CNN.com reported that
Donald Trump said Wednesday that he thinks “Islam hates us,” drawing little distinction between the religion and radical Islamic terrorism.”I think Islam hates us,” Trump told CNN’s Anderson Cooper, deploring the “tremendous hatred” that he said partly defined the religion. He maintained the war was against radical Islam, but said, “it’s very hard to define. It’s very hard to separate. Because you don’t know who’s who.”
Asked if the hate was “in Islam itself,” Trump would only say that was for the media to figure out.
“You’re gonna have to figure that out, OK?” he told Cooper. “We have to be very vigilant. We have to be very careful. And we can’t allow people coming into this country who have this hatred of the United States.”
Trump made headlines in December when he called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S., “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Despite widespread condemnation of the remarks, Trump has stood by the proposal.
Speaking to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room” Thursday, Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson said the real-estate magnate stood by the sentiment that many Muslims worldwide sympathize with ISIS, but said Trump should’ve used “radical Islam.”
“It is radical Islamic extremists that do participate in these types of things,” Pierson said, calling for a “broader perspective” of Muslims’ ties to terror. “We’ve allowed this propaganda to spread all through the country that this is a religion of peace.”
In speaking with Cooper, Trump added that “there can be no doctrine” when asked to outline how he would project power overseas.
That was Wednesday. Did the Front-running Republican Presidential Hopeful back down during last night’s Republican Debate?
If you have to ask that, you haven’t been paying attention.
According to ABCNews.go.com,
Donald Trump appeared to double down during the Republican debate Thursday on his earlier comments that “Islam hates us.”
“Did you mean all 1.6 billion Muslims?” Tapper asked. “I mean a lot of them,” Trump replied. “I will stick with exactly what I said to Anderson Cooper,” he said, referring to his remarks made to the CNN host Wednesday.
But Marco Rubio fired back. “The problem is presidents can’t just say anything they want. It has consequences here and around the world,” he said.
“There is no doubt that radical Islam is a danger in the world,” Rubio continued. “I can also tell you that if you go to any national cemetery, especially Arlington, you are gonna see crescent moons there.”
Trump has previously proposed a policy that would temporarily ban non-citizen Muslims from entering the United States, one that has found wide support among the Republican primary electorate so far.
After Trump cited his style of being politically incorrect and a “serious, serious problem of hate,” Rubio hit back again.
“I’m not interested in being politically correct. I’m interested in being correct,” he said.
When you look at what Trump is actually saying, and the reasons that he is saying it, he brings up a solid point.
The wife of the couple who were responsible for the massacre in San Bernardino, California WAS VETTED by our government. And, she turned out to be a Muslim terrorist.
Offi cials have admitted that it is a very strong possibility that Islamic State Members have embedded themselves in the Syrian refugees, whom Obama is hell-bent on bringing into our country.
Now, the number of the Syrian Refugees are going to total in the tens of thousands.
The San Bernardino Massacre proved that the Obama administration cannot properly vet a single Radical Islamist entering our country with one other person.
How in the world are they in going to properly vet tens of thousands of Muslims?
Let’s reflect upon the stats featured in Trump’s Press Release, which he issued, when he first announced his plan to half Muslim Immigration to our country, until we can figure all this out.
25% of those surveyed said that they approved of violent acts being perpetrated here in America in the name of global jihad. 25% of just 10,000 refugees would be 2500.
Are we willing to take the chance of that large of a number of potentially violent individuals being relocated into our country?
It only takes one individual strapped up with explosives to take out 100 people.
The other stat that the release gave was that 51% of those polled would like to see Sharia law here in America.
As I have written before, Sharia law is not compatible with the United States Constitution.
Not even close.
The Center For Security Policy has issued the following PDF, ” “Sharia Law Vs. The Constitution”, which outlines the differences. Please forgive the length, but I feel that it is important information, which needs to be shared.
Article VI: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land
- Constitution: Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby”
- Shariah: “The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah.” (a1.1, Umdat al-salik or The Reliance of the Traveller, commonly accepted work of Shariah jurisprudence); “There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia.” (Seyed Qutb); “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.” (Seyed Abul A’ala Maududi)
First Amendment: Freedom of religion
- Constitution: First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ”
- Shariah: “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.” Quran 4:89 ; “Whoever changed his [Islamic] religion, then kill him” Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:57. In historic and modern Shariah states, Shariah law enforces dhimmi status (second-class citizen, apartheid-type laws) on nonMuslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, building or repairing churches, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells; if dhimmi laws are violated in the Shariah State, penalties are those used for prisoners of war: death, slavery, release or ransom.(o9.14, o11.0-o11.11, Umdat al-salik).
First Amendment: Freedom of speech
- Constitution: First Amendment: Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech.”
- Shariah: Speech defaming Islam or Muhammad is considered “blasphemy” and is punishable by death or imprisonment.
First Amendment: Freedom to dissent
- Constitution: First Amendment: “Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
- Shariah: Non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.
Second Amendment: Right to self-defense
- Constitution: Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
- Shariah: Under historic and modern dhimmi laws, non-Muslims cannot possess swords, firearms or weapons of any kind.
Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments: Right to due process and fair trial
- Constitution: Fifth Amendment: “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime… without due process of law.” Sixth Amendment: guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury.” Seventh Amendment: “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”
- Shariah: Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari: Muhammad said, “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).” Non-Muslims are prohibited from testifying against Muslims. A woman’s testimony is equal to half of a man’s.
Eighth Amendment: No cruel and unusual punishment
- Constitution: Eighth Amendment: “nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
- Shariah: Under Shariah punishments are barbaric: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” Quran 5:38; A raped woman is punished:”The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes” (Sura 24:2).
Fourteenth Amendment: Right to equal protection and due process
- Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. “
- Shariah: Under dhimmi laws enforced in modern Shariah states, Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims before the law. Under Shariah law, women, girls, apostates, homosexuals and “blasphemers” are all denied equality under the law.
Given this incompatibility between Sharia Law and the Constitution of the United States of America, which our Freedom and our System of Laws are based upon, if given the choice, which would Muslims currently living in the Land of the Free and the home of the Brave choose to be faithful to?
In conclusion, I am not saying that every Muslim is on a jihad against “the infidels”, and, wish to invade our Sovereign Nation and over-throw our Government.
However, there is a difference between being an average Christian American and a Muslim, living in America.
When Christians become “radicalized”, we want to share the testimony of what God has done for us through His love, with everyone we meet. We get involved in our local church and we become better fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, and American Citizens.
When Muslims become “radicalized”, they want to “kill the Infidels” in the name of “Allah the Merciful”.
In the case of the Chechen Muslim brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon, their immersion into Radical Islam led them to “kill the infidels” that horrendous day.
In the case of the barbarians of ISIS, it has turned them into doppelgangers of the Nazi Butchers of Dachau.
For Liberals, on both sides of the Political Aisle, including Pope Francis, to deny that, is disingenuous at best, and just plain dangerous at worst.
It becomes even more dangerous when that denier holds the power of the President of the United States of America.
Trump is right. We simply cannot take that chance.
The sovereignty of our country is at state.
Until He Comes,