We’re All Islamophobes – Until the Next Attack
>*”So now, in the new multiculti Britain, the child sex trade is back, as part of the rich, vibrant tapestry of diversity - along with Jew-hate, and honor killings, and decapitation porn. The solutions to the internal contradictions of multiculturalism are (a) David Cameron’s expanded security state; (b) Afsun Qureshi’s universal prostration before Islam; or (c.) an end to mass Muslim immigration. The last is too obvious for any viable western politician ever to propose it.”* –Mark Steyn, August 29. Steyn was writing about the Rotherham [scandal](http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28974336) in which 1,400 girls from children’s homes, including some as young as 11, were sexually exploited for more than a decade and a half by men “of Pakistani heritage,” as the BBC so delicately reports it. Why so delicate? Try this snippet on for size:
“So now, in the new multiculti Britain, the child sex trade is back, as part of the rich, vibrant tapestry of diversity - along with Jew-hate, and honor killings, and decapitation porn. The solutions to the internal contradictions of multiculturalism are (a) David Cameron’s expanded security state; (b) Afsun Qureshi’s universal prostration before Islam; or (c.) an end to mass Muslim immigration. The last is too obvious for any viable western politician ever to propose it.” –Mark Steyn, August 29.
Steyn was writing about the Rotherham scandal in which 1,400 girls from children’s homes, including some as young as 11, were sexually exploited for more than a decade and a half by men “of Pakistani heritage,” as the BBC so delicately reports it. Why so delicate? Try this snippet on for size:
A care worker, who worked at children’s homes from 2003-2007, told the BBC men would arrive almost “every night” to collect girls, who escaped using a range of methods and were then usually driven off in taxis. The carer, who wished to remain anonymous, claimed staff were reluctant to intervene in some cases for fear of being classed as “racist”.
Apparently the old bromide, “sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me” was turned on its head to accommodate Muslim pedophiles. One might wonder why, but the answer is fairly obvious, much in the same way it was fairly obvious to same kind of see-no-evil members of the American military who willfully ignored Maj. Nidal Hasan’s jihadist compulsions. Better to let 1,400 children get raped, drugged, traded and occasionally doused in gasoline with the threat of ignition – or 13 soldiers die and 32 get wounded – than face a potentially career-ending encounter with the promoters of multiculturalist PC.
This is the shocking level of power, courtesy of our progressive brethren and their media enablers, that now resides in a single word: Islamophobia.
How powerful? The latest assessment of domestic threats published by the FBI, a 60-page treatise entitled “National Threat Assessment for Domestic Extremism,” makes no reference whatsoever to radical Islam. There’s a good reason for that. In 2012 the Obama administration perpetrated a “purge” of the the FBI's Counterterrorism Analytic Lexicon, getting rid of words such as “Muslim,” “Islam,” “Muslim Brotherhood,” “Hamas,” and “sharia,” in an effort to accommodate oh-so-delicate political sensibilities. “It’s counterproductive to our counterterrorism work,” Salam al-Marayati, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, told FoxNews.com. at the time. “It’s not effective counterterrorism policy to be at war with the whole religion or any religion.”
Maybe not, but it’s time to start talking about realistic percentages. In a searing response to a loaded question about how to defeat a jihadist ideology, Brigitte Gabriel explained there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world of which, according to intelligence organizations around the globe, 15 to 25 percent have become radicalized – as in “your looking at 180 million people to 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization,” she explained. She further explained that most Germans, Russians, Japanese and Chinese were not sympathetic to the agendas of their respective governments, yet the radicals driving those agendas still perpetrated mass slaughter on a global scale. As Gabrielle so correctly noted, in such cases, as well as our current crisis, “the peaceful majority were irrelevant.”
Which brings us back to Britain and Steyn’s proposed solutions for dealing with what Prime Minister David Cameron describes as the the “greatest and deepest” terror threat in the country’s history: embrace a highly intrusive security state, submit to the will of Allah – or limit mass Muslim immigration.
Pardon me for extrapolating, but I suspect most Americans have become disgusted with the overreach of the NSA, and the incremental submission to Allah by the FBI and other law enforcement entities. And while there are many Americans who would be equally on board with any “obvious” proposal to limit Muslim immigration, our own ruling class in both parties wouldn’t dare to even broach the subject. Better to label Fort Hood “workplace violence” and, along with the Boston Marathon bombers, continually promote the idea that such atrocities are the work of “lone wolves.” Yet according to the Obama administration, at least 300 American “lone wolves” are fighting for ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
When do such lone wolves get recognized as a pack?
Under ordinary circumstances, one might expect our Commander-in-Chief to have an answer to that question. But as we are continually learning, President Obama is no “ordinary” leader. He is a man who clearly enjoys the trappings of the office, even as he demonstrates little appetite for the working aspects of it – all the unseemly “optics” notwithstanding. Thus when he announces to the entire world that "we don’t have a strategy yet" for dealing with ISIS, even the hopey-changey crowd is force to endure the reality that Obama is little more than an empty (tan) suit, more interested in coming up with a strategy for the back nine than one for the greatest terror threat since 9/11.
That is unless one considers a potential executive order force-feeding comprehensive immigration reform to an American public rightfully appalled by the open borders extortion that has preceded it. Obama and his leftist enablers, as well as those on the right who are equally clueless, would like us all to think the issues of comprehensive immigration reform and ISIS are totally unrelated. Unfortunately, high-level law enforcement officers have informed Judicial Watch that ISIS does not embrace such “compartmentalization:”
Islamic terrorist groups are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle born improvised explosive devices (VBIED). High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have confirmed to Judicial Watch that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued. Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat.
You know the only thing that would be worse than an attack perpetrated by terrorists who strolled into the nation over our porous Southwestern border? Those same terrorists being part of the horde granted amnesty by executive order.
Can’t happen? Anyone still remember that Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi were granted visa approvals by the Immigration and Nationalization Service (INS) – six months after they took part in the 9/11 attack? That occurred in 2002. Anyone want to speculate where America might be today if that outrage had spurred a genuine commitment to strictly enforcing our immigration laws over the subsequent 12 years?
Instead, we pandered to the open border hustlers.
In terms of the current discussion, I’m guessing Americans are just as skeptical about mass Muslim immigration as they are about amnesty. Yet those who dare to mention that welcoming potential enemies to our nation is a genuine possibility, given our colossally inept bureaucracy, are branded Islamophobic. Sorry, but this is one American who would rather face the indignation of would-be emigrants and their supporters, than go through another round of hand-wringing, “why do they hate us,” soul-searching by our politically correct naifs – after another domestic terror attack. If that makes me a bigot, so be it. I consider the murder of nearly three thousand Americans a paid-in-full price for the “enlightened” thinkers who would scoff at my ostensible narrow-mindedness.
Which brings us to one final arena, one that is truly difficult to address. When does First Amendment-protected free speech become sedition? I ask because when 300 Americans are fighting for ISIS, more British Muslims are fighting for ISIS than the British military, and 16 percent of French citizens support these sadistic head-choppers, I’m guessing proselytization is an integral part of the radicalization process.
Sedition is defined as “revolting or inciting revolt against government,” and the three laws passed to address the subject, the Sedition Act of 1798, the Espionage Act of 1917, and the Patriot Act, have left the matter largely unresolved.
In the 1919 Supreme Court case, Schenck v. United States, in which Charles Schenck, general secretary of the American Socialist Party, was accused of legally interfering with military recruitment, the Court unanimously ruled in the government’s favor. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the opinion, insisting that the First Amendment’s free speech clause was not absolute. Holmes defined the boundary as “whether the words…are used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger.”
I believe a national discussion regarding what constitutes a clear and present danger is vitally necessary. Again, pressing beyond those who would label such a discussion Islamophobic, it would be useful to know how many of America’s approximately 2.6 million Muslims are being encouraged to embrace Islamist radicalization. As the increasing Islamization of Europe suggests, ignoring this possibility doesn’t make it go away. Rather it festers like an unaddressed cancer until every sixth Frenchman becomes a jihadist cheerleader – or potential collaborator.
Given this administration’s predilections, I suspect that nothing short of another domestic attack would be categorized as a clear and present danger. Obama himself confirmed those predilections as recently as last week. “If you watch the nightly news, it feels like the world is falling apart,” he said at yet another fundraiser, one taking place in Westchester County, N.Y. "I can see why a lot of folks are troubled.“ And just to be sure one didn’t misunderstand, he went further. "The world’s always been messy … we’re just noticing now in part because of social media” he added.
No, Mr. President. Some of us “noticed” long ago, when we saw people jumping off a burning World Trade Center from 80 stories up. Others noticed ISIS beheading children and journalist James Foley. Still others notice America’s own version of Jew-hate, honor killings and decapitation porn – along with the multiculti, see-no-evil bankruptcy that exacerbates it.
The atrocity of 9/11 should have permanently awakened this nation’s “never again” resolve. Instead we have reverted to a self-induced coma, led by a feckless administration with no strategy and a penchant for belittling a public who “notices” the prevailing and enduring vacuousness. Heaven help us all.
© 2014 The Patriot Post.
Start a conversation using these share links: