Tag Archives: Islam

Donald Trump: A Watershed Moment in History

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico and retired corporate government relations executive whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

Donald J. Trump

Donald J. Trump

After weeks of agonizing by establishment Republicans and the mainstream media… agonizing over the question of what a bull-in-the-China-shop candidate like Donald Trump is doing among the largest-ever field of well-qualified Republican presidential candidates… Trump has announced a simple, straightforward plan for immigration reform, a plan that could represent a “watershed moment” in U.S. history.  The Trump Plan is based on three core principles:

1. That the U.S.-Mexican border must be secured by building a wall or a fence along the entirety of our southern border,

2. That all immigration laws currently on the books must be fully and rigidly enforced, and

3. That the number one priority for any future immigration plan must be based on what is in the best cultural and economic interests of the American people… and nothing else.

As part of his immigration plan, Trump calls for a nationwide system to identify and locate all illegal aliens… those who have entered the country illegally, as well as those who’ve entered legally and overstayed their visas.  To accomplish that end, Trump proposes tripling the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

What he suggests is precisely what conservatives and Republicans have been promoting ever since mass illegal immigration began.  However, Trump departs from Republican orthodoxy by taking a totally no-nonsense approach to the problem of the so-called “anchor babies,” defined as infants born to pregnant foreign women who come to the Unites States, illegally, just to insure that their babies can acquire U.S. citizenship by being born on American soil.

The purpose of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was to grant U.S. citizenship to former slaves and their children who were born on U.S. soil.  The authors of the amendment could never have conceived of a time when pregnant women would travel great distances from foreign lands for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the 14th Amendment.  The “anchor baby” concept has created an entire underclass of undocumented aliens who are allowed to remain in the country under an unwritten law that protects families from being separated and prevents infants with U.S. citizenship from being forcibly deported along with their illegal alien parents.  Trump, who says what conservatives and Republicans have always feared to say, merely scoffs at suggestions that to deport all illegal aliens would separate foreign parents from their minor children.  In an Aug. 16 appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he made his position on “anchor babies” crystal clear, saying, “We have to keep the families together, but they have to go.”

He also ventures outside Republican orthodoxy by taking a no-nonsense approach to the status of Obama’s so-called “Dreamers” -– non-citizens who were brought to the United States illegally as children, who’ve grown up here, who’ve been educated here, and who would be political and cultural strangers in the native lands of their parents.  He expresses no desire to separate “Dreamers” from their illegal alien parents by allowing them to remain in the United States while their parents are deported.  Instead, he insists that Obama’s executive order shielding the “Dreamers” from deportation must be rescinded.

So what is it about Trump’s immigration reform plan that would qualify it as a “watershed moment” in American history?  Its significance is not that it has a chance of being enacted and fully implemented; as a nation we are still far too politically correct and we have far too many “squeaky wheels” among liberals and Hispanic activists to accomplish that anytime soon.  No, the significance of Trump’s immigration reform proposal is much more subtle.  Just as Rush Limbaugh’s major contribution to our national persona is not that he has caused elections to be won or lost, but that he has caused millions of politically uncommitted Americans to understand where they fit in the political spectrum, Trump’s straightforward approach to solving the illegal immigration problem has made it okay for previously hesitant Americans to openly agree with his no-nonsense approach.  It is what most Americans have always believed, but were afraid to put into words for fear that they would be branded as racists or xenophobes.

The point is, Americans are fair and reasonable people.  Scratch almost any American and you’ll find a person who would fully expect to be deported from a foreign country where they were living illegally.  So why would they not expect foreigners living in the United States illegally to react in the same way?  In short, it’s time we expected our uninvited guests to act like grownups, and Trump’s no-nonsense approach to the problem of illegal immigration gives us all license to finally put those expectations into words.

But more importantly, his courageous stance on illegal immigration also provides us with the opportunity to bring other critically important issues to the fore… issues that, until now, have been stuck in quagmires of constitutional uncertainties and/or political correctness.  Of these, none are more important than the unrelenting invasion of radicalized Muslims and the chilling threat of Islamic terrorism inside our own borders.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “Islamists arrive in the United States despising the country and all it represents, intending to make converts, exploit the freedoms and rights granted them, and build a movement that will effect basic changes in the country’s way of life and its government.  The superpower status of the United States makes it especially attractive to those who wish to change the world order; what better place to start?  Islamists do not accept the United States as it is but want to change it into a majority Muslim country where the Qur’an replaces the Constitution.”

The United States has already provided refugee status for more Muslims than all the other nations in the world combined.  Yet, in spite of that insanity, the Obama administration has recently announced that we are prepared to receive an additional 70,000 unvetted Muslim refugees, including many with strong ties to ISIS and al-Qaeda.  Some come seeking safety, some come seeking a better life, but many others come in the hope of doing us great harm.

In order to neutralize and reverse radical Islam’s contribution to the cultural infestation of the United States, we must attack the problem of Muslim immigration with the same level of courage with which Donald Trump approaches illegal immigration.  In short, we should not hesitate to confront Muslim infiltration by enacting new legislation, tailoring the language of the Communist Control Act of 1954 to read as follows:

SEC. 1.  PREAMBLE.  The Congress hereby finds and declares that certain organizations exist within our borders which, although purporting to be political or religious in nature, are in fact instrumentalities of foreign political or religious entities or ideologies whose purpose it is to overthrow the Government of the United States by any available means, including force and violence.  Such organizations operate as authoritarian dictatorships within our borders, demanding for themselves the rights and privileges generally accorded to all political parties and religious denominations, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution.

SEC. 2. PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATIONS.  Any political or religious organization as described herein, or any successors or affiliates of such organizations, regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the government of the United States by force or violence, or the government of any State, Territory, District, possession, or political subdivision thereof, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or its political subdivisions; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities heretofore granted to said religious or political organizations, or any subsidiary or affiliate organizations, by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby rescinded:  Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as amending the Internal Security Act of 1950, as amended.

With that statute on the books, making the practice or the promotion of Islamic jihad illegal, we can make it very uncomfortable for radical Islamists.  We can make their presence in our country so unpleasant that they will long for a return to whatever hellhole they and their predecessors crawled out of, ccausing them to self-repatriate in increasingly large numbers.  With eyes and ears planted in every mosque and every Muslim cultural center in America, radical Islamists could be readily identified and FBI agents could quickly make arrests.

American policymakers could take a lesson from the Slovakians.  When asked by United Nations officials to accept “their share” of Muslim refugees, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry, Ivan Metic, replied, “We could take 800 Muslims, but we don’t have any mosques in Slovakia so how can Muslims be integrated if they are not going to like it here?”  Clearly, what Metic was saying is that building permits for mosques might be very difficult to obtain in Slovakia.  Officials in the United States and other western nations should learn to be equally “welcoming” to Islamists.

What Donald Trump’s straightforward no-nonsense approach has done is to finally make it acceptable to debate some of our major national problems by putting political correctness behind us.  When all is said and done, Trump may not be electable.  However, if his presence in the race ultimately makes it permissible for us to deal with racial discord, immigration reform, and the threat of radical Islam without fear of being branded racist, Islamophobic, xenophobic, or politically incorrect, his candidacy will truly be seen as a “watershed moment” in U.S. history.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

‘SUDDEN JIHAD’ SYNDROME? Missouri Bus Station Murder Shares Much in Common with Boston Marathon Bombing

The Boston Marathon Bombing trial garnered a lot of media attention in recent days, in part, because the men suspected of committing the attack were Muslims and the attack itself bore earmarks of Islamic terrorism.  Conversely, a deadly shooting that took place in Missouri almost four years ago involved a Muslim man as the alleged shooter but has received little news coverage beyond the Show-Me State.

Mohamed H. Dawod

Mohamed H. Dawod

Less than 48 hours before the 10th anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, witnesses say then-25-year-old Mohamed H. Dawod shot to death Justin Hall, 32, of Mt. Vernon, Ohio, at a Greyhound bus station in Springfield, Mo. Soon after the shooting, Dawod found himself facing charges of first-degree murder and armed criminal action.

Almost two years of hearings and mental health assessments followed, and Dawod was committed to a mental institution to face mental evaluations every six months until he is deemed competent to stand trial or permanently committed.

Should Dawod face trial instead of remaining in a mental institution?

Some might claim Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the 19-year-old Boston Marathon bomber, was crazy when he participated in the plot that killed three spectators and wounded more than 260 others at the site of the famous footrace. Still, he was found guilty of multiple crimes, including murder, for his actions in concert with his 26-year-old brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who died in a shootout with police hours after the bombing.

Witnesses reported Dawod and his alleged victim were passengers on a bus traveling from Amarillo, Texas, but did not to know each other, and were preparing to board the bus for the last leg of the journey to St. Louis when the shooting took place.

Soon after the shooting took place, police officials in Missouri’s third-largest city were quick to label the incident involving the Glendale, Ariz., native as “random,” according to a Sept. 9, 2011, report in the Springfield News-Leader.

According to a local television report the same day, those same police officials said that, because of a language barrier, they had only learned Dawod’s name and had asked the FBI to help them with the investigation.  Also in that report was this:

Ten separate witnesses say they did not notice the men fighting or arguing before the shooting.  One passenger said she watched the suspect wander around the terminal until the call to line up to re-board the bus.  “She then observed the suspect remove a silver and black handgun from a back pack he was carrying,” the officer wrote.  “The suspect then pointed the handgun upward while saying something.  The witness could not understand what the suspect said and didn’t know if he was speaking English.”  No matter what was said the witness said Hall didn’t react or turn around.  Shortly after the witness says Dawod shot him from a few feet away.

Soon after the shooting, I wondered aloud whether the words Dawod reportedly shouted as he pointed his gun in the air could have been “Alluh Akbar,” the cry that’s been heard coming from the mouths of so many Islamic extremists moments before they suffer from so-called “sudden jihad syndrome.”  Unable to answer that question with certainty, I pointed readers to a same-day report in the Springfield News-Leader that contained more insight about the supposed “language barrier.”

Click image above to read charges filed against Mohamed H. Dawod in Greene County, Mo.

Click image above to read charges filed against Mohamed H. Dawod in Greene County, Mo.

Based largely on interviews with three people who were at the scene of the shooting, the article noted two observations I had made early on in my coverage of the case — that is, the shooter tried to fire again but could not because his gun jammed and witnesses believed the shooter intended to shoot several people.  In addition, however, it noted that Patrick Beeman, Hall’s traveling companion, said Dawod asked police a question in English after he was arrested:  “He said, ‘if I quit shooting at people, can I get back on the bus?’”  In other words, he does speak English!

Because I haven’t seen any news coverage of the Dawod case since the report of Dawod being committed, I sent email messages to two people — Dawod’s defense attorney, Stuart Paul Huffman, and Greene County, Mo., Prosecutor Dan Patterson — this morning. In my message, I requested “as much detail as possible” about Dawod’s status.

As soon as I hear back from these men, I will provide an update in this space. Stay tuned.

UPDATE 5/15/2015 at 1:25 p.m. Central:  Dawod has been declared incompetent to proceed with trial, according to Greene County Prosecutor Dan Patterson as reported in this article published Thursday. The next step? A probate court proceeding will take place and Keith Schafer, director of the Missouri Department of Mental Health, will decide whether to move forward with either commitment or guardianship proceedings.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

The Founders’ Worst Fears Coming True

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico who served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. It comes several months after another piece raised hackles among conservatives, in part, because of it’s headline, Ted, Bobby, Marco and Rick Share Something in Common. Even if you disagree with Paul, this piece will make you think long and hard.

INELIGIBLE: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA).

Click on image above to read Paul R. Hollrah’s previous piece on four prominent GOP hopefuls who are ineligible to serve as president of the United States.

As the Founding Fathers met at Independence Hall in Philadelphia in 1778, producing word-for-word the greatest governing document in all of recorded history, they were haunted by a number of major concerns. Among their most critical concerns was the long-term sustainability of the constitutional republic they were creating. How could they prevent it from being subverted?

General George Washington, president of the Constitutional Convention, read a July 25, 1787, letter from John Jay, a member of the Continental Congress, who would later become the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. It was just five years and eleven months since Lord Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown and Jay was concerned that the administration of our federal government might one day fall into the hands of a man who might find it difficult… because of divided loyalties… to always do what was in the best interests of the country. He was especially concerned over what might happen if command of our Army and Navy should ever fall into the hands of such a man.

In his letter, Jay wrote, “Permit me to hint whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander-in-chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen (emphasis added).”

John Jay, National Portrait Gallery.

John Jay, National Portrait Gallery.

In Federalist Paper No. 68, Alexander Hamilton expressed the prevailing concern of foreign influence in the affairs of government. He wrote, “These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the Chief Magistracy of the Union?”

Taking into account the concerns expressed by Jay and Madison, it is easy to understand why the Founders produced a constitution under which only two of the 145,400,000 jobs in the United States… public sector and private sector combined… require the incumbents to be “natural born” citizens. Those two jobs are president and vice president of the United States.

So, precisely what was it that the Founders found so worrisome about future presidents… so worrisome that they placed tight restrictions on access to the position?

The Founders rightly understood that the most influential factor in a child’s upbringing is the parenting he/she receives as a child, and that the cultural, philosophical, political, and religious influence of a child’s parents fundamentally establishes the direction of his/her future conduct. Accordingly, what the Founders feared most and what caused them to limit access to the presidency only to the “natural born” was the fear that a future president… during his formative years and during the years in which he was developing intellectually… would be exposed to an environment in which he would learn to reject the values and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Although they were not alive to see it, their worst fears were realized 221 years later when a usurper named Barack Hussein Obama occupied the White House.

Barack Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States. However, under the tutelage of her liberal parents she grew up to be a radical leftist, while his father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., was a devout Kenyan-born socialist. Obama spent most of his formative years as a citizen of Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation on Earth, where his name was changed to Barry Soetoro and his school records list his religious preference as Islamic. Then, upon returning to Hawaii at age 10, he was mentored during his teen years by a card-carrying member of the Communist Party,USA, Frank Marshall Davis. It was not the sort of environment conducive to the political and intellectual development of a man who would one day follow in the footsteps of patriots such as Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

Obama went into office promising the most transparent administration in history, and that he would bring an end to the revolving door of lobbyists moving into and out of the White House. Instead, the revolving door at the White House has been set spinning with lobbyists coming and going, while even the most liberal media outlets insist that his is the least transparent, the most secretive, and the least responsive administration in history.

He went into office promising to depolarize American politics and government and to reach across the aisle to work with Republicans. Instead, he pokes his thumb into the eyes of Republicans at every opportunity, and what has always been a healthy mistrust between the major parties now approaches bitter animosity.

He went into office promising to reduce unemployment and to spur economic growth. Instead, he has steadily shrunk the size of the U.S. workforce, increased the ranks of the unemployed, and, with little understanding how the U.S. economy works, he has stymied economic growth.

He promised to provide healthcare insurance for some 30 million uninsured, while improving the quality of healthcare and reducing the cost of healthcare for everyone… and all of that without increasing the number of doctors, nurses, and hospitals. Instead, many workers have lost their insurance, doctors are giving up their practices, and employers are reducing the working hours of employees so as to avoid paying the burgeoning cost of healthcare benefits.

He went into office promising to close the budget deficit and reduce the national debt. Instead, in the six years he’s been in office, he has not produced a single balanced budget and the national debt has increased from $9 trillion to $18 trillion… more than all previous presidents combined.

By David Donar

By David Donar

He went into office promising to reduce poverty and to shrink the income disparity between the rich and the poor. Instead, the number of Americans living below the poverty line has gradually increased, nearly 50 million Americans are on food stamps, and the wage gap between the rich and the poor has steadily widened.

He went into office promising to heal the scars of racism in America and to bring our people together. Instead, he has played the race card at every opportunity and race relations are now more tenuous than at any time since the heyday of the Ku Klux Klan.

He went into office promising to solve the illegal immigration problem by first securing our borders. Instead, millions upon millions of illegals from Mexico and Central America stream across our borders, while he uses every conceivable device to insure that the invaders can stay in the U.S. and that they will one day become reliable Democratic voters.

He went into office promising to improve relations with the Russians; to bring peace to the Middle East; to draw “red lines” in Libya and Syria that radical Islamists would not dare cross; to promote friendship and cooperation throughout the Arab world; and to heal any rifts that may have developed between us and our allies. Instead, relations between the U.S. and Russia are at an all-time low; every nation in the Middle East is either at war or about to be at war; “red lines” were crossed but Obama failed to respond as threatened; our enemies throughout the Middle East are emboldened; the most dangerous purveyor of state-sponsored terror is just weeks or months away from having a nuclear weapon; our Arab allies no longer trust us; and our long-time allies in Israel and in Europe must now face a dangerous world without our leadership.

In short, Barack Obama is precisely what the Founders feared most when they wrote Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, limiting access to the presidency only to those who are natural born citizens. In just six short years he has become the poster boy for national suicide.

Unfortunately, the intellectually lazy in both major parties, representing the entire ideological spectrum, have failed to satisfy themselves of Obama’s fitness for the presidency. Those on the left were so anxious to recapture the White House, especially with a young attractive black man as their standard bearer, that they paid no attention whatsoever to warnings that he was lacking in qualifications. While on the right, it is all but impossible to find a conservative commentator or a political leader with the courage to challenge the bona fides of a black Democrat… fearing that they may be forced to defend themselves against charges of racism.

What they have done, in fact, is to create a de facto amendment to the U.S. Constitution without going to the trouble of consulting the provisions of Article 1, Section 3; Article II, Section 1; or Article V of the Constitution.

Now, because of the duplicity of the left and the cowardice of the right, we are confronted with a potential constitutional crisis involving the candidacies of Sen. Ted Cruz (D-TX), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)… all prominently mentioned as potential Republican presidential nominees in 2016, but none of whom are eligible for that office because they fail to meet the “natural born” requirement of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Will Democrats, knowing that they supported and elected a usurper in 2008 and again in 2012, allow Republicans to do the same in 2016? Are we to simply accept that two wrongs make a right? Anyone who believes that Democrats are not so duplicitous as to glorify Obama’s illegal presidency while crucifying a Republican candidate guilty of the same offense, simply does not know Democrats. The wisest course would be for Cruz, Jindal, and Rubio to do what is best for their party and their country by removing themselves from consideration. The worst fears of the Founders has been realized in Barack Obama. Republicans should not repeat the outrage.

SEE ALSO: The Obama Eligibility Question Revisited Again.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Arkansas’ Freshman Senator Shreds Obama Administration False Narrative on Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility

According to a Department of Defense puff piece today that focuses on the Capitol Hill testimony of Brian P. McKeon yesterday, the question is not whether to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, it’s how to do it. Others, including first-term Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), offer an opinion seemingly 180 degrees opposite the one espoused by the principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy and the Obama Administration.

Beginning at the 3:00-minute mark in the video above, Senator Cotton grills McKeon about the Obama Administration’s false narrative that the mere existence of the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay has caused more terror attacks. Then he gets to the heart of his argument:

“Islamic terrorists don’t need an excuse to attack the United States. They don’t attack us for what they do, they attack us for who we are. It is not a security decision. It is a political decision based upon the promise the president made on his campaign. To say that it is a security decision based upon the propaganda value that our enemies get from it is a pretext to justify a political decision.

“In my opinion, the only problem with Guantánamo Bay is there are too many empty beds and cells there right now. We should be sending more terrorists there for further interrogation to keep this country safe. As far as I’m concerned, every last one of them can rot in hell. But as long as they can’t do that, they can rot in Guantánamo Bay.”

Though I would not wish anyone to “rot in hell” as the senator did, I do agree with the other 99 percent of his stance on the issue.

Why? Because I conducted an exhaustive four-year investigation into the federal government’s use of so-called “credibility assessment” technologies at places like Guantánamo Bay and share never-before-published details from my investigation in my second nonfiction book, The Clapper Memo.

Click on graphic above to order book.

Click on graphic above to order book.

For the short-version details about what is truly wrong with how the federal government has handled the situation at Guantánamo Bay since the beginning of what was once known as the Global War On Terror, read the two pieces below:

The Uniformed Military Balked at ‘Enhanced Interrogation’ Because They Had Better Option in Now-Banned Technology

Investigation Reveals Never-Before-Published Truths About Early Days of ‘Global War on Terror’ at Guantanamo Bay

For the long version of what’s wrong, order a copy of The Clapper Memo.

UPDATE 4/19/2015 at 1:21 p.m. Central: Check out the limited-time free-books offer here.

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Bloody Massacres Generate ‘Solutions’ to Muslim Problem

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

The word balloon of the cartoon that appeared on the cover of the Nov. 3, 2011, issue of Charlie Hebdo -- renamed Charia Hebdo ("Sharia Hebdo") -- reads "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter!"

In French, the word balloon of the cartoon on the cover of the Nov. 3, 2011, issue of Charlie Hebdo — renamed Charia Hebdo (“Sharia Hebdo”) — reads “100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter!”

The recent bloody massacres at the offices of the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, and at a kosher grocery store in Paris, have spawned a number of solutions to the “Muslim problem,” some totally useless and pointless and others quite draconian.

Typical of the useless and pointless solution was that offered by Pope Francis as he spoke to reporters aboard a recent flight from Sri Lanka to the Philippines. Referencing the atrocities in Paris, he first took both sides of the issue, expressing the belief that, while “freedom of religion and freedom of expression are both fundamental human rights,” if someone says something unkind about your mother the normal reaction is to “punch him in the nose.” He concluded by saying, “You can’t provoke, you can’t insult the faith of others, you can’t make fun of faith.”

In other words, Christians and Jews are not to show disrespect for Islam or Mohammed, but we must accept that Muslims will continue to slaughter Christians and Jews at will. If such atrocities represent what the pope might consider akin to an “unkind comment about one’s mother” by radical Islamists, then what would he suggest as a proper “punch in the nose?”

On the opposite end of the spectrum we have the comments of conservative rock star, Ted Nugent, a board member of the National Rifle Association and an outspoken critic of liberals, Democrats, and Barack Obama. In a Jan. 14, 2015, blog, titled “Save the Planet: Kill the Muslim Third Reich,” Nugent refers to his solution as “anti-rabid dog common sense.”

Setting the stage for his final solution, Nugent tells us, “I personally don’t care if you stand on your head and recite Shakespeare backwards, marry your beagle, stack BBs, French kiss rattlesnakes, or swan dive into a shallow vat of goat urine. If that’s what turns your religious crank, party on. Just do it downwind from me, and don’t bill me for your rehab.” He goes on to say, “But when it comes to the pure demonic evil of murderous savage Islamic terrorists, the line is universally drawn by good people worldwide. We all know instinctively that there is no virtue in slaughtering innocent people. No God smiles or rejoices in this.”

Introducing his solution to the problem, Nugent writes, “I’ll admit I’m not opposed to putting hollow points to the back of the heads of human cockroaches and various other vermin who wish to imprison me with their brain-dead, toxic ‘values.’ Truth is, I want to eliminate them from planet Earth and erase them from the history books of the human race… Everyone knows that there is no cure for rabid dogs except a bullet. The question the free world needs to ask is whether we are going to shoot the rabid dog or have the rabid dog chew our faces off.”

He concludes by saying, “My advice: kill ‘em all and let Satan sort ‘em out… Make no mistake; the world is in a race to the finish with crazed, rabid radical Muslims. The choice is simple: It’s religious freedom or subjugation, persecution or death… No more kicking the can down the road for the next generation. There comes a time for all good men and women to rise up and oppose evil. That time is now. It is our time. Americans must show the world the difference between respecting choices in lifestyle versus bending over and welcoming an evil takeover. This rabid, voodoo threat is very real and right in front of us. We must not shoot just one or two rabid dogs, but to save the human race we must kill them all…”

Clearly, the approach recommended by Pope Francis does nothing more than to postpone the ultimate demise of the civilized world, while the approach suggested by Nugent hardly merits discussion. To think that we could declare open season on Muslims and then proceed to kill more than two million of them is sheer madness. Instead, we must resolve to find a solution that is doable and effective, in spite of the weaknesses of our national leaders.

In their joint press conference Jan. 16, President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron expressed a desire to continue working toward multicultural societies in their respective countries. The Prime Minister expressed a willingness to spend two generations attempting to fully assimilate their Muslim immigrant population. Obama agreed, although he was still unable to use the words “Islamic” and “extremist” in the same sentence.

Neither man was willing to recognize that western nations have been attempting to assimilate Muslims for at least seventy years, more than three generations. Instead, while they continue to speak glowingly about “assimilation,” Muslims view their migration to western nations as “infiltration.”  What Obama and Cameron fail to acknowledge is that they live and work inside security “bubbles.” Unlike their fellow countrymen, they don’t have to worry about the swarthy-complexioned man in the bulky jacket at the shopping mall, or the burqa-clad Muslim woman seated next to them on a bus. They don’t have to wonder whether their clothes are just bulky, or if they conceal a suicide vest capable of killing dozens of people.

Hoping to learn a bit more about the motivation for attacks such as those on Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish grocery store, Daily Beast reporter Dana Kennedy traveled to several Parisian suburbs heavily populated by French-Algerian Muslims. She interviewed a cross section of young men who were convinced that the attacks were a conspiracy by Jews designed to make Muslims look bad. One Muslim told her that the Jews who staged the attacks were not just “regular” Jews, they were “a race of magical Jews, shape-shifting Jews,” who were “master manipulators” and who could be “everywhere at the same time.”

It is fanatics such as these who are motivated, in part, by the promise that they will each receive 72 virgins upon entering Heaven. How does one accommodate such ignorance? The answer is, we can’t.

If we are to find a middle road between what Pope Francis and Nugent suggest, our first goal must be to reach consensus on who and what the enemy is. Unlike the opinion of apologists for radical and moderate Muslims, Islam is not a religion as we understand the term. Rather it is a complete political, legal, economic, military, and cultural system with a religious component. Its adherents refuse to assimilate into host-country cultures, insisting that they be allowed to exist as an independent entity, not subject to the laws of their host countries. In order to accomplish their ends, they regularly preach the overthrow of their host nations, by violence if necessary.

Accordingly, western democracies must resolve that Islam is incompatible with cultures built on Judeo-Christian principles. In the United States, we must resolve that, “What is sauce for the (Communist) goose is sauce for the (Islamic) gander.” In order to neutralize and reverse Islam’s cultural infestation, a good starting point would be to tailor the language of Section 2 of the Communist Control Act of 1954… a law that has not been struck down by the courts and which is still on the books… to read as follows:

The American people are determined to eliminate from their midst organizations which, purporting to be ‘religious,’ in the accepted sense of that term, are conspirators dedicated to the destruction of our form of government by force and violence…

“The Congress hereby finds and declares that Islam, although purportedly a religious sect, is in fact an instrumentality of a foreign conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to individuals of other religious denominations, but denying to all others the freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution…

“As a segment of the U.S. population, Islam is relatively small, numerically, and gives scant indication of its capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful means. The peril inherent in the existence of Islam arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present system of government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign ideology renders its existence a clear and present danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into the service of Islam, trained to do its bidding, and directed and controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the organization known as Islam shall be outlawed in the United States.”

With that statute on the books, making the practice or the promotion of Islam illegal, we can make it very uncomfortable for radical Islamists. We can make their presence in our country so unpleasant that they will long for a return to whatever hellhole they and their predecessors crawled out of; they will self-repatriate in increasingly large numbers. With eyes and ears planted in every mosque and every Muslim cultural center in America, radical Imams such as the late Anwar al-Awlaki could be readily identified and FBI agents could quickly make arrests.

According to the story of the Tower of Babel, beginning in Genesis 11:6 (NKJV), God was displeased by efforts of a Hebrew tribe to build a tower that would reach the heavens, God looked down upon the Earth, and said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.

Inasmuch as radicalized Muslims have let it be known that all non-Muslims must either submit to them or die, and so-called “moderate” Muslims have refused to restrain their murderous brethren, perhaps it is time we reenacted the story of Babel, quarantining all Muslims to a portion of the Earth in which all of the competing tribes of Islam can settle their differences… peacefully or violently.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.