Is there anything wrong with that? Where is the sense of morality when we start ‘hating’ on groups of people? Is morality even the correct terminology? I believe the question should be, Is it Moral for America to be Secure? Let’s base these questions on the idea that Obama hates America.
I won’t go too into detail about Obama’s hate for this country because he does. I base that claim from his words such as the “I have a pen and a phone” remark in which he describes he will take legislative powers into his hands therefore neglecting the separation of powers, his remarks on “fundamentally changing America”. I mean, come on: why would you fundamentally change something you love? Lately, though not the last, he openly endorses a criminal for president. A criminal who doesn’t care about military lives and the security of this country. If he doesn’t hate America, he certainly doesn’t love it.
If Obama hates this country, he would want it destroyed. Obama loves Muslims. More so than Christians and other groups of individuals. His lack of usage of words such as “Radical Islam” and “Terrorist Attack” (he used something close the other day regarding Florida) and his usage of words/phrases such as “Islam is woven into the fabric of our country” and “The Holy Quran” when he refers to the Holy Bible, he used it as an attack: “..they cling to guns or religion..” when talking about the “bitter” people of the Midwest. Be it the Muslims are radicalized or not, they are the only thing that are actually doing something to harm this country in terms of massive violence. When was the last time, anywhere around the globe, Christians got together and took over Paris, killed nearly 50 gay individuals in Florida, shot people at a convention because they were having a contest to draw Jesus or God? If you hate this country, why not capitalize on the fact Muslims, radicalized or not, are openly doing harm, in terms of violence, on this world?
In a time of war, a country must protect herself from evil. In World War II, Japanese were taken into camps on the US mainland. Was it wrong? Probably. Could it have saved us from a horrible attack? Probably. The Japanese attacked our country and we had no idea how to stop it. We had to do what was necessary to protect ourselves. I’m not saying we round up Muslims, but a temporary ban on Muslim individuals coming into this country should start immediately. I mentioned in my blog post from two days ago, about how World War Three is bringing guerilla warfare on steroids to the table. The internet is connecting individuals who think they want to be “on the winning side”. We don’t know who or where these individuals are at any given moment. The cause is lack of defensive strategy. The effect is radical Islam. We have a man who is in charge who does not understand the security of this country. Or does he?
He knows the power of our military. His proof is that he wasn’t to make it weaker, just as he knows we have too much power in terms of nukes. He wants to make that weaker as well. He knows we are more unsafe than when he started this presidency yet he continues his works. He knows America is the most moral place on the earth, yet he plays politics and apologizes to other nations of our actions. I know it’s wrong to round up people on beliefs because I wouldn’t want that to happen to me. However, last time I checked, Christians, who are radicalized or not, are not the ones shooting into the streets of dithering California or Orlando or Brussels or Copenhagen. Nor are they blowing up busses in the streets of London or sending jet fueled airplanes into sky scrapers. Is it moral to protect your home from invasion? What about from a possible invasion?
It is moral for America to be secure. We need to fight back and say: yes, I love my country! I care about its security. I want to remain free. We must recognize there is a group of people who want to kill us and that we don’t know whether or not they practice Taqiyya. We must find ways to make our home, America, safer. If that means a temporary ban on Muslims into this country, then so be it. At least it’s an idea on the table.