Saturday, December 12, 2015
By Paul R. Hollrah
The fight for global dominion by the greatest evil in history, the radical forces of Islam, has been going on for more than 1200 years. In 732 AD the Muslim Army, moving to occupy Paris, was defeated by Charles Martell at the Battle of Tours. Muslims retreated to their own part of the world for brief periods, but continued their efforts to expand their empire until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918. The years that followed were but a brief respite.
Islam's conquest of the habitable portions of the Earth has been going on for 1,400 years. For most of that time the conflicts have been limited geographically to Europe and the Middle East. But now, for the first time, Islam is attempting to invade and conquer the United States by using our freedoms, our laws, and our tradition of openness against us.
Unfortunately, far too many Americans, focused as they are on the exigencies of their daily lives, are so insulated from reality that they appear not to notice. They appear totally unaware that the Muslim world is rapidly imposing what the Quran refers to as hijrah, or jihad by emigration. The mass migration of Muslims from Africa and the Middle East to Europe, the British Isles, and North America is exactly what Mohammed had in mind when he wrote, "And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance, and whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah (Sura 4:100)."
With the creation of the ISIS caliphate in Iraq and Syria, millions of refugees move westward into Europe, Scandinavia, and the British Isles, while hordes of black African Muslims sail north across the Mediterranean on anything that floats, attempting to invade Spain, France, and Italy. Many of those on board who are identified as non-Muslims are tossed into the sea and left to drown. Yes, these are the "peace-loving" refugees that Barack Obama, liberals and Democrats, and the Republican congressional leadership expect us to welcome with open arms. And while the mass migration of Muslims into Western Europe will likely destroy the age-old cultures of those countries in a few short years, it is clear that the United States is their ultimate target.
So who are these people? An April 17, 2015, article in The Counter Jihad Report, by Y.K. Cherson, provides some startling statistics on Islamic terrorism. Cherson tells us that, in 2011, Sunni Muslims accounted for the greatest number of terrorist attacks and fatalities for the third year in a row. Over 5,700 incidents were committed by Sunnis, accounting for nearly 56% of all attacks and about 70% of 12,533 fatalities. Cherson quotes a U.S. State Department report which tells us that, in 2013, a total of 9,707 terror attacks occurred worldwide, resulting in more than 17,800 deaths and more than 32,500 casualties. Just three Muslim terror groups… the Taliban, ISIS, and Boko Haram… were responsible for 5,655 (31.8%) of the 17,800 deaths.
So what is it that motivates them to come to the United States? Why do they want to come here?
Since there is little chance that a large Muslim population will ever make a positive contribution to our culture or to our wellbeing, we are forced to ask why they would want to live in a land where they are not wanted or needed. They have made it abundantly clear that they have no intention of assimilating into American culture; they want only to transplant their Muslim culture in the fertile soil of the U.S. Americans will never allow that to happen, so why do they insist on a confrontation that can only result in protracted violence and bloodshed?
In a speech titled the "First State of Homeland Security Address" at the National Defense University on December 7, 2015, Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, had some sobering words for his audience. He reminded his audience that, as recently as his 2015 State of the Union Address, Barack Obama assured us that "the shadow of crisis has passed" in the war against radical Islam.
Nevertheless, McCaul reported that, in the past year, the FBI has undertaken investigations into more than 1,000 cases of home-grown terrorists, across all 50 states. As a result, the FBI has identified 19 ISIS-connected terror plots in the U.S., including plans to murder numbers of tourists on Florida beaches, plans to set off pipe bombs on Capitol Hill, plans to bomb New York City's famous landmarks, and plans to live-stream a massive attack on an American college campus. Still, many Americans and most political leaders, of both parties, appear blithely unconcerned about the immediacy of the danger… apparently more concerned about being politically correct than they are about the life-or-death nature of the threat.
In previous columns I have attempted to draw attention to the inability of many Americans to intellectually process the clear and present danger posed by Muslim immigration. I have reminded readers of estimates that only 5% (one of every twenty) of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims are radicalized. That statistic may give liberals and Democrats a degree of comfort, but the rest of us are clearly not comfortable with the idea of some 75 million suicide bombers and potential mass murderers running around amongst us with hate in their hearts for non-Muslims.
To put that number into perspective, we might recall that, at the height of WW II, the combined uniformed forces of Germany, Japan, and Italy numbered only 34.4 million… and, unlike their Muslim counterparts, they were all people who treasured life over death.
To make the threat of radical Islam a bit more understandable for all those gullible Americans who profess no fear of Muslim immigration, I've asked how they might react if we offered them a bowl containing 100 M&M candies, but with the admonition that five of the pieces were toxic (poisonous). How many pieces of candy would they eat?
The point is, Islam is the only religious movement on Earth that proposes to extend its control to every corner of the Earth by terror, murder, and oppression. And since the 95% of Muslims who are either "moderate" or "un-radicalized" appear unwilling to play an active role in keeping their radicalized brethren in check, we have no alternative but to prohibit them from residing within the civilized nations of the Earth. That is precisely why Donald Trump has suggested that the United States call at least a temporary halt to all Muslim immigration.
The reaction to his suggestion was swift and predictable. Liberals, Democrats, and members of the mainstream media were quick to denounce him, while members of his own party called upon him to withdraw from the Republican presidential primaries. The most powerful Republican in America, House Speaker Paul Ryan, took the unusual step of calling a press conference to denounce Trump, saying, "Normally, I do not comment on what's going on in the presidential election. I will take an exception today. This is not conservatism. What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for and, more importantly, it is not what this country stands for." So how will they react when the polls show that the people agree with Trump? What all those naysayers apparently fail to understand is that most Americans do not want Muslims living in their neighborhoods, nor do they want to increase our existing Muslim population.
One would think that members of Congress would have at least a minimal understanding of current immigration law. For example, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Public Law 82-414, Section 212(a), provides no less than 31 conditions under which "classes of aliens shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into the United States."
Included among these, Section 212(a)(19) bars entry to "any alien who seeks to procure, or has sought to procure, or has procured a visa or other documentation, or seeks to enter the United States by fraud, or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact." Can all of the "refugees" now seeking asylum in the U.S. provide indisputable evidence that all of the information they have provided is factual and verifiable? Section 212(a)(27) bars all aliens "who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reason to believe, seek to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally, to engage in activities which would be prejudicial to the public interest, or endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States."
Section 212(a)(28) of the Act denies access to all aliens "who are anarchists, or who have at any time been members of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government of the United States by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means." There are many more provisions of the Act under which Muslims could be barred from entering the United States. This is precisely what Donald Trump is suggesting and it is precisely this law that Jimmy Carter used in his Executive Order of April 7, 1980, in which he invalidated the visas of all Iranians in the country and prohibited the issuance of new visas to Iranians for the duration of the Iranian hostage crisis.
In its editorial of December 8, 2015, the New York Times sided with Trump, saying, "As the (Supreme Court) observed in its 1977 decision in Fiallo v. Bell, 'In the exercise of its broad power over immigration and naturalization, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.'
"In the context of noncitizens seeking initial entry into the United States, due process protections don't apply, either. Indeed, contrary to the conventional understanding, President Trump could implement the scheme on his own, without Congress's approval. The Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president the authority to suspend the entry of 'any class of aliens' on his finding that their entry would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States…' "
While many may wish to come to America, for good or for ill, we have no obligation… legal, moral, or economic… to take into our country, people whose values are totally foreign to our own. And while the politically correct, the mainstream media, and establishment Republicans may disagree with Trump's suggestion, they will soon find that it is they who are on the outside, looking in. The people are with Trump.