Islam: Religion is Government
The United States
Is it legal?
The recent firestorm which resulted from Donald Trump's statement about banning Muslims has led to a "Ban Trump" mantra.
The White House -- Obama -- even went as far to say that Trump has essentially disqualified himself from ever becoming President. Politics. He became the president anyway.
As always, such rhetoric from the Office of the President is mere propaganda. People, even mouthy billionaires like Trump, are free to speak their minds.
But does a sitting President have the authority to do such a thing? To "ban" Muslims? To prohibit groups of people -- even citizens -- from entering the U.S.
It turns out that he/she does.
Restriction of Muslims
Do you think the United States should temporarily restrict Muslims from entering the country
"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period, as he shall deem necessary suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
U.S. Code: 8 USA, 1182
Historically, according to Ben Swann, news personality (truthinmedia.com 12/10/2015) this sort of thing has happened before. During the 1800's Chinese immigration was restricted, but this was related to "laborers." This restriction remained on the books until 1943.
In the 1900's there were actually quotas on immigration, related to "race" and "national origin." It was not until 1965 that these restrictions were lifted.
Again, also according to Swann, there has never been a restriction placed against any particular "religion."
The Bill of Rights -
The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not specifically prohibit "banning" a particular religion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Free exercise of religion is not at issue here. As an American Citizen -- in America -- one has these rights. As a Foreign National, does this apply? As a potentially radicalized Muslim bent on the destruction of "infidels" -- does this still apply?
Islamic Law, i.e., Religion Based Laws
Religion and Government
Certainly, as our Founders looked at it -- at least Thomas Jefferson -- Church and State must remain separated. The United States is failing at this, but by and large, there in no dominant religion, only majorities of believers.
This is different in "Islam." Islam is more than a "religion." In fact, it is both "Government" and "Religion" combined. Naturally, when Muslims immigrate to the U.S., many still favor this "Church and State" union -- and are constantly pushing for just that. In a sense, this new immigration of Muslims and the slow assimilation into the ideal of Islam, is a national threat to the United States' core philosophy.
Christianity also carries the same "threat" if it is allowed to violate that "wall of separation."
We've all read the stories. How Paris was "invaded" from within. How Muslims of the radical bent, trained in Syria or other hidden Middle Eastern locales -- and even within the target countries themselves -- and then killed innocent civilians.
They blame America. America should never have armed Saudi Arabia. America should distance itself from Israel. America should close her Middle Eastern Embassies. She should stop buying oil from those countries -- which govern harshly -- keeping those Princes of Sand in power. All of these are "gamed" excuses.
And it is all designed to grow Islam. It is meant to make the "West" scared. And now, the terrorists, failing to convince the world that they are serious, have engaged it at the only level that works: they kill -- repeatedly. They strike fear into the heart of Western Cities, detonate bombs at random, maim and then, in act so alien to the civilized world -- they take their own lives.
They have and are "embedding" the fear, day by day, hoping, but calculating, that the world will wait -- and do nothing. And by doing nothing, it is meant that no country will actually make the decision -- the decision to fight radicalism with massive destruction, before it is too late. Before the "embedding" process spreads like a cancer and the tumors begin to fester, not in the Middle East, but in our own back yards. If this occurs and it's very possible, the battle for our freedoms will meet a more sinister thing: a war for our National Identity.
A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
A radical jihadist, ready to detonate explosives in a shopping mall or spray bullets into a theater, is a far cry from the U.S., when it dropped nuclear bombs on Japan or fire-bombed German cities -- during World War II. The former is pure depravity, not in the pursuit of preventing more death and the latter was designed to save lives and to end the war.
Radical Islamists don't wish to live in peace, but rule with fear and kill all others -- or enslave them -- if they don't convert or become subjects. They are no different than the Nazis in this respect, but with the loyalty of the Kamikaze.
Bad and Good Muslims
Just as all Christians are not "bad" -- all Muslims do not concern themselves with the Shariʻah Laws. They do not wish to enslave the "infidels" -- at least outwardly. And it can even be argued that the Bible is just as violent as the Quran -- but all of this is immaterial today.
What matters now is how one reacts to the onslaught. Wolves are hiding within the "Muslim" population. Islam is sending terrorists abroad. They are "coming to America."
To do nothing invites more death. And the world has not yet begun to "fight."
Trump's call for the restriction of "Muslim" immigration is nothing compared to what will come next -- if the U.S. -- if the West in general -- fails to stand up to the Iranian financed war of attrition, against non-Muslims.
Israel still stands alone -- regarding its defiance against Iran's obvious development of nuclear bombs.