“This is Paul. Won’t you help him? Paul, like millions of other victims across the land, suffers from Constitution Ignorance Syndrome. This dread malady causes its victims to advocate fascist policies and to sound like idiots in their public statements. But there is hope for Paul, and those like him. Please give, and give generously, To Educate Paul a non-profit charity. Your gift is tax-deductible, and you will have made the United States a little less stupid with every penny you contribute to this vital cause.”
This was the guy that Donald Trump was supposedly going to endorse as retribution for Speaker Ryan’s negative comments? It’s comforting, isn’t it, that Trump isn’t that irrational? Ann Coulter is, but Trump isn’t. (At least in this case.)
Paul Nehlen is the arch conservative and certifiable ignoramus who is challenging House Speaker Paul Ryan in Wisconsin’s First Congressional District’s Republican primary. Interviewed last week on “Chicago’s Morning Answer,” Nehlen said that he wonders why we have any Muslims in the country, and suggested that there should be a public debate about tossing Muslims out of the U.S.
Here’s a partial transcript of the relevant comments Nehlen made to hosts Amy Jacobson and Dan Croft:
Paul Nehlen: So if the breakpoint is Sharia, and Islam is the only major religion that encourages lying. The Taqiyya says lie to the infidel. You lie to them if you have to. So if you look at a Muslim and say hey, are you lying, they go, “no.” Okay, you’re in, absolutely. Okay, you’re out. If they lie, how do you, how do you vet something like that?
Dan Croft: Then how do you implement, how do you implement the test that you want to implement?
Nehlen: Well, then, the question is, why do we have Muslims in the country? How can you possibly vet somebody who lies?
Croft: Well, that said, are you suggesting that we deport all of the Muslims in this country?”
Nehlen: I’m suggesting that we have a discussion about it. That’s for sure. I am absolutely suggesting we figure out how do we, we, here’s what we should be doing. We should be monitoring every mosque. We should be monitoring all social media.
Croft: I think it’s clear that there is a threat. There’s no question. But, but I mean…
Nehlen: So let’s invite more into the country?
Croft: Well, well, that’s one issue. But what you’re talking about is people that are Americans that are here, and whether or not we should deport all of them. Do, do you see any Constitutional problems with the vetting, the kind that Newt Gingrich wanted to do and apparently you do as well. Much less deporting Americans who have done nothing wrong.
Nehlen: Well, if somebody supports Sharia that is doing something wrong. It is.
It’s a dilemma, isn’t it? Anyone who supports this ethics- and knowledge-free idiot should hide his head under a bag, yet anyone who supports him isn’t smart enough to know how embarrassed he should be, and thus will go bagless.
Let’s count down how many ways this proud dummy doesn’t understand the Constitution:
1. Absent a repeal or a major amendment to the First Amendment, the government can’t take any kind of punitive action against someone because of his or her religion. Islam is a religion. I bet there are fourth graders who understand this.
2. Lying, rules the Supreme Court, is protected by the First Amendment, unless the lie amount to fraud. Denying that you support a foreign legal system that will prompt characters like Nehlen to try to persecute you isn’t fraud. It’s common sense.
3. “Why do we have Muslims in the country?” We have them because if they qualify for citizenship under the religion-neutral qualification, they have as much right as anyone else to come here, and there’s not a damn thing to be done about it. That’s why. Want to know why an apple falls to earth if you drop it?
4. We can’t have a discussion about deporting Muslim citizens because the Constitution prevents taking liberty and property without due process of law, and since any law targeting Muslims would be per se unconstitutional, due process is impossible.
5. Similarly, under the Equal Protection Clause, the government can’t treat one group of lawful citizens differently from another group. This also isn’t going to change. So I guess we can have a discussion about deporting Muslims, but it would be a singularly silly, pointless and stupid discussion.
6. “We should be monitoring every mosque. We should be monitoring all social media.” One would be chilling the exercise of religion; the other would be chilling free speech, both thoroughly and permanently barred by Supreme Court rulings.
7. Neither Nehlen nor the government can declare supporting Sharia “wrong” enough to justify government penalties, until wrong means “illegal.” You can support Klingon Law, as long as you follow U.S. law.
On the bright side, I think it’s wonderful that in this glorious country, a moron can run for Congress, don’t you?
Apparently after this fiasco, someone took poor Paul aside and explained that his comments weren’t very helpful to his candidacy except that they might appeal to Trump voters as dumb as he is. So he posted this on his website…I couldn’t resist some editorial comments, as it is a wonderful case study of someone resorting to one rationalization and fallacy after another.
Who among us has never said something that came out not exactly like how we meant it?
Two rationalizations off the list in one sentence: #1 Everybody Does It, and 19. The Perfection Diversion: “Nobody’s Perfect!” or “Everybody makes mistakes!”
In a radio interview on Thursday, I was asked about President Obama’s Muslim refugee resettlement program that Paul Ryan funded with his omnibus spending bill last December.And even though I said during the course of the interview that I was talking about Muslims who practice a radical, violent version of Sharia Law, I didn’t include that qualifier in all of my answers. As such, the media cherry-picked my comments and reported that I want to deport “all Muslims.”
It doesn’t matter which kind of Muslims he was talking about. The Constitution protects all of them in the same way. Nor was the media “cherry-picking,” since as nehlen admits a few words earlier, his statement in fact did imply that he was talking about “all Muslims.” Damn biased media, reporting what I said rather than what I wish I had said…
My bad. So let me be clear…My position on this issue is pretty much the same as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who said on FOX News a few weeks ago after that ISIS murderer mowed down and killed 77 people with a truck in Nice, France…
“Let me be as blunt and direct as I can be. Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in sharia, they should be deported. Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization. Modern Muslims who have given up Sharia – glad to have them as citizens. Perfectly happy to have them next door.”
Ah yes, the famous Newt Gingrich Exception to the Constitution! Rationalization at work in Newt’s case: 28. The Revolutionary’s Excuse: “These are not ordinary times.” Newt was dead wrong, and Paul is appealing to authority, a debate cheat and logical fallacy.
Most importantly, I clearly stated this was a discussion we should have.
That’s not important, since while claiming that we should have a discussion about violating the Constitution and engaging in religious persecution is not as unethical as advocating doing it, both indicate the same level of ignorance and lack of understanding of basic American principles.
Such measures certainly have constitutional challenges and concerns. But as Mr. Gingrich said, the situation is so serious and so deadly that we absolutely must talk about options for protecting our people from, as he called them, “medieval barbarians.”
Equivocation. These aren’t “challenges and concerns’, they are black letter, immutable law. It’s like saying that robbing a bank creates legal “challenges and concerns.”
So there you have it.
So there you have it! The man is a totalitarian, ignorant, bigoted idiot, and running for Congress.
Ethics Alarms 
“It’s a dilemma, isn’t it? Anyone who supports this ethics- and knowledge-free idiot should hide his head under a bag, yet anyone who supports him isn’t smart enough to know how embarrassed he should be, and thus will go bagless.”
Love it!
Well at least Trump wound up endorsing Ryan so this guy will soon be history. Occasionally even Trump does something right.
He was up 66 points 80 to 14. An endorsement of Nehlen would have meant a loss for Trump, I bet you a trillion dollars and my left nut that had those numbers been reversed, Trump would have supported Nehlen and gloated all the way to the bank.
Jack: “On the bright side, I think it’s wonderful that in this glorious country, a moron can run for Congress, don’t you?”
And, every 2 years, we prove just how wonderful we are!
-Jut
I think he was very incompetently talking about the Syrian Refugees, and was dragged (or gently prodded, and went all on his own) to American Msulims.
The refugees coming from Syria cannot be vetted adequately. Syria doesn’t have reliable records or identification, and so what “vetting” amounts to generally is an interview and they’ll check what they get from their interview against those incomplete databases, if there are no obvious inconsistencies, the refugee is approved.
And so, if an ISIS fighter wanted to enter America, all they would have to do is say their name is Mohammed el-Mohammed, from some very small place, and the system of vetting is absolutely unequipped to catch them. America’s (and Canada’s, and Europe’s) approach to Syrian refugees has been very humanitarian, but we will have almost certainly allowed a number of terrorists into our Countries.
That’s very generous of you. That’s a mighty long time to use such foolish and provocative shorthand. He was very specifically talking about Muslims already lawfully here.
Probably overly generous, he seemed to talk about the refugees a couple times (“How can you possibly vet somebody who lies?” “So let’s invite more into the country?”), it`s like a nugget of a good point in a giant pile of shit. My don`t these positions have better spokesmen?
Me no can type gud 2day.
‘Why don’t these positions have better spokesmen?’
Great point. Incompetent spokespersons for valid positions do more damage than articulate adversaries to them. This was the gist of my post about Trump when he made is “rapists and killers” speech announcing his candidacy. There’s nothing bigoted or xenophobic about opposing weak illegal immigration response, or noting that a lot of criminals get into the country that way. But Trump’s lazy rhetoric allowed the position to be distorted and condemned.
This is no different than wanting a discussion on banning handguns.
That’s also a stupid and pointless discussion, as I think I’ve written before. Also a discussion on making the national language Portuguese.
HT: – ‘Why don’t these positions have better spokesmen?’
I’m convinced the media are VERY careful about who they pick to interview. If you don’t like a position, pick the person least likely to support it well. There is always some mug who will walk into the trap with both eyes wide shut.
Yup. This is all MSNBC does; CNN is almost as bad. Newt. Anna Navarro. Steve King. Ugh.
Pretty much the entire MO of the Daily Show (while it’s ostensibly a comedy show, it’s a source of news for far too many people). Find a really terrible proponent of a position they don’t like and give them just enough rope to hang themselves.