|PC and MUSLIMS II 30 Jan. 2016||| Print ||
PC and MUSLIMS II
30 Jan. 2016
Dear Friends and Patriots,
I thought I was done with this topic, but I’m not. Muslims merit other commentary that the rules of Political Correctness don’t allow. I won’t be long here, but these are additional things to consider.
The Qur’an and Hadith discuss hijra. Hijra is concerned with the taking of land occupied by infidels. The ultimate aim of hijra is to spread the Islmic faith and establish a global caliphate, where the entire world is dominated by Muslims and their rule. It was at the end of the first great hijra that Europe was invaded by Muslim forces. Those forces ultimately ruled all of the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and much of the Balkans. Their conquests were finally stopped at the Battle of Tours in 732 by the Frankish army of Charles Martel. In that battle Martel’s infantry of 30,000 troops defeated 80,000 mounted Umayyad Muslim cavalry warriors led by Emir Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi. Muslims never again attempted an attack on France. The hijra was effectively stopped. But only for a time, and only in that place. The hijra continued in other lands and has truly never ceased. Battles for Muslim domination continue in several nations today, most notably in the Philippines.
Regardless of the intent of any Muslim who emigrates to a western nation, they are part of the hijra. Unlike in centuries past, Muslims have become very modern about how they undertake hijra. In the 7th, 8th, and 9th centuries they used violence and conquest to spread their religion. Today, at least in western nations, they use immigration. The hijra is one reason peace in the Middle East is, and will be, hard to achieve. Discord, chaos, and even war further the aims of radical Islam. One of those primary aims is the new hijra. Their intent is to overwhelm western nations by becoming numerically superior. Once they’ve achieved population majorities in western nations their intent is to take them over politically and declare them Islamic states. All Muslims who are present in western nations are participants in the hijra merely by their presence. They count for any census. In many lands they are allowed citizenship and the right to vote. With their high birthrate they are literally breeding themselves into majority. There is no question of the end state. The only remaining question is the year hijra will be completed in each western country. If you know the numbers you already realize the aims of hijra in Europe will be accomplished within the coming decade.
What we are seeing today in America with the influx of Muslim refugees is part of the hijra. The refuges probably don’t realize it. Most of those people are poor and dispossessed and give little thought to grand schemes like hijra. That doesn’t mean they aren’t major factors in the success of the radical Islamists, though. They are. Each and every refugee that makes it to the west and settles in counts in the algebra of hijra.
One has to wonder if our policy makers in Washington have ever heard of hijra, or if they have, if they understand how easy it is to accomplish today. Hijra is aided and abetted by western European cultures that emphasize human rights and concepts of social justice and fairness. Western countries open their borders and provide free lunches to those passive conquerors. In doing so they accelerate their certain demise as European cultures and democracies. Our leaders in Washington have followed suit since 1988. Our pro-Arab policies and the rise of Muslim Brotherhood organizations in our country has established the foundation for an American repeat of the European experience. We are literally facilitating our own doom as a nation. Perhaps the new Trump administration will be sufficiently non-PC enough to bring it all out into the open and begin measures to reverse course. We should hope so, anyway.
Dealing with the issue of Muslims creates dissonance in many peoples’ minds. That dissonance is caused by the American ethos regarding our notions of freedom and liberty. Our libertarian inclinations become conflicted when faced with the realization that there is a contrary philosophy that is in opposition to our own. Just as Christian theology is essentially pacifist, libertarian political philosophy makes the broadest allowances for all thought that emphasizes personal freedoms. Both Christianity and libertarianism are completely at odds with radical Islam, which rejects all notions of pacifism and is oppressively totalitarian in its construct. While the American will is to be kind and giving, we are faced with the truth that doing so may ultimately seal our fate, just as we are seeing in Europe.
There is hope, though. There is always hope. Oddly enough, the election of Donald Trump should give us hope that the timeline of hijra in America has been stalled, if not stopped. In Europe the Brexit vote has started movements in other countries that may eventually do the same thing, there. The hope is enough people understand that the phenomenon of Muslim immigration and refugee resettlement is an essential part of the Muslim hijra; that it is purposeful, even though the vast majority of its participants don’t understand it as such.
All of this sounds like fiction, doesn’t it? It sounds impossible. It sounds like the ravings of a lunatic mind. Yes, it does, but the template for it all was established by a guy named Mohammad when he wrote the Qur’an. To those whose thoughts are westernized, if not Christian, it’s perverse. To believers in Islam, it is tradition and law. Those who doubt the truth of hijra are abetting it almost as much as those “innocent” Muslim immigrants. If Americans, as well as all in the west, don’t open their minds and their eyes to what is happening, one day it will be too late. We don’t want that day.
One last thought. In the past few days there have been many statements made about the constitutionality of banning Muslim immigration. The thought conveyed is that banning anyone from immigrating based on their ethnicity or religion is unconstitutional, and that those who wish to seek asylum in our country have the right to do so. Nothing could be more false.
The Constitution applies to two categories of people. As originally written it applied only to U.S. citizens. The 14th Amendment extended Constitutional protections to any person who was physically in/on U.S. territory as well. No one who is not a citizen nor is physically present within Constitutional boundaries can claim any right guaranteed by our law. It’s truly that simple, though there are factions within the U.S. who would have us believe otherwise. Those people claim we have a moral obligation “under the Constitution” to aid refugees who wish to come to our nation. In their minds that moral obligation is superior to U.S. law. Again, nothing could be more false.
While I agree that all humans have intrinsic rights according to Natural Law, and those rights are acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, our Natural Rights according to Natural Law are constrained by man-created law. This is true in every nation that ever existed, with every government that ever existed. In this instance, the Natural Right to freedom and liberty is constrained by immigration laws, which set conditions on where some people are physically allowed to be. In specific, our immigration laws allow the exclusion of individuals who may pose a threat to the nation. They don’t diminish any individual’s freedom or liberty except in one obvious respect – they can’t enjoy their freedom and liberty here. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.