“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.