The vast majority of Muslims abhor and condemn homosexuality. They do not embrace nor celebrate so-called “gay rights.” Under Sharia law homosexuals have no rights. This is especially the case if you examine the theocratic vision of the various radical Islamic terrorist groups.
Which raises the interesting question. Why is Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama so insistent on bringing more Syrian refugees, who are largely Sunni muslims, to the United States? Their religious views almost guarantees that U.S. immigration policy is promoting the influx of people who hate gays.
A case in point is the naturalized American terrorist, Ahmad Rahami, the man who planted bombs in New Jersey and New York City. His ex-girl friend cited homosexuality in the United States as one of Rahami’s beefs with America and said that Rahami:
would rail against American culture and homosexuality.
So why is Hillary Clinton, and the Democrats for that matter, so insistent that there should be no criteria, at least religious or ideological, to screen out refugees? Their view is that America should have open arms and embrace all of the tired, poor, wretched refuse seeking sanctuary here.
Sounds great in theory, but the terrorist attacks in New York City, Orland and San Bernardino shows that immigrants and first generation Americans saturated in a conservative Islamic culture are not easily assimilated into the Western ideal of diversity. These immigrants are not cosmopolitan people eager to celebrate cultural and sexual diversity. They tend towards quite conservative religious views. And those views include a condemnation of homosexuality in all of its manifestations.
On this point Donald Trump’s view on controlling the influx of refugees appears to be a more rational position for those voters keen on protecting gay rights. “Extreme” vetting of potential refugees can be viewed as a process and system to identify and weed out those aspiring immigrants who are virulently anti-gay.
The Liberal mindset major flaw, as it has been since the 18th Century, is the belief that people are inherently good. You know, noble savages, who have been corrupted by institutions and capitalists. Under that ideological point of view you need only plant people in fertile soil and beautiful things will be produced.
While I appreciate the kindness behind such sentiment, it is dangerously naive and the actions of Ahmad Rahami exposes this fiction for what it is. Think about it. Rahami came to America as a 7 year old boy. The Liberal view is that he would naturally embrace the diversity and tolerance of the ideal America. But he did not.
He was only 13 when radical Islamic terrorists hijacked planes and carried out mass murder. Under the Liberal fiction that act should have aroused in him a rage at those who attacked his new country. But it did not. Instead of rejecting the poison of radical Islam, he sought it out. Despite growing up in the bosom of the American dream, he traveled to Afghanistan and accepted the intolerant hatred that is at the core of radical Islam.
I do not know if the average voter perceives or understands the contradiction in the Hillary position and the odd consistency in the Trump position when it comes to the issue of refugees from Muslim countries, but for those who do it is likely to boost the fortunes of Trump and hurt Clinton.
What do you think?