• Blog Stats

    • 163,975 Visitors
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 1,073 other followers

  • Google Translator


  • FaceBook

  • Islamic Terror Attacks

  • Meta

  • iPaper Embed

  • Calendar

    February 2011
    M T W T F S S
    « Jan   Mar »
  • Authors Of Blog

  • Monthly Archives

  • Advertisements


BY ; K.C. McAlpin
By Frosty
February 10, 2011
With the
growing Muslim threat throughout the United States and world, it’s time for
rational Western countries to enact an all-out ban on Muslim immigration. It’s
proved disastrous in all of Europe where Muslims migrated. Why? Muslims fail to
assimilate or acculturate into host countries. Rather, they become antagonistic,
regressive and violent.
You may take
any number of examples from the Madrid, Spain train bombings to Great Britain’s
subway bombings, to accelerating rapes in Norway and Sweden to snipers like
Muhammed Melvo in the USA, Denver bomb maker Najibullah Zazi to the Times Square
car bomber a few months ago. What’s next? Who’s next? Fact: it’s going to happen
again! Why should we continue importing endless and angry Muslims into our
In a new piece
by K.C. McAlpin, president of U.S. Inc., “A reply to critics of The Social Contract’s
for a ban on Muslim Immigration to the U.S.”, he gives full measure why
Muslim immigration must be stopped within the USA. February 2, 2011.
observers have criticized our fall, 2010 edition of The Social Contract for its call for a
ban on Muslim immigration to the U.S., on national security grounds,” said
McAlpin. “By “thoughtful observers” we mean to exclude our adversaries on the
far left who get a case of the vapors whenever limits on mass immigration are
proposed. Rather this commentary is to respond to concerns expressed by those on
the political left and right who generally agree with us on the need for common
sense immigration reform, and whose minds are open to rational argument and
“Objections to
our call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration generally resolve into one of
two arguments: (1) That a ban would violate our Constitutional guarantee of
freedom of religion, or at the least conflicts with the spirit of it; and (2)
That a ban would be impossible to implement and consequently would be nothing
more than a symbolic gesture that antagonizes Muslims and does nothing to
enhance our national security.
“Regarding the
first objection it needs to be understood that applicants for admission to the
United States do not enjoy the protection of the US Constitution or its 1st
Amendment until and unless they are lawfully admitted. The Supreme Court has
ruled that Congress has plenary power under the Constitution to regulate
immigration and determine who can and who cannot be admitted.
Congress may
bar immigration on any grounds it chooses – including those classes of persons
protected by our civil rights laws e.g. race, religion, national origin, sex,
age, etc. Congress has used that power in the past to ban the immigration of
Communist Party and National Socialist (Nazi) party members who were deemed to
be threats to our national security. This case is no different.
“We contend
that it is not “religious bigotry” to defend oneself, or one’s family and
community from people who profess a particular religion, and whose adherents
have repeatedly tried to attack and murder you in the name of their God. A ban
on the immigration of the entire class of such people is a rational self-defense
measure when it is impossible to distinguish between those members of the group
who pose a threat, and those who do not, and when protecting innocent lives has
the overriding priority it should have for those charged with defending the
nation’s citizens from attack. We do not advocate abridging the freedom of
religion of anyone lawfully admitted to the U.S.
“The second
objection assumes that it is impossible to screen Muslims from the pool of
immigration applicants, and therefore useless to try. The idea is that Muslims
would simply identify themselves as members of other faiths or as non-believers
on immigration applications, making such a ban merely symbolic and unenforceable
in practice.
“We disagree.
In the first instance there are a large number of Muslim clerics, academics,
intellectuals, writers and religious leaders who cannot escape their religious
affiliation because it is a matter of public record. In fact a disproportionate
number of such people are among the most anti-American of all Muslims, and
therefore potential threats to our national security.
“Second, a ban
on Muslim immigration would give the FBI and our national security agencies a
useful weapon to use against those the agencies suspect of being terrorists.
There is a precedent. The aforementioned ban against the immigration of
Communists and Nazis was used in much the same way against those who were
suspected of being Communist or Nazi sympathizers. In addition to preemptive
screening, terrorist suspects who managed to immigrate and were later caught
attending a Mosque could have their visas revoked for falsifying their
immigration applications, and be deported before they became a threat.
“Third, such a
ban should prevent the resettlement of Muslim refugees within the U.S. This is
important because a troubling number of first and second generation Muslim
refugees who have been given refuge in the U.S. have later turned up in
terrorist training camps in countries such as Somalia and Pakistan. Several
dozen young Somali refugees, for example including U.S. high school graduates,
were found to have returned to Somalia to pursue jihad against the U.S.
imposing a ban on Muslim immigration is very likely to have an impact that goes
far beyond mere symbolism. It is certain to discourage many Muslims from
applying even if they are inclined to falsify their applications. And even
though a ban is certain to exacerbate tensions with the Islamic world, it could
well be the catalyst that triggers the Reformation within Islam that many
observers think is essential if there is ever to be peaceful coexistence between
Islam and the West.
“A ban on
Muslim immigration, therefore, is not only constitutional, but a practical and
necessary way to defend ourselves against the growing threat of homegrown
terrorism the U.S. faces in the 21st Century.”
You may
contact K.C. McAlpin here.
Listen to Frosty Wooldridge on Wednesdays as he
interviews top national leaders on his radio show “Connecting the Dots” at www.themicroeffect.com at
6:00 PM Mountain Time. Adjust tuning in to your time zone.
© 2011 Frosty Wooldridge – All Rights

One Response

  1. Is this article for real, how do we know its not some bidy pretending to be muslim aka , a take on TAQIYA , to try and spread indirect terror on anyone who responds to the afore mentioned email


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: