Trump Exposes Weakness in Field

Trump2by Patricia L. Dickson9/18/15
The backlash that Donald Trump has received after he proposed a temporary halt on Muslim immigrants entering our country has left me scratching my head.  I am not at all shocked by the response coming from liberals (they cannot be expected to comprehend the seriousness of this issue).  But I am puzzled by the response and backlash from Republicans, especially the presidential candidates.  I was so taken aback that I meticulously went over Mr. Trump’s press release that explained what led him to make such a proposal.

Mr. Trump relied on polling data that consistently confirms that half of all Muslims believe they should be allowed to live under sharia law (even when living in the United States).  Sharia law allows for honor killings (anti-women) and the killing of homosexuals (anti-gay).  Polling also consistently showed that a large percentage of the Muslim population throughout the world supports the use of violence to achieve global jihad.  Mr. Trump took the polling information and coupled it with House homeland security chair Rep. Michael McCaul’s public statement that intelligence data has confirmed ongoing effort by ISIS to use the Syrian refugee situation to gain access into the United States, along with the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., and came to his logical (though unpopular) proposed Muslim moratorium.

Although this information is publicly available, instead of reaching the same or a similar conclusion, some of the presidential candidates condemned Trump for his proposal.  The most important job of the American president and the government, as stated in the Preamble, is to ensure domestic tranquility and provide common defense for the citizenry.  Without security, no one will be able to engage in the pursuit of happiness.

So why such harsh condemnation of Trump?  When it comes to our nation’s security, presidential contenders (of all people) should be united.  Yet Jeb Bush called Trump “unhinged.”  Chris Christie said the proposal was “ridiculous.”  Could it be that Trump’s bold stand exposes their weaknesses?

This incident reminds me of the biblical story of David in I Samuel 17.  Jesse sent his youngest son David to check on his three older brothers who were fighting in Israel’s army in a war against the Philistines.  While visiting his brothers, David witnessed his brothers along with the rest of Israel’s army running and hiding when the Philistines’ giant soldier, Goliath, came out and taunted them.  David, full of righteous indignation, asked one of the soldiers what King Saul would give the man who fought the giant.  David’s (weak and fearful) brother heard him ask the question and responded with anger:

When Eliab, David’s oldest brother, heard him speaking with the men, he burned with anger at him and asked, “Why have you come down here? And with whom did you leave those few sheep in the wilderness? I know how conceited you are and how wicked your heart is; you came down only to watch the battle.

Nothing angers a coward more than being exposed.  Every one of the presidential candidates except Trump and Cruz are afraid to death of liberals and the media.  Scripture warns about the fear of man in Proverbs 29:25.  America does not need a weak president, especially when we are being threatened by ISIS.  Say what you want about President George W. Bush, but one can never call him weak.  I served under him both terms, and when he told my fellow troops and me to go get the evildoers, we were proud to do so.  We all knew that our commander-in chief had our backs.

Attacking Trump’s proposal with nonsensical hyperbole while not offering a better solution will not stop ISIS from attacking America.  Growing a spine, ignoring media backlash designed to distract, and uniting for the common cause of national security will.

PatriciaDicksonPatricia Dickson blogs at Patricia’s Corner.
About Author Author Archive Email • (966 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Trump Exposes Weakness in Field

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Cowardice seems the most likely explanation, Patricia. Thanks for the excellent perspective on all this. Have a Merry Christmas.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    In discussions of this on various blog sites, I have pointed out that the problem with Muslim immigrants isn’t merely the handful who will be terrorists, but the many who will provide the terrorists with a base of operations and who will also support all the really bad aspects of Islam (death for apostasy and blasphemers, and the various aspects of Muslim misogyny). The problem isn’t simply San Bernardino etc., but Rotherhan. And the leading moderate Muslim from Buffalo who committed an honor killing a few years ago.

    Islam itself is incompatible with the free expression associated with Western civilization. But so is liberalism, so naturally they don’t object. And the Cheap Labor Lobby wants NO restrictions of any sort on immigration, so those Republicans in hock to them are appalled by the idea.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Polling also consistently showed that a large percentage of the Muslim population throughout the world supports the use of violence to achieve global jihad

    People need to remember that, from its birth, Islam has been at war with everyone else, particularly Christianity.

    Mohammed spread his message by the sword in Arabia. Immediately after his death, the Muslim Arabs moved into Egypt and the Levant and conquered the inhabitants of those regions, i.e. Christians. They also moved into Armenia, the first official Christian state, which covered a larger area than it does today.

    They moved across Christian North Africa, (St. Augustine and Tertullian were both Berbers) and into what is now Spain and Portugal. They continued into France where they were finally stopped by Charles Martel at what many call the Battle of Tours.

    Back in Asia, they were in a continuous fight with the Byzantine Empire and conquered all of what is now Turkey as well as the Balkans until only Constantinople remained. This fell in 1453 or 1454. With this accomplished, the Ottomans invaded Europe many times until they were halted and their power broken at the gates of Vienna in 1683.

    From that time, Muslims were in retreat and saw their holdings retaken by those they had conquered.

    It has only been with the collapse of Western morale and the rise of Saudi oil that Muslims have started to rise again.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Constantinople fell in 1453. The Turks attacked Vienna twice, once after the defeat of Hungary at Mohacs (1529, I think), and the other the high-water mark in 1683 (which was defeated by King Jan Sobieski of Poland). They also moved east from Araby to conquer Persia and then move into central Asia (Tamerlane was a Muslim Turk) and the Indian subcontinent, eventually spreading to Malaya, the East Indiea, and the southern Philippines (the Muslim tribesmen are known as Moros for obvious reasons).

      One wonders how long any memorials to Charles Martel, Ferdinand and Isabella (who finished off the Moors in Granada after a reconquista that had lasted centuries), and Jan Sobieski. Poland might at least survive as a Christian culture a while longer than Austria, France, and Spain.

  4. SkepticalCynic SkepticalCynic says:

    I think we all have different ideas of what has gone wrong with our leaders. Many of our ideas are correct but are not fully correct. I believe the center of the majority of our problems come from priorities. That is, what we hold important or first on the list. Every one of us have different priorities and they are for the most part right for us, that is, assuming that we are sane and realistic. All of this works for us….. generally. The thing is, this will not work at all at the national level. (It doesn’t work too well at the state level, either but that is not where I am coming from today.) Nationally, we have our priorities inverted and have had for quite some time. Those of us that still have the ability see a situation, rationalize the options and come to a sound decision are becoming fewer by the day. So, what are we as a nation to do to get our priorities in order? What has brought us to this point? Selfishness and greed have caused the largest part of our population to vote in those candidates that will give the store away. The answer to the first question is, in my mind, the most depressing because we are as a nation, going to have to crash much like an airplane in order to resurrect a government that will benefit all of us. Further, I simply don’t see a resurrection of the America we had previously because the vultures are circling. The United States of America was a one shot deal. After the splatter, we will be too splintered to ever rebuild what the founders were able to build.
    I realize that what I write is pessimistic for the future but I am honestly trying to be realistic. We had a great thing handed to us and we have blown it.

    I hope I am wrong….terribly wrong.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The tragedy of government is that, since men are governed by other men rather than angels, those men (and women) have the same priorities as rulers that they do as private individuals. Thus, government always serves itself (and those who can choose, and remove, the rulers). The moral advantage of democracy is that at least it serves (theoretically) the whole population instead of some minority that often is self-selected on the basis, ultimately, of might makes right.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I think your ideas of priorities is spot-on. The entire concept of priorities means you can’t do everything. You have to make choices. The exploding Federal debt is the chiseling into stone that we, as a society, are not mature enough for this concept. We want it all, we want it now, and don’t dare tell me otherwise or you’re obviously involved in a “war on women” or whatever.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *