Tired of Facebook censorship? Join Tea Party Community.

If America is at war with an ideology, would it not make perfect sense to ban those coming into our country who adhere to what we are at war against? Donald Trump was the first prominent politician to propose a Muslim ban.

For his brashness, Trump was vilified by the left when. What about what he said last December about the Muslim ban is controversial, when you consider the full context of the comment?

“…a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

Some argue that a religious test to screen immigrants is unconstitutional. However Andrew McCarthy disagrees, and points out the religious litmus test was only to be used for those wanting to enter public office.

“And just as we have a right to consider the religious convictions of candidates for public office, so too do we have a right to require scrutiny of the beliefs of aliens who petition for entry into our country — a privilege we are under no obligation to confer. This includes beliefs the alien may regard as tenets of his faith — especially if such “faith tenets” involve matters of law, governance, economy, combat, and interpersonal relations that, in our culture’s separation of church and state, are not seen as spiritual.”

Trump’s vice presidential running mate, Mike Pence has tried to soften Trump’s meaning by backing away from that original statement. In truth, they both seem to vacillate from barring Muslims temporarily to banning all immigrants from countries sponsoring terrorism. In a recent radio interview Pence said,

“That’s what Donald Trump and I are calling for now, is to have a temporary suspension of immigration from countries or territories compromised by terrorism, and I believe that’s an appropriate action given the horrendous, horrendous violence that we see,”

I’d suggest Trump double down on his suggested ban of Muslims.

Trump’s support and following grew huge, because he made common sense statements. Moreover, he didn’t apologize for his statements.

Americans, as a whole, are wary of politicians’ apologies. You can’t take one step in the political arena without stepping on them. When Trump proposed the ban on Muslims he pinpointed who our enemies identify with, something the Obama administration has yet to do. When you name the enemy, actions should follow. This is why Obama will always steer clear of defining the obvious.

Nobody wants to come out and say all Muslims are the enemy. Nevertheless, the ideology embraced by those responsible for committing terrorist attacks every 84 hours is almost exclusively Islamic.

That is not some crazy coincidence.

In the wake of all the Islamic terrorism with machetes, buses, knives, bombs and yes, even guns, the Left refuse to recognize the obvious. Blaming those who do it just wouldn’t fit the world view of the Left.

There was a recent debate concerning the banning of Islam in Poland. One of the debaters was Miriam Shaded, president of the Estera-Fund, who gave several points as to why Islam should be outlawed in her country. When asked her reasoning behind the criminalization, Shadad said,

“It is against the Constitution, those who leave Islam have to fear death. Islam calls for violence and its attempts to bring this system and ideology to power in certain countries, into certain structures-with the use of violence…Their approach towards women, discrimination, beatings, molestation, necrophilia, zoophilia, all that is legitimized by the Qu’ran.”

Her opponent, Lesek Samorski, found it difficult to counter her reasoning and ended up agreeing with her as far as characterizing Islam. However she differed as far as how to go about discouraging the criminal acts perpetrated by Muslims in Poland. Samorski stated,

“…I am absolutely against what is happening now-the Islamic hordes that want to enter Europe…We had problems with them for centuries and we solved them with fire and sword.”

One thing is for sure, this debate over what to do with the Islamic ideology and Muslims who adhere to it is far from over. From deciding if Muslims should be banned from entry into the country, to deciding whether or not to allow them to legally follow the Qu’ran is a serious issue. It must be discussed openly and honestly.

Furthermore, a discussion of whether Islam should even be classified as a religion or a cult is in order.

A strong leader says what he means, and makes no adjustments. Winston Churchill said this about the religion, and nothing transformational has taken place within Islam since.

“But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance…It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness.”

Right after the Islamic attack in Florida at the Pulse nightclub, a Muslim ban was supported by a majority of Republicans. That support has since waned. As we know, support only escalates when Islamic terrorism is in the news. Conservative Americans need to be ready to push this issue again when the next jihadi attack occurs.

 



Send this to friend