“As Jamelle Bouie noted recently in The New York Times, liberals ‘should be appalled by a man who, when he was entrusted with the power of the state, used it to terrorize innocent people on the basis of race and religion.'”
I’m sure they are, but Bloomberg didn’t do this to “terrorize innocent people on the basis of race and religion.” He did it to keep New Yorkers safe from jihad attacks. No one was terrorized, unless surveillance is itself a form of terrorism. This is yet another example of what I’ve pointed out many times, that now even the slightest opposition to jihad violence and realistic appraisal of its ideological roots is dismissed as “Islamophobia.”
Bloomberg shouldn’t apologize for this, but given what it takes to win the Democratic presidential nomination these days, he probably will.
“Bloomberg’s Democratic debate rivals must push him on Islamophobia ahead of South Carolina,” by Jalal Baig, NBC News, February 25, 2020:
In the opening minutes of last week’s Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas, former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg was filleted by his rivals. Bloomberg’s galactic funds and rising poll numbers made him a predictable target, and most likely will again at Tuesday night’s debate in South Carolina. But though Bloomberg’s expansion of the New York Police Department’s use of stop-and-frisk and allegations that he has used profane and misogynistic language about women are certainly deserving of indignation and collective censure, Democrats have thus far missed the opportunity on prime-time television to confront him on one of his most damning mistakes: Muslim surveillance.
Bloomberg’s anti-Muslim activism provided a blueprint for Republican presidential candidates like Donald Trump, who said he wanted to establish a Muslim registry, and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who pledged to “patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods.” During Bloomberg’s tenure as mayor, the NYPD’S covert Demographics Unit cataloged mosques, eavesdropped on conversations and spied on Muslim neighborhoods, in order, as he has said, “to keep the country safe.” Unlike stop-and-frisk, however, which Bloomberg has apologized for, the now-Democratic presidential candidate remains unapologetic for this violation of Muslim civil liberties.
The silence from the current pool of Democratic presidential candidates is equally alarming. As Jamelle Bouie noted recently in The New York Times, liberals “should be appalled by a man who, when he was entrusted with the power of the state, used it to terrorize innocent people on the basis of race and religion.”
Pet Charles says
I find it interesting that in the State of South Carolina which has one of the highest Black population you can evidently talk about Islam, undocumented people from Mexico but you can’t speak about reparations for Black descendants of slaves. Who should take these fake outrages and debates seriously.
TruthWFree says
If you want reparations for being a descendant of black slaves, you are in the wrong venue. My family came over in 1876 after the Civil War and never owned slaves. What you need to do is trace down the descendants of those who owned slaves and take legal action against them. I pay taxes but I do not want my tax dollars going for something neither I nor my ancestors took part in. Be thankful you live in the greatest country in the world and have the freedom to achieve your goals, what ever they may be. Islam is a threat to our free way of life in America so I support any effort to oppose its growth. I also do not want my tax dollars going to illegal aliens so I am in favor of tight immigration laws and stopping illegals from crossing our borders. BTW, my great grandfather got no help from the government when he immigrated in 1876…legally.
Kilauea says
Reparations is a political loser. Democrats can’t push it too hard or they will lose votes of whites. Also, when they can’t deliver, the backlash from the Black Community would be severe. The answer is focus on peripheral issues that are highly emotional such as abortion and immigration, neither of which will be impacted.
mortimer says
Jamelle Bouie’s transparent hyperbole amounts to outright lies. We all know that New York City is the number one target of Islamists. We all know that the Islamists can easily disguise themselves and blend in with the Muslim community so as to become almost invisible. When you want to fish, you go where the fish are.
The goal of surveillance is to uncover conspiracies and plots before they are unleashed on the INNOCENT public.
We all know that and Jamelle Bouie insults our intelligence.
No Muzzies Here says
Just as members of the Nazi party should be monitored, members of the other totalitarian, socialist world-domination movement should be monitored, lest they act on their professed ideology.
mortimer says
And the Islamists are being watched.
Stieve says
Does anyone else sense a cognitive disconnect here?
“Surveilance” is spying. Period.
It is always implied that there is simply a cop watching these perps to make sure they keep to the straight and narrow. But what about the phone tapping and wholesale collection of data by all forms of government? Who knows when the tables will turn and we become the surveiled? Will this be used against us to prove our islamophobia?
This is a dangerous 2 way street.
I am in no way supporting islam or jihad, but am aware that these are the steps the sharia want us to take. It is only a matter of which government controls us completely, allowing these authoritsrian measures to be put in place, or used to their fullest.
Do you think an imam would eschew surveillance footage of a person “blasphemimg” or embrace the fact he can reach into the homes of his “followers”?
Or better yet imagine Soviet era surveillance updated to 21st century specifications to enforce sharia.
There is a way, but nobody ever seems to start this discussion.
Just be careful.
mortimer says
“Stieve”, Islam in theory denounces the surveillance or snooping upon fellow Muslims. They consider it even worse when dirty kafirs snoop on Muslims. Muslims who oppose surveillance haven’t really put any thought into law enforcement issues or if they have, they are the very sort of Islamist who should be watched.
Most Muslims are generally against terrorism and hope that terrorism isn’t a part of Islam. 35% of Muslims have quietly dropped out. 15% are fanatics.
Paul Davis says
To the comment that 35% of muslims are against terrorism, bull sh**. If you read the Quran you will know that ALL muslims are commanded to lie cheat, steal, and even kill infidels (us). Did you not find it funny that around the world when the twin towers fell, muslims even in our allied country’s were yelling Allah Akhbar and cheering. I have read the Quran, I know what they are and their goal. World donation and a Muslim global caliphate. The WAFFEN SS in WW2 was composed of muslims with their own death camps. Read your history and Quran and prove these words wrong.
boakai ngombu says
there are many ways to avoid “Friday prayers” and also frequent opportunities to get behind on other “duties” so as to be only a “so, so muslim.”
gravenimage says
Mortimer isn’t even saying that 35% of Muslims are against terrorism, but that 35% of Muslims *have left Islam* and are no longer Muslim.
I hate to say it, but I see nothing that backs up those figures.
James Lincoln says
mortimer says,
Regarding muslims:
“15% are fanatics.”
That’s one hell of a lot of fanatics….
Rarely says
I agree with your concerns. The question is how to use all the modern technology available to protect us from terrorism without it snowballing into a 1984 scenario.
Stieve says
Precisely. Thanks for the super simple summary.
gravenimage says
Steive, Jihadists *should* be surveilled if there is evidence that they are plotting. Do you really want a system where it is not possible to catch any Jihad terror attack before it happens? Do you really think that unless we roll over to Jihad terrorism that we are like the Soviet Union?
Norger says
Steive also misses the point that Islam is protected by the First Amendment, which makes Islam a unique threat. Wholesale shutting down of “radical” mosques is (unfortunately) not an option here. Siraj Wahhaj and Omar Abdel Rahman (the Blind Sheikh) are allowed to spew their venom at wii it is only when they cross the line into action that law enforcement can step in.. Our legal system is not designed to protect us against religious warfare. Bloomberg et al should no more apologize for surveilling mosques than they would for surveilling “white supremacists.”
gravenimage says
Actually, Noerger, the First Amendment does *not* say that members of any faith have the right to oppress, harm, or murder unbelievers in the name of their creed–in fact, it doesn’t give them the right to break any of our civilized laws.
Paul Davis says
Islamophobia was a term invented by an Obama/ Democrat think tank to fight Obama’s mass hiring of muslims ssns placing them in key positions in our government. 30% of his new hires were Muslim. Does anyone know the total amount of muslims Obama allowed into or country. I have been told that it eased in the hundreds of thousands. Wisconsi . Michigan, Tennessee, Ohio. Wish someone could say for sure.
Infidel says
The power of Bloomberg’s cash is overrated: if that was so effective, Tom Steyer would have been the frontrunner in the first 4 states so far. Also, after his disastrous performance in the debate last week, I no longer think that the primary is b/w Bernie and Bloomberg: I think Bernie runs away w/ it, while the ‘Liberal’ Dems split it b/w Bloomberg, Steyer, Bernie and Buttigieg. Also, there won’t be a contested convention: Bernie will get to the magic number of 50% all on his own in the first shot
gravenimage says
NBC News: One of Bloomberg’s “most damning mistakes” was “Muslim surveillance”
……………………
Just grotesque.
sidney penny says
“But as Deepa Kumar, a professor of journalism and media studies at Rutgers University observes, “The way liberal Islamophobia works is that it roundly criticizes Islam-bashing, thereby pre-empting charges of racism, but then it goes on to champion programs that target and vilify Muslims.”…”
When did Islam-bashing, become racist?
What race is Islam?
What is Islamophobia?
How many types are there?
What is liberal Islamophobia?
Can this Professor tell us what programs targeted and vilified Muslims and why?
James Lincoln says
sidney penny,
It’s a guarantee that Deepa Kumar will not answer those legitimate questions.
Absolutely infuriating.
tgusa says
In the wake of 9-11, perpetrated by muslims, the government ramped up the spying and monitoring of all of us but by all means lets not spy on or monitor muslims. That would be islamophobic and offensive. Lets continue to waste limited resources spying on and monitoring everyone but the perpetrators. It is much better to spy on and monitor non muslims who haven’t murdered aircrews and then fly the airplanes in to occupied buildings. After all, that is not offensive, it is modern liberalism.
sidney penny says
“Democrats have thus far missed the opportunity on prime-time television to confront him on one of his most damning mistakes: Muslim surveillance.”
Oh dear, how awful.
No body should be under surveillance let alone Muslims.
The police should not put anybody under surveillance.It is a mistake Police make so often.
Democrats should but Bloomberg on trial for his most damning mistake:Muslim surveillance.
He should be in prison,not trying to win the Democratic presidential nomination.
E T says
Why are teachers out in the playground watching the children, why not leave them alone and let perverts come on the grounds, and let the bullies push the little kids around, let them pound the hell out of each other. Yes teach the little darlings this is what happens when you get older, you will be pushed to the limit by political decisions, con men, murders, barbarians and if you don’t like it too bad.
OLD GUY says
Seems like a lot of confusion here, we should not have to put anyone under surveillance in this country that is not suspect of committing a crime. However our immigration policies are not vetting out the immigrants from muslim countries who want to come here to kill American citizens. Many of these muslims do not want to become Americans they want to take advantage of our system and to change our system to Islamic rule and sharia law. Those things make you an enemy of state and justify keeping an eye on you.
ET says
Ha ha you old guy believe them when they say they have come to take over, I am with you 100%, I believe the barbarians too.
UNCLE VLADDI says
And then feral millennial socialists will elect him. (Or, worse, Burnie).