Banning Muslims

There is an overwhelming majority of Americans that are in favor now of banning Muslims from entering the United States, in light of the recent attacks in Lahore, Pakistan, in Iraq at a soccer stadium, and in Brussels, Belgium all in the last week.

71% feel that there will be a major attack in the United States in the coming months. That includes Democrats, who are starting to be on the other side of the fence from their president, Bobo Obama, who is still convinced that it’s not a Islam thing, it’s a terrorist thing. Unfortunately for Bobo, most Americans feel its the same thing.

At some point, the White House has to understand what the problem is, and they have to deal with it. Maybe it’s not this president that has to deal with it, but the office of the president will have to. If it’s Donald Trump or Ted Cruz or Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders sitting behind the Resolute Desk, they will have to decide whether or not to ban Muslims from entering this country. And to tell you the truth, I’m torn.

I’ve always been a proponent of bringing people legally to America. That’s how our great nation has been built. But I’m totally against anything that would introduce terrorism into the mix. If that means that we have take Muslims out of the equation for a while, so be it. If that means we have to build a wall on our southern border to stem the tide of illegal immigrants who feel they have this right to enter our country because we have a better country than they have, so be it. I’m not for totally banning all Muslims forever…but it seems that all of the terrorist plots around the globe right now seem to be coming from one religion. When that’s the case, you DO have to profile. You are an idiot if you don’t. And political correctness be damned. When our safety is at stake, when Americans are being killed just because they are American, then I say you have to take whatever means is necessary.

Throughout history we’ve seen this type of behavior from various religions, and yes, Christians have been guilty of it as well. It was called the Crusades. But it was in response to Islam’s Caliphate. And we saw what happened when Muslims (and Moors) tried to take over Spain. Anybody remember Queen Isabella? Same one as funding the Columbus trip to the New World. She and her hubby were the ones that repelled the Moors from Spain.

It isn’t a bad thing to protect your country. And frankly, if you find that it’s being done by one religion, you have to take whatever steps necessary, up to and including banning that religion. And I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I don’t know another religion that actively promotes the killing of non-believers as Islam does. Oh, maybe some voodoo cult somewhere, but I’m talking mainstream religion. It doesn’t happen…nor should it.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!


7 thoughts on “Banning Muslims

  1. Well Desert, you never cease to amaze me. Now I could argue that this Muslims banning thing is both stupid and unconstitutional (that nasty First Amendment), but I would rather move on to something that is near and dear to my heart, ignorance of history and perpetuating lies. Now I admit that in spite of our philosophical differences, you are an intelligent person, but you just wandered into the wrong sandbox on this one.

    First, Christian bloodletting is not limited to just the Crusades (which I will speak of a bit later), but rather has a long and inglorious history beginning in the early Medieval period and running through the 18th Century. It still goes on albeit on a more intellectual level, but there are still kooks out there killing somebody for Christ.

    Second, as for Spain, your timeline is just a bit screwed up, by about 700 years. The Muslims, actually Moors took over the southern area of Spain in the 700’s calling it Andalusia, settling in until they were driven out in 1492 by Fred and Iz. Now the Moors were actually quite advanced as they lived peacefully with the locals, including Jews while their northern European neighbors spent their time beating the crap out of each other over petty differences. The Moors and by default, Muslims, had advanced knowledge as they had many manuscripts or books from the Classical age, advanced knowledge of anatomy, mathematics because of their numbering system (when will the Freedom Caucus in Congress try ban Arabic numbers because it is some sort of Islamic plot?) and military strategy, think Sal-al-adin (there are various spellings).

    Third, contrary to public opinion and the drivel that passes for secondary education history classes, the Crusades were not about Caliphates and taking the Holy land back from the infidels, which was the party line so to speak. Rather, this was a money making venture as western Europe was close to bankruptcy (painting a broad stroke here) because of the aforementioned petty wars. The residents of the Holy land as we know it today, lived in relative peace and I am talking about Muslims, Jews, Christians (actually were comprised of Gnostics, Coptics and what we call today Eastern Orthodox) and everyone sort of prospered. Then the Europeans showed up and the entire dynamic changed which is still with us today. The Crusaders, when victorious, plundered cities, like Jerusalem when they were not killing all the inhabitants. The Crusaders were made up of various factions, i.e., mercenaries, knights, Templar knights (this is when they started, both branches) and other hangers on. When there were truces, and there were, the Templars went into the money lending business with the Muslims and everybody did extremely well. Actually too well for the Templars as the Church was pissed that their mordita was not big enough and next thing you know here comes the Inquisition (a money making venture in this instance). This was also the rise of the first wealthy city state in Italy, Venice, as they made a fortune on transporting the crusaders and their posse to Palestine as it was known then. A lot more to this story but this is the microversion. Of course, to no surprise to you Desert, I have all sorts of educational material on this and also have a movie recommendation which is somewhat accurate. If you can find the director’s cut of Kingdom of Heaven, it uses actual historical figures and is fairly accurate on the Crusades although there is a certain amount of Hollywood hokiness. Also, Liam Neeson has the best line in the movie, “I once fought two days with an arrow through my testicles.” How can you not like that. Also, if you can find a book called Dungeon, Fire and Sword by John J. Robinson, gives you a short history (by historian standards) of the Templar knights.

    Class dismissed and we have an essay test on Monday. Tuesday we will examine what Medieval stained glass windows and NASCAR driver jumpsuits have in common. Have fun stormin’ the castle.

    • Um…Snark…you need to re-read the First Amendment. It has nothing about immigration or admittance into the country in there. As for the “timeline screwup”, Ok, I’m impressed with your knowledge of European history (that’ll get you a lot of high paying jobs, I bet!). But what you said is not contrary at all to what I said, which was that Isabella and Ferdinand ousted the Moors before sending Ol’ Chris on his journey to the new world, which you backed up. That was my only reference to the whole Spanish thing. And yes, I used the Crusades as an example, but didn’t list every instance of Christian aggression (since we’re talking Spain, how about the Inquisition?). I also never said the Crusades were a good thing! As for the Templar knights, don’t forget they aren’t all bad…they brought about the current world banking system! Though I would say that having an arrow through one’s testicle for two days would make it tough to put your pants on!

    • LOL…Oh, I’m not worried, Arlin. I’m always glad to put on the jousting gear. Keeps me mentally sharp. After all, I deal with 80 and 90 year olds all day…I need the distratction!

  2. I agree with most of what Snarky Historian said but nevertheless reach the same conclusions as the OP. Sure, Medieval Europe was backward there for a while compared with the Arab world. The two civilizations often clashed and it was sometimes our fault. However, things have changed. The West has pulled way ahead of the Arab world. Importing huge numbers of Arabs (or Muslims generally) will make our countries more like their countries, i.e. worse. Having said that, banning every single Muslim is unnecessarily extreme and I hope it’s just the opening gambit in sensible review of lax immigration policies.

    • And as I’ve said, I believe that yes, while it’s extreme, it may be necessary, especially if the federal government, who is primarily responsible for the safety of its citizens, can’t find a way to better vet the people coming into this country. THAT is more important than any foreigner’s freedom to travel to this country.

Comments are closed.