From Our America Initiative:
Friends,
Databases of Muslims. Locking the door to refugees. Rolling back modest NSA surveillance reforms.
In the wake of the Paris attacks by ISIS, we’re hearing it all from the politicians.
Absolutely, ISIS and its murderous ways are a threat and must be stopped. Beyond the senseless violence of their methods, the Sharia political ideology and their determination to impose it on all of us are antithetical to liberty and the freedoms, including freedom of religion, upon which America is founded.
You can read my thoughts here: ISIS is Today’s Nazi Fascism, and my interview with Reason about ISIS, refugees and freedom here: Gary Johnson talks ISIS, refugees…
Yes, if they can, ISIS will attack us here in the United States. That is clear. And yes, while government does far too much and interferes far too much in our lives, it’s most fundamental responsibility is to protect us from those who would do us harm…and destroy our liberties. They are attacking us, and we must defend ourselves, our families and our way of life.
But engaging in hysteria and reverting to Un-American notions of “tracking” innocent people because of the way they look or pray, throwing out 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches, and closing our borders are not helpful, and will not make us “safe” — as predictable as they may be in today’s sound-bite politics.
There are times in history where voices of common sense, reason and calm are of paramount importance. This is one of those times, and the Our America Initiative has as its very purpose providing that kind of voice to Americans who understand liberty and government’s proper role in protecting it.
That’s why I am so grateful for your support of our work — and why I urge you to stand with us in these chaotic times. Go to Our America today to learn how you can help.
Thank you, and have a great Thanksgiving holiday as we all pause to appreciate family, friends, and yes, freedom.
Gov. Gary Johnson
Honorary Chairman
If anyone wants to continue to discuss IPR rules, please take it to one of the posts about that subject such as https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/04/the-trouble-with-trolls/ or https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/05/trolling/ of https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/02/debate-on-debate-parameters-plus-should-paulie-stay/
The subject has been debated to death. Honestly, I am sick of it. There’s no major change that has been made here, just a few very minor tweaks to spam filters that so far have been pretty effective at keeping out a very tiny handful (possibly even just one) person who is malicious, has a long history of escalating bad behavior, and has in the past escalated it offline as well. After we readjusted them back down (because we at one point accidentally set them to include more than we realized) I have noticed virtually zero legit comments getting caught in the spam filter other than people’s first comment on the site and the multiple links thing.
The multiple link thing is a spam issue, and can be adjusted up and down. My ability to do that myself has now been restored.
Now, if anyone wants to pursue the metadiscussion tangent please take it to one of those other threads and let this one get back on topic.
If comments are going to be held for moderation on the basis of their content (as opposed to, say, the multiple link thing, which is bad enough), that’s even worse than mandatory registration.
Nothing (and yes, I mean nothing, including “trolls”) kills a political forum faster than censorship.
The links per comment setting has actually been relaxed, from two or more triggering moderation to five or more. On the other hand we did indeed add some other things to the filter to help keep the trolling more limited. As Jed said we are pretty good about catching comments that get held up, usually pretty quickly, so please bear with us.
Also we have some stricter spam filtering now thanks to the trolls, so if your comment gets held up, please everyone just chill. We’ll get to it.
“Already approved. Multiple links in a comment hold it up for moderation. So do first time postings per commenter, which is why Phil Gerber’s first comment was held up for moderation as well. If he comes back to reply again that should not be an issue, as long as the name and email address in the comment form match a previously approved comment at IPR. However, multiple links in a comment will also automatically hold it up for moderation. It’s a spam filter setting that a lot of sites use.”
Understood.
And I’m still in agreement with Gary here; as much as I am anti-Sharia and personally don’t like many aspects of the Muslim religion- what Trump’s approach and what he proposes is not only unconstitutional, but outright Fascist!
Regardless of how we feel about Islam or any other religion, we still must respect the constitutional rights of people and groups in this country, and even when such individuals or whole groups infringe upon the rights and liberties of others, they are still entitled to the due process of the law and their own conscious and personal beliefs should not be punished or outlawed.
In the LDS church’s scriptures on the role of religion & government, D&C Section 134 verse 4 best sums it up and is quite in conformity with part of what is being talked about here-
“We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.”
Already approved. Multiple links in a comment hold it up for moderation. So do first time postings per commenter, which is why Phil Gerber’s first comment was held up for moderation as well. If he comes back to reply again that should not be an issue, as long as the name and email address in the comment form match a previously approved comment at IPR. However, multiple links in a comment will also automatically hold it up for moderation. It’s a spam filter setting that a lot of sites use.
Well I just addressed and ripped apart Phil’s comment point-by-point, yet my response is awaiting moderation, currently.
“If they can.”
That doesn’t say they will be able to, only that they have expressed a desire to attack the US and have shown the capacity to carry out similar attacks elsewhere.
I don’t agree with Gov. Johnson’s statements about Sharia, but he says a lot of things that are very true in this article as well, which are many of the same points Steve Kerbel and Darryl Perry make in their articles also. I know there are some people who comment here who will ignore 9 good things he says to highlight one bad thing, but I will point out both. Phil Gerber addresses the Sharia issue well here:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/11/gary-johnson-talks-isis-refugees-black-lives-matter-and-marijuana-legalization/#comment-1270289
But that doesn’t mean that there are no Jihadi terrorists who would attack the US if they get a chance. There absolutely are. Whether they will do it or do it again on any large scale will yet be seen. Part of it will depend on what the US regime does in the middle east going forward, but it has already done plenty which causes blowback and hatred on the part of some.
Gary says:”Yes, if they can, ISIS will attack us here in the United States. That is clear.”
How is this clear? I don’t think it will happen. Its likelhood of happening will be even less if we BRING OUR TROOPS HOME so they can be here to defend us from threats.
Other than the Sharia usage (again, perhaps Violent Jihadism or something), this is about the right tone and substance for a potential L prez candidate in 2016.
A-/B+
commenting to subscribe
Johnson is as ignorant abt “Sharia” as are most non-Muslims that I interact with.
Firstly, Johnson talks abt “Sharia” as if it is a unitary body of thought. There are at least four main schools of interpretations and legal decisions. And each of those schools have several subschools.
I’d suggest a sure sign of someone who has good ideas on dealing with Daesh probably has a deeper and clearer understanding of all the Abrahamic religions and, their various forms of religious law.
Republican nonsense attacking other Republicans.
The notion that Islamic law is fundamentally a political ideology is a might odd.
Readers may, for example, find of interest a description of sharia-compliant mortgages http://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/jun/29/mortgages.islam
which do not involve interest.
I am happy to criticize aspects of Sharia law on theological grounds, but Johnson’s impression of it as a political ideology is a bit warped.