The Muslim Ban was Never about Banning Islam

The “Muslim Ban” was never about banning Islam. Instead, it is based on this:

Not all Muslim’s are radical Islamic terrorists,

 but all radical Islamic terrorists are Muslim.

The idea was to temporarily ban all Muslim immigration until a plan for extreme vetting could be developed. Once it was developed, Trump believed he could keep America secure for the free and peaceful practice of all religions.

Trump, of course, has, at the behest of GOP advisors such as Rudi Giuliani, softened his position on the Muslim Ban. Trump has opted for a ban on specific terrorist hotbeds. This he has done despite the reality that radicalization takes place even where cells are not active. As Trump’s critics have noted, Saudi Arabia radicalized three quarters  of the original 9/11 terrorists and yet Saudi Arabia is not among the banned nations.

Perhaps the most damning criticism of Trump’s immigration ban is that we have, so far, no proof, logically deductive proof or experiential proof, that the ban is effective in any way.

Experience is certainly not the teacher anyone wants in this matter. If there aren’t attacks, we won’t know if it’s because of the ban, and no one wants proof that the ban did not work.

This leaves logical proof. This proof will come down to Trump’s definition of “extreme vetting.” If it is up to the Obama sect of the American left, the vetting will be utterly useless and ineffective. This is because the media have dwarfed the American intellect. Americans seemingly can’t have an adult discussion about liberty and religious practice because they are slaves to glittering generalities about the mythical rights of sacred cows.

The real questions are will the vetting go far enough to be effective? Beyond whether or not the vetting could be easily evaded by would-be terrorists, is the goal of the vetting itself sound?

Logically, if Trump can effectively vet the desire to practice the more radical elements of Sharia, such as punishing Muslims who convert to Christianity with death, he can stave off the horrible radicalism of terrorist attacks.

Americans have not had a national conversation about where Islam oversteps the bounds of Liberty to which all Americans are bound.

Each religion deserves its own discussion. Although Islam, Conservative Christianity and Orthodox Judaism agree that homosexuality is not God’s will, it’s rare that a single discussion will apply to many religions at once. Usually, each religion needs a unique discussion. Is animal sacrifice acceptable as part of the voodoo religions of the West Indies? Is refusing medical treatment for terminally ill children acceptable because it is part of the religion of the Jehovah witnesses? Is the use of illegal hallucinogens permissible as part of the Sioux mystical rites?

In the same way we need to squarely face the religious practices of certain schools of Islam, especially as these impact the rights of others. Should we ban burqas? Do we refuse immigration to those who believe it is a religious virtue to beat their wives? What about honor killings or female genital mutilation? Should our foreign policy discourage the murder of those who want to practice religious freedom and escape Islam? All of these are important questions that adults need to discuss. We cannot achieve peaceful religious freedom for all if we don’t ask these questions.

Some believe that all Islam is an ideological poison. That’s not clear from recent history. During much of the post World War II period Islam and the West co-exited reasonably well.

Even recent history shows that the United States has the potential for significant and strong bonds of friendship with majority Muslim states. King Abdullah II of Jordan is one such example. The remarkable events surrounding Egypt’s rejection of the radical Muslim Brotherhood are further examples of the capacity of Islam to co-exist with the West.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls it “reforming” Islam. We in the West need only call it “extreme vetting.” Together we need to talk about the elements of Sharia law that are elements of religious choice and the others that are part of a radical ideology inconsistent with the liberties, the natural liberties of choice and religious freedom the United States of America represents. If we can take the radical out of radical Islam we have defeated radical Islamic terrorism before it has begun.

But where are we today? We can’t honestly discuss the term “Muslim Ban.” Perhaps part of the reason is the actual meaning of the phrase requires asking other questions too subtle for intellectual children.

American Fascists are calling American Voters Fascists!

The radical left is now regularly accusing American citizens of succumbing to fascism for supporting Donald Trump. Nothing could be more polarizing. Nothing could be more incorrect. Hitler’s fascism was especially dangerous because of a “cult” of personality. Trump supporters are all about the issues.

Trump supporters, should not allow themselves to remain in the basket of deplorables based only on Trump’s name. It’s far more American to be thrown into the basket of fascist, nationalistic deplorables for clearly stating one’s positions on global trade, national boundaries, and an American first foreign policy.

Of course, calling one’s opponent “Hitler” is the utterly trite example of a propaganda ploy called demonizing the enemy. That’s why every organ of fascist American media and every brilliant American “academic” spews this about Trump followers with such moronic piety (no offense to morons).  Honestly, despite the records of Joseph Stalin, Mau Mao Tse Tung, or Pol Pot, there is no twentieth century figure more vilified in the Western world than Adolf Hitler. To the Western mind Hitler is the devil.

The majority of millennial snowflakes probably don’t participate knowingly in the fallacy of discussing political personalities instead of political principles. Part of being caught up in fashionable political personalities is the belief that all political discourse is about the personalities, racial identities or gender roles of those on the national scene.

It is, ironically, the American Marxist left, which, damning others, bears the closest resemblance to fascism. From pathetic sit-ins over losing a Senate vote, to ruining cities with their self-righteous riots, the American left circles this cult or that cult of personality like lunatic moths circle to their deaths in the halo of a candle’s false light.

The textbook rise of a leader’s cult of personality includes the use of mass media propaganda. After a summer of wildly incorrect polls and corruptly biased journalism, the left had the audacity to accuse American citizens of voting for Donald Trump because they had succumbed to “fake news.” Yet it is the very leaders of those who decry “fake news” who instigated, paid for, and released a bizarrely salacious example of preposterously fake news to embarrass the duly elected American President nationally and internationally. It’s now plain that the propaganda from the left is primarily for the left. The propaganda isn’t to fool the deplorable Americans who vote national issues. Sadly, it’s a rallying cry for radicals. All the left has left are those who can be led by the glitter of propaganda and lies.

So how does one get one’s neighbor out of the cult? Yes, it’s dangerous, but one has to try to speak patiently to the cultist and, in so doing, opens oneself to every kind of vicious attack by this or that seething mob of fake news conformists. One idea is to let a fake news cultist know that you don’t support Trump’s plan for the country because you like Trump, but you like Trump because he supports your plan for the country.

Nevertheless, it is one’s patriotic duty. Our nation and our national our liberties, when exercised boldly and wisely, increase in strength.