The worst crimes and acts of terror all begin in the mind.

Because of this, there can be no such thing as a truly "innocent" or "peaceful" Muslim, due to both the tenets of the religion itself, and to the fact that its accompanying practices of terror and conquest are known universally by those who choose to enter the religion, and by those who choose to stay in it.

Western countries, in the misguided notion of "tolerance" and "inclusion", have attempted to put Muslims into different brackets, classifying some as "peaceful" or "non-violent", others as "fundamentalist" or "radical". However, if September 11th teaches anything, it is that it is both arrogant and a lethal vulnerability for an outside country to assign different character designations to those all belonging to the same violent religion, which the religion itself does not give. Such designations can only be based simply on whether such people have actually committed a crime, making them inherently unreliable.

In this way, George W. Bush did the country a great disservice by fighting the "war on terror" far too much abroad, while leaving it ignorant and vulnerable to the ideological war at home. He did this in no small part by insisting publicly and repeatedly that there are "many peaceful Muslims" within the country, who are 'law abiding, patriotic Americans'. This set the tone for the entire country as to how it would or would not approach this religion, and put the country to sleep with regard to the citizen's need even to learn about it. This gave the plans of Islam cover, and gave it the time and space needed to put down significant roots in the country. This is the only reasonable explanation for why, twenty-five years after the attacks on New York City, a man of the same stripes as the terrorists who attacked it could subsequently become its mayor.

In light of these facts, and out of honor toward those we remember on the 9/11 anniversary, it is time for the universal agreement that any notion of "tolerance", "inclusion" or "compassion" that serves to shield from view the real dangers of an evil ideology is a fraud.

At this time, the political terms have degenerated to where a "conservative" is simply a person who recognizes a destructive plan or policy on the outset before it is implemented or reaches the country's shores, and does what he can to prevent it before it does any harm.

A "moderate" is someone who responds to such a plan or policy only after it is implemented and does harm, and says, "This needs to change!"

A "liberal" or "left wing" person is someone who praises the plan or policy as a "sign of progress" before it is implemented, and ignores any evidence to the contrary afterward.

In reality, these are three different personal orientations, rather than three complimentary political positions. To give them official political designations conveys the notion that they are all different, yet equal, with comparable intellectual and moral standing, with no obligation on the part of society to adopt just one, and reject the others.

In reality, these orientations are not equals, nor they a legitimate counterbalance to one another, like the original "liberal" and "conservative" meanings.

The present "conservative" or "right wing" position is simply one of wisdom, foresight and sincere concern.

The "moderate" position is one of short-sightedness and reactionary thinking.

The "liberal" or "left-wing" position is one of willful ignorance, and attributing good to what is bad, while attributing bad to what is good.

One of these positions - the first - represents personal attributes that every person should seeks and embrace, while the other two represent personal attributes that society needs to reject.

Thus it is when the character of society and its leadership is largely positive that dangers such as Islam are prevented or defeated.

www.donaldjtrump.com