Saturday, December 19, 2015

OK, Trump muslim naysayers: what's YOUR idea?

Look... I get that those opposed to Trump recoil in horror at the vary idea of a religious-based litmus test for entrance into this country.

But first, let's set the table:

This country can keep anyone it desires out for any reason what-so-ever.

Color.  Race.  Gender.  Religion.

(BTW, this country engages in race and gender discrimination every day, all day.  It's called "Affirmative Action.")

We can remove the citizenship of anyone, particularly, naturalized citizens, deemed a threat or shown to be criminals based on prior history... just ask former concentration camp guards stripped of their naturalized American citizenship.

In this case, the idea is first to keep people out who belong to a cult masquerading as a religion where the end result is world domination.

And it's perfectly OK in their world to slaughter people to get it.

The second idea is to remove those cult-members already in this country so they can assist or attempt to implement their cult's stated aim: slaughtering those who don't happen to be muslim.

As these attacks increase in frequency and impact, the likelihood of the first, shown to be supported by a majority of the American people, becomes a certainty; while the likelihood of the second grows exponentially.

These are painful, unpleasant realities we must address.

We have obvious issues of incompetence in security and strategies that are bipartisan.  I'm not even going to say that these attacks are Obama's fault... I have no confidence that the same thing wouldn't be going on under a Romney Administration.

But there are only so many things that can be done.

And my point is simple: what CAN be done... MUST be done.  Because doing nothing?

That's getting us killed.

2 comments:

Nick Yonko said...

First, justifying unprincipled action on the basis of other unprincipled action simply for the sake of 'getting something done' is the progressive agenda; not the thing done by principled Constitutional conservatives. If you are not a C.C. I apologize and retract my former and following statements. We can't simply do something today that will have dubious results (after all, religious affiliations are self reported) and abrogate our foundational civil virtues. What must be done is much more dramatic, but much more simple. Stop ALL immigration until we eject the illegals and figure out how to truly spot our enemies regardless of their religious affiliation. That is supportable from a legal and moral perspective and doesn't fly in the face of Constitutional principle.

Just a guy said...

But this IS a "principled action."

In fact, it's the overriding principle of humanity itself: staying alive.

I'm looking for alternatives. I'm hamstrung by having been a weapons instructor in Saudi Arabia in 77 and having watched their government execute 3 Korean homosexuals who were working there when they were "caught."

It made an impression.

My country's survival is my ONLY agenda, I determine what I believe needs to be done because *I* believe it needs to be done: no ones agenda, progressive or otherwise, dictates that to me.

I have sworn the oath... which has no expiration date... to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States but I also note that nothing advocated here violates that document: those I would suggest should be kept out have no Constitutional rights per se', and during a state of war, some of those rights can... and have been... suspended for that combat.

Our foundational civil virtues do not, in my opinion, include bringing in a population that will never align itself with those same virtues and who will, in many... far too many... cases do just the opposite... doing everything they can to implement sharia law which is wholly incompatible with the Constitution that you are so properly defending as a concept, if not as a legal reality.

And that includes killing us.

I was at a Seahawk game a few weeks ago... just me and 68000 or so of my closest friends.

What would we be talking about today if somehow, terrorists had unleashed, say, a chemical attack that killed most of us?

There are elements in this country of the muslim persuasion RIGHT NOW who would do that if they could. There are certainly those outside this country who would cheerfully die in the attempt.

That's not a supposition: that's a fact.

I am less inclined to stop a Canadian who has been in the que for a decade or a Brit or a Mexican who has followed our immigration laws by properly applying in their home countries, from being denied entrance when those who follow our laws are not the problem... and will likely pose no threat whatsoever.

And our survival as a Nation is THE overriding Constitutional principle that I defend and will defend with every fiber of my being.

Further, if stopping ALL immigration BECAUSE of muslim extremism is the cause for that edict, then that also violates Constitutional principles per se', given that the basis for that action is, in fact, the religion of those we view as a possible threat.

Except, of course, as I pointed out, those who WANT to come here have zero right to any Constitutional protections and as such, are not under our Constitutional umbrella.

That's why we have Gitmo in Cuba. The legal principle, then, is well established.

That's the basis for my position: our country's survival. And I'm not particularly concerned with how we achieve that as long as it's achieved.