Saturday, December 12, 2015

Why Trump's Plan is Right and Others are Wrong...

The entire Republican and Democrat establishment (difference, much?) went ape-dung with Trumps's plan to stop all Muslim immigration "until Congress can figure out what the hell is going on."

This "Daily Beast" site exemplifies the vitriole against Trump for his plan.  The "Beast" also slams all who highlight the orthodox Islamic ideology that drives the radicals.  This is little different than the attacks from the Republican establishment.

And then we have Breitbart, who "gets it" and publishes articles like "Roger Stone:  Trump's Muslim Immigration Ban 'Extraordinary, Brilliant' Move."

Even those who like Trump are suggesting his approach is wrong and a "less offensive " approach is better.  For example, Sean Hannity claims that a shutdown of immigration from specific Muslim countries like Syria would be better because it wouldn't offend an entire religion.

The problem with that is that 100's of thousands of devout (aka "radicalized") Muslims already live in US-allied countries like Great Britain, Germany and many others, and then emigrate to the US from there.  So what good is it to prohibit Muslim entry only from Syria, Iran, Iraq, and the other 99.9% Muslim-only intolerant Islamic nations?

The main beef with Trump's plan is that it targets a "religion."  Let's look at that alleged "problem." 
  1. Is Islam just another religion? 
  2. Are attacks by Muslims the major reason for our concern about terror attacks in this country?
  3. Is our failure to identify the unpleasant characteristics of the Islamic ideology a major reason for our failure to stem terror here and abroad?
  4.  How do we keep Muslims out (even temporarily)?
  5. Why should this be a "temporary" ban?
Let's consider these questions in detail.

Is Islam just another religion?  No. It is miles different than any other because its significant components of deception, violence, hatred, intolerance, legal and political system and not a part of any other.  In fact there is a former civil prosecutor who wrote a paper titled "Is Islam a Relgion."  It can be downloaded HERE.  HERE is an abbreviated version of this reasoning.  The doctrines of Islam are in fact seditious in any non-Muslim nation and consequently practioners of Islam should be treated as a seditionists.

Are attacks by Muslims the major reason for our concern about terror attacks in this country? Yes.  The attacks of September 11, 2001, and all the subsequent Muslim-related threats and attacks in the US are the primary reason we created the Department of Homeland Security and why we have felt a need to spend billions per year more than we did before that attack.  HERE is a list of Muslim perpetrated terror attacks on US soil.  This does not include the hundreds of thwarted attacks.  HERE is an incomplete list of Muslim terror sympathizers in the US.  

Is our failure to identify the unpleasant characteristics of the Islamic ideology a major reason for our failure to stem terror here and abroad?  Yes.  HERE are the Islamic verses that promote violence and terror - and these are not rare, random "out of context" verses.  These are the foundation of Islamic doctrine embedded in centuries of Islamic belief and practice.

How do we keep Muslims out (even temporarily)?   We need a multi-layered approach, yet to be developed.  First, our government officials need to admit three things:  1) They do not have all potential Islamic attackers on their radar, obviously - and far from it,  2) The Islamic ideology is subversive and those who practice it are seditionists, and 3)  Islam, as currently promoted and practiced, is a subversive political ideology and not subject to religious protection.  

Once these facts are accepted, prohibit the entry of any individual who:

1) Is from any country that has a super majority Islamic population. The exception would be individuals who have been demonstrably persecuted minorities who have no evident Islamic preferences or tendencies.  "Evident Islamic preferences or tendencies" would include disavowal of the Shahada, specifically, as well as disavowal of the Five Pillars of Islam

2) Cannot disavow the Five Pillars of Islam.

3) Cannot pass subjective questioning.  Knowing that a well-practiced Islamic doctrine is deception (taqiyya), and that those with ill-intent will lie about their beliefs, additional layers of vetting are required. These include questioning feelings about various acts of Islamic violence in the world and observations of reactions that indicate standard known "giveaways" or "red-lights."

4)  Appear on standard intelligence data bases, no fly lists, and related indicators of hostile beliefs, actions or propensities of individuals to belive in or commit violent acts;  having a history of agreeing with or promoting Islamic doctrine, including Sharia, and related Islamic beliefs and acts incompatible with Western civilization.

Why should this be a "temporary" ban?  It shouldn't.  It should become permanant.  Once "Congress can figure out what the hell is going on" they should realize that Islam is a pernicious ideology that is thoroughly incompatible with the US legal system, our form of government, our culture, and our Judeo-Christian beliefs.

To set the record staight as to the exact words Trump used to convey his proposal regarding Muslim immigration, as opposed to the distortions in the headlines of liberal media, below is a copy of the statement by the Trump campaign:

2 comments:

Holly Baumgartner said...

Brilliant!

Brother Michael said...

I wish more Americans would understand this information.
Maybe time will tell. So far Politicals of all persuasions are anti-Trump for God-knows-what reasons. I'm just hoping that time will bring about realizations of truth. Trump does seem to have it right, but so many are stuck in their righteous ruts (or left turn lanes). But this is not about politics. This is about US. U.S.