The San Bernardino terrorist attack was the deadliest on U.S. soil since 9/11. The aftermath elicited many responses from political candidates, the harshest coming from the Trump campaign. A press release issued by Trump officials calls for a controversial move: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." Read the article here.
Even media mogul Rupert Murdock tweeted his approval of Trump’s assertion: “Has Trump gone too far? Regardless, public is obsessed on radical Muslim dangers, Complete refugee pause to fix vetting makes sense.” Read the article here.
Is this a first for the United States? Absolutely not! Inspiration for political campaigns is derived from many sources, and in this case Republican Trump found his latest muse in none other than a Democrat, former President Jimmy Carter.
During the Iran hostage crisis which lasted 444 days (1979-1981), Mr. Carter instituted a new visa program designed to halt any hint of terrorist attacks by Iranian jihadists. The restrictions included:
- The expulsion of Iranian diplomats and military trainees from the United States.
- Tighter restrictions on visas for Iranians desiring to come to the United States.
- Revocation of visas for Iranian who had already entered the country.
Under Carter’s new visa program, no Iranian was allowed to enter the United States except in the case of major medical emergency or political asylum. Read more.
During that same period, the office of the U.S. Attorney General demanded that Iranian students report to immigration offices nationwide. Some 7,000 were discovered to have held invalid visas; approximately 15,000 were forced to leave the country.
While the Trump proposal was rejected out-of-hand by most, a more in-depth look may provide a clue to his reasoning. According to a Wall Street Journal report, Tashfeen Malik, the female terrorist/shooter, and her then-fiancé Sayed Farook gamed the system by submitting “the K-1 visa application (a type of visa used by individuals who plan to marry U.S. citizens), and the Department of Homeland Security vetted Malik against national security and law enforcement databases.” FBI Director James Comey indicated that the couple had been radicalized two years before the San Bernardino attack and both had talked about martyrdom and jihad on the Internet before they were married.
Homeland security allowed her entry, as it welcomes hundreds of women from Pakistan each year who are engaged to be married. This seems to be an excellent way for radicalized Muslim jihadists to target compliant or unsuspecting marriage partners to gain legal visas into the United States. Once inside the country, they can simply do what these two did: Either begin planning an attack, or, devise a more subtle campaign to draw the U.S. into a situation where a majority of proponents demand the instigation of shariah law. Does this sound so far-fetched? ISIL deems itself to be a Sunni Muslim group, and faithfully adheres to the tenets of shariah law.
How do their beliefs compare to the Constitution of the United States?
Constitution Article VI: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Shariah: “The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah. There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Shariah.”
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
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. Read Shariah Law vs. the Constitution
ISIS sympathizers will never swear allegiance to the United States of America. Members will never accept the freedom bestowed on women, and homosexuals and the protection given to children. Discrimination against children occurs through preventing their exposure to different ideas and thoughts. Children from an Islamic background are often brought up to hate their Jewish, Christian and Hindu classmates, as well as any gay students. Children of ISIS members have been required, not only to watch beheadings and murders, but to take part in them.
Donald Trump, for all his bravado, has called attention to the abysmal lack of leadership from the Barack Obamas and Hillary Clintons who swear that there is no such thing as Islamic terror. They represent the most Liberal Left agenda in America since that of James Earl “Jimmy” Carter. It may well be that Trump is more representative of the silent majority—those tired of having sand kicked in their faces—first by 9/11, then the Boston Marathon murders, and now in the quiet city of San Bernardino. People want to feel safe in their workplaces, their homes, their houses of worship, malls and restaurants. That feeling of security has been ripped away.
There is something obviously wrong with the way those entering the United States are vetted. We saw the breakdown with the radicalized Tsarnaev brothers, and now with Malik and Farook. What will it take to fix the issue? Perhaps it begins with people who are not afraid to recognize that there is a problem.