What we learned when Sally Yates spoke her mind

I contributed to the Glazov Gang this week; you can watch my first Brian of London Moment below.

 

by Brian of London

A little background: this piece grew out of my original analysis of the first Immigration Executive Order, which was published on JihadWatch. I was reminded of this by the comments Sally Yates made while being cross examined by Ted Cruz.

Just yesterday, Robert published a post about the worrying comments McMaster made at the White House briefing, talking about what Trump would be doing on his upcoming trip to Israel and the Middle East. In my opinion, somewhat unsurprisingly, all the things McMaster thinks Trump will do or say in Israel are what McMaster would do or say here if he were President. It is clear that McMaster and Trump are not on the same page regarding Islam, so it remains to be seen if Trump does what McMaster thinks he ought to do, or Trump sticks to the kind of messaging on Israel that I highlight in my video.

That’s not to say I don’t have some trepidation about what’s coming up when Trump lands here in Israel next week: but all through the last year of speculation and prognostication, I’ve found Trump doing what Trump wants more often than not. And I haven’t seen enough (or really any) direct evidence that Trump’s views of Islam have changed or softened. How that translates into the realpolitik necessary for grown-up diplomacy, we can only wait and see. I still believe Trump’s negotiating principles can work when facing Islam if one is absolutely honest about how Islam makes its adherents see the world.

One way or another, I’m confident that Trump will do less damage than what came before, and he might even force Islamic leaders back into a state of fearing the West and being quiet: the classic “hudna” position, which is about as good as we can ever hope for.

Here’s the script of the video:

Hello, this is the Brian of London Moment brought to you by The Glazov Gang.

I’m Brian of London, now permanently relocated to the shores of the Mediterranean and bringing you these thoughts from my bomb shelter in the sky in Tel Aviv, Israel. I really should have used this to talk about my trip to Hebron this week, but this alternate American subject was just burning me.

Do you remember where this comes from?^?1

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

That is what I considered to be the most important section of the Trump Administration’s January executive order designed to protect Americans.

There was no mention of Islam, or Muslims or even religion. Just hostile ideologies which do not share our common western notions of freedom and tolerance. When questioned by Ted Cruz in the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism about her actions to block Trump’s executive order, acting attorney general Sally Yates said this^?2:

[20 seconds]

Even if there is a protection in the US constitution to practice a religion which fundamentally conflicts with other people’s rights (like the right to not be blown up or shot in the street), why is Yates so determined to apply the Constitution to foreigners? I’m not a US citizen; the US Constitution doesn’t apply to me outside the US.

Sally Yates is adamant that the executive order she didn’t like politically only seeks to ban Muslims from entering America. She thinks this will infringe on the “religious freedom” of foreign aliens. She was about to expand on this point at the end when Cruz cut her off; she wanted to talk about the intent behind the legislation, which she had inferred from listening to Donald Trump’s stump speeches. Or, more likely than not, the Clinton News Network’s hysterical reporting on Trump’s speeches.

Yates was trying to say that because Trump spoke honestly about the problem with Islam seeming to show a lot of hate toward non-Muslims, he should be forever banned from protecting the American people from ideological terrorists bent on bringing their mayhem and murder to America.

So back to the original Executive Order. Instead of looking at the document which said this:

The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.

Sally Yates refusal to support the administration she was part of rested on things Trump had said while running for election.

But here’s the rub: everything stated in Trump’s original executive order was directed at political actions, a political ideology. A violent, extreme and nakedly hostile political ideology that drives its followers to call for the overthrow of the US Constitution and its replacement with an alternative system: Sharia.

That these dreadful political goals and actions arise from the texts of Islam is the heart of the problem we face in dealing with Islam in the west today.

“I have been ordered to fight all men until they say there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet” – that is not a religious pronouncement. That is a political goal: forcing your ideology on others, hiding behind a facade of what we call religion in the west.

And people like Sally Yates, when they buy this deception, and afford these political goals of Islam the same protections we have developed for private observance of religion, when people like Sally Yates do this, they tear down all our defences.

For those of us who watched Trump very carefully on Islam, and his refusal to use newly invented terms like Islamism, we know what he’s trying to do. We also know the gigantic task he faces to turn around the last 16 years of confused and incorrect thinking.

Remember when the leader of the free world said this?

[George Bush Islam is peace]

That’s a long way from the man who says this.

[Trump intro to Snake]

And a man who fires Sally Yates when she tries to bring her misunderstanding of Islam to the office.

Thanks for listening, I’m Brian of London, follow @brianoflondon on twitter and thanks for listening.

First published in Jihad Watch.