Raymond Ibrahim just made the most accurate analogy when it comes to dealing with the ‘refugee crisis’ that is hitting Europe and now America. He compares it to playing a VERY dangerous game.
Are U.S. presidents charged with protecting American lives or protecting American vanity—especially when the two clash?
Put differently, what’s more important: our security or our ability to “feel good” about ourselves?
Clinton is correct that it’s an American value not to discriminate by religion.
However, a troubling implication arises when this value is scrutinized in the context of Islam: Even if most Muslim migrants will not engage in jihadi terrorism and other subversive acts, some most certainly will.
This is an established fact, one that Clinton knows: Islamic State operatives are passing for refugees and “non-Islamic State” refugees are committing acts of violence and rape across Western nations. And both Islamic State and its millions of likeminded supportersare motivated by Islamic teachings.
While antithetical to the lofty and utopic platitudes offered by most politicians, it would actually work. A “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” would prevent Muslim wolves in refugee clothing from entering into America.
Put differently, the only sure way of not dying from Russian Roulette is—don’t play Russian Roulette.
Does this mean that America has no obligation towards true refugees? No.
Read more: The Blaze