doesn’t pertain to anything that is in existence.

    • First of, it isn’t a ban

      It is. It literally stops any process of admission. At least when Obama enacted his policy, it just delayed the process by putting it in slow motion.

      Secondly, nobody is seeking to ban refugees.

      Wrong again. It bans refugee admissions for 120 days and Syrian refugee admissions indefinitely.

      It is about a vetting process

      You’re batting zero. There is no language saying anything about specific vetting changes. As it is, the vetting process was extreme before cheeto-boy. His order offers no details regarding that.

      Judging by your comments, though, it seems you are a bit blinded by an ideology that prohibits you from looking at things objectively

      Pot meet kettle.

      I’m asking you to please read the order and judge it on its merits

      If you’re so damn sure, then present the actual document to prove your point. (I know you won’t because you know you’re wrong)

      I’ll drop out of this discussion, as it doesn’t pertain to anything that is in existence.

      Just as well, because you missed Mike’s entire point because you opted to debate an issue that wasn’t the subject of his essay.

      What Mike is saying, or rather asking, is why punish one group of people who have actually killed fewer people in this country rather than the one group who have actually killed more Americans? The issue is white people (who many happen to call themselves christians) kill more Americans than brown people (who happen to be Muslim) do.

      Killing in the name of religion isn’t the issue. Killing is. If Little Nero was serious about the safety of this country’s population, perhaps he should work on banning white people. Ohgodno! Conservative white people think their shit don’t stink. Which is why one conservative said John Lewis should get on his knees and thank white people for freeing his race. Negating the fact it was white people who kidnapped blacks and forced them into slavery in the first place.

      • Rico

        CAI, here is link to all the executive orders:
        https://www.yahoo.com/news/president-trumps-executive-orders-224424294.html
        Please read them. You really don’t have a grasp of what this one is stating.Either that or you are purposely misstating it so that you can argue against it.

        As it is, I am not batting zero. Your responses are incorrect.
        As to this whole white christians kill more people: this is like arguing that men with two eyes have done the majority of all killing, therefore we should either ban men who have two eyes, or else have them remove an eye. It is a sort of post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. It simply isn’t logical.

        CAI, let me attempt to make this understandable for you. Say there is an organization that live in 3 houses in the neighborhood that has sworn to kill as many people who live in apartment buildings as they can. They have already killed a number of people in nearby apartment buildings and have sworn to attack yours. Your superintendent has stated that he will not allow anyone from those houses into his apartment until he can determine that they don’t belong to that club. You would be arguing that since people have died in your apartment, that everyone should be allowed in, regardless.

        Have a nice evening !

        • I am not batting zero

          Actually you are. Perhaps if you actually read the EO, you would see that a) “Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern” is a ban. Ban: To prohibit. Suspend: To cause to stop for a period. Not much difference since they both mean stop. b) “I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time” The above time is mentioned in Sec. 5 which is 120 days.

          I could go on and on, but it’s obvious you haven’t learned how to read yet, so your comprehension level needs several years of education to develop. I provided actual quotes from the document. Quotes that prove me correct and prove you wrong. If anyone is misstating, it’s you. Or more correctly, it’s you misreading or simply being unable to comprehend what you read.

          this is like arguing that men with two eyes have done the majority of all killing

          While you are busy going back to school to get a solid grasp of reading comprehension, take time to learn about logical fallacies. This one is a second grade level debate tactic.

          Your next paragraph is another logical fallacy.

          Here’s a link to learn the stupidity of your arguments: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

          After that, just learn and know everything you said the EO was, in fact, incorrect. Of course, you will fail to acknowledge that fact, which is why you went the route of ridiculous fallacies to support your ignorance.

          • Rico

            CAI, I can see that you are unable to distinguish your opinion from facts. I’m tired of you calling names and hurling insults when you can’t use reason. Again, you really need to look at yourself and ask why you are so sad and bitter, why you think you have the right to be rude and insulting while in the insulated world of the internet. I’ve told you I’ll discuss this one on one.
            You seem to think your retorts of “…nu-uh, your’e wrong and I’m right” constitute some sort of superior reasoning. It doesn’t.
            If you were as smart as you pretend to be, you would understand intent and the importance of reading the order as a whole. My anaologies still stand.
            Again, your rudeness and condescension is one of the many reasons your viewpoints have suffered another defeat in yet another election in country after country. I guess I should encourage you in your shrill self satisfying screeds. They are helping to defeat your views politically, everytime you open your pie-hole. Keep up the good work. You are indeed the smartest person in the room and the loudest. Please continue to substitute name calling and insults for reason and logic. Please keep seeking the approval of only like minded people while branding other views as stupid and evil. It’s a formula that is working.
            I am done with my conversation with you. I gave you the chance to take this offline, but you chickened out. That spoke volumes. Your kind will only confront when there is a mob behind you. Please, continue to hide behind the insults and crudeness. It is helping our cause.

            BTW, I’ve shown some friends your opinions of my mental prowess and they find it hilarious. Oh, if you only knew…

  • xoxoxoBruce

    Trump said he will secure the borders and keep out terrorists. He initiates the travel, which is immediately attacked by the courts, most of Congress and ACLU as well as left leaning folks.
    But that doesn’t mean shit to his legions, they don’t care if it helped. He said he would act and he did, check.
    Trump wins.

    • Bruce, but at what cost does he “win”?

      Does he care?

      • Depends on how you define him caring. He has an implicit need to be liked, which is why he had to lie about the inauguration count, weather and everything else that made his important day more diminished.

        He has the need to be in control which is why he hung up on the Prime Minister of Australia when the PM wouldn’t back down.

        He has a severe psychological deficiency, and everything he does is a matter of overcompensating for his inadequacy. His actions equate with a pre-adolescent bully who never got the attention from his parents that he so desperately wanted.

        I guarantee that every thing he screws up he will blame somebody else. He already takes credit for the positive things he didn’t do and then denies everything he has said, even when it’s been recorded. Sad.

        So does he care? Have you even seen a developmentally challenged ten-year-old brat ever care about what they do?

  • John,

    With a billion or so Moslems I think we can safely rule out the religion itself being the source of the problem.

  • john whyman

    Islam is a minor aspect of the brutality, the lack of compassion is innate. In the short term they bring with them horrible traditions. In the long term, it is no coincidence that Spain was occupied by Muslims and the tradition of bull fighting

  • John, I can pretty much agree with you that no religion brings much good but I would not single out Islam as the worst. It’s just the most recently adhered to by the worst people.

  • xoxoxoBruce

    ISIS is a minor violent branch of Muslims, who have vowed to kill all non-Muslims AND all Muslims who reject them and their doctrines, which is 99.999%

  • john whyman

    99.999 % of Islam rejects ISIS?! The real figure is less and can be found here: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428146/more-than-few-islamic-extremists

    • From your link: 10 of 11 countries express an unfavorable view of ISIS by 60% or better. Only one, Pakistan, is less than 30%.

      Sixty percent is pretty good. Cheeto-boy’s favorables aren’t even that high.

  • Jonco

    I’ve closed the comments on this post because some people can’t accept the fact that others have a different opinion than they do without insulting or belittling them.

    That’s a shame because I think several good points were made for both viewpoints.

 
ADVERTISEMENTS
 
 
Your ad can go here!