Reacting to terrorism, President Obama’s first thought? Scratch out the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of “due process” from the Bill of Rights. Why? To advance his mania for gun control.
Now comes Republican front-runner Donald Trump, one-upping the president. He wants to block any Muslim from entering the U.S. — whether immigrant, refugee or even tourist.
That’s after advocating a government database for tracking American citizens who are Muslim.
Terrorism is winning.
Ignore the Constitution? Disregard individual rights? Demonize an entire religion? Thus our leaders play into ISIS’s hands, encouraging Muslims worldwide to see the U. S. as their enemy.
Cooler heads must prevail. Or else. A Republican friend posted on Facebook that he “would gleefully vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump.” I just cannot muster any glee.
In fact, I’m beginning (again) to wonder if John Fund wasn’t on to something last June, when he wrote in National Review that “just maybe Trump is a double agent for the Left.”
Think “Manchurian Candidate.”
“It’s all very un-American,” my friend Suhail Khan, an American Muslim and conservative activist, told the Washington Post. “Our country was based on religious freedom.”
No more?
Surely, our experiment in limited government has not ended.
But we need to get serious.
We must demand a real commitment from any candidate seeking the country’s highest office. To be entrusted to execute our union’s laws, he or she must actually demonstrate allegiance to the rule of law.
That is, a willingness to fit one’s ego within the confines of the Constitution.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
18 replies on “Our Masters’ Malign Agenda”
Why is it that all solutions propose more control, less freedom and more repression on both sides of the aisle. Could it be that all of the front runners and both parties are statist?
You nailed it again, Paul. Trump would be a Mussolini in wolf’s clothing.
When the reality is that fundamental Muslims insist on following Sheria law rather than the law of the land, they are not truly citizens. When a significant number in their communiy avow their intent to conquer the United Stated they are not really citizens. When a significant number in their community commit terrorist act and masss murder strangers, they are the enemy. Out government will not protect the citizens so it is up to us to protect ourselves. We can start by removing the subversives from our communities and stop admitting others with the potential for terrorism.
This is not a Constitutional issue. Its called survival and that is common sense.
So, what does the Constitution say about a bloodthirsty barbaric seventh century ideology that only masquerades as a religion?
I don’t see Christianity as an improvement. The Bible also advocates atrocities, for example Exodus 21:21.The entire point of religion (any religion) is to replace reason with faith in the supernatural. People should be free to do so, but when they use that nonsense to justify violating other people’s rights, they should spend time in a cage.I’m sympathetic to the argument that teaching vulnerable to reject reason is child abuse, but any effort to stop it would only exacerbate the problem.
Am I the only one annoyed by the inability of Word Press to put in paragraph breaks, italics, etc.? Disqus doesn’t have that problem.
You won’t find that in New Testament, you know, the one dealing with Christianity.
If the Old Testament is to be rejected, it includes the Ten Commandments. In any case, the idea of walking on water, rising from the dead, feeding a multitude of people with a few loaves and fishes and a number of other things that defy reason is in the New Testament. I wouldn’t recommend holding one’s breath waiting for evidence such things can happen.
You started by maligning Christianity. Now you’re segueing further afield. Tell us where, in Christian teachings, atrocities are advocated.
That was, after all, your original contention.
There’s doubt as to whether or not Jesus was an actual historical figure, but assuming he was and assuming the biblical account is accurate, he explicitly supported Old Testament teachings. From Matthew 5:17 (King James version): “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” In any case, once one rejects reason in favor of faith, it’s a perfect justification to do what one’s faith dictates.
“…teaching vulnerable” should be “…teaching vulnerable children.” Not being able to edit is another weakness of Word Press that Disqus doesn’t have.
Howard & 2WarAbnVet = The Constitution is a short read. It treats people as individuals, not as members of a group according to religion or ideology or race or anything else. It is not OK to end the Constitution’s protection of individual rights.
About 1% of the population practices Islam. The radical Islamic violence is a small percentage of that small percentage. If a “fundamentalist” Muslim conspires to commit a crime or commits a crime, then let us take quick and strong action.
Having said this, non-Muslims should also be free to draw pictures of Muhammad all day and night and express their belief that Islam is “a bloodthirsty barbaric seventh century ideology that only masquerades as a religion.”
I think ISIS and radical Islamists want to provoke us away from our principles and I’m against taking the bait. Both for the sake of freedom and for the sake of separating the violent extremists who claim Islam from the decent people I know who also practice the religion.
Paul,
The problem is that over half of AMERICAN Muslims believe that we should allow sharia law. Sharia law is not in keeping with ‘religious freedom’. Do you realize that Islamic law considers a woman to be the property of her husband? That is not what this country was built on. It is antithetical to American values. Sharia law doesn’t guarantee due process or equal treatment to all. It is not who we are. The San Bernardino killer was upset that pork was served at a company function. Are we supposed to ban pork wherever a Muslim might take offense? Suhail Khan said our country was founded on religious freedom. Well, Donald Trump didn’t propose limiting the religious freedom of Muslims or practitioners of any other religion. He did propose limiting who we let into this country. Suhail Khan (and you) are conflating the issues. Our Constitution doesn’t apply in any other country. As a sovereign nation, we have a right to decide who gets to come here. Whether you like it or not, we are under attack from people who fight in the name of Islam. Islam doesn’t recognize religious freedom. When Muslims allow me to enter Mecca, then we can talk. When Saudi Arabia lets me bring a crucifix or a bible into Saudi Arabia, then they can posture about religious freedom. Any Muslim who wants to live under sharia law needs to find a country that is governed by sharia law. I don’t want to live under those restrictions in the US. As a woman, I shudder every time I see a Muslim woman wearing a niqab. That is not how one should live in a ‘free and open society’.
A friend of mine, a retired university professor with a PhD in psychology, taught critical thinking. I asked who among her students were the most rigid in their thinking. She said it was fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians. Your (well taken) criticism of Islam is equally true of Christianity. For example, look at fundamentalist Christians attitude toward marriage equality.
The Quran contains overt 100 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding.
Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.
Any document (including the Bible and the Constitution) is also subject to interpretation. If it wasn’t, would there be different Christian sects? At one point in history, the Bible was used to justify slavery in the United States. Now that slavery has lost political favor, it’s far more common to interpret the Bible differently. In any case, once one rejects reason to embrace faith, what prevents him from justifying any action he thinks his faith supports?
Here are a few passages for you to “interpret” …
“Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends.” (Sura 5:51)
“The infidels are your sworn enemies.” (Sura 4:101)
“Mohammed is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the infidels.” (Sura 48:29)
Prophet, make war on the infidels.” (Sura 66:9)
“Make war on the infidels who dwell around you.” (Sura 9:123) “
“When you meet the infidel in the battlefield, strike off their heads.” (Sura 47:4)
“Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them.” (Sura 2:191)
So, instead of focusing on what was really said (Trump, for example, did not say there should be a Muslim database; a lefty reporter said that) which is that the U.S. needs to say “enough!” until we can vet people who originate from countries where terrorism is active, you see this as an opportunity to attack Christianity and draw a far-fetched equivalent between Christianity and Islam. Is this because politically you desire more non-Christians? Probably so. Whatever your repugnance for Christianity, fine — but I do not see *massive* and organized outbreaks of terrorism being done by people shouting “There is no God!” (that is atheists) or by people shouting “Jesus Christ is Lord!” (Christians). I haven’t seen nor heard of any Bahai’s, Hindus, or Jews striking out with violence against random people living in Western countries with some sort of philosophical agenda… I do not want my children having to live in fear.
Open your eyes to the facts my friend.