Those of us who lived through the attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) can never see the Islamic threat as anything but real. Would it have made sense to have invited the immigration of Japanese after the attack on Pearl Harbor? Would it have made sense to invite more Germans to our shores after the German unlimited submarine warfare was begun in earnest in 1916? Should we have engaged in a love feast regarding Mexicans after raids by Pancho Villa during the Woodrow Wilson years? Our posture should be firm and guarded – defensive, but with a resolve that is truly God-centered and undaunted.

Concern about our safety is not merely some kind of paranoia by Americans who fail to appreciate the sentiments expressed in the sonnet "The New Colossus" written by Emma Lazarus and engraved on a plaque on the Statue of Liberty. Her poem invites the dispossessed and weary of the world to our shores. Her words invite those who come seeking a haven, not for those seeking a new battleground in which to impose alien and/or violent values.

Instead, the WTC attacks were a wakeup call to the threat posed by jihadists who are constantly warring both within the Islamic world and without for greater control. Ramzi Yousef planned the 1992 bombing attack on the WTC. He was born in Kuwait of Pakistani parents. He is believed to be the nephew of Khalid Sheik Mohammed who was the mastermind of the 9/11 attack. Mohammed was born in Pakistan, but 16 out of the 19 hijackers of the planes used in the WTC attack, the Pentagon attack, and the plane that went down in Pennsylvania were from Saudi Arabia, led by Mohammed Atta who was born and raised in Egypt. This was not a clique from a small locality, but represented a gathering of violent interests from throughout the Muslim world. They were the advance guard, the militant wing, perpetuating the Islamic quest for world domination that has been going on for 1400 years.

In 2017, Pew Research did an extensive survey of world attitudes towards Muslims, and Muslim attitudes towards non-Muslims. Of interest to this writer was the following statement: "More generally, Muslims mostly say that suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam are rarely or never justified, including 92% in Indonesia and 91% in Iraq. In the United States, a 2011 survey found that 86% of Muslims say such tactics are rarely or never justified. An additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified and 1% say they are often justified."

Pew tells us that there are 2,150,000 adult Muslims in the U.S. If one percent says suicide bombings are often justified, that means that there are 21,500 Muslims in our country who would justify these types of actions that purportedly advance the cause of Islam. Another seven percent say suicide bombings are sometimes justified. That amounts to another 150,500 who actively support these actions. Even ignoring the likelihood that many of the 86% who say these actions are "never justified" are hiding their true feelings because of fear, we see that there are 172,000 Muslims in the USA who openly endorse extreme violent action by their confreres in order to advance the cause(s) of Islam.

Throughout the world there are 1.8 billion Muslims. Assuming that an even higher percentage than in the U.S., say 10%, would endorse violent action on behalf of Islam, we see the worldwide astronomical figure of 180,000,000 pro-violent jihadists. How many World Trade Center attacks (there were two), San Bernardino massacres, Boston Marathon bombings, Chattanooga, TN and Garland, TX shootings must we experience before we acknowledge that this population represents a security threat here and worldwide?

Where do we see the greatest internecine strife in the world? Clearly, it is in the countries with large Islamic populations: Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the Chechnya region of Russia. Additionally, Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism as listed by our State Department (it was so listed long before the Trump Administration) fomenting jihad throughout the world. Also, Islamic terrorism through the arm of Abu Sayyef and Al-Qaeda is rife in the Mindanao area of the Philippines.

It is a complete non sequitur to say that Muslims are a peaceful people. Even if the overwhelming majority is "peaceful," accepting the figures stated above would seem to delegitimize unfettered Muslim immigration. National security concerns are paramount for government.

These many violent jihadists not only wish to advance worship of Allah, but see that "worship" as intimately involved with Sharia law. There is a desire to replace non-Sharia governmental institutions, whether they be democratic and constitutional or dictatorial, in both majority Islamic countries and majority non-Islamic countries. There is an inseparability between the legal and political organization of society and their professed faith in their prophet and their god. Freedom of conscience, so valued in the West, is repudiated by the jihadists. Theirs is a theocratic ideal, and the linchpin is obedience to God in a tribal or semi-tribal order, not within the nation-state concept as we in the West understand the nation-state. It is a religion without miracles, without grace, without mercy and forgiveness as the linchpins of personal faith. While there are generous and kind Muslims, how weak these qualities are worldwide when compared to world Christianity. Jihad in support of sharia is the exact opposite of the non-establishment clause of the U.S. First Amendment.

Any "religion" which requires a substitute political system to be put in place, and thus is clearly on a collision course with existing government institutions should be limited. Plans for surveillance and action against subversive elements should be intensified. Such intensification could be initiated under a new rubric called "strategic limitation." Any mosque that teaches either overtly or covertly or participates in any way in mobilizing individuals or groups to assault others in the society, or assembles a cache of weapons for said purposes, should be closed down as subversive. Just as freedom of speech is limited to the extent that one is not allowed to call "fire(!)" in a crowded movie theater or incite to riot on the street, so freedom of religion could similarly be circumscribed without affecting the basic principle of freedom.

The problem is that Islam has always been opposed to Christendom, and Christendom partially succumbed in North Africa during the seventh century. However, over time, Europe was successful in resisting the invaders. Charles ("The Hammer") Martel turned back the Islamic invaders at the Battle of Tours (France) in 727, but it literally took 700 years to push the invaders back into Spain and then out of Spain into North Africa. Following 1492 and the expulsion of Muslims from Spain, attacks by Islamics continued with major attacks on Vienna, Austria in 1529 and 1683, where the Ottomans were soundly defeated. And even in the recent past, in World War I, the Ottoman Empire allied itself with the Central Powers in Europe in the hopes of once against advancing Islamic power in Europe.

Christendom still exists, but it has become diluted and flabby. In Europe it is in radical decline; in the USA it is tainted with hedonism, sentimentality, false doctrines, and secular values. Thousands of churches are closing forever every year. But Christianity is compatible with the nation state, individualism, and prosperity in ways that Islam never can be. In addition to worship of the true God of the universe, the Christian West is the best hope for the world's future.