Once again Donald Trump has opened a dialogue about a controversial issue.  As he did with illegal immigration, he has brought to the forefront his desire to keep Americans safe by temporarily banning Muslims from entering the U.S.  His critics are from the left and right, calling him a divider and a racist.  Those in the Republican establishment hint at preventing the ban by any means, including threatening to sue Trump if he becomes president and issues the executive order.  Too bad they have done nothing regarding President Obama's executive orders.  American Thinker asked the chairman of Donald Trump's national security committee, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), about this issue.

Donald Trump has called for a ban, stating, "Although the pause is temporary, we have to find out what is going on.  It will be lifted, this ban, when we as a nation are in a position to properly and perfectly screen this country."

Even those in the Obama administration question the vetting process.  People should not forget that FBI director James Comey has said several times that the federal government does not have the ability to conduct a thorough background check on all the Syrian refugees.  Just last week, CIA director John Brennan concurred that Syrian refugees cannot be fully vetted because there are no databases available and that ISIS is working to smuggle Syrians into countries through the refugee process. 

A poll published in 2014 by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies found that 13% of Syrian refugees have positive feelings toward the Islamic State terrorist group.  This means that 8,450 of 65,000 refugees Hillary Clinton wants to allow into this country could have terrorist ties or be radicalized.

Senator Jeff Sessions referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, which shows that throughout the Obama administration's tenure, the United States has issued green cards to an average of 138,669 migrants from Muslim-majority countries per year, meaning the United States will have issued green cards to at least 1.1 million migrants from Muslim-majority countries on the president's watch.

Eric Bolling, whose book Wake Up America is due out next week, told American Thinker, "After Trump made his statement about temporarily banning Muslims from entering the U.S., the left and half the right went crazy.  Let's not forget that the Orlando terrorist had contacts with those who were in Syria.  Let's err on the side of caution until we fix the problem."

He has a good point, considering that the driving force behind the San Bernardino terrorist attack was the wife.  She passed three background checks by American immigration officials as she moved to the United States from Pakistan, and nothing was ever uncovered about her online views on violent jihad.  Immigration officials also allowed into this country a terrorist, convicted in an Israeli court and later released in a prison swap, because they never caught her lies on the application.  In November 2014, a federal jury found her guilty of illegally obtaining naturalization.  Not to mention that all the 9/11 terrorists entered this country legally.

Senator Sessions told American Thinker, "Thirty refugees have already been convicted of terrorism, so we know they are not always peaceful.  Now the President is accelerating the speed of admitting Syrian refugees."

The senator said, "We have no duty to morally or legally admit people.  The Immigration Naturalization Act says the president can refuse entry to 'any alien or class of aliens he deems detrimental to the interests of the U.S.'  It is appropriate to be aggressive in our vetting.  Questions can be asked: do you believe in religious freedom, do you believe in sharia law or the Constitution, and do you respect minorities such as women and gays.  We are not required to admit people if their philosophies or principles are contrary to the Constitution.  We have to understand that most Muslims do not adhere to this extreme ideology, but there is nothing wrong to refuse admittance to those who distance themselves from our values.  We need to use common sense with the who-what-where of the threat.  It is the toxic ideology of Islam."

A British poll in April of this year supports what Donald Trump and Senator Sessions are stating.  Among the results: 52% believe that homosexuality should be illegal, 47% do not want homosexuals working as teachers, 39% want their wives always to obey their husbands, 33% refuse to condemn those who take part in violence against those who mock the Prophet Muhammad, and about 25% favor replacing the British legal system with Islamic law.  Another recent poll found that 99% of Afghans believe in sharia law.  This is not good news for American values of freedom of religion, speech, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is not Donald Trump who should be criticized, but President Obama.  His policies to keep Americans safe at home are deeply flawed.  The president calls out his critics but never Islamic extremist radicals.  Unlike many other candidates, Trump has forced people to know who the true enemy is.

Senator Sessions noted, "Hillary Clinton had to back down and acknowledge the radical extremist threat and capitulated after Donald Trump called her out."  President Obama also was forced to respond, calling a news conference to defend his policies and unfairly criticizing Trump.  Yet in agreement with Trump's definition of who is the enemy are Jordan's King Abdullah and Egyptian president Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, who blasted the Islamist extremists.  English prime minister David Cameron and French prime minister Manuel Valls, meanwhile, admitted that there is a war against radical Islam.

Instead of calling out Donald Trump, the Obama administration might want to listen to the senator and former law enforcement officers who agree with what Sessions told American Thinker: "federal officers have been restricted too much in their ability to conduct investigations.  You are not going to be very effective if you are intimidated in conducting basic inquiries."  A retired FBI Agent summarized their feelings: "given the current philosophy of the administration, they do not want Muslims investigated unless there is clear information or evidence indicative of criminal activity.  Therefore, in evaluating these cases, the FBI is likely going to be very conservative in their approach to these matters unless they have clear and unambiguous factual information meeting the threshold of 'predication.'"

When asked if he would agree to be Donald Trump's vice president, the senator responded, "He is going to find someone a lot better than me.  I look forward to whoever he chooses, and I would be honored to consider such a request."  Actually, it would be the American people who would be honored if he served.  Senator Sessions understands, unlike many of the current leadership, that this is a time to pause and to make sure a policy is in place that serves American interests.

People should be thankful that Donald Trump laid out the problems and what is needed to keep those in the U.S. safe: make sure people with radical and dangerous views that are contrary to the values of America be excluded from entering the U.S.

The author writes for American Thinker.  She has done book reviews and author interviews and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.