The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: December 2015

Eyes Wide Shut: Political Correctness and Islam

Remember that “Attack
Watch
” slogan of Obama’s near the end of his first term, “If you
see something, say something,” when he was trying to get Americans to
inform on other Americans who were vocally critical of him? In this case, Syed Farook’s
neighbors saw something, but didn’t say anything, for fear of being labeled
racists or Islamophobes or profilers.
Stephanie Condon wrote in a CBS report in September
2011, “Conservatives
mock Obama’s ‘AttackWatch.com
,“:
Anticipating a nasty fight in 2012, President
Obama’s re-election campaign on Tuesday launched a site, called AttackWatch.com ,
designed to push back against attacks on the president’s record.
“We all remember the birth certificate
smear, the GOP’s barrage of lies about the Affordable Care Act, and the string
of other phony attacks on President Obama that we’ve seen over the past few
years,” Jim Messina, Obama for America’s campaign manager, wrote in an
email to the president’s supporters. “There are a lot of folks on the other
side who are chomping at the bit to distort the President’s record. It’s not a
question of if the next big lie will come, just when — and what we’re prepared
to do about it.”
Yet
so far, the site seems to have been most effective at giving conservatives more
ammunition against the president. Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin is
referring the initiative as the “snitch police squad“, while the conservative site
Human Events is calling it the “little
brother initiative
.” The Drudge Report, the news aggregating site
popular among conservatives, features a link to AttackWatch.com under the
headline, “See something, say something,” in reference to the
Department of Homeland Security’s public awareness campaign.
Its “public awareness campaign” to the contrary
notwithstanding, the DHS has done its bit in frightening Americans to not “say
something,” being one of the biggest vehicles of politically correct thought
and speech. And Redlands neighbors’ not “saying something” worked out very
well, to Barack Obama’s benefit. It allowed him to dig up that hoary old
chestnut, “workplace violence,” and also to grandstand again for more gun
controls.
Had these
neighbors
the courage
to notify
law enforcement authorities about the frequent presence of Middle
Eastern-looking strangers in the vicinity and the unusual activities at
Farook’s house, the San Bernardino terrorist attack would not have occurred.
The police would have found the arsenal of weapons and pipe bombs in Farook’s
house. They would have pulled up the DHS’s record of Farook’s comings and
goings. They would probably have found the packaging those weapons and
materials came in. They might have learned the true identity of Farook’s
“wife,” and where she actually came from.
They would have discovered, not the makings of a neighborhood
Tupperware party, but the preparations for another major Islamic jihadist
attack.
All that might have happened had not many Americans
been intimidated by the MSM and the White House and the PC police into “not
saying something” to the authorities.
On one hand, one can’t blame them for not speaking
up. How many Americans today want to risk being painted with the “racist,”
“Islamophobe,” “bigot” brush, and often to their own detriment? How many of
them could afford the legal representation to counter the smears?

Another Islamic Face of Evil,

Tashfeen Malik, Farook’s
wife

On the other hand, how many of them have allowed
their minds to shut down, to allow their freedom of speech to be abridged by
the risk of inviting slurs and character assassination? To shut down one’s mind
is an act of volition, of choice. How many of them see what they see yet
contemplate it with “eyes wide shut” – that is, seeing the evidence before
their eyes yet denying or suppressing its reality and significance? How many
are guilty of refusing to acknowledge reality, the facts, and the truth?
Caroline
Glick, in her Jerusalem Post column of December 3rd, “Column
One; America’s pathological denial of reality
,” asked:
How
much lower will America sink before it regains its senses? Wednesday, two
Muslims walked into a Christmas party at a community service center in San
Bernardino, California where one worked. They were wearing body armor and video
cameras and carrying automatic rifles, pipe bombs and pistols. They opened
fire, killed 14, and wounded 17.
The
murderers, Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik were killed by police.
Speaking
to the Daily News, Farook’s father said his son, “was very religious. He
would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim.” Farook’s neighbor
told the paper that over the past two years, Farook exchanged his Western dress
for Islamic gowns and grew a beard.
These
data points lead naturally to the conclusion that Farook and his wife were
jihadists who killed in order to kill in the name of Islam.
But
in America of December 2015, natural conclusions are considered irresponsible,
at best.
Farook’s neighbor ought to have reported the
transformation to the authorities. He didn’t. He was unable or unwilling to
follow those “data points” to a conclusion. He could only sense where they
could lead to. Possibly he was afraid of immediate repercussions, of personal
recrimination if it turned out that Farook wasn’t
up to no good. Just because Farook was looking more and more like a standard,
unassimilated Muslim and less like one who was well-adjusted to American
standards, apparently wasn’t good enough a reason to take action.
I have few occasions or reasons to quote Franklin
D. Roosevelt, but there is one thing he said early in his first inaugural address in
1933, a statement whose sentiment applies today as well as it did eighty-two
years ago. The sentiment has always stuck in my mind because it intrigued me.
This
great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So,
first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear
is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed
efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Fear of something can cause one to not take action
against that something. Fearful indecision can emasculate one’s capacity for
action against that which causes one’s fear.
It took the FBI a few days, but it finally decided
that reality trumps fantasy and the denial of enemy action, and that the
Farook/Malik attack on the San Bernardino Inland Regional Center was indeed a
terrorist attack. The Washington Post reported on November 4th in its column “San
Bernardino attacker pledged allegiance to Islamic State leader, officials say
”:
One
of the two people involved in the San Bernardino attack that killed 14 people pledged
allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State, the clearest indication yet that
this was an act of terrorism, according to two law enforcement officials.
The clearest
indication
? Isn’t that evidence enough? It’s just an indication, which together with all the other evidence proves an
attack by Islamic jihadists, with or without ISIS’s endorsement or sanction? I
keep picturing our dhimmified FBI
putting its finger to the wind to determine which way it’s blowing. How
scientific, how technologically advanced! You aren’t allowed to think “Islam,”
but in the end, you must think “Islam.” Thinking and not-thinking of something
can only lead to the destruction of one’s mind. We see that in the fancy
epistemological dance steps our authorities are taking. But reality is
merciless and won’t let you get away with not
seeing. A cannot be A and non-A at the same time.
Since
the massacre Wednesday — which also wounded 21 people — officials have
scrambled to determine whether they were looking at a terrorist attack or an
extremely unusual and lethal case of workplace
violence
. They have also revealed that the attackers had amassed an
arsenal of explosives and ammunition, suggesting the possibility of further
violence. [Italics mine.]
 Workplace violence? That bewilderingly
evasive, politically correct, and obscene, cowardly term “popularized” by Janet
Napolitano
when she was head of the DHS, on the occasion of the Fort Hood
massacre by Nidal Hasan? After all, Farook and Malik entered Farook’s
“workplace” and proceed to do violence against its employees. Ergo, it was
“workplace violence”! (Actually, the term has a long history, and
has gone by other names, so she didn’t coin it, strictly speaking. She merely
revived it, which caused ongoing mockery of her and of the term.)

The
official said the FBI was perplexed in the days after the attack and was
still searching for clues that would indicate radicalization on the part
of either one.
There’s Islam, the “peaceful” religion. And then
there’s “radicalized” Islam. There’s the “peaceful” Islam which calls for
killing Jews, enslaving or killing non-Muslim infidels, in the name of Allah,
commanded by Mohammad. And then there’s “radicalized” Islam, which calls for
killing Jews, enslaving or killing non-Muslim infidels, in the name of Allah,
commanded by Mohammad. We mustn’t confuse the two, you see. It’s so easy to be
“perplexed” about a motive. However, you can no more “radicalize” Islam than
you can find the square root of one. You can’t be “radicalized” by Islam unless
you are open to committing violence, not unless you have a simmering urge to
kill that’s repressed but screaming to get out. You can’t be “radicalized” by a
nihilistic “religion” unless there’s a kernel of nihilism in you already,
nurtured by Islam.
“The
FBI is chasing down any contacts these two may have had and whether those
contacts are indicative of radicalization or external plotting or are purely
incidental,” said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the
House Intelligence Committee.
The
congressman said the shooting did not appear to be “an act of spontaneous
workplace violence.” But, he said, it could have been the culmination of a
longer-term grievance.
What a priceless understatement: The massacre could
have been “the culmination of a longer-term grievance”!  Such as a hatred of the West, of America, of
life itself? No, the congressman and his ilk in the MSM and law enforcement
refuse to entertain that impolitic possibility. They wouldn’t want to appear to
be bigoted against Islam.
In the meantime, Attorney General Loretta Lynch
wasted no time inveighing against, not the killers, but “anti-Muslim rhetoric.”
I am assuming that this and my other columns over the years about Muslims and
Islam qualify as “anti-Muslim rhetoric.” I call it freedom of speech. I call it
identifying evil and expounding on why it thrives in this country and why Islam
has no place in America. Lynch delivered her remarks at the 10th anniversary
celebration of the founding of Muslim
Advocates
, which, like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas-connected Council
on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), is a
purported Muslim civil rights organization.
Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, in her December 4th
article, “Attorney
General Loretta Lynch: ‘Actions Predicated On Violent Talk’ Toward Muslims
‘Will Be Prosecuted,’
” reported on Lynch’s barely-disguised warning to
those who engage their freedom of speech to warn against the depredations of
Islam. Drawing on BuzzFeed’s
account of Lynch’s address to the Muslim Advocates, she wrote:
“My
message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is ‘We cannot
give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on,’” Lynch said.
Geller:
What backlashes?
Americans have been slaughtered at a Christmas party in the cause of Allah.
This is Sharia enforcement. This is sedition by the Obama administration. This
should not be the response of the wholesale slaughter of American
“unbelievers.”
Speaking
at Muslim Advocate’s 10th anniversary dinner, the attorney general said, “We cannot give in to the fear that these
backlashes are really based on.” Speaking at Muslim Advocate’s 10th anniversary
dinner, Lynch said since the terrorist attacks in Paris last month, she is
increasingly concerned with the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim
rhetoric … that fear is my greatest fear.”
Disturbing anti-Muslim rhetoric? Where? In the
streets? At home? Oh, that’s right. On blog spots like Geller’s and Robert
Spencer’s and Daniel Greenfield’s and a dozen more, including my own. Or in the
statements of political candidates. Her greatest fear is not about possibly being
gunned down by Muslims in combat gear at her
Christmas party. And she isn’t much concerned about the victims in Paris or the
victims in San Bernardino. Her sympathy rests with the alleged victims of that “anti-Muslim
backlash,” a “backlash” that never actually materializes.
Following
the Paris attacks, there has been an uptick
in violent attacks on Muslims
and threats against mosques across the
country. That, combined with heated political rhetoric such as GOP presidential
front runner Donald Trump’s call to register Muslim Americans, has Muslim
community leaders worried that they could be facing a new era of
discrimination.
Lynch
made it clear that she shares those concerns, but vowed to use the DOJ to
protect Muslims from discrimination and violence. Noting the rise in violence
against Muslims and mosques in the wake of the Paris attacks, Lynch added that,
“When we talk about the First amendment we [must] make it clear that actions
predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are
not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”
So, by “predication,” is Lynch saying that if
someone reads my column and goes out and smears a mosque door with pig’s blood,
or gives a Muslim the finger on a public street, my “violent talk” – what a
contradiction! Talk isn’t “violent, it has no metaphysical power to hurt anyone,
except perhaps their ‘feeling’” – he could be arrested and charged with a hate
crime, and I could be charged with “hate speech”? See the video of Lynch
pontificating on “violent talk” here,
courtesy of the Daily Wire.
Has she anything to say about the “violent talk” or
“anti-infidel rhetoric” that can be found on various Internet social media that
can “radicalize” the Farooks and Maliks of America and which “predicates” their violence? Probably not.
I wonder what she would make of this. IPT’s
John Rossomando
reported on December 4th that
On
Thursday a leading ISIS propagandist who tweets under the handle Muslimah
congratulated Farook and Malik for the San Bernardino assault, calling them
martyrs.
“May
Allah Accept Our Brother & Sister who were martyred after carrying out an
operation against Crusaders in USA,” she tweeted.
I’ll bet you didn’t know that people with disabilities and in
wheelchairs attending a Christmas party were “Crusaders.” But if you’re not
surprised, it means that you know that Islamic jihadists regard civilians and
non-combatants and even children as legitimate targets, just as Jews are in
Israel and everywhere else.

“What is greatly concerning to us is
the rise, I remember 9/11 and those were very disturbing days, I heard some
disturbing things from people that I never thought I would hear (Video appears
to have been edited at this point to remove something Lynch said) the rise of
the internet, the ability of people to issue hateful speech of all types from
the anonymity of a screen obviously increases that hateful rhetoric,” she
added.

“Now obviously this is a country that
is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the
potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric… when we
see that, we will take action.”

Lynch
is “edging towards” committing the violence of government censorship. This should
not surprise anyone. Obama nominated her as a soul-mate who would fit his
political agenda, and she was Attorney General Eric Holder’s first choice of
successor in that office.
Daniel Greenfield, in his FrontPage article of December 4th, “Attorney
General Tells Muslim Pro-Terrorists She Will Crack Down on Anti-Muslim Rhetoric
,”
not only noted everything in Geller’s column, but also some interesting information
about the head of the Muslim Advocates.
Muslim
Advocates, headed by Farhana Khera
, who peppered a smiling Lynch with
questions about “anti-Muslim rhetoric”, had played a significant role
in crippling DOJ investigations of Islamic terrorism by eliminating training
materials about Islamic terrorism.
Khera had vocally
opposed the sorts of sting operations that had succeeded in capturing a number
of ISIS terror plotters before they were able to act. A similar sting might
have stopped the San Bernardino massacre. She had opposed the FBI recruiting
informants and supported Muslim leaders linked to terrorism. She had even
defended terror charities like the Holy Land Foundation.
And she and another
Muslim Advocates figure had urged Muslims not to provide information to the
FBI. “Any information you provide to the FBI can be used as the basis for
further surveillance and investigation of your community,” a Muslim
Advocates lawyer had said. “So you really don’t want to be putting
yourself in a situation where you’re providing anybody with information about
people in your community that the FBI is now gonna follow up and start investigating
those people.”
Loretta
Lynch, Farhana Khera, and Tashfeen Malik – a “Band of Sisters”
and enemies of America, united in their resolve to punish
“thoughtcrime,” “hate
speech,” and “Islamophobia,” and any other kind of thought and speech
they can
think of. As long as it can be throttled and prohibited by Sharia law.
Political correctness is one of Islam’s most effective allies.

Political
correctness is a destructive censoring power itself. One can choose to censor
oneself, or it can be imposed on one by an external “authority.” It demands
that we see without seeing – “eyes wide shut” – and become easy prey for the murderous
“crusaders” of Islam or their mouthpieces and defenders. Their purpose is the
conquest of our minds – or their erasure.

The Ugly American Muslim

“They
are not the Jews fleeing a Nazi Holocaust. They are the Nazis trying to
relocate from a bombed out Berlin.” Daniel Greenfield writing as Sultan Knish
about importing Syrian “refugees” from war-torn Syria,
in
his article of November 29th,
The
Ugly American
,
a novel by William J. Lederer and Eugene Burdick, published by Norton in 1958,
is about how U.S. foreign policies were badly tailored to oppose Communism in
Southeast Asia. It is set in the fictional country of Sarkhan, which was
supposed to be a roman à clef for
Vietnam but actually resembles in description Burma (aka its Star-Trekian
planet name, Myanmar; go figure). I have not read the novel, and do not
plan to. The novel was followed in 1963 with its cinematic doppelganger, The Ugly
American,
starring Marlon Brando
as the chief protagonist. I do not plan to watch the movie, either.
Critic
Bosley Crowther, apparently a fan of Brando (I certainly am not) in his April
1963 New
York Times
review of the movie cautioned:
As you might well expect, Mr. Brando is at
the top of his form when the script and George Englund’s direction are most
firm and plausible. We must add right here that the screenplay written by
Stewart Stern bears little or no resemblance to the novel of William J. Lederer
and Eugene Burdick on which it is “based.” Mr. Stern kept the title,
the locale and the general skepticism of the book—well, at least, a little of
the latter—and threw the rest away.
A
principal point of contention, in the novel, at least, was that the American
embassy staff, including the ambassador, did not speak or read the Sarkhan
language, nor know much about the country’s customs and ways. That’s “why” we
lost Southeast Asia to the Reds. The Reds paid attention to these little
details and exploited them to the hilt. There was no sincere or substantial “outreach”
on our part. We didn’t bother to “understand” and “respect” a backward and
stagnant culture.  So, we lost Sarkhan.

Syed
Farook, just an ordinary American Muslim guy (imilap.com)

The
success of the novel (seventy-six weeks on the best-seller list and five
million copies sold) led to more portentous developments, at least as far as
the U.S. was concerned. Michael Meyer wrote, in his own July 2009 appraisal of
the Lederer-Burdick opus in the New York Times, “Still
‘Ugly’ After All These Years
,”:
One person it inspired was
John F. Kennedy, who mailed a copy of “The Ugly American” to each of his Senate
colleagues. The book’s epilogue argues for the creation of “a small force of
well-trained, well-chosen, hard-working and dedicated professionals” fluent in
the local language — not unlike the Peace Corps, which Kennedy proposed in
1960.
And,
it became the Peace Corps. Later in his review, which devolves into Meyer’s reminiscing
about his own time in the Peace Corps, he notes:
A half century after “The
Ugly American,” the United States has another young president urging us to
connect with the wider world, only this time he has lived in it. “I know that
the stereotypes of the United States are out there,” Barack Obama recently told
university students in Istanbul. “And I know that many of them are informed not
by direct exchange or dialogue, but by television shows and movies and
misinformation.”
We
can blame Hollywood and the MSM for that. Meyer opines:
The book was originally
commissioned by W. W. Norton as nonfiction, but an editor suggested it might be
more effective as a novel. “What we have written is not just an angry dream,”
the authors note in the introduction, “but rather the rendering of fact into
fiction.” Yet the book’s enduring resonance may say less about its literary
merits than about its failure to change American attitudes. Today, as the
battle for hearts and minds has shifted to the Middle East, we still can’t
speak Sarkhanese.
Which
brings us to the Ugly American Muslim.
We
can’t speak Arabic, or Farsi. We know little or nothing about the Koran or its companion texts, unless
they were translated by Barney Fife, as George W. Bush’s must have been.  We deny that Islam is a virulent totalitarian
ideology garbed in the vestments of a primitive, brutal religion, bent on
conquest. We deem Islamic “culture” a civilization. We refuse to fight it,
acknowledge its danger and depredations and fourteen-century old rap sheet, and
claim that its most consistent practitioners are just “extremists” or
“radicals” who have “hijacked” a “peaceful religion.”
In
short, we can’t speak Sarkhanese after about half a century of the Sarkhanese
waging war on America and the West.
We
are not talking here about an ambassador to Sarkhan who eschews the necessity
of learning something about the natives and their quaint customs. That would describe
real-life roving upper-class twits like Secretary of State John Kerry and
former Secretary Hillary Clinton, mistress of snake oil. We are talking about
the Sarkhanese living right here in the U.S.A. who have a custom of killing
Americans when the little Muhammadan birdie in their heads tells them it’s time
to abandon their comfy American life-style and give their all for Allah, even
if it means dying. Its other name is “Sudden Jihad Syndrome.”
And
President Barack Obama, who hates the country he is chief executive of, wants
to bring in 10,000 Syrian “refugees,” knowing full well that a goodly
percentage of them will be ISIS or Al-Qaeda fighters posing as put-upon
victims, the rest being mere passive ballast. Ten thousand, at least, or
more. Huma Abedin, Hillary
Clinton’s confidante and vice-campaign manager, wants to “let them all in,”
that is, any and all Muslims and other haters of America who wish to come here
posing as the “oppressed.”   
Take
the late Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and the late Tashfeen Malik, 27, All-American
Muslim citizens (or at least Syed was a citizen) whose lives seemed no
different from those of non-Muslim American citizens. His wife, reportedly a
pharmacist, was of Saudi-Qataran origin. You’ve probably encountered their like
in supermarkets, seen them load a shopping cart with Pampers (they had one
child), seen them gassing up at a convenience store, seen them drive off
to  work in the morning from a brand new
house, and have even exchanged friendly greetings with them. Such a benign and
blameless existence.

San
Bernardino – The The Muslim Jihadi way: Trading Existence for Non-Existence and
calling it “Peace.”

Until
they show up at your Christmas party and begin the killing. They murdered 14 at
the San
Bernardino
Inland Regional Center and left 17 or more wounded.
It
turns out that Farook was a Sunni Muslim of Pakistani origin, born in Chicago. The
Daily Caller
of December 3rd reports:
Farook’s father, also named
Syed Farook, told news outlets that his son was a devout Muslim. On a dating
profile at the website DubaiMatrimonial.com, Farook stated
that he identified as a  Sunni Muslim.
Mailk
is thought to be from Qatar. Farook had been employed by the Inland Regional
Center for five years. He performed food-service health inspections. He liked
to read religious books and target practice in his backyard (in suburban California??).
He and his wife were just ordinary American Muslims who collected a small
arsenal  with which to attend a Christmas
party or some other event held by infidels.
Greenfield
warned in his “Syrians
are a Terror Threat
” column against bringing in Sunni Muslims from Syria. But
Farook was born here. It didn’t make much of a difference. The Muhammadan
birdie said it was time to kill. All Muslims
have similar birdies in their caged minds. Islam makes it so. Greenfield wrote:
Syria
is a terror state. It didn’t become that way overnight because of the Arab
Spring or the Iraq War.

Its people are not the victims of American foreign policy, Islamic militancy or
any of the other fashionable excuses. They supported Islamic terrorism.
Millions of them still do….
The
Syrians were not helpless, apathetic pawns in this fight. They supported
Islamic terrorism.

A 2007
poll showed that
77% of Syrians supported financing Islamic terrorists
including Hamas and the Iraqi fighters who evolved into ISIS. Less than 10% of
Syrians opposed their terrorism. Why did Syrians support Islamic terrorism?
Because they hated America….

If
we bring Syrian Muslims to America, we will be importing a population that
hates us.

The terrorism poll numbers are still ugly. A poll this summer found that 1
in 5 Syrians supports
ISIS.  A third of Syrians support the Al Nusra
Front, which is affiliated with Al Qaeda. Since Sunnis are 3/4rs of the
population and Shiites and Christians aren’t likely to support either group,
this really means that Sunni Muslim support for both terror groups is even
higher than these numbers make it seem.


And even though Christians and Yazidis are the ones who actually face ISIS
genocide, Obama has chosen to take in few Christians and Yazidis. Instead 98.6%
of Obama’s Syrian refugees
are Sunni Muslims.

This is also the population most likely to support ISIS and Al Qaeda.

And now the question to ask is: How many born-and-raised in the U.S.A. Sunni Muslims
are there now? If Obama brings in thousands of Sunni Muslims, regardless of
their true origins, Greenfield argues, he’ll be importing the Syrian Civil War
and all its attendant horrors. He’ll be bringing the war to the U.S. Are there
Sunni cells ready to go into action when their “brothers” show up? There are
dozens of Muslims enclaves in this country, and jihadi training camps. Muslims have
been slipping across our Mexican border posing as Mexicans and other “refugee”
South Americans.
Note that I do not refer to Muslim Americans. I don’t subscribe to hyphenated American
collectivism or tribalism. You’re either American, or you’re a Muslim. You can’t
pledge allegiance to two antithetical political philosophies at one and the
same time. The American philosophy of individual rights, freedom of speech,
private property, and the idea that you own your own life, cannot be reconciled
with a philosophy that denies those tenets and seeks to extinguish them
wherever it sets up shop.
Finally, Greenfield reminds us:
It only took 2
Muslim refugees to carry out the Boston Marathon massacre. It only took 19
Muslim terrorists to carry out 9/11.

If only 1 percent of those 1,300 Syrian ISIS supporters put their beliefs into
practice, they can still kill thousands of Americans.

And that’s a best case scenario. Because it doesn’t account for how many
thousands of them support Al Qaeda. It doesn’t account for how many of them
back other Islamic terrorist groups such as Hamas that had widespread support
in Syria.

Nor does it account for all the home-grown Muslims of
whatever stripe or origin who have yet to hear their little Muhammadan birdie. They
are they Ugly American Muslims. These are the American Muslims we should fear. Every Muslim now in this country, and
those seeking entry, ought to be subjected to a loyalty test: Are you Muslim first,
and American second? Will you renounce or repudiate Islam, or not?
Call it a loyalty test. Or a lie-detector test. Call
imposing it “Islamophobia” or “profiling” or ethnic or religious screening. Call
it whatever you wish. Because, you see, you can’t have your religion and eat America,
too.

Obama’s
plan to salt this country with adherents to Islam must be checked and foiled. He
does not have this country’s best interests in mind. He wants to hurt it.

Page 2 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén