Before President Trump delivered his Joint Address to Congress, uncertainty loomed over whether he would water down his penchant for speaking the truth about our radical Islamic adversaries.
Any reasonable person can see the common characteristic between the 9/11 hijackers, the Fort Hood jihadist, the Boston bombers, the Paris attackers, the San Bernardino couple, and the Orlando nightclub shooter, and no, it’s not that they’re all Jehovah Witnesses.
President Trump’s executive order regarding seven terror infested countries could not be more critical to ensuring the safety of all Americans. Those who oppose this executive order, do so at their own peril, and that of their fellow citizens.
First of all, there is no “Muslim ban,” contrary to what the fake news media would have you believe.
There is a ban against travel to the U.S. from seven of the highest risk countries for terrorist activity. It isn’t President Trump’s fault all seven of those countries just happen to be almost entirely Islamic.
What happened in this Presidential election was nothing short of world altering. In contrast to the past 8 years, we will now have a Commander-in-Chief who prioritizes the safety of the American people over politically correct dogma that endangers us all.
Many were shocked by the results of this election, and there have been a variety of theories put forth to explain the outcome.
Predictably, we’ve seen the mainstream media drone on about everything from racism, to sexism, to Islamophobia, and even Russian intervention, in an effort to explain the tidal wave of Trump voters they never saw coming.
Last night’s Presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton illustrated perfectly, the two contrasting choices facing our nation. One candidate puts Americans first, and the other seeks to flood our country with massive waves of un-vetted Islamic refugees.
Prior to the debate, as the media obsessed over comments made by Donald Trump on an audio tape from over 10 years ago, little attention was paid to the revelations made by WikiLeaks that Hillary Clinton desires an “Open Borders” society.
The recent Vice Presidential debate could not have made the two choices in this upcoming election any clearer. On one end was a smug, politically correct elitist named Tim Kaine, and on the other, a calm, charismatic patriot named Mike Pence.
With the frenetic speed at which suicide jihadist attacks are taking place, it’s understandable that the media’s narrative remains the same. Only a superficial level of understanding can be derived as attacks increase in frequency and the public’s window of interest narrows. In fact, the common citizen now find themselves with “another machete attack” mindset as the media splashes some basic facts and moves on to something of greater interest.
Currently, with the increased operational tempo of Jihadist attacks around the world people understandably want solutions. The harsh reality is that people can no longer live their lives as they desire. The populace around the world now lives with a constant low grade concern that Islamic terrorism is going to impact their life in some way. Americans, and in particular those of the Christian or Jewish faith, live in this reality specifically because they are considered the highest target to the Jihadist. Again, because the threat of Jihadist attacks is not going away people inevitably want solutions.
ISIS Strategy: Transitioning the U.S. Into Offense
As ISIS purportedly loses its swath of land in Iraq and Syria it is clear their strategy is changing. Moving towards a decentralized and non-hierarchical approach, they will now promulgate a message that resonates with ideological followers around the world – attack wherever and however. This approach is certainly not new to the Jihadists specifically via the Islamic concept of Ijtihad (Independent reasoning). Ijtihad in certain interpretations allows and enables Jihadist attacks without hierarchical or tacit approval. As such, Jihadist attacks will most likely increase throughout the world especially in those countries that are reactive in nature. Given this new asymmetrical environment, an irregular approach to the larger ISIS problem must be undertaken and in short order. In looking at the increasingly complex nature of decentralized Jihad, the U.S. could benefit from a more proactive approach. The following offers some long term options to not only thwart ISIS activities, but to send the much needed message that the U.S. will unapologetically deal with Islamic terrorists.
Ever since Canada accepted nearly 12,000 refugees, concerns have been surfacing about discord between Muslim and Western value systems. Though 60 percent of Canadians living in the province of Ontario originally supported the decision to import Syrian refugees, 75 percent now think the immigrants’ central ideologies clash with their own. Only a third in that region have a positive perception of Islam. A majority of the citizens also believe that Islam promotes violence and hatred towards non-Muslims. It required first-hand exposure for Ontarians to strip the blinders that shaded their worldview for far too long.
Sunday, June 12, 2016 marks the day of the worst domestic terrorist attack in America since 9/11. ISIS has proudly claimed responsibility for this heinous attack while following through with their promised threats by savagely attacking patrons of a popular night club in Orlando, Florida. Omar Mateen, 29, armed and intent on murdering anything in sight, shot and killed 50 people.