City of Dearborn Opposes CLEAR Act

If the U.S. Constitution grants any authority to the Federal Government it would be the defense and security of the country. The act of a city government even voting on a resolution regarding such matters should be a crime. Anyone participating in such a vote should be subject to a minimum 10 year sentence and lifetime ban from direct participation in any form of government.

Dearborn, once the home of Henry Ford's Dearborn Independent, now the home to new residents mnany of whom would be tickled by the editorial content of Ford's newspaper in the old days, before threats of a boycott of Ford let him to pretend to a change of heart. (A song was written about that: "When Henry Ford Apologized To Me.").

What Dearborn demonstrates is that Muslim politicla power will translate into craven non-Muslim politicians -- two of them are named in the article -- who with false nobility, and real treachery, take stands against legislation that is intended to make all of us safer, and about which there should not have been the slightest quiver of doubt. What percentage of the voters in Dearborn are Muslim Arabs? Whatever percentage it is, it is clearly dangerously high. Those who dance to the tune of local Muslim groups should, in turn, be opposed by all non-Muslims, and for no other reason. For no other reason is necessary. Eventually, supporting Muslim causes may come to be a regarded as a Third Rail of Politics -- and of any post-political business or legal dealings, so that everyone except the convinced antisemite or hater of America, who is beyond calculations of self-interest (Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Paul Findley) will distance himself from the nascent Muslim lobby that represents a threat to the safety of all non-Muslims.

18 USC Sec. 2384. Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Didn't we resolve this issue in 1865?

Double, triple the number of the police department. Give the job to former ex-military who have been retired after fighting in Iraq.

That might make a difference!

Hugh,

I've always thought you were a blowhard, but this settles it. I find it curious that you don't know how many Muslims are in Dearborn, yet then go on to say that these 'falsely nobile' and 'treacherous' politicians are craving into Muslim demands. ACCESS is not a muslim organization and it has a long history in Dearborn as do Arabs. Dearborn's Arab community is over 100 years old, most of whom are Iraqi and Lebanese Christian Caldeans. Muslim immigration is a relatively knew phenomenon.

Another factor to consider is that Dearborn has a population of around 100,000 which swells to over 300,000 during the work week. Coupled with its proximity to Detroit, the Dearborn police department has quite a bit to handle. In fact, during the November elections there was a motion on the ballot to increase the number of Dearborn police officers to 2.1/1000 residents for exactly these reasons.

All the city council is doing is playing politics. Calm down.

Reply to the person above who has "always found" me to be a "blowhard":

1) I made no statement about the population of Deaborn, exceptr to say that I did not know the percentage of the population that was Muslim. Clearly, I believed the precise figure to be irrelevant -- but the perceived power of the Muslim lobby to be all that was relevant. The comment "I find it curious that you don't know how many Muslims are in Dearborn" misses that point entirely. It is clear that this resolution passed only because of the perceived power of the Arab Muslim and islamochristian (Arab) population in Dearborn. Does anyone think there was another reason why the Dearborn City Council would pass a resolution deploring the reasonable requirement that local police departments help, not hinder, the enforcement of federal laws?

2) I did not use the phrase "falsely nobile" (and would not, even if my computer were temporarily displaced to the piano nobile of the building I happen to be in). I wrote of "false nobility" and "real treachery" of the politicians in question. Accuracy in Media, Please Take Note.

3)"Lebanese Christian Chaldeans"? Did you mean "Iraqi Chaldeans" and "Lebanese Christians"? What kind of Christians? Melkites? Greek Orthodox? What, exactly? Perhaps the poster can give us details with a breakdwon, by religion and sect and denomination, of all the Arabs in Dearborn, Muslim and Christian, so that we may draw conclusions for ourselves.

Until the last few decades, there were only a handful of Muslims in Dearborn or indeed anwywhere else in America. Arabic-speaking Christian refugees did begin to settle even before World War I. These people did not consider themselves Arabs (the Maronites, with reason, call themselves the descendants of the Phoenicians -- unless one believes that magically, the Phoenicians simply died out -- the people who were in Lebanon before the Arab invaders arrived). Many of their descendants have not forgotten that fact, especially among the Maronite and Copt communities in America. But who cares when Arabic-speaking Christians -- who would have been among the first to support the war against the Jihad -- first came? What is its relevance to my original posting?

Muslim Arabs in this country are attempting, with mixed success, to convince the descendants of those same Christian ("Arab," or rather Arabic-speaking) refugees from Islam that as "Arabs" (in fact, most are "Arabic-speaking" but not Arabs even if they bear Arab names -- certainly not the Maronites or the Copts) they should show solidarity with Muslims. Since 80% of the self-described "Arab-Americans" in this country are Christians, or descendants of Christian refugees from dar al-Islam (their passports, during the Ottoman days, would identify those ancestors often as "Syrian" or "Turk"), it has been a clever move by the Muslims to try to appeal to some specious "Arabness" (as if a few Germans who were Nazis, but managed to slip into the country in the late 1940s or 1950s, tried to win political support by emphasizing, among German-speaking Jewish refugees from the Nazis, a supposed identity of interests based on a shared language) in order to get those Christians to become islamochristians.

My objection did not deal with, and had no need to deal with, the precise number of Muslims in Dearborn, or when Arabic-speaking (not necessariy Arabs) Christians first settled. It had to do, rather, with the cravenness of the Dearborn City Council, and by extension, with the cravenness of other Infidel politicians -- especially in Western Europe, above all in France. Muslim populations must not be yielded to, above all on security matters, and no politician should be supported who, in deciding his own position, calculates the value of Muslim support when that support clearly can be used to vitiate sensible measures taken for the safety of the general population. Whatever measures are supported by Islamic groups will almost by definition be measures to be opposed, and all those who support those measures should be opposed as well.

Countries are now pledging to lower their emissions by 5% by 2012. In the same way, Infidel countries should be silently pledging -- to their own populations, to those in the past who created those countries -- that they will work, using various instruments of encouragement and discouragement -- to lower the percentage of Muslims in the population, or at the very least to hold them to current levels. That percentage must be watched like a hawk. For there is no "europeanizing" of Islam, no softening of its edges, no rewriting of its immutable texts -- or at least no rewriting that will command widespread authority. There is only a question of how long it will take enough Infidels to learn enough about Islam to understand that difficult-to-accept reality. Everything has to be done to ensure the continued political and economic and social and intellectual understandings that are, in every way, contradicted by the Shari'a, and above all the respect for individual autonomy.

It would help to publicize, and undercut, the attempt by Muslim Arabs to enroll non-Muslim "Arabs" (really, Arabic speakers) in promoting the Islamic agenda. One might well ask the American Lebanese League, the American Coptic Society, the Iraqi Christians who are now fleeing the Muslims of Iraq, what they think of Islam? One might consult the records left by Lebanese Christians who form the majority of "Arab-Americans" -- read, if you will, "Syrian Yankee" by Salomon Rizk, published back in the mid-1950s, and see what Rizk's attitude toward America, toward Israel and Jews, and is quite different attitude toward Islam were -- the results might surprise you. But, then, Rizk had been on the receiving end of Islam. Well, if you consider yourself a Lebanese-American, or have an ancestor who was, that ancestor was fleeing the dar al-Islam, whether ruled by Muslim "Turks or Muslim Arabs. He was a victim of Islam, and would not take kindly to his descendants standing up, in any way, for that belief-system that had caused so much damage to the Christians of the Middle East. (Read "The Decline of Easten Christianity Under Islam").

If Iraqi Christians now flee to Syria, it is only because the Alawite dictatorship has to show some solicitude for Christians. And that is done not because the Alawite military caste, and Bashir al-Assad, are so tender-hearted, but because the Alawites themselves are threatened by Muslims, who do not regard Alawites as orthodox Muslims (every Alawite house has a picture of Mary, Mariam, on the outside wall). The massacre of 83 Alawite military cadets in Aleppo more than twenty years ago by Muslims was followed by the massacre of Muslims in Hama). Today, it is the Alawites who protect the Christians -- but only out of self-interest, in the same way that Saddam Hussein could trust, as his tasters and guards, only Iraqi Christians (and Hafez al-Assad had Armenians among his palace guard).

3) "Calm down" I am curiously urged by the much-exercised critic above. Given the criminally craven behavior of so many Infidel politicians (of whom the Dearborn City Council are merely an extreme example), and the failure to analyze Islam aright that has led, in Iraq, to a quite unnecessary expenditure of men, materiel, and money which could be saved if that belief-system were to be analyzed aright, I would have thought the charge would have been otherwise -- that I am too calm, preternaturally calm. No one reading about the Dearborn City Council, who comprehends the significance of its act, should be completely calm -- and I keep trying to make myself uncalm, but with limited success.

Any real effort to stymie, or any symbolic effort by politicians to curry Muslim (or, what amounts to the same thing, islamochristian Arab) favor by taking stands against laws intended to make Americans more secure, should infuriate everyone.

I do apologize, however, urbi et orbi, for not providing the lyrics to the song I mentioned in the first posting -- "When Henry Ford Apologized To Me."

One good apology deserves another, so here goes. The title of the song for which, in not providing the lyrics, I apologize immediately above, is not "When" but rather "Since" which makes it "Since Henry Ford Apologized to Me."

I apologize. The motto of this website is that, when wrong:

Always apologize. Always explain.

Reply to the person above who should learn the art of conciseness:

Whatever. What you are clearly saying is that these politicians have opposed the CLEAR act because of pressure from Dearborn's Muslim population, all the while saying you don't know how many Muslims there are. To wit, you don't know what your talking about.

TThe CLEAR act turns cops into INS officers. The DPD's plate is full and the last thing any cop wants is to enforce immigration law with all the hassle and money it entails. CLEAR, if it is passed, is voluntary. Municipalities are not required to participate. But there are economic penalties. Which would explain why so many other cities and police organizatios oppose it. Or is it their 5th column Muslim populations as well?

It's an economic issue, stupid( to coin a phrase ). But please, keep using words such as 'Islamochristian' to validate your paranoia. I got a chuckle out of that.

No CLEAR consensus on immigration-enforcement bill

You refuse to understand what I wrote. Everyone knows that Dearborn is the American city with the highest concentration of Arabs. These are Muslims, and Christians. Many of the latter are what can properly be called "islamochristians" in the sense that, instead of recognizing that they have no real identity of interests with Muslims, out of either residual dhimmitude, which is hard to shake, or out of some false sense of shared "Arabness" that trumps their understanding of what their own ancestors, or they themselves, endured as Christians in the dar al-Islam, nonetheless promote the Muslim agenda. That agenda includes hamstringing the effectiveness of both the immigration services and the security services.

It was not surprising that the Dearborn City Council acted as it did. Unlike, say, Berkeley California or Cambridge, Massachusetts, where such a resolution might be passed, but more out of hatred for the current administration and its assumed awfulness rather than out of a desire to curry favor with Muslims, the situtation in Dearborn is exactly as I described.

As for your urging me to keep using the word "islamochristian," you needn't have bothered. The word meets a felt need, expresses an observable truth, and others have begun to use it as well. In fact, like the just-introduced "Mesa Nostra" to refer fittingly tos the Middle Eastern Studies Association of North America, this coinage of the realm (of ideas) performs several semantic services at once. One looks forward to seeing "islamochristian" appearing in a future on-line OED. "Dhimmitude," however, must appear first.

the situtation in Dearborn is exactly as I described.

No it isn't. I live here, you don't. Who's more qualified?

You refuse to understand what I wrote.

I'm not refusing. I simply don't agree.
Considering you keep ignoring the obvious economic issues and the widespread criticisms of the CLEAR act from municipalities and police organizations nation wide, I'll assume you don't agree with those either.

btw, every Muslim woman in Dearborn who wears a hijab also wears *skin* tight pants( really! ). Is that taqyyia?

You live in Dearborn. Does this mean you have the last word on everything pertaining to Dearborn? Are you quite sure that there is no one now living in Dearborn who deplores both the resolution by the Dearborn City Council, and the hailing of that resolution by "the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services"? And if such a person, or persons, exiset, is their take on Dearborn less valid than yours? And does no one outside of Dearborn have a right to comment on a resolution of its City Council, and of the clear, or CLEAR, connection of that resolution to the large numbers of Arabs living in Dearborn?

You fail to distinguish between those who object to the CLEAR ACT only because of funding problems, believing that the Federal government should provide more money if more is being asked of local and state authorites.

But that is not the tenor of the original opposition, expressed by Mayor Guido in 2003, nor of the Dearborn City Council resolution, as passages in the ACCESS report itself make clear:

"Mayor Guido came out with a press release on April 22, 2003, clearly stating his opposition to the CLEAR Act, for it was an infringement upon civil rights, and could put a great burden on the police department and city operations."

Requiring people to obey the laws of the land, and the requirements set down for legal immigration and reporting is an "infringement upon civil rights"?Since when? Since Arab political clout in Dearborn caused such appeasing language to be issued.

And then there is the Dearborn City Council resolution deploring the CLEAR ACT:

"The Dearborn City Council expressed concern in the resolution that the Act would burden already hard-working police departments and

[pro-forma noises about a "burden" on "already hard-working police departments" and then, the MAIN REASON FOR THE OPPOSITION]:

threatens to destroy the positive relationships that the Dearborn Police Department has developed within the diverse community. The resolution stated that “trust is a big factor in our effectiveness to protect all of our residents. This act would compromise that trust.”

In other words, we do not think there should be too strenuous an attempt to crack down on illegal immigration by Arabs and Muslims because, you see, the wonderful cooperation they have been giving the FBI and the police (tell us all about that wonderful cooperation) will come to a halt if the American government presumes to try to enforce its own laws pertaining to immigrtation and naturalization. If the American government dares to do that, the Arabs of Dearborn will simply not volunteer any information.

Citizenship is not a given. One does not have to be bribed by ignoring some laws, in order to receive cooperation on threats to national security, and to the security of Infidels everywhere. This has to be made clear. No carrots in the form of refusing to enforce the laws need be offered. This is not something that is a matter for negotiation, and it is obvious from the wording of both Mayor Guido's statement last year, and from the Dearborn City Council statement -- both hailed by the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Service -- is to placate Arab voters, to win their support, by deploring the CLEAR ACT.

You would have us believe that this Dearborn Council resolution is no different from the is reservations about the CLEAR ACT expressed by a handful of police chiefs because of financial considerations (the associations of rank-and-file police have come out in favor of the CLEAR ACT, however), but they are completely different.

If the Dearborn City Council had issued a statement saying it of course supports the aim of the CLEAR ACT, and wishes to do its utmost to locate and remove "criminal alien" members of the local population, but that it has reservations about funding and urges the Federal government to supply more money for local police, that is one thing.

But that is not the main thrust of the Dearborn Resolution. It is all about keeping the "trust" (what kind of "trust" is it, exactly, that the American government, or that Americans, need to earn or win from resident Muslims and their islamochristian supporters whose Arab ethnicity may trump their own, or their ancestor's, suffering in the dar al-Islam?). If any "trust" needs to be earned, here, it is the other way around.

Americans have not been overwhelmed with any heartfelt display of loyalty by Muslim-Americans. The behavior of a Muslim army man who killed his fellow soldiers in Kuwait, a navy man who was apparently transmitting information about the best way to attack the vessel he was on, the AWOL Marine, and all the lawsuits designed to limit the ability of the American armed forces and domoestic intelligence to work as they deem vital for security -- all of this, and the noticeable absence of anything like the Japanese-American volunteers for the 442nd Regiment in World War II, is having its effect. Too many examples of tu quoque and taqiyya, too many attempts to divert attention.

And while we are on the subject of dress, the fact that someone wears tight pants or sneakers with a hijab is meaningless. Al-Zarqawi dressed like a mild-mannered Western accountant. Ditto "Mike" Hawash of Intel. And a hundred or a thousand or thousands of others, picked up by security services all over the Western world.

As far as the business of a Fifth Column, it is not those who make that charge who have anything to prove. It is clear that Islam teaches its believers to offer their loyalty only to fellow Muslims. They must not make friends with "Christians and Jews." They must not greet them, or recognize their religious holidays. They must make sure that they suffer the outward signs of humiliation as dhimmis. And everywhere in Qur'an and hadith and sira, again and again and again, the theme is clear: loyalty only to the umma al-islamiyya. There can be, for a real Believer, no possibliity of loyalty to an Infidel nation-state. That would flatly contradict the main tenets of Islam.

So the real question is: given these beliefs, it is up to Muslims to prove that somehow they do not accept these beliefs, they can offer real, as opposed to feigned, loyalty to an Infidel nation-state. And mere smiling assurances will not do -- those assurances must be based on an admission to, and a taking issue with, those doctrines, those passages in the canonical texts of Islam, that teach such an undivided loyalty -- not a dual loyalty, but a single loyalty, to Islam and to fellow Muslims.

When ACCESS, or a thousand other Muslim groups and groupuscules, act in such a way as to make the job of the security services harder, even in such obvious measures as enforcing the well-settled laws of immigration and naturalization, this does more than raise Infidel eyebrows. The evidence that confirms suspicions based on a familiarity with Islamic texts piles up. And up. And up.