Showing posts with label Martin Amis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Martin Amis. Show all posts

Sunday, July 19, 2015

SF MURDER: REMIND ME WHY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS SHOULD NOT BE DEPORTED - JULY 9, 2015

Today it’s Donald Trump, but some 10 years go England’s leading novelist Martin Amis faced the same howls of disapproval.

Trump’s complaint is Mexico. They are sending us their worst, he says, illegally and even legally. He was halfway to the truth.

Too bad the GOP White House contender kept running at the mouth.

In his books and in his journalism Martin Amis fanned emotions when he wrote that Muslims were arriving in London wild and unchecked.

Leftists were outraged. They accused him of Islamophobia. But what about context? Something must have happened to inflame Mr. Amis.

On July 7, 2005 Islamic terrorists targeted London’s underground train system. Fifty-two civilians were killed, 700 injured. That’s when Martin Amis spoke up. He spoke up again in 2006 when British police foiled another Muslim terrorist attempt at mass murder, this time against a trans-Atlantic airliner.

Ellis Island, the entry point for so many of our ancestors, allowed them in only after they were examined and found to be clear of communicable diseases.
 “What can we do to raise the price of them doing this?” Amis rhetorically asked The Times of London.

He continued: “The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order.”

So he recommended “not letting them travel…strip searching…deportation.”

Until, he said, “They get tough with their children.”

Martin Amis paid the price for speaking his mind. His later published books were panned from London to New York regardless of their literary merits.


He shared the same treatment this writer got for “The Bathsheba Deadline” where tough-talking Editor Jay Garfield announces, “The Koran has arrived and it has come to devour the Bible.” Ouch and Oh brother! Lesson learned that the truth will not set you free. The PC Police are everywhere.

They’ll come after you for that as they came after Martin Amis for Islam, and Donald Trump for Mexico.

A friend who supports unsecured borders loudly proclaimed that our borders ought to be completely open to anyone from anywhere, no background checks required, but turned silent when I asked her if she’d be okay with it if they, these people from anywhere, moved into her pretty tree-lined neighborhood.

Trump was onto something all right. He’s got the nation talking.

He simply did not know when to shut up. For in fact (legal) Mexican-Americans have been triumphant for America.

Beyond their ratio, they serve honorably as soldiers, Marines and law enforcement officers. They are good citizens. Or as good and bad as all the rest.

So Trump is wrong.

But he is absolutely correct about the thousands, even the millions who arrive here undocumented, unannounced and uninvited. We do not know what crimes they bring with them, nor do we know what diseases they carry. Ellis Island, the entry point for so many of our ancestors, allowed them in only after they were examined and found to be clear of communicable diseases. 

Do we still care about this? Apparently not if you listen to the advocates for come-in, come-all.
They should not be here, if the word illegal means anything, but they keep on coming.
What’s worse is it that more than 200 American districts provide sanctuary havens even for those who come here with rap sheets.

Right now that’s the hot topic throughout the nation because through misguided compassion an illegally arrived felon from Mexico, five times deported but released from an American prison, got his hands on a gun and murdered Kate Steinle in San Francisco, a city that gladly invites all comers. 

A Jewish adage appropriately states: “He who becomes compassionate to the cruel will ultimately become cruel to the compassionate.”

That defines sanctuary cities in a nutshell.

That’s how every one of us is in jeopardy from thousands of these people being dumped onto our streets and neighborhoods. Trump is right about this.

Martin Amis is right about Islam unchecked. His beef is London. It’s no different in New York and along the rest of the United States.

The FBI tells us that Muslims gone rogue exist in every state.

We don’t need the FBI to tell us that coast-to-coast entire communities have been turned into Muslim-only no-go zones.

Monitoring them seems to be the solution of the moment. Stopping them from coming in – how about giving that a try?

Many of these people are good citizens. Many are not. Many are here legally. Many are not.

Democrats and Republican leaders all agree that we have a problem. They also agree that even those who overstay their visas must NOT be deported.

Why not? If they pose a threat to our safety and security, who comes first, them or us?

The Tsarnaev brothers overstayed their welcome and we know what they did in Boston.

Our politicians say we can’t place millions of them into box cars and ship them back home. I agree.
But for those who don’t belong here, I recommend instead that they be granted first-class one-way airline tickets back home.

Sounds harsh? Many of those who survived the London blasts are without arms.

A number of those who survived the Boston Marathon bombings are without legs.

That’s harsh.

Jack Engelhard writes a regular column for Arutz Sheva. New from the New York-based novelist, The Bathsheba Deadline, a newsroom thriller ripped from the headlines. Engelhard wrote the int’l bestseller IndecentProposal that was translated into more than 22 languages and turned into a Paramount motion picture starring Robert Redford and Demi Moore. Website: www.jackengelhard.com

Sunday, February 1, 2015

They Came For Freedom

The forces of suppression are at it again. They keep coming. The fight for free speech is a fight without end.

Opponents to liberty never rest. They will always be with us, those who seek to muzzle our thoughts and opinions.

They favor complete freedom of expression, they say, unless it offends. 

This means that they do not favor free speech. They are simply embarrassed to say so. They stutter, they sputter. They equivocate.

Yes, they say, we love the First Amendment and we respect and support these liberties, BUT!
Their tongues get all twisted up as they make the case for one, but then the other.

Their warped arguments put them on the side of censorship and tyranny.

Their dithering connects them not to Jefferson ("Our liberty cannot be guarded except by the freedom of the press”) but to Stalin. Boris Pasternak’s “Dr. Zhivago” was banned in Russia. Other bold voices in the Soviet Union were forced to whisper through the under-the-table clandestine format Samizdat. Is this coming?

Book banning is book burning and any wishy-washy defense of freedom of expression is still an Inquisition.  

The Quislings spoke up. Better to hush up, they said. Cherish your liberties but fear the mobs. The mobs are given carte blanche to be violently sensitive.
The right to be offended extends not to all. Christians did not take to the streets when Jesus was mocked. Jews did not riot when the Hollywood movie “Meet the Fockers” depicted a dog named Moses. Jews did not stampede when in the same movie this dog named Moses was flushed down a toilet.

An offensive anti-Jewish display in Israel provoked only a request – not a demand – to take it down. Yes, both sides have the right to express an opinion.

This is not complicated. We have the right to speak our minds or we don’t. Britain’s leading novelist Martin Amis is still being asked to apologize for heated remarks he made after an Islamist attack on the London Underground took the lives of 52 civilians and left 700 wounded in 2005. Amis reportedly favored deportation, adding: “The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order.”  

Why apologize (as reportedly he has done). In a moment of anguish, has he no right to spill his guts and have we no rights to express our pain at the injustice of it all?

Soon after part of the world gathered in Paris to insist on unalienable rights, another part of the world answered with doubts and objections.

The Quislings spoke up. Better to hush up, they said. Cherish your liberties but fear the mobs. The mobs are given carte blanche to be violently sensitive.

We thought we won the war after a series of landmark rulings. D.H. Lawrence was tested. James Joyce was tested. Henry Miller was tested.

After grueling court trials, their books were finally free to be published and read. But then it starts all over again. Here they come to shut us up.

I can testify to this personally about a book that American publishers tried (but finally failed) to hush up because it was “too strong” and “too far ahead of its time” and might offend. (Even the bestselling novel “Indecent Proposal” had to jump through hoops for being “too pro-Israel.” Hollywood washed all that out.)

Salman Rushdie faced censorship of a similar kind.Rushdie faced the censorship of Jihad, the same Jihad against free speech we face this terrible moment amid times that demand our surrender. 

We have two ways to go. One road leads down the darkened path of tyranny. The other road glitters from King David’s Lamp for our Paths.



Jack Engelhard writes a regular column for Arutz Sheva. The new thriller from the New York-based novelist, The Bathsheba Deadline, a heroic editor’s singlehanded war on terror and against media bias. Engelhard wrote the int’l bestseller Indecent Proposal that was translated into more than 22 languages and turned into a Paramount motion picture starring Robert Redford and Demi Moore. Website: www.jackengelhard.com