Image 01 Image 03

Head of Council on Foreign Relations: Cutting Immigration Could Cause US Muslims to Become ‘Threatening’

Head of Council on Foreign Relations: Cutting Immigration Could Cause US Muslims to Become ‘Threatening’

If Restricting the Ability of Potential Terrorists to Enter the Country Would Incite US Muslims to Threaten Us, Our Problems Are Even
Bigger Than We’ve Realized

Want to see a textbook example of the kind of thinking that leads to the fall of civilizations? View the video of Richard Haass, President of the Council Relations on today’s Morning Joe. A clip was played of Donald Trump favoring a declaration of war and repeating his call for the restriction of Muslim immigration, in particular Syrian “refugees,” that we know little or nothing about. A hand-wringing Haass argued against “cutting down immigration” and other measures, because “our connections with entire populations and communities, our best measure of defense is making sure that people in these communities are working with us rather than threatening us.”

So according to Haass, we shouldn’t defend ourselves against terrorists entering the country by restricting the immigration of Muslim “refugees” about whom we know little or nothing. Why? Because doing so would incite Muslims already in the United States and lead to them “threatening us.” If that is so, our problems are even more serious than we have realized. If the Muslim population in the US is a tinderbox, on the brink of “threatening us” if we try to defend ourselves, why were they admitted in the first place? And whatever additional threat they might pose if we do adopt sensible measures, shouldn’t the first thing we do be to limit the ability of more such volatile people to enter our country? Haass’ attitude, which as you’ll see is seconded by Mika Brzezinski, is the passive, self-disarming road to the decline and ultimately destruction of our nation and civilization.

Head of CFR- Don’t Restrict Immigration—Would Incite US Muslims from Mark Finkelstein on Vimeo.

BILL O’REILLY: Would you go to Congress and ask for a declaration of war?

DONALD TRUMP: I would! I would. This is war. If you look at it, this is war coming from all different parts and, frankly, it’s war. And we’re dealing with people without uniforms. These people, we’re allowing people into our country who we have no idea where they are, where they’re from, who they are, they have no paperwork, they have no documentation in many cases and Hillary Clinton wants to allow 550% more in than even Obama.

O’REILLY: There will be by the end of the summer 10,000 Syrian refugees. 20% women, 60% children, 20% men. Do you consider those people threats? Do you consider them security threats?

TRUMP: Of course I do.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Richard Haass, it seems like the response that was not measured enough, is that a safe way of putting it?

. . .

RICHARD HAASS: We’ve got to be really smart about what we do have to be really smart in terms of what we do and, also, what we don’t do. And some of the stuff that’s being talked about, about deporting people who believe in Sharia as Newt Gingrich said, testing or somehow blaming an entire —

MIKA: Isn’t that what they want?

HAASS: — or cutting down immigration. We’ve got to be, we’ve got to be smart in how we respond to this because our connections, as you see here in New York and other cities with entire populations and communities, our best measure of defense is making sure that people in these communities are working with us rather than threatening us.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The Council of Foreign Relations must be coordinating the the Chamber of Commerce on their messaging.

casualobserver | July 15, 2016 at 9:04 am

The view that we must show greater deference to Muslims Americans than all other Americans is just par for the course if you have a progressive worldview. Your empathy and sympathy must always be against whoever you see as having more social “power.”

Why is it that liberals never seem to want to defend the USA? The cadre of anti-American Americans is so vast anymore that I often wonder if this country really exists or is now merely an idea to be debated and tortured, not a reality.

    Ken Abbott in reply to princepsCO. | July 15, 2016 at 9:29 am

    The “progressives” are not interested in defense but transformation. They see the current conditions as standing in the way of the progressive utopia. Burning it all down to start anew is perfectly compatible with their goals.

    Old0311 in reply to princepsCO. | July 15, 2016 at 10:09 am

    American may not seem to exist in big cities, but out in towns all across the country it still exists. I try to avoid cities and stay on the back roads where people aren’t bat shit crazy and have time to talk to a stranger passing through. Places where you can hear a persons life history in the time it takes to walk from the gas pump to the store to buy a cold coke. I love it.

So the CFR’s position is that immigrant Muslims are doing jihad that American Muslims don’t want to do?

Kind of insulting to American Muslims.

    Milwaukee in reply to malclave. | July 15, 2016 at 11:28 am

    “So the CFR’s position is that immigrant Muslims are doing jihad that American Muslims don’t want to do?”

    Well said.

    Have a large enough concentration of followers of the prophet Mohammed, and you will get radicalized Muslims willing, and eager, to murder “moderate” Muslims; and followers of the Book, Jews and Christians; and infidel pigs, like homosexuals, prostitutes or women caught in adultery, and other undesirables. Mohammedanism isn’t just a religion, it is a totalitarian way of living which precludes the values enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States. To practice Islam fully is to be a traitor to the United States.

    Now the “Christmas and Easter” Christian attends church on Christmas and Easter, and tries to be good and not too morally corrupt. The equivalent Muslim is a fellow we could welcome as a decent member of our communities. Christians and Jews, when they become devout, become more peaceful and generous towards others. Muslims who become devout become more violent and dangerous. How we encourage casual Islam and discourage strident Islam is beyond me, but that is our problem.

    Politicians like to say “banning Mohammedans from entering the country isn’t American … that isn’t what we are about” Right. But honor killing because your daughter kissed a man she wasn’t married to, or killing a shop keeper because he posted Christmas greetings to Christian neighbors, or shooting up a nightclub isn’t what we are about either. I would prefer to resettle Muslims in Muslim majority countries, because they will be happier there. Look at those crazy “Minnesota Men” who are all pro-Sharia, refusing to drive a taxi if the passenger has alcohol, or going off to fight wars in other countries.

      SDN in reply to Milwaukee. | July 15, 2016 at 6:34 pm

      This Is a central truth of Islam, baked into the structure of the Koran itself.

      Ignorant Leftists who want to claim Islam is a “Religion of Peace” will carefully choose verses from the “Suras of Mecca”. These were written when Mohammed had few followers, and no political power, and especially no army. Nonetheless, his fellow Meccans, who had grown up with him and knew crazy when they saw it, forced him and his fellow cultists to flee to Medina…..

      Where the Medinans, not getting the full measure of cray cray that was Mohammed, embraced his cult and provided him with followers, political power, and, based on the fact that the Meccans were rich merchants, an army out for plunder, guided by the latest revelations, the Medinan Suras.

      Which said that murder, rape, enslavement, and plunder of anyone not embracing Allah (and his prophet) was a form of worship and one of the 5 foundational tenets of Islam.

      Eventually, someone pointed out the essential contradictions between Mecca and Medina…. and Allah provided the answer: the Doctrine of Abrogation. “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?” (Qur’an 2:106).

      The Islamic doctrine of abrogation

      Another still-influential Qur’an commentator, Ibn Kathir (1301-1372) quotes an earlier authority, Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, to establish that the Verse of the Sword, sura 9:5 (“slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”) “abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term.” He adds from another authority: “No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara”ah was revealed.” And yet another early commentator, Ibn Juzayy (d. 1340) agrees that one of this verse’s functions is “abrogating every peace treaty in the Qur’an.”

The FBI followed the Orlando shooter 24 hours a day for weeks and could not determine that he was a threat. There is no way these foreign refugees can be vetted. The Dems should just admit they updated Benjamin Franklin’s quote to this:

“It is better for 100 terrorists to be let into the country than for 1 innocent family member to be kept out.”

    bw222 in reply to MattMusson. | July 15, 2016 at 9:31 am

    Whether you support Trump or not, he is right on limiting Muslim refugees coming to the US. He is one of the few that has the courage to speak out against political correctness.

Apparently, for a leftist, the suspension of the Rule of Law also includes the suspension of the laws of logic.

The globalists have an agenda and we need to oppose them. Not cutting the number of Muslims coming to the US is like having Cancer and encouraging its growth,

PackerBronco | July 15, 2016 at 9:29 am

The harsh and soft bigotry of low expectations once again rears its ugly head. In this case, it’s: “Well, you can’t do anything that might offend our Muslim community, because THOSE people will respond by trying to kill us.”

Get that- if Muslims cannot flee to non-Muslim nations they may become threatening.

In other words people born under Islam, raised in its values, may become a threat,

Senator Bluto Blutarsky | July 15, 2016 at 9:39 am

Wow, so Muslims are just blowing themselves up in Syria for immigration, shooting up bars and nightclubs for immigration, and ambushing police for immigration.

Who knew?

Because appeasement always works, right Haass?

    Old0311 in reply to Observer. | July 16, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    When did he sneak the “Ha” onto his surname? Surely spreading crap like that could only come from an ass.

Don’t we have laws against making terrorist threats?

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Paul. | July 15, 2016 at 10:20 am

    They are, like most laws, selectively enforced.

    Milhouse in reply to Paul. | July 15, 2016 at 11:15 am

    Yes, we do. How are they relevant? No threat has been made. Concerns and warnings are not threats. “Don’t poke the bear” is not a threat. It is certainly not a threat to predict that if we treat people as enemies they will behave as enemies.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | July 15, 2016 at 12:28 pm

      But no one is proposing we treat this particular group, American Muslims, as enemies. as enemies. What is proposed is that we restrict immigration to prevent foreign enemies who are enemies from entering the U.S. that will cause American Muslims to become “threatening.”

      There is a huge difference.

      This idiot Haass is delivering a big steaming pile of what gives analysis its bad name. It’s hard to know where to start, other than knowing we’re going to need at least gloves, a shop apron, and a gas mask, to dissect this mess.

      On the one hand are we supposed to believe that the vast majority of American Muslims who are immigrants, and who immigrated to escape the ISIS types, are going to be upset because we restrict immigration to prevent the entry of people they tried to get away from?

      Or, if you like, let’s pretend American Muslims are secretly radical. They’ll become “threatening” if we prevent the import of their coreligionists.

      If the latter is true, how is it an argument for reinforcing an enemy that is already here?

      I despise Donald Trump. But I understand why he’s popular. He’s the alternative to the Hillary Clintons and the Obamas and this Haass guy who wear their stupidity like it were a badge of honor and their anti-Americanism on their sleeves.

        Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | July 15, 2016 at 2:33 pm

        The thing is that you’re treating Moslems who are here and Moslems who would like to come here as two separate and unrelated sets. They’re not. They see themselves as one set.

        Now if one were proposing merely some sort of strict vetting procedure to keep the wrong kind of Moslems out, then it would be reasonable to expect the right kind of Moslems who are here to support this, and in fact to be happy about it, because they don’t want those people here either. And if they objected one could reasonably ask why, and draw inferences about the reality of their moderation and peacefulness.

        But that isn’t being proposed, mostly because it doesn’t seem possible. Instead what’s being proposed is a blanket restriction on all Moslems, because we can’t tell the good ones from the bad ones. From our point of view this may make sense, but how exactly do you expect them to take it? How would you take it if you were one of them?

        Think about the racial turmoil we’re going through now, which ultimately is all due to the fact that a significant minority of black men are violent criminals, but we have no infallible way of distinguishing them from the majority who are decent people. The ratio of bad black men to good ones is higher than that of bad Moslems to good ones, but policing methods that treat all black men with suspicion create resentment among all blacks, good and bad. There may be no better alternative, but the benefit of the protection it affords us must be balanced against this cost. If so intelligent and decent a person as Senator Scott is alienated by this, what can we expect of others? The same must be true of Moslems; there may be no alternative but to treat them all with suspicion, but we must expect them to resent it, and take that cost into account.

          tom swift in reply to Milhouse. | July 15, 2016 at 3:03 pm

          They see themselves as one set.

          That’s nice.

          So what? That doesn’t give them the right to set US immigration policy.

          They have the right to be annoyed, but that’s about it.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | July 15, 2016 at 12:58 pm

      Donald Trump is supposed to be the alternative to the establishment.

      The establishment Donald Trump has been funding his entire life. Brags about funding.

      We are so f***ed.

        alaskabob in reply to Arminius. | July 15, 2016 at 1:31 pm

        Trump was buying influence…. Hillary was selling it. From Hillary’s million Muslim immigration plan…. whoever bought her influence is getting their money’s worth.

        ConradCA in reply to Arminius. | July 15, 2016 at 1:34 pm

        In order to succeed in business Trump had to payoff and pander to the progressive fascists. After the 7 year reign of Tyrant Obama the Liar and the prospect of Crooked Hillary the Liar as president he realized that they are destroying our country and decided to fight for our country.

CFR honcho, “Because doing so would incite Muslims already in the United States and lead to them threatening us.’”

Worry not, Hass, the threatening part is built-in when it comes to Muslims. It’s actually one of the features of Islam. If you ever read Big Mo’s book, you’d see this threaten-the-infidel all over the place.

inspectorudy | July 15, 2016 at 10:17 am

This is as logical as the obama admin saying that Guantanamo is a recruiting tool for ISIS! What? Those bad Americans are imprisoning our poor peaceful muslim brothers? Do they think we are that stupid?


What kind of logic is this?

If we don’t invite the Saudis into the USA to create more terrorism funding hate mosques, then they will hate us?

… our best measure of defense is making sure that people in these communities are working with us rather than threatening us.

Sounds like he’s saying that even the ‘moderate’ muslims will turn against us, if we defend our own borders and people against attacks from beyond our borders?

I thought the ‘moderates’ were the real Religion of Peace™, and posed no threat to anyone.

    Milhouse in reply to rinardman. | July 15, 2016 at 11:21 am

    Peace doesn’t mean pacifism. You can do whatever you like to Mennonites, Quakers, or Witnesses, and they will continue to lick your hand. The Nazis used Witnesses in the Camps as their barbers, because they could trust them not to cut their throats. They would never put themselves in that position with a Jew. If you treat, say, Mormons as enemies, then they will behave like enemies, as they did in the 19th century.

Yeah, we wouldn’t want that.

Maybe Democrats should worry about the electoral consequences of repeatedly offending Americans!

Did he just call all Muslim’s terrorists? Bold.

Sometimes I wonder if all these people work for the Trump campaign.

Strict immigration enforcement is needed to save this country. Islam is not just anti-America but anti-west, Islam since its birth 1400 years ago is and for ever will be a threat to America! America should a zero-tolerance policy toward Muslims and follow the steps to stop Islam just like Japan. When was the last time you heard of anything Islamic based happening in Japan.

So head of cfr is a messenger for Islam and his message is “submit”. The bozo has a long way to go to relevance. Another hollow-man mistakenly transferring his emptiness to others.

We must purge the government of morons like this.

Yet, so many want to immigrate to America – Western Civilization, to adopt to our ways and to abandon their ways.

But little do they know that America has abandoned values for Trump/Hillary.

So, they are arguing that the Muslims already within are radicalized — and must thus be expelled to spare us from their expected acts of terror.