For some reason Donald Trump thought he should hold an Iftar dinner this year. He didn’t hold one last year, and contrary to some predictions at the time, the sky did not fall. No doubt his advisers thought this would be a suitable way to show goodwill toward Muslims.
But some American Muslim groups — CAIR, MSNA — loudly proclaimed their intention, if invited, not to attend. Why not? Because Donald Trump has put in place, they falsely claim, a ‘’ban on Muslims.” No matter how many times this charge is made, it has to be answered, wearily, yet again. Of course there is not, and never has been, a “Muslim ban.” There is, however, a ban on giving visas to people from eight countries. Six of those countries are Muslim-majority: Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Chad. Two are non-Muslim: Venezuela and North Korea. Two Muslim countries, Iraq and Sudan, were first included in the ban, and then subsequently dropped from the list. Most of these eight countries have been anti-American, some violently so; every one has been experiencing upheaval of one kind or another — economic, political, military — and almost all have some connection to terrorism.
Thus, this supposed “Muslim ban” affects non-Muslim counties, and more important, only six of the 57 Muslim-majority states in the O.I.C. (Organization of the Islamic Cooperation) are affected. If this were intended to be a “Muslim ban,” then why were two Muslim states,Iraq and Sudan, removed from the list, while two non-Muslim states were added? And why were 51 Muslim states, including the three largest in population, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Indonesia, never covered by the ban at all? Surely the reason for the ban is, as the Trump Administration has always maintained, national security. Those who come from Muslim countries recently convulsed in violence — as Syria, Libya, Yemen — are, it is reasonable to assume, likely to bring that violence with them. Some of the countries on the list contain terrorist groups — branches of Al-Qaeda or the Islamic State — or local groups, too, such as Al Shabaab in Somalia. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism both directly and through its support for the terrorists of Hezbollah; it routinely denounces America as the Great Satan, and calls for its destruction. In other words, the list reflects not anti-Muslim bias, but the considered judgment of homeland security officials that people from these countries pose unusual security risks, too high to ignore.
CAIR and MSNA, as well as the usual free range suspects such as Linda Sarsour, were furious that they were not invited to the White House Iftar. But what did they expect? They are all continuous and vicious critics of Trump, denouncing him at every turn, and they had already announced that if invited to his Iftar Dinner, they would refuse to attend. Why should the White House have invited those whom it already knew would then reject the invitation and, further, would exploit the occasion of their refusal to publicly denounce Trump yet again for his “Muslim ban,” his moving the embassy to Jerusalem, and all his other acts of supposed “islamophobia”? The media, eager to have another anti-Trump tale, would have delighted in asking Muslims to explain in indignant and more-in-sorrow fashion why they felt they had to turn down the invitation from Trump, and then to add, all sweetness-and-light, that “we look forward to the day when a different president, one who considers himself a president for all Americans, including the more than 3 million Muslims who are proud of their faith and happy to share its traditions, will invite us to an Iftar dinner at the White House. And then we will be happy to accept.’”
But what about other Muslims in America? We know that a Muslim army chaplain, Imam Agbere, was invited — and indeed, was singled out for praise by Trump in his words of greeting. But there is no evidence of other Muslim Americans being invited. It is possible that those known to be favorable to Trump were not invited to spare them subsequent problems. For if they had accepted, their identities would have become known, and they would immediately become targets for CAIR and similar Muslim groups, depicted as traitors to the umma for attending the Trump-hosted Iftar; they might even become the target of physical attacks.
Of course, the many Arab and Muslim ambassadors who did attend the Iftar Dinner at the White House without incident are in a different category altogether from Muslim Americans, and cannot be intimidated by the likes of CAIR; no doubt they now have only glowing words for their host. That will allow Trump, at some point, in reply to negative remarks by CAIR and Company, to declare that “CAIR may not like it, but apparently the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Moroccans, the Tunisians, the Indonesians, the Kuwaitis, the Jordanians (fill in a dozen more names here) were happy to celebrate the Iftar Dinner with us.”
Trump can also issue a statement about how those “those ambassadors understand perfectly that there is no ‘Muslim ban’ — there is only a ban on handing out visas to people from countries connected recently to violence or terrorism. They understand because they suffer from the same threats from the same people, and are with us in the same fight.”
What about Trump’s remarks on Islam? He hailed Islam for its message of “peace, clarity [he surely meant “charity”], and love.” If he meant this, then he needs, and quickly, a re-education on the subject of Islam. If he did not mean it, however, it becomes semi-acceptable, an example demonstrating that for Trump, too, “war is deceit.” Some will still find his remarks on Islam unforgivable. I’m inclined to think that Trump thought it was okay to practice his own form of taqiyya, offering a modicum of praise of the faith where none was due. He assumed that his supporters would understand that he was doing the minimum, as he saw it, to satisfy his diplomatic guests with this insincere pro forma praise. Yet others have pointed out that some non-Muslims may have been confused by his remarks, and may even have taken them at face value. Since absolutely everything we know about Trump’s views on Islam, before he became the Republican candidate, while he was running, and ever since he became President, flatly contradict his praise of Islam at this Iftar dinner, it is much more likely that he did not mean it.
He did not dilate on the wonders of Islam, but limited his praise to calling Islam one of the “world’s great religions” — an ambiguous remark whose meaning can be clarified by Trump if he starts to describe it, as he should, as one of the “world’s major religions.” That’s a comment on size, rather than on moral worth.
Reading over his whole speech, it’s got his usual rhodomontade — everything is “great…great month…great friends…great things. a lot of great things…great honor.” These are not the only words where the meaning has been hollowed out. Here are the first few paragraphs, which reach the usual heights of banality:
Please sit down. Thank you. Good evening, and thank you all for joining us — this iftar dinner — as we celebrate the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. It’s a great month. A lot of friends, a lot of great friends.
I want to thank Vice President Pence, Secretary Mnuchin, Secretary Ross, Secretary Chao, Secretary Azar, and Administrator Linda McMahon for being with us tonight. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. We had a very busy day, a very successful day in Washington, D.C. A lot of great things are happening. Tremendous economy — best we’ve ever had. And we have a wonderful administration; they’re doing a lot of great things. So that’s really terrific.
I also want to thank the members of the Muslim community at home and abroad for joining us. And a special thanks to Imam Agbere and all of the folks at the U.S. Army. Imam, where are you? Imam? Very nice. Thank you very much for being with us. It’s a great honor. Thank you. (Applause.)
At tonight’s dinner, we especially are pleased to welcome members of the diplomatic corps, representing our friends and partners across the globe. And a very warm welcome to all of the ambassadors here tonight representing Muslim-majority nations. We’re greatly honored by your presence, and thank you very much for being here. Some very good friends. To each of you and to the Muslims around the world: Ramadan Mubarak.
So far, so empty of meaning. We wait to see if it will lead into something significant. But that something significant never appears. There are a few more paragraphs about what good friends Trump has made among the ambassadors, about the great two days he spent in Saudi Arabia (without naming the country), about what great things are going to be accomplished.
The paragraph, containing the phrase that most offends, is this:
In gathering together this evening, we honor a sacred tradition of one of the world’s great religions. For the Islamic faithful, the Iftar dinner marks the end of the daily period of fasting and spiritual reflection that occurs throughout the holy month of Ramadan. Iftars mark the coming together of families and friends to celebrate a timeless message of peace, clarity[sic] and love. There is great love. It’s a moment to call upon our highest ideals, and to give thanks for the many blessings we enjoy. Thank you very much.
What if this one paragraph were rewritten? It might go, more acceptably, like this:
“In gathering together this evening, we mark the tradition of the Iftar dinner, which breaks the Ramadan fast in the faith of Islam, one of the world’s major religions. Muslims the world over spend this month in fasting, to commemorate the first revelation of the Qur’an to Muhammad. And the Iftar dinners by which they break their fast are a time for families and friends to come together and share. And while we may not be family, many here I certainly consider to now be friends, and I think it appropriate to share this Iftar dinner at the White House with all of you. Thank you very much.”
This reduces Islam from a “great” to a “major” religion, leaves out the offending phrase about a “timeless message of peace, clarity [sic for “charity”], and love,” yet still manages to maintain a positive tone and end on a note of human warmth.
Meanwhile, CAIR and Company, sputtering their rage, held a demonstration outside the White House while the Iftar Dinner was being held. There are about 3 million Muslims in America. For this anti-Trump’s-Iftar rally, CAIR managed to attract less than a few dozen. That cannot be described as a success.
Lookmann says
This party was mainly for diplomats of Muslim nations . CAIR and its traitorous ‘allies’ were uninvited/ left
out deliberately.
A ‘business’ dinner hosted by a businessman.
Cant see anything more than that.
Terry Gain says
Lookmann
Look man, check your eyesight. This was an unforced error. An unnecessary and unwise concession – based on lies – to a “religion” of conquest, which is the enemy of the free world, by a former businessman who is now supposed to be the leader of the free world. As he would say: Sad.
Andy says
Meanwhile across the pond in the UK
London Has Fallen | Nominate Tommy Robinson for “Pride of Britain Awards”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnA0qCeYz70
Pride of Britain nomination form 2018
http://www.prideofbritain.com/nominate
Andy says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RPoitFQQ8Y
Bob says
Nominated!
Bob says
Or should that be TOMMINATED?
Terry Gain says
Trump probably thinks he needs the help of the Saudis to deal with Iran, but the Saudis are more of a threat to America. It is the Saudis who fund the building of mosques in America. Although terrorism causes significant human suffering and some economic damage the real threat from Islam is the soft jihad with its creeping sharia. Trump’s speech aided the real threat.
I look forward to the day when an American President will have the wisdom and courage to host a dinner honouring those who have had the courage to leave Islam and those who fight the soft jihad. Geert Wilders and Robert Spencer can give the speeches and Tommy Robinson can be the honoured guest.
In the meantime, it looks like we will have to endure Trump’s 3D chess and the inane comments of his devotees. On a lighter note I am pleased to see that Trump has no plans to attend the annual Harvey Weinstein Dinner.
Terry Gain says
Jay Boo
The losers are those making excuses for Trump praising an evil ideology.
Lawrence says
Exactly. These delusional Trump supporters will cover for their conman no matter what he says. His dhimmi iftar dinner just proves to then what an anti-dhimmi he is. It’s 6D chess.
His betrayal of the Kurds, say what?
JawsV says
100% agree, Terry.
gravenimage says
Trump is still better than the alternative would have been.
He is pretty solidly against Jihad–a good thing. But–as I have noted–like so many, does not really understand much about Islam itself. Why not act to educate him?
JawsV says
I said I was done with Trump for hosting an Iftar dinner, Jay Boo. I’m neither a “fair-weather commenter” nor a Huff Post troll (I never read HP) nor a loser. I voted for Trump, capische?
You’re the loser. Trump betrayed us with the Islam-groveling Iftar dinner. Good riddens (sic) to you! Tired of your dumb tiff with mortimer, anyway.
rubiconcrest says
Instead of … ‘Muslims the world over spend this month in fasting,…’ We should say:
‘Muslims the world over spend this month eating at night instead of during the day’ …
Angry Aussie says
Yes. Iftar = gluttonous face-stuffing after dark. Often at the financial expense of taxpayers around the world.
What a disappointing move of appeasement by Trump.
JawsV says
You’re right, Aussie.
eduardo odraude says
Politicians can’t always be open — to get things done they have to play games at times in order to get support for their policies. Lincoln did this quite a bit, seeming to appease Northern racists, but in spite that — no, because of that, he managed to end slavery. Just as you are angry with Trump, the radical slavery abolitionists were angry with Lincoln because he seemed to them too slow, too compromising, too gradual. But we have to remember — as Lincoln brilliantly understood — that politics is a very different game from simply voicing your personal views from the sidelines. The world needs the radical abolitionists or in our case the vociferous counterjihadis like you, in part to help the better politicians to achieve what you seek, the containment of Islam. But the politicians cannot always spout off, indeed can often get much more accomplished if they are discreet. Our job is to peer behind that discretion and determine if the politician has our goals and is using his discretion, his indirection, to achieve those goals. So don’t be too hard on Trump yet. He has pushed the envelope for our cause farther than any other modern politician, by far. Let’s see if this Iftar dinner is anything more than a fig leaf that will help him accomplish the goal of containing Islam. I agree with Mr. Fitzgerald on this: Trump does not need re-education — he knows very well what Islam is. Good grief, he’s brought in a Center for Security Policy person into the administration!! I mean, what more can you really ask for? It’s rather churlish, after that, to complain about an Iftar dinner. But I also agree with Mr. Fitzgerald that the one paragraph could have and should have been amended as Mr. Fitzgerald suggested. I think that might have been sufficient to make things amicable but honest. In historical usage, remember, the word “great” often merely means large, not anything like wonderful or good. So that ambiguity was no doubt intentional on Trump’s part. As I say, politicians, including the greatest, Lincoln, have used ambiguity to create sufficient consensus to get what needs doing done. Thus Lincoln won the Civil War and ended slavery.
gravenimage says
Eduardo, Trump did not have to whitewash Islam. This is never a good thing.
eduardo odraude says
“This is never a good thing.”
I disagree. “Never” is too strong a word. Life for soldiers, and for politicians — including the ones on our side — is just not that simple. In politics, short term tactical retreats are sometimes strategically advisable to avoid the destruction of one’s cause and so that one can return later for victory. Remember Douglas Macarthur, say. Sometimes a tactical retreat is also advisable as a feint that draws the enemy into a trap. It sounds good to be an absolute purist and say politicians must always vocalize against Islam, but if you want to defeat Islam, you are wrong in insisting that politicians on our side should always engage in 24/7 truth-telling. It makes one feel good to insist on always in every case telling the truth about Islam, but that would often be a failing strategy for counterjihad politicians. We need to win, not feel good. What matters in politics is not literal truth at every single moment, but following a winning strategy. Unfortunately, war and politics are to some extent “deceit.” The question is, what is the politician using deceit for? To uphold the Constitution? Or for some ignoble or foolish purpose. Lincoln knew about strategic verbal ambiguity, and he destroyed slavery because he knew it. If he had told his views from the very beginning, he would have lost the Civil War, or never even become president. Politics is not protest or journalism. It’s a very different animal.
eduardo odraude says
addendum to gravenimage: 24/7 truth telling is more the job of people like Robert Spencer and you and me — politicians need to be a bit more strategic, it seems to me. They can’t always take the attitude of spouting and just letting the chips fall where they may. Sometimes they can, but by suggesting they always should do so, I think you err.
Lydia Church says
“Trump did not have to whitewash Islam. This is never a good thing.”
That is true. There is a place where it may be okay to whitewash something, but it is a case by case basis to analyze the situation and say if it is or not.
But in a case like this, it never is, and I will tell you why.
1. It is a denial not only of important truth, but of the Christian faith itself. To make a statement like what he said is to deny Jesus. Many don’t get it, and many more don’t care. It is still a breach of truth. But to validate any other (and of course false) religion is to deny Jesus. All other religions are false and at times evil. The only way of salvation has been opened by Jesus on the cross. Christianity is the only religion that is valid, and that there is anything good to say about. I don’t care how many ‘warm and fuzzy’ sayings some may have, they are deceptive because they can’t save you from hell. There may be some ‘okay’ sayings here and there, but as a whole, the religion is false and will not save your soul. Jesus said He is the ONLY WAY of salvation. Christians are far too cavalier nowadays in what they condone. To validate islam is to deny the faith and Jesus, period.
2. It is misleading the public about the danger of islam, putting others in jeopardy.
“And I [Paul] said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; rescuing you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.’ ”
Acts 26; 15-18
“And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” (Jesus!) Acts 4; 12
That is true up until now and until His return.
Vann Boseman says
Eduardo, you have not displayed a good understanding of Lincoln. Admittedly, Lincoln was a very intelligent and I would say immoral, ugly man. There is no indication that Lincoln engaged in the Civil War to end slavery. This is true if you look at Lincoln’s public communications, private communications, and his actions. The closest Lincoln got to an advocacy of emancipation before using it as a military weapon was to say that black people have the same rights as white people if they are in their native climes. Most of his colonization efforts to relocate black people involved moving them to more tropical climes than present in the US, though there is evidence he one time out of desperation suggested Texas. I admit that Lincoln is complex and his actions after the emancipation proclamation might suggest that he supported the idea that black people in the US should have equal rights to white people, at least in the South. But where did his heart lie? Here, consider his sense of humor. Lincoln was a very sad man, but could laugh loud at a good joke. Racist jokes were his favorite throughout his life. It is said that Lincoln’s laugh could be heard above all others.
eduardo odraude says
As to displaying a poor understanding of Lincoln, the shoe is clearly on your foot, not mine.
You say there is no indication Lincoln engaged in the Civil War to end slavery. But in fact he started the war based on the slavery issue. After all, he could have ended the burgeoning secession movement in the South if he had been willing to compromise on his policy of forbidding slavery to spread beyond the South. That was the issue that caused the rebellion. And what did Lincoln as president-elect do when it was suggested he compromise on that slavery issue in order to stop the secessions and prevent war? He told one of his negotiators to “hold fast, as with a chain of steel” to the refusal to permit slavery to spread beyond the South. Thus Lincoln went to war over slavery. And thus he allowed his beloved Union to break apart over the slavery issue.
How then can someone make the claim that Lincoln cared more about the Union than about slavery? In truth, what “Union” meant to Lincoln was not just any political union, but rather what he considered a true union, which to him meant a society based on free contract between free human beings. A true Union had to be a self-governing republic, and slavery did not fit in with Lincoln’s love of self-governance. Slavery, to Lincoln’s mind, threatened to corrupt republican ideals.
So Lincoln’s love of the Union was inseparably a hatred of slavery. Lincoln insisted on using constitutional means to end slavery, since to act outside the constitution, to act, in other words, as a tyrant, would be to risk the whole republican experiment in government and hazard turning everyone into subjects rather than self-governing human beings. The constitutional way was by imposing a Southern containment policy. The South knew that would doom slavery, and so they rebelled and went to war. The old debate about whether Lincoln cared more about slavery or the Union is misconceived. His concern about the one was inseparable from his concern about the other.
Well, I can see why you would not have a good understanding of Lincoln ; ) it’s easy to misunderstand Lincoln because he was a politician and did not always telegraph his intent clearly, and sometimes he spoke ambiguously in order to mislead his enemies and enlist them as allies. Then those like yourself who do not display a good understanding of Lincoln or sufficient acquaintance with the primary documents and the secondary literature are confused by that ambiguity and repeat some pop internet article you read, or you adhere to one or two pop debunking books that are intentionally deceptive because you have read a chapter and found it persuasive. I’m thinking for example of Lerone Bennett, DiLorenzo, and all those who retail their fictional “history.”
So you do not need to tell me what I will discover if I read Lincoln’s private communications and learn about his colonization efforts and study his racist jokes. I have studied all of that and more, and am familiar with a good deal of the secondary literature.
The best recent work on Lincoln’s colonization efforts is I think by Magness and Paige. That is one of my favorite books about Lincoln because of the incredible subtlety and balance with which it handles the interpretation of the colonization issue. Have you read it?
Not only that, but the two scholars in that book uncovered major colonization efforts by Lincoln that had not previously been known by scholars. That is amazing, that we are still coming upon major discoveries a century after the fact! As the authors point out, their discovery had to transform many of the existing theories about Lincoln.
To my knowledge, the absolute most dishonest writer about Lincoln is Lerone Bennett. I went carefully through his book, Forced into Glory, and found when I checked his references that he often deliberately distorted and misquoted things in order to make Lincoln look like a monster. I think little better can be said of Thomas DiLorenzo’s work. Have you read them? These are pop writers with a political agenda to which the truth is sacrificed if it gets in the way.
Have you read James Oakes? What about Michael Vorenberg? Allen Guelzo? What about John McKee Barr? What about George Fredrickson? David Donald? Richard Striner? Eric Foner? James McPherson? I’ve read them and many others. Have you had a chance to look at the online works and correspondence of Lincoln? Have you ever looked at microfiche of the different newspapers reporting the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and have you had a chance to compare the different things the different reporters heard Lincoln say?
I assume that because you have such a “good understanding” of Lincoln, you know all of this stuff like the back of your hand, right, and can discuss it with me? Or would you consider coming down from your pedestal as the arbiter of what is a “good understanding” of Lincoln?
Vann Boseman says
@Eduardo I did not approach your response with snark, but that is how you approached my post. I did nothing to deserve the attitude you adopted towards me. I said and still believe that you do not have a good understanding of Lincoln.
LIncoln supported slavery in the South before the Civil War to the point that he supported legislation making it as a permanent institution. Lincoln and the Republican party would have never got off the ground were it not for their coalition with the No Nothings and the Free Soilers. Lincoln, and these sorts did not want slavery expanding into the west because black people were the slaves and these sorts, absolutely including Lincoln as revealed in the Lincoln/Douglas debates, did not want what they perceived as inferior beings not deserving of natural rights spilling out into the west.
You made the statement “Slavery, to Lincoln’s mind, threatened to corrupt republican ideals.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Lincoln knowingly sacrificed the Jeffersonian republic that existed from 1801 to 1865 in some form in the US to force his form of unionism and nationalism. That republic respected the liberty and democratic aspects of the English tradition of the Rights of Englishmen and the Magna Carta, especially associated with trial by jury. That republic was pronounced with the Declaration of Independence. Read carefully, it is obvious that, though it was thought to be something that should not be pursued for a frivolous reason, it was left open that there was the right to secede for any reason, or no reason at all. There was the Kentucky Resolves. There was the historical push for secession in New England that began just 5 years after the ratification of the Constitution and continued until around 1830, including a time when New England did not send troops to defend the US during the War of 1812 when Washington D. C. went up in flames. James McPherson, after doing extensive research on the reasons that soldiers fought in the Civil War appreciates that Southern soldiers believed they were defending the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Sadly, McPherson lost a lot of credibility with me when he came out in support of tearing down Confederate statues. “For Cause and Comrades” remains important in spite of this.
I like DiLorenzo’s work. He made a major error in attributing secession to tariffs. He unfortunately cited a tariff argument proposed by a former Confederate officer after the war concerning this. DiLorenzo gets things right more often than not. Sure he is biased, just like anyone else who promotes an approach to Lincoln or the Civil War. His bias is towards liberty, unlike Eric Foner who is an avowed Marxist. Foner likes unions a lot. He even went so far as to write an article opposing the break up of the Soviet Union he likes unions so much. For me, I’ll tend to choose the guys that approach the Civil War that would tend to advocate liberty. DiLorenzo falls into that group, but more importantly Donald Livingston and Chris Calton do. While I understand that Karl Marx appreciated Lincoln, that does not mean that I would uncritically embrace a Marxist’s interpretation of the Civil War. Foner, to his credit largely paraphrases Archibald Dunning, but trashes Dunning as a racist.
Wellington says
Often times Trump has me wondering if he knows what he’s doing. I’m inclined to think so and that he’s a first-class snookerer. I might add that I don’t mind at all that a POTUS is a first-class snookerer as long as he’s snookering for the right things which it seems to me Trump is. Oh yes, he could be more informed on certain subjects but Presidents like Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter were informed on all kinds of matters and look how their presidencies turned out.
No other President is quite like him though coming closest to him I would contend is Andrew Jackson. If I am correct here then it is fitting that one of the few Presidential portraits Trump has in the Oval Office is that of Jackson. Jackson didn’t take any crap from anyone, not from Calhoun, not from Clay, hell, not even from a whole state, i.e., South Carolina over the Nullification issue. And Trump takes no crap from anyone, not from Rocket Man of North Korea, not from the Iranian regime (contra the previous President big time), nor from the NFL. What Jackson said I think applies to Trump too, to wit, “I was born for a storm and a calm does not suit me.”
I voted for the man in 2016. I’m glad I did. Proud of it too.
Lawrence says
Yeah and the more he sells you out, the more proud you will be.
Wellington says
Quite a hell of an argument you made there, Lawrence.
Hmmm. So far Trump has sold out America by nixing the Iran nuclear deal made by his predecessor, the worst deal ever made with a foreign power by an American President He has also sold out America by noting the many unfair trade practices of other countries. Sold America out again by moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the capital of the only truly free country in all of the Middle East and the only true ally of America in that dark corner of the world. Certainly sold Americans out by his tax cuts which has put some $1500 more into the coffers of the typical American family and which has also spurred business which is why in part there is record low unemployment, including in the black community. And think of all those executive orders by Obama Trump has done away with, you know the ones that put all kind of extra requirements on businesses; yep, another sell out. And just reflect for a moment how Trump has sold out America yet again by requiring other NATO members to finally pay up and quit their freeloading off America. Then there is the sell out of rounding up hundreds of MS-13 gang members rather than just looking the other way as his predecessor did. Man, lots and lots of sell outs.
See how it’s done, Lawrence.
Lookmann says
The Professor always has his facts right.
commonsense says
Amen, Wellington. But I’m still dismayed that he held the dinner, and I will communicate this – politely – to the White House.
Wellington says
commonsense: Thanks for your reply. Yes, on the specific matter of holding this Iftar dinner it was a mistake on Trump’s part almost certainly. I say “almost certainly” because Trump, I believe, is far subtler than even many of his supporters often realize and so I have to wonder if there was a hidden design to this “mistake.” I sure hope so, and if not then it was a pure mistake on Trump’s part, no question about it.
On a much more expansive scale, it is interesting to register that true iniquities like Nazism, Marxism and Islam receive varied treatment when, ideally, they should not. Nazism of these three is the easiest to see the malevolence in. Marxism superficially (and superficiality is something, ironically, that many intellectuals are quite capable of because they often have a dearth of common sense {how appropriate I am addressing this to you considering your nom de plume here at JW} and moral intelligence) looks sapient but it is actually pernicious nonsense, a prescription for genocide and decay of all kinds as well as a recipe for the extinction of liberty. But Islam is arguably the “finest” iniquity of them all because it hides behind its religious veil quite well and thus it has the “honor” of being accorded the most invidious ideology of all time and the longest-lived.
There is nothing quite like Islam in the history of man. It is invidious to its core but it “covers” this superbly. Many are fooled, including a hell of a lot who are ordinarily not fools. Certainly the current Pope is (N.B., the previous Pope was not), ditto for woeful leaders like Macron, May and Trudeau. Let’s hope Trump has not been. I do indeed hope he has “something up his sleeve” with this Iftar dinner at the White House nonsense. But hopin’ ain’t gettin’. Thus, I want more information before I make a final decision about this stupid Iftar dinner in the very residence which embodies in architectural form a polity that has placed freedom above all, something Islam is totally incapable of doing.
Sorry for this long communication, commonsense, but this is really important “stuff” and I felt in an “expansvie” mood about it. God, I hate Islam but I have to give it this: It hides its many negatives better than any malevolent belief system ever has. Here it is “superb.”
eduardo odraude says
Wellington, above in my 5:51 comment I make an argument that meshes well with yours. Trump, like other politicians, in order to get things done must be something of a snookerer, as you put it, and what matters is to determine if his snookering accords with our goals, the containment of Islam. I think so. One thing you did not mention in your helpful and detailed list of accomplishments that absolutely did not sell us out. Trump brought into his administration someone from the Center for Security Policy, Frank Gaffney’s organization. I mean, what more can you ask for? That guy is one of ours! That is almost as surprising as the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989!
gravenimage says
Agreed, Wellington. Despite gaffs like this disgusting Iftar dinner (and even here he did not invite major supporters of Jihad like CAIR) he has a *far* better record than any recent president on Islam–especially that of his vile predecessor.
Segzy says
I’m so happy, Wellington, that you got it, the whole charade by Trump, at the iftar. I, admittedly, was looking for your comment on the issue, since yesterday, on a similar topic of JW.
I am however not happy that many, here, don’t have a clue what was going on with Trump, nor do they care to show a sense of concern, for the delicate position of the Potus, being the leader of the free world.
Either you like it or not, Liberty exist even for it’s enemies to be free.
In the Bible, it’s written, ‘… Where the Spirit of God is, there’s liberty…’, I have come to know, clearly, that this liberty, provuded/supported/encouraged by the spirit of God doesn’t exclude God’s enemies.
This simply shows that, wherever freedom/liberty is not allowed a chance are places devoid of the Spirit of God, or places where the Spirit of God will not, cannot, be allowed to operate.
Islam is evil to the core, even so, Trump understands that he has to manage the delicate situation for the time being.
I wonder why I’ve not seen people criticising Trump, here, on cable TV as someone who is shouting at the top of their voices against the Muslims in America.
Thanks for your beautiful comment
Ren says
A ‘’ban on Muslims” is about the security of American people. If CAIR does not want to attend Trump iftar dinner then who cares!
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
This is a thought-provoking essay. The theory of “Trump the Taqiyyist” is one that had never occurred to me. Nor did it occur to me that his praise of the Islamic message of “clarity” might just have been a misspelling of “charity” on the presidential teleprompter. (Heads will roll when the caliph discovers this.)
“the O.I.C. (Organization of the Islamic Cooperation)”: No, the name of this organization is the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_Islamic_Cooperation
(without “the” on “cooperation”), although it used to be called “the Organisation of the Islamic Conference”.
The word “the” is sometimes important. Robert Spencer normally refers to “the” freedom of speech, where I have been in the habit of saying just “freedom of speech”. But in an essay in the recent book “Scalia Speaks” by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the author points out that in the First Amendment wording “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …”, the word “the” is important, because it refers to a pre-existing right of Englishmen, a right which did not include libel or pornography.
And as long as we’re being pedantic, in “Why should the White House have invited those whom it already knew would then reject the invitation …?”, the relative pronoun should be “who”, not “whom”, because it is the grammatical subject of the verb “reject”. Right?
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
To continue or little pedantry festival, “rhodomontade” sent me to the dictionary, where I learned that this is a misspelling of “rodomontade”, which means “arrogant boasting or blustering, ranting talk” — like calling everything “great” or “yuuuge”. But the etymology of this word is even more interesting: it comes from the name Rodomonte of a boastful Saracen leader in Ludovico Ariosto’s epic poem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Furioso
Terry Gain says
Mark Spahn
Thanks for clarifying why ( perhaps) Rober Spencer always says “the freedom of speech”. I have always found it clumsy and annoying but didn’t want to say anything as I have such profound respect for Mr. Spencer and his work.
Your name of course reminds me of the great Warren Spahn. So tell me, do you like the baseball or do you prefer the football or perhaps even the soccer or the hockey?
eduardo odraude says
That a politician would lie — for good reasons or bad — is one of the very first lessons of politics. Politicians are not professors with tenure who can voice their own personal views. Politicians above all have to get things done, and that requires ambiguity and sometimes lying in order to build sufficient consensus to get laws passed and so on. So the question becomes not — is a politician honest — but rather — does the politician use ambiguity for good causes, or bad? Does he support the constitution and the law?
Carol the 1st says
Trump’s the man who once said “I won’t let you down” and I’m sure he’ll keep his priorities straight.
He didn’t go overboard in flattering these guests and he didn’t add the “Abrahamic” red flag. Sure, we’d love to see Islam disappear but as POTUS he must instead deal in realities as best he can.
unerbed cat says
You need nerves of steel to be a Pres. Trump supporter…..however I did notice the
the small picture of the Iftar dinner did not show woman at the table covered. I sense I may have over reacted..still a nervous supporter, but of the conviction that information about the doctrine is essential and a very important tool to prevent future mistakes in policy and the threat of a smiling political take down by the MB of our Constitution otherwise known as the title of Spencer’s book, Stealth Jihad. It is a very clever and patient predator, subverting America instilling terror sporadically and building a voting base that knows how to deceive with language in my opinion. Interesting that the majors players were not present…that changes the picture some.
Lawrence says
Spencer gets this all wrong. Trump has no principles, no real coherent thought processes like 98% of humanity. He doesn’t demonstrate any knowledge of Islam, and doesn’t care to know. That is what is going on.
Wellington says
Of course, Lawrence, we all know you belong with that other 2%. Who could doubt it?
As for not demonstrating any knowledge of Islam, you do know, don’t you, that Trump in March of 2016 said, and I quote, “I think Islam hates us.” And unlike his predecessor he has not treated ISIS as “JV players.” Nixed the Iranian deal too. Oh yeah, he’s groveling all over the place, unlike the previous President who NEVER apologized to the Islamic world for anything America did.
Terry Gain says
Wellington
In 2015 Trump correctly referred to Muslim immigration as a Trojan horse. It makes one wonder whether he is regressing. I think it is important not to make excuses for unforced errors. Praising Islam is an unforced error. Yes, as Jay Boo says Trump is all we’ve got. IMHO that makes it all the more important not to give him a pass.
Wellington says
First of all, Terry Gain, unlike Lawrence you are capable of making cogent arguments and I appreciate that. I look forward to your posts here because of this.
As for Trump, I think he is a step, and remains a step, in the right direction but many more steps need to be taken. He is highly intelligent I believe but intellectually lazy. Whatever, he is a vast improvement upon his immediate predecessor; I don’t see how this can be denied. Yes, I do wish he knew more about Islam (I’m guessing his instincts however tell him it’s bad news) but there’s another factor and that is that as President one can’t say what one can as a candidate for the Presidency or especially while still just a private citizen.
Now, you could be right about regression but I’m leaning to the idea that currently Trump is biding his time for a number of reasons, among them being his not wanting the silly members of the judiciary who REALLY don’t know anything about Islam overruling him again on the bogus basis that he is “anti’Muslim” and because as of present he needs to play Saudi Arabia against Iran. I mean even the Israelis don’t publicly denigrate Islam even though they would be completely justified in doing so and do work with certain Islamic countries on the sly (e.g., Jordan and, amazingly over the last few years, even Saudi Arabia).
Look at it this way: Suppose you were POTUS knowing what you know about Islam (which is a good amount). What would you say publicly? What would you do? Nonetheless, and as I have stated before here at JW, I look forward to the day when a President gives a new Evil Empire speech. Perhaps at least he could say what Newt Gingrich has said publicly (but in retirement I might note) and that is there are troubling doctrines in Islam that are incompatible with such great things as freedom of speech, freedom of religion and equality under the law. Someday I hope this occurs. Better because Islam, all of it, eventually needs to be put on the defensive by the non-Islamic world, especially the West. Eastern Europe is pointing the way here and I look forward to the day when a POTUS really does say something along the lines of what Orban of Hungary and Syzdlo of Poland have.
eduardo odraude says
It’s just ridiculous to think that a politician can be at all times honest and unambiguous and still get anything done. It shows a failure to understand politics. As a politician you have to be able to gather substantial numbers of people and groups behind your causes, but many of those people and groups will not always support your causes if you are too direct about details. Therefore politicians, sometimes for bad causes, sometimes for good ones, use strategic ambiguity. To expect Trump to do anything else is, to my mind, a demonstration that one has not thought about how politics works and can only work. If Lincoln had not engaged in strategic ambiguity about slavery, he would have lost the Civil War which would have created a slave state in the South. Admittedly, attacking Trump over Iftar dinner may be worthwhile nevertheless, because it counters the voices attacking him from the Left and makes it a little easier for him to resist the Left. Thus the radical slavery abolitionists, even as they sometimes reviled Lincoln, helped Lincoln move the whole population toward the end of slavery. The abolitionists shifted the balance of forces with which Lincoln had to work. But even if the attacks on Trump because of this Iftar dinner have some benefit for the counterjihad, it is an illusion to think that this dinner, in and of itself, makes Trump a traitor to the cause of Islam containment. No, in politics you have to look at the overall arc of a politician’s actions and words. And so far, this president is our man. Let’s keep watching him. I don’t think he’s sold out or that he doesn’t know what Islam is, a sick, expansionist, totalitarian system that corrodes the most basic human rights wherever it spreads.
JawsV says
“He [Trump] doesn’t demonstrate any knowledge of Islam and doesn’t care to know. That is what is going on.”
Yes. Agree. Like Geo W Bush.
eduardo odraude says
Nothing like GW. If Trump knows nothing, why did he bring in someone from Frank Gaffney’s organization? Do you know Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy? If you don’t, then you evidently know less than Trump.
JawsV says
Oh, you’re insulting me, eduardo? I know plenty about Islam. I’ve been reading this site for over 10 years. I’ve read RS’s books. I’ve read other books about Islam by Paul Fregosi, Nonie Darwish, Brigitte Gabriel, Hirsi Ali, Oriana Fallaci plus more. So, take your insult and shove it. Perhaps you should begin with Islam 101. About your speed.
eduardo odraude says
You can get as offended as you want JawsV, but I notice you did not answer my question about whether you know anything about the Center for Security Policy or Frank Gaffney. If you judge Trump without knowing what he’s done in bringing in someone from that organization, then your judgement is unseasoned, to say the least.
JawsV says
Well yeah, you insulted me and my knowledge of Islam. Which is far greater than Trump will ever have. After your insult and insulting tone I don’t feel like answering your question. My judgment is plentifully seasoned. Take your questions and shove it.
I suggest you acquire some seasoning with Islam 101, your speed. To say the least.
Jeanne says
“Let’s be clear, The Muslim Brotherhood is the mothership for Islamic terrorism founded in 1928 and has seventy (70) off-shoot Islamic organizations operating around the world. Osama Bin Laden was a member of The Muslim Brotherhood, as well as, Mohammed Atta, the ring leader of the 911 hijackers. Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of Al Qaeda, and also al Baghdadi, the head Isis, So far, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain , and Saudi Arabia have all designated The Brotherhood as a terrorist group and warns that the Brotherhood has a lobby in the United States disguised as civic society organization such as CAIR. In spite of this, our government still has not classified the Muslim Brotherhood as a Terrorist Organization Why? Obama worked closely with their agents and considered them friends. He even had them giving sensitivity training to our first responders and FBI agents on how to talk to the Muslim community.
The Muslim Brotherhood wrote a plan in 1982, a one hundred year plan (100) for radical Islam to infiltrate and dominate the West, and establish an Islamic Government on earth. Here is the plan for North America titled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”
This Plan was admitted as evidence by our government in the largest terrorism trial in the history of the United States where our government handed down one-hundred eight (108) Guilty Verdicts. to Muslim Americans and Muslim American Organizations supporting and financing our enemies. I will just read you a paragraph of this plan titled;
4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America: The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and ALLAH’S religion is made victorious over all other religions.
But the most important page of this Plan is the last page because it lists 29 Front Islamic organizations set up in America to destroy America from within.
#1. ISNA = Islamic Society of North America were advisors to President Obama about Middle East policies.
#2. MSA = Muslim Student Association has more chapters on American universities than Republicans and Democrats combined.
#8. NAIT = The North American Islamic Trust owns the deed to over 90% of American Mosques.
#22. IAP = Islamic Association For Palestine later became CAIR Council on American Islamic Relations
So why haven’t you heard about this before? Because Obama and Holder put the kibosh on anything related to the trial. The Muslim Brotherhood just signed a five million dollar (5 million) contract with US PR firms to influence US media members of congress and public opinion. Two bills have now been introduced in congress designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Terrorist Entity; HR377 in the house and S68 in the Senate. We must protect our country.” Brigette Gabriel, actforamerica.org.
PRCS says
And speaking of CAIR’s targets: their U.S. Islamophobia Network list.
If you’re not on it, you’re not working hard enough to be on it.
http://www.islamophobia.org/islamophobia-network/individuals.html
Jeanne says
Islamaphobia. A nonsense word created by Muslims to suppress a healthy and logical criticism of their abhorrent ideology.
Jeanne says
Islamophobia = a nonsense word created by Muslims to suppress a healthy and logical criticism of their abhorrent ideology.
Reject agenda-laden terms like “Islamophobia”. It is a word that, quite frankly, needs removing from our vocabularies.
JawsV says
Altar. What altar?
gravenimage says
Jaws, “Waiting at the altar” refers literally to a bride or groom who is all dressed up for their wedding and then their mate does not show up and they are jilted.
More generally, it refers to anyone who is anticipating something big and it does not happen, adn they are frustrated and embarassed. This is the meaning here as Jay Boo used it.
JawsV says
Whoever thought the American president (no matter who) would be hosting dinners for Muslims after 9/11? It’s unconscionable.
R Russell says
I read somewhere that Melania Trump had the White House cleansed by a priest after they moved in – apparently it was full of occult artefacts and their accompanying presence.
I suppose it will have to be done all over again.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Every JW reader should go find an interview of Trump previous to his media career. It will open your eyes about the man. In those interviews, he is soft spoken, eloquent and thoughtful. Nowhere do you see the braggart boor that he is accused of being. Very clearly he is one very smart and cunning cookie.
After seeing some of those interviews, it was clear to me that this was the right man to deal with the double-dealing globalist elite and their media cronies. You can call it taquiya if you want but what I do is keep an eye on what he accomplishes and not on what he says.
Carol the 1st says
Amusing to think of CAIR left howling at the curb.
shoehorn says
I hope Hugh is right about Trump but wrong about him meaning ‘charity’. If he meant to call Islam a Religion of Clarity, that word stands out amongst the banal hippy words. Deliberate misake?
eduardo odraude says
I wonder. Probably not deliberate, because Trump speaks a bit carelessly at times (the unprocessed un-PC politician we prefer) and sometimes makes that kind of mistake. On the other hand, one can think of various reasons he might have made the “mistake” intentionally.
Carl Goldberg, PhD says
Very well-reasoned article! There is surely more to Trump’s unenthusiastic words than meets the eye. Trump has essentially divided the Muslim world with sunnis against the Islamic Republic of Iran, but also several of the Sunni countries against the Muslim Brotherhood and the American islamist organizations like CAIR. And then there is the body blow to the entire Moslem world which Trump delivered when he recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Because of these realpolitik considerations, he cannot come out forcefully against Islam itself at this time like he did during the campaign. Trump’s appointments of Bolton, Fleitz and Pompeo, are far, far better than anything we have ever had before. His perfunctory, unenthusiastic words about Islam being one of the great religions is like sacrificing a pawn in order to gain the opponent’s piece in chess. We have not seen the end of this yet.
Wellington says
Very insightful post. My compliments.
eduardo odraude says
Exactly what I have been trying to say, Carl.
gravenimage says
Iftar 2018: Get Me Rewrite
…………………
The only thing “great” about the month of Ramadan is that it is a great month for violent Jihad…
Vann Boseman says
This was a bad decision by Trump to hold an Iftar dinner. Trump as president can and should promote diplomatic dialogue. There is nothing inherently wrong with Trump having a diplomatic dinner with Muslims, or holding a diplomatic dinner with Muslims during Ramadan. It is wrong, even if it has developed into something that modern presidents often do, to hold a dinner recognizing an alien culture to that of this country. It may be and probably is true that those in attendance understood that because there was no Iftar dinner last year, that Trump was not bowing to Islam. But I am an American and I count too, even if as only one voter, not very much. To me, as an American, it was wrong and offensive.
Nancy Sullivan says
Personally, I would have preferred that he didn’t acknowledge this “dinner” at all… but THAT is another conversation! ?♀️???
UNCLE VLADDI says
So, Trump went all “If-Tard” on us, did he?!
As usual, Dajjal took on this nonsense, and reamed him out for it, in excruciating detail, here:
http://islamexposed.blogspot.com/2018/06/trumps-iftar-idiocy.html
Njoi!
😉
wtd says
Back in 2010, the following was posted on another thread….
As for that 200 year old invite from Jefferson – there wasn’t much accomodation made at all . . .
Dealings with Mellimelli, Colorful Envoy from Tunis
May as well remember this muhammedan cretin as “smelli-smelli” since
due to his
olfactory masque easing fulfillment of his
As for the sunset dinner with Jefferson . . .that year’s iftar fell in December.
Northeast ‘Dec. 7th Earliest Sunset Of The Year’
This would put the time of sunset, on December 9th, 1805 at 4:46pm, a total of one hour sixteen minutes later than usual. Hardly a remarkable alteration considering the lack of technology for travel, preparation and presentation of a state sponsored dinner.
Regardless, Jefferson eventually came to his senses and took care of business with America’s First War on Terror @ The Halls of Tripoli.
OOOOOORAH!