Duct-taping blasphemy

Why are Western nations succumbing to Islam, one after another? Britain, Australia, France, Germany – is it because they are afraid, if they oppose or object to Islamic policy or “traditions,” they will be accused of “Islamophobia,” or “racism,” or “discrimination” by “world opinion.”? It’s either from fear of being branded, or because it’s what the elitists want.  After all, Islam is basically a political ideology that requires complete and unthinking submission to it. It is perfectly ideologically compatible with Islam.
Or is it a fear of name-calling and social condemnation that saps the moral resolve and rationality of the leaders of countries, makes the leaders afraid to oppose mass immigration, combined with the necessary and concomitant negation of values by Altruism? It is a deadly cocktail of surrendering to nihilism to barbarity and primitivism.
Why do we see a stubborn denial that Muslim killings are motivated by Islam, and instead excused as “mental illness” or a personality disorder or some other convenient malady that would explain a jihadi’s actions?
And what does Ayn Rand say about altruism? She had the best construction of the core motives of altruism:
What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice — which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction— which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”
Rand distinguishes between the essentials of altruism  as a moral code, and its incidentals; between. e.g.,  self-sacrifice (including the sacrifice of values, such as one’s country) and benevolence, kindness, and good will, e.g., allowing Muslims into one’s country to start anew without the miasma of Sharia law. 
Not a member of the House

And here is a story that forecasts the slow Islamization of the U.S.: a Somali Muslima, elected to the House of Representatives for Minnesota in the midterms, will become the poster child of Muslims and will force the House to abandon its no-hats rule by wearing a hijab.  

The ban, which was enacted in 1837 for a then all-white male Congress, was meant to prohibit indoor hat-wearing, described by a member at the time as a “really harmless but apparently indecorous practice,” writes NBC News.
The responsibility of enforcing the House dress code falls to the speaker, meaning whoever the Democratic leader is come January can decide whether to permit religious headwear. In practice, members of Congress, their staff and religious leaders have already worn head coverings on the floor, notes NBC, but Omar’s election has drawn additional scrutiny to the rule and the need for a permanent amendment.
As the Washington Post (h/t People) reported on Friday, Omar, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Rules Committee ranking Rep. Jim McGovern drew up a proposal that would legally allow religious headwear on the floor, as well as head coverings due to illness and loss of hair.
This is creeping Sharia in the guise of challenging a tradition and a superficial rule and point of decorum. It is not surprising that the Dems would preemptively role over on the issue. The Glowup article anticipates the reverberations of allowing a hijab in the House.
Far more than correcting an outdated rule, overturning the head covering ban would help normalize headscarves and the hijab in different sectors of American life, especially at a time when religious discrimination and animus is still present. This summer, a group of Muslim children in Delaware were asked to leave a pool after a manager said they weren’t allowed to swim with clothing on (the problem, officials said, was wearing cotton)….
Peek-a-boo: I will conquer your
“Normalizing” the hijab presupposes “normalizing” all manner of Islamic practices in public, such as forcing supermarkets to establish halal food sections. Doubtless CAIR will do a Muslim jig to celebrate the abandonment of the House hat rule (is there such as thing as a Muslim jig?). Will Jewish members of the House be permitted to wear kippahs or yarmulkes?  Or will Ilhan Omar raise a stink if they are allowed to? She is as much an anti-Semite as Louis Farrakhan.
CNN Politics reports the growing Islamic “normalization” of American politics:
Omar, in addition to being one of the first Muslim women in Congress, will also be the first Somali-American member. She came to the US more than two decades ago as a refugee. Tlaib actually campaigned with Omar ahead of the latter’s primary race earlier this year.
Omar also had the backing of Ocasio-Cortez in her primary race, and she will come to Congress having been an open critic of the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians.
Omar will take the seat vacated by Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress. Ellison is leaving Congress as he vies to become Minnesota attorney general.
Rashida Tlaib will fill the seat formerly occupied by Michigan Democratic Rep. John Conyers, who left office last year amid accusations of sexual misconduct. She ran unopposed on the general election ballot following her primary win.
Tlaib is the daughter of Palestinian immigrants and became the first Muslim female member of Michigan’s state legislature a decade ago. A self-styled progressive, Tlaib is a vocal critic of President Donald Trump and was arrested two years ago for disrupting a Trump speech in Detroit.
Omar and Tlaib both endorse the BDS movement and the destruction of Israel. Liberty Headlines reports:
During her campaign, Tlaib published several anti-Israel tweets and retweeted one user who wrote that the “first fight was for Palestine, always Palestine.”
She has called for the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel, advocating for a unitary Palestinian government to take its place. Palestine has never been a legal entity with land as a nation.
Her views are so radical that the leftist group J Street, which is often anti-Israel itself, withdrew its endorsement of her campaign.
In her victory speech, Tlaib credited the Palestinian cause: “A lot of my strength comes from being Palestinian.”
Omar, who won her seat in Minnesota, has also attacked the state of Israel, saying that she advocates for Palestine “because we know right from wrong.”
No, you don’t. You and Tlaib and the majority of Dems in Congress are as insipidly clueless as Ocasio-Cortez. Welcome to the House of Representatives, an exclusive club of the reality challenged.
The pair will probably endorse legislation that would legitimize female genital mutilation (FGM) in the U.S., because it’s an Islamic “tradition.” Or they could speak against granting Asia Bibi asylum because she “blasphemed” Islam. I’m sure they’d find allies in the House among Dems and Republicans. After all, Islam is a religion which many people find “comfort” in, and we mustn’t mock it by calling it savage and Stone Age primitive, or else Omar and Tliab will sanction riots in the streets, just as Dems look the other way when Antifa “protests” reason and freedom of speech. And never mind all the women in Iran jailed for refusing to wear the hijab.

Lest we forget, and also Bataclan
The willing abandonment of the “no hat” rule in the House heralds the first important step to arm-twist the U.S. into submission to Islam, per the Muslim Brotherhood’s memo of 1991:
“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
It is not just an important step. It is an ominous one. Based on a trivial “hat rule.”