Political Correctness is the arch-enemy of truth, justice, and rationality.

Congratulations! You’ve found the Third Rail blog.

Censorship is alive and well. The vast majority of it comes from the left, from so-called “progressives.” An unexpected legacy of my generation’s ‘Free Speech’ movement, perhaps? As they say, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Support this blog site, stand up for real free speech, not just politically correct free speech. Become a follower and contribute to the discussions. Thank you.

Friday, July 8, 2016

The Beginning of Wisdom is to Call Things by Their Right Names, Mr. President

A point-by-point rebuttal of Obama’s June 14th, ‘Why I don’t say “radical Islam”’ speech

Mark Charalambous
July 8, 2016

President Obama addressed the nation two days after the Orlando terrorist attack and gave a full-throated defense of why he forbids the use of the words “radical Islam” in his administration. Ostensibly giving an update on the war against ISIS and expressing his condolences for the victims, the real motivation became clear in the twelve-plus minute digression that ended the speech.

Due to mounting outrage from his critics, including Donald Trump, he clearly felt pressured to explain his policy now that the two parties have their presumptive nominees and he is actively campaigning for Hillary.

One might’ve expected the president to take a defensive, even apologetic tone, owing to the chorus of criticisms of the policy—not to mention unspoken conspiratorial growls of ulterior motives. In fact, Obama did the exact opposite. In full lecture mode, he at times waxed petulant and condescending, bordering on outright insulting. While his lips were saying one thing, his body language was unmistakable:

I should not have to be telling you this again!  I have already explained this! But since you still don’t get it, let me put this to bed once and for all, in language plain and simple enough that even you can understand it.

The digression began innocuously enough:
“And let me make a final point. For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase "radical Islam." That's the key, they tell us. We can't beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists.”
...and then the tirade began:
“What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this?
“The answer is: None of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”
It’s tempting to begin my answer to the President’s rhetorical question by quoting Confucius’ famous admonition against euphemisms:
“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names.”

... but before we go there, there is a more obvious point that needs to be made in rebuttal  to the president’s assertion that “calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away,” that doing so “is a political distraction.”

If you concur that the cause and inspiration for the Orlando nightclub massacre—

... and the slaughter at the San Bernardino government agency Christmas party in 2015
... and the Fort Hood “workplace violence” incident in 2009
... and the assault at the military recruitment center in Chattanooga in 2015
... and the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013
... not  to mention the three simultaneous attacks at two airports and a train station in Brussels this year  
... and the horrendous massacres at the Paris music venue and restaurant (130 dead, 352 injured) in 2015
... and the Paris slaughter at the Charlie Hebdo office also in 2015 (20 dead; 22 wounded),
            ... or any of the other 28,781 Islamic terrorist attack atrocities worldwide since 9/11

is indeed radical Islam, then by deliberately not calling it that, your strategy will not “make it go away” either. In fact, by deliberately calling it something else (“homegrown anti-gay bigotry” or “gun violence”), it is you who is attempting to create a “political distraction.”

You, Mr. President, are the one attempting to play with words, and moreover, the American people deserve to know your real motivation.

So, let me explain to you, Mr. President, in words simple and plain so that even you and your flatterers can understand, why it is imperative to call a threat by its real name... as Confucius advised centuries ago.

* *  *  *  *  *

The first step in combatting a threat is comprehending its nature. Misdiagnosing the threat will lead you astray. The tactics and weapons you choose might be ineffective. In finding a cure for a disease it’s possible that mixing potions willy-nilly will work, but there is no substitute for careful research and analysis.

Once the true nature of a threat is correctly identified and understood, only then can the correct response be formulated and the most efficacious course of action chosen. If the threat is misidentified, efforts to combat it will be minimally effective at best, and at worst, counterproductive... feeding the very beast you are trying to destroy.
Now you can husband your resources and band your allies to collectively chart battle plans in a spirit of mutual need and shared advantage.

Is there a better example of a problem exacerbated from a wrong diagnosis than the ‘racial disparity in the criminal justice’ narrative?

Gross overrepresentation of African-Americans in the penal system is attributed to racist policing and jurisprudence. But statistically the numbers are completely consistent with the massively disproportionate amount of violent crime committed by African-Americans. The disastrous effects of the misdiagnosis effect a vicious cycle:
·         White elites in the mainstream media and academia sign on to the Black Lives Matter narrative.
·         With this comfort blanket of legitimacy, African-Americans have no reason to doubt that it’s true... and shields them from having to confront the harsh reality of their own responsibility.
·         Refusing to acknowledge the real causes of what should honestly be recognized as nothing less than the sinking into outright barbarism of inner-city black communities, no effective real solutions are even presented.
·         Without the implementing of corrective solutions, black violent crime continues unabated, but now there is an added impetus due to a falsely-grounded sense of grievance.
·         Black Lives Matter protests increase in potency and number.
·         The violence threshold rises for black activists who believe cops get up in the morning fantasizing about whether they’ll get an opportunity this shift to execute a black man.
·         Increasing number of cop-killing events.
·         Increasing apprehension and tentativeness of cops on the beat in black neighborhoods.
·         Violence increases.
·         Respect for police continues to diminish as BLM-sympathizing media talking heads and politicians call for federal control of policing.
·         Increased lawlessness and civil unrest. 
The decreasing confidence in, and effectiveness of law enforcement isn’t the first sign of the collapse of civil society—it’s one of the last.
And in case you were wondering, Mr. President, exactly what is the cause of the incredibly disproportionate  levels of violence in the black community (e.g., 62% of all violent crime in New York City1), it’s really very obvious. No, it’s not racism. It’s the breakdown of the nuclear family; its replacement with a new improved model:

mother + children + state social welfare programs and child support regime.

The institution of fatherhood is all but discarded in the African-American community, thanks to elite, feminist politically correct social policies.
The solution is to bring black men back into the family—as husbands and most importantly, fathers—where they can be socialized, rather than leaving them to learn the meaning of manhood from gangs.

Increasing race riots from BLM-inspired events coupled with the growth of Islam in the same community is an ominous trend.
Your policy of misdirection only muddies the waters of what should be the shared interest of the entire civilized world: eradicating the threat of global Islamic jihad.

* *  *  *  *  *

Next, you lectured us on the “real” nature of the global radical Islamist movement, dismissing their claim of perfect fidelity to Islam with this:
“Since before I was president, I've been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism. As president, I have called on our Muslim friends and allies at home and around the world to work with us to reject this twisted interpretation of one of the world's great religions.”
It is an interesting choice of words, “... extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism.”  Yes, you have indeed claimed for many years that these “groups” are just “using” the religion of Islam as a smokescreen to commit violence and acts of terror, as though their devotion to Islam is just a convenience, even a fraud. But if the true motivation is not religious—what is it? Material? Or do you expect us to believe that they are all just violent psychopaths who enjoy extreme violence?
How do you explain the suicide bombings and other attacks that result in the jihadist’s certain death?  There has to be belief of a reward in the afterlife for someone to make the ultimate “sacrifice.” And how can someone believe that murdering innocent children serves a greater good, other than by accepting the “wisdom” of a higher spiritual authority who knows better, that even infidel children deserve death? Such acts cannot be motivated by any material, earthly desire.

* *  *  *  *  *

You continue:
“There has not been a moment in my seven and a half years as president where we have not been able to pursue a strategy because we didn't use the label ‘radical Islam.’ Not once has an adviser of mine said, ‘Man, if we really use that phrase, we're going to turn this whole thing around.’  Not once.”
Really?  This begs the question: Did your decision to specifically not use the words “radical Islam” come from any of your advisors—or do you take sole credit for that stroke of genius? Did any of your advisors tell you, “Man, if we never say “radical Islam” we’ll really nail this sucker!”?
You continue:
“So if someone seriously thinks that we don't know who we're fighting, if there is anyone out there who thinks we're confused about who our enemies are -- that would come as a surprise to the thousands of terrorists who we've taken off the battlefield.
“If the implication is that those of us up here and the thousands of people around the country and around the world who are working to defeat ISIL aren't taking the fight seriously? That would come as a surprise to those who spent these last seven and a half years dismantling al-Qaeda in the FATA, for example -- including the men and women in uniform who put their lives at risk, and the special forces that I ordered to get bin Laden and are now on the ground in Iraq and in Syria.
“They know full well who the enemy is. So do the intelligence and law enforcement officers who spend countless hours disrupting plots and protecting all Americans -- including politicians who tweet and appear on cable news shows.”
I think that all Americans, and people everywhere for that matter, know who we're fighting: radical Islamic terrorists. I'm sure that our soldiers and law enforcement officers know it. And certainly our intelligence officers know who we're fighting. But I wonder if this will always be so, in light of your deliberate attempts to scrub this information from the eyes of the public using your authority in the Executive branch and your abuse of the bully pulpit? 

You routinely advocate handcuffing local law enforcement, anti-terror efforts under the pretense of condemning "profliling." Following your lead, the surveillance of mosques has been curtailed. And in this most recent terrorist attack, you directed the FBI to redact the ‘banned words,’ as we shall refer to them henceforth, as well as the names of radical Islamist leaders and organizations, from any future transcripts from operations. Until a groundswell of outrage from all corners forced your hand, this included the transcripts of the 911 calls and numerous calls to media outlets made by Omar Mateen expressing his fidelity to Islam and his allegiance to ISIS and its leader Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi while he was committing the atrocities in the Pulse nightclub in Orlando.

By some miracle, the public’s utter shock at the FBI’s redacted transcripts provoked such a response that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was forced to roll it back within days. As to the question of where the initial order came from?—“I’m not going to go into the detail of the process behind it,” Lynch said.  As if we don’t know.
Her explanation for the reversed policy is classic doublespeak:
“The goal is of course the greatest transparency. The initial thought was we did not want to provide a further platform for the propaganda of the killer. Once it became an issue, we decided we would go ahead and release the full transcript.”

One local law enforcement lackey stooped to borrowing language from the victim-feminist playbook when he claimed that they didn’t want to “re-victimize the victims.”

Your pathological insistence that Islam must be prevented from any implications in Islamic terrorist attacks is largely responsible for the success of the Pulse Club slaughter. When Omar Mateen attempted to buy body armor and bulk ammunition from a gun store, pausing to use his cell phone where he spoke in an Arabic tongue, the owner wisely refused him—and then called the FBI. After all, you’ve told us, “If you see something; say something.”
Why did the FBI not immediately track him down and detain him, preventing this tragedy?  Is it because they have been schooled to walk on egg shells with a Muslim suspect? Why, soon after taking office in 2009, did you instruct the Department of Homeland Security to scrub the names of mosques and Muslims linked to terrorism, many that had been cultivated since 2003?2
You continue:
“They know who the nature of the enemy is. So, there is no magic to the phrase ‘radical Islam.’ It's a political talking point. It's not a strategy”
No, but apparently it’s your political strategy to avoid using the phrase “radical Islam.” 
It is not a political strategy, or a “talking point,” to call something by its real name—what it is.  It’s simply telling the truth. To avoid calling something what it is—that is political!  That is a strategy! ... and a truly perverted one, at that.

* *  *  *  *  *

Next you give us, explicitly, your rationale for banning the use of the words “Islamic terror,” or “radical Islam”:
“And the reason I am careful about how I describe this threat has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism.”
Not calling something by its real name in the service of identity politics is perhaps the essence of political correctness—though I don’t believe your motivations in this matter can be written off so innocently.
“Groups like ISIL and al-Qaeda want to make this war a war between Islam and America, or between Islam and the West. They want to claim that they are the true leaders of over a billion of Muslims around the world who reject their crazy notions.”
It does appear that an apocalyptic war with the US, or the West in general, may indeed be the goal of ISIS, but why should this be used as a constraint on how we fight them? Doesn’t it make more sense to take them at their word, to acknowledge their goal, and make it clear that we intend to stop them?
“They want us to validate them by implying that they speak for those billion-plus people, that they speak for Islam. That's their propaganda, that's how they recruit. And if we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims with a broad brush, and imply that we are at war with an entire religion, then we are doing the terrorists' work for them.”
Not so fast, Mr. President. It doesn’t logically follow that by acknowledging the threat of their poisonous strain of Islam we are “falling into the trap of painting all Muslims with a broad brush,” nor that “we are at war with an entire religion.”
“Doing the terrorists work for them.” This is the constant refrain. We hear it over and over from politically correct apologists from all walks of life, politicians, media pundits, college professors, Hollywood movie stars.

“Doing exactly what they want.”
“Following the ISIS game plan.”

Please, NO MORE!
What else shouldn’t we do to prevent ‘aiding ISIS’ Master Plan’? Perhaps we should ban all news coverage of any future successful terror attacks? Perhaps we shouldn’t engage them militarily at all, because acknowledging them as a legitimate enemy of the greatest military power on Earth only serves to elevate their status in the eyes of... others internationally... such as the “moderate Muslims” that we “don’t want to lose”?
Again and again, you warn us that we mustn’t offend the world’s “moderate Muslims.” That we need them on our side. But if anything is going to drive Muslims into the arms of ISIS it is the perception that they are successful because Allah is on their side and their opponents are not only morally depraved but craven and weak.
It is shocking how so many fools fall for this line of “reasoning,” Mr. President. Perhaps all those years of dumbing down education has finally paid some dividends.

* *  *  *  *  *

“Now, up until this point, this argument of labels has mostly just been partisan rhetoric, and sadly, we've all become accustomed to that kind of partisanship, even when it involves the fight against these extremist groups.
“That kind of yapping has not prevented folks across the government from doing their jobs, from sacrificing and working really hard to protect the American people.”
“Yapping.” The last time I heard that in a political speech was in a Jeb Bush commercial. Your attempt to dismiss our outrage over your doublespeak is equally laughable.
“But we are now seeing how dangerous this kind of mind-set and this kind of thinking can be. We're starting to see where this kind of rhetoric and loose talk and sloppiness about who exactly we're fighting, where this can lead us.
“We now have proposals from the presumptive Republican nominee for president of the United States to bar all Muslims from emigrating to America. We hear language that singles out immigrants and suggests entire religious communities are complicit in violence.”
“Loose talk and sloppiness about who exactly we’re fighting...”? 
You mean by calling the threat “radical Islamic terrorists”?  Is that what you call “loose” and “sloppy talk”?  No, Mr. President, that’s calling things by their real names. That’s reality, the facts.
Now we arrive at the portion of your lecture that the media seized on as “attacking Donald Trump.” Of all the trash talk that has spewed from the lips of The Donald, his suggestion to ban Muslims from immigrating until we “figure out what’s going on,” is actually one of his saner soundbites.
Of course should Trump become president and implement an actual Muslim ban it would be severely constrained. Businessmen, politicians, assorted kings and princes, etc., who have legitimate interests here will still be allowed to travel. The ban would affect immigrants, particularly refugees fleeing death and destruction in their homelands. CIA director Brennan established as recently as June 16 in his testimony to Congress that ISIS is using refugee immigration to infiltrate our shores, and that there are already many ISIS operatives here.
Polls consistently show that large fractions of Muslims worldwide would prefer to live under Sharia law. At least half of Muslims worldwide believe that Sharia law is the revealed world of God.3 It is also well established that huge majorities of Muslims living in Asia, Africa and the Middle East prefer to live under Sharia law. Though smaller percentages of Muslims in southern Europe have the same preference, fully 42% of Russian Muslims agree with the proposition.
In the UK, an extensive survey of Muslims found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and other acts of terror. Only one-third of British Muslims would contact law enforcement if they knew someone close to them was involved with jihadists. Twenty-three percent of British Muslims agree that Sharia law should be imposed in areas with large Muslim populations4.
In another poll, 40% of British Muslims want Sharia law in the UK5. Is it any wonder that Britain just voted to leave the European Union?
Sixty-two percent of Canadian Muslims want Sharia law6.
A five-year study of Muslims in Europe found that 65% say Sharia law is more important to them than the laws of the country they live in7.
Sharia law prescribes the death penalty for apostasy, as well as for homosexuality, among other friendly provisions.
In light of these statistics, to not be afraid of Muslim subpopulations is irrational, and invites catastrophe. Not fearing Islam should be classified as a phobia—not fearing it. 
Islamophobiaphobia, anyone?
You, Mr. President, have done a masterful job of instilling in Americans the notion that what we have to fear the most from radical Islam is “Islamophobia.”  To you and your cabinet, fearing Islam is the greatest danger to Americans. “It’s not who we are.”
Here’s what your Attorney General, Loretta Lynch said following the San Bernardino terrorist attack:
"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—or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that we will take action...
“I think it’s important that as we again talk about the importance of free speech we make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not America...They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted."

Watch the video of Lynch’s remarks here8.
To anyone with possession of the facts and a sane mind, to not have a fear of Islam is to suffer from a disorder. Yes, I have Islamophobia—though my fear isn’t irrational. I’m sane. I know what Sharia law means. It is fundamentally incompatible with our civilization—which by the way is called “western civilization,” emergent in whole cloth from ancient Athens, spread through Hellenism, nurtured in the Greco-Roman world that followed, enriched on the spiritual side by monotheism from the Abrahamic religions, and incubated through the middle ages in Europe from whence it flowered in the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment culminating in the founding of this great nation of ours.
To it we owe the ideas of self-rule, the rule of law—not of man, democracy, the  separation of church and state, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, property ownership, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and foremost of all: rationalism.  Ideas antithetical to the seventh-century codes of the Koran and Sharia law that remain unchanged to this day, awaiting the great reformation of the religion, if it is to ever become compatible with the modern world.

* *  *  *  *  *

Maybe this is the appropriate place to take stock of Islam. You routinely lecture us on how it is a “religion of peace.” Perhaps a reminder of some of its provisions is in order. Bear in mind there is no separation between church (“mosque”) and state; a concept inimical to western democracy:

·         Waging jihad (holy war) to spread Islam and force conversions. (No, Mr. President, “jihad” doesn’t mean merely “personal struggle.”)
·         Captives in jihad may be executed, enslaved, or ransomed for money.

·         Female captives of jihad may be forced to have to sex with their captors/owners.

·         Imposition of second-class submission tax, called the jizyah, must be imposed on Jews and Christians (and other religious minorities) living in Islamic countries.

·         Slavery allowed.9 

·         Male owners may have sex with their slave-women, even prepubescent slave-girls.

·         Women’s testimony in law court is weighed at half that of a man’s.

·         Husbands may beat their wives.

·         Polygamy: A man can have up to four wives.

·         A man of any age may marry a prepubescent girl. (Mohammed engaged a six-year-old girl and the marriage was consummated when she was the ripe age of nine. Marriages with girls as young as ten occur in Saudi Arabia.)

·         Women must cover their bodies, including their heads.

And here are some crimes with their prescribed punishments:
·         Theft: Amputation of hand.
·         Assaults resulting in injury: literal “eye-for-an-eye” punishments.
·         Homosexuality: Execution, flogging or imprisonment.
·         Adultery: Death by stoning.
·         Blasphemy: Death.
·         Alcohol, gambling: Flogging.
·         Highway robbery: Crucifixion of amputation of hand or foot.
·         Fornication: Flogging.
·         False accusation of sexual crime: Flogging, eighty lashes.

There are over a hundred verses in the Koran that command Muslims to wage war with infidels for the sake of Islamic rule. Here are a few of them:
Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement."
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." 
Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."
Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." 

* *  *  *  *  *

You continue:
“Where does this stop? The Orlando killer, one of the San Bernardino killers, the Fort Hood killer -- they were all U.S. citizens. Are we going to start treating all Muslim Americans differently? Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance? Are we going to start discriminating against them, because of their faith?”
Omar Mateen was raised in a Muslim household, the child of immigrants from Afghanistan. Until the threat of global jihad is curtailed, governments of the civilized nations of the world must do all they can to protect their people from harm.  We have yet to see a terror strike with a WMD.  It is naïve and foolhardy to believe our present efforts will prevent this from happening. The ramifications of a strike with a WMD in the U.S. are barely comprehensible.  9/11 brought the Patriot Act. The destruction of a city might herald the end of democracy as we know it.
Clearly, Muslims must be scrutinized. Profiling is essential. How many resources are misspent because of our fear of appearing to be politically incorrect? Is it really necessary to subject a wheelchair-bound Irish grandmother or Norwegian toddler to the same level of scrutiny at an airport as a Muslim arriving from the Middle East? Special attention must be paid to those who fit the profile of a jihadi terrorist: Muslim. This is not racism. Islam is not a race. Not all Muslims are terrorists but all the terrorists seem to be Muslim. What is by far the most common terrorist name?
This is common sense, and good policing. If no discrimination is allowed the resources are attenuated, and the likelihood of an Omar Mateen slipping through the net is magnified. Mathematicians call it “optimization.”  It’s standard practice in economics and technology.  There would be no insurance industry without it. It’s called actuarial science: modeling risk factors by analyzing characteristics of a population.
“We've heard these suggestions during the course of this campaign. Do Republican officials actually agree with this?
“Because that's not the America we want. It doesn't reflect our Democratic ideals. It won't make us more safe, it will make us less safe, fueling ISIL's notion that the West hates Muslims, making young Muslims in this country and around the world feel like, no matter what they do, they're going to be under suspicion and under attack.
“It makes Muslim Americans feel like their government is betraying them. It betrays the very values America stands for.”
There you go again. It’s “playing right into their hands,” right, Mr. President?
No, profiling Muslims will make us much safer. But let’s be real here, you say you oppose treating Muslims differently when it comes to investigations into suspected terrorist links. But what you’ve done is the exact opposite: you’ve actually mandated preferential treatment for Muslims. In every government sponsored video showing a dramatization of a terrorist attack, the terrorists are always Caucasians. You take great pains to avoid even the suspicion that a terrorist can be a non-white Muslim.
You directed the DHS to specifically delete files on Muslims suspected of terrorist links. In your idealized world, terrorists will be anything but Muslim. You prefer your terrorists to be right-wing, NRA “bitter-clingers,” Christian militiamen, etc. After all, how many times have you told us that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism? Here are some of your quotes:
·         “ISIL is not Islamic.”

·         “Al-Qaeda’s cause is not Islam.”

·         “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”  (Yes, I can’t believe you actually said that, but you did!)

·         “Islam teaches peace.”

·         “[The call to prayer] is one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

Here is a video of some of Obama’s statements on Islam.
Here is a more extensive selection of clips of Obama speaking on matters relating to Islam.

If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were aspiring to be an emissary of Islam. Hmmm...
“We've gone through moments in our history before when we acted out of fear, and we came to regret it. We've seen our government mistreat our fellow citizens, and it has been a shameful part of our history.”
Aha, the obligatory reference to the Japanese internment during WWII. No surprise there.
“This is a country founded on basic freedoms, including freedom of religion. We don't have religious tests here. Our founders, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, are clear about that.”
May I remind you again that Islamic Sharia law is inimical to freedom of religion? The penalty for apostasy is death. The rule of law—not man; self-rule; freedom of speech, thought and assembly; freedom to own property and the fruits of one’s labor: these are the gifts bestowed on humanity by western civilization. It is our culture that learned, painfully over the centuries, to accommodate our own religious heritage without trampling on the rights and freedoms of non-believers. It is our institutions that evolved to strike that delicate balance between liberty and freedom and the strictures of the Bible. Maybe it is true that these are strictly western concepts and simply not in the cultural DNA of the Muslim world?
“And if we ever abandon those values, we would not only make it a lot easier to radicalize people here and around the world, but we would have betrayed the very things we are trying to protect.”
This is where you are seriously confused, Mr. President. In opposing a belief system that rejects our values, one that holds as one of its goals the imposition of its law over all other peoples of the Earth, through violence and slaughter if necessary, we are not betraying our values, we are defending them!
Unlike the other religions of the world, Islam is both a political system of governance and a religion. If a nation voted in Sharia law, it would be an act of political suicide. The democracy would cease to exist.
In openly defending our values and rejecting Islamism we are not radicalizing “moderate Muslims.” We are placing the onus where it belongs: on peaceful Muslims who reject Sharia law. It is your message that serves to further radicalize the Muslim world. Your message of weakness in the face of adversity. The Left’s message of cultural “deconstruction,” of doubt and uncertainty in the virtues of western culture, in opposition to the brutal certainty contained in Allah’s literal word of Sharia law. Your message of cowardice and accommodation in the face of religious tyranny.
By answering calls for the implementation of Sharia law with pleas for “diversity” and “tolerance” you validate the argument of the Islamists that the West has been weakened by the internal corrosion of its moral decadence. Your appointed Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in the wake of Orlando, said the way to combat Islamic terrorism (though of course she didn’t actually use the banned “I” word) is through “compassion, unity and love.” Do you actually believe that once Muslims have more exposure to our “lifestyle choices,” our sexual freedoms, for example, they will grow to appreciate the flowering of the human condition as advanced by LGBTQ... RSTUVW... communities, and realize the error of their ways?
You’re right that we need Muslim allies to combat the jihadists. But you’re completely wrong in how to accomplish that. It’s the difference between pandering and leading.
In a classroom with an unruly child, the worst thing a teacher can do is demonstrate tolerance and accommodation by adjusting the classroom environment, in essence tolerating the miscreant. That will cause the bad behavior to metastasize among the other students. The correct remedy is to let the other students see that unruly behavior is not tolerated. Remove the child. Anyone who has taught knows the “one bad apple ... poisons the barrel” classroom dynamic.
The relevant analogy to Islam and the international community is a clear and convincing message from the civilized world that Sharia law is simply unacceptable. In a perfect world it might look like this:
1.      Extend the UN Declaration of Human Rights to expressly identify Sharia law as inimical to human rights, and put in place steps to enforce membership in the UN consistent with this declaration.
2.      A ban on immigration from nations under Sharia law.
3.      Economic sanctions on nations under Sharia law.
In other words, a united message from all nations that Sharia law is unacceptable within the company of the civilized world.
Putting aside the practical difficulties on implementing such a global program for the moment, consider the likely response of the world’s Muslims—particularly the rulers of Muslim nations.
Would this drive the 1.6 billion Muslims into the arms of ISIS? Would they interpret this as a global war on Islam, a “clash of civilization” that now forces them to engage the other non-Muslim 5.3 billion peoples of the world in an apocalyptic world war?
Or would they finally start the conversation with each other, the conversation that “moderate” Muslims must have, that begins:
“We have a problem. We have to solve our problem.”

* *  *  *  *  *

You continue:
“The pluralism and the openness, our rule of law, our civil liberties, the very things that make this country great. The very things that make us exceptional. And then the terrorists would have won, and we cannot let that happen. I will not let that happen.
“You know, two weeks ago I was at the commencement ceremony of the Air Force Academy, and it could not have been more inspiring to see these young people stepping up dedicated to serve and protect this country.
“And part of what was inspiring was the incredible diversity of these cadets. We saw cadets who are straight applauding classmates who were openly gay.”
Whether this is a good thing or not, let me remind you again that the punishment for homosexuality under Sharia law is death.
Eleven nations are governed strictly by Sharia law, and four more nations partially submit to Sharia law regionally.
“We saw cadets born here in America applauding classmates who are immigrants and love this country so much they decided they wanted to be part of our armed forces.
“We saw cadets and families of all religions applaud cadets who are proud, patriotic Muslim Americans serving their country in uniform ready to lay their lives on the line to protect you and to protect me.

"We saw male cadets applauding for female classmates who can now serve in combat positions. That's the American military. That's America. One team. One nation."
Yes, it sounds great. Now, how can we make sure we preserve that for our children? How do we save it from enemies foreign and domestic, those for whom these values are anathema, nothing less than the work of Satan?
“Those are the values that ISIL is trying to destroy, and we shouldn't help them do it. Our diversity and our respect for one another, our drawing on the talents of everybody in this country, our making sure that we are treating everybody fairly, that we're not judging people on the basis of what faith they are or what race they are or what ethnicity they are or what their sexual orientation is.”
Yes, but ISIL is not some rogue group of criminals who behead, crucify, burn alive, pillage and destroy just for the sheer delight of it. The “I” in the name stands for “Islamic.” They are the most visible part of a global movement. The movement is religious. It is fundamentalist Islam. A version of the religion that believes the Koran should be taken literally; that it is the word of God, and that its rules must be imposed on all the peoples of the world so that only then will the world be at “peace.” That is the true meaning behind your repeated parroting of “Islam is a religion of peace.”  Yes, it is—but only when everyone everywhere has submitted to it.
To accommodate, and even welcome, this belief system under praises of “diversity” and “tolerance” is sheer lunacy.
“That's what makes this country great. That's the spirit we see in Orlando. That's the unity and resolve that will allow us to defeat ISIL. That's what will preserve our values and our ideals that define us as Americans. That's how we're going to defend this nation, and that's how we're going to defend our way of life. Thank you very much.”
Actually, it will be a small miracle if our nation can survive the remaining months of your presidency. You are doing everything in your power to divert our attention from the threat posed by radical Islam, not only to ourselves, but to civilization itself. One shudders to think what will result once an Islamist jihadist terrorist gets hold of a WMD.

* *  *  *  *  *

And now we turn to the Why?—as in ‘Why do you deliberately and continually lie about Islam?’
The standard trope is to attribute the policy of let’s-pretend-that-this-global-menace-is-not-Islamic to “political correctness.” I’ll buy this for your typical college professor or CNN talking head. It’s Identity Politics 101. We know the script. They don’t know any better. Decades of politically correct indoctrination has taken its toll on the reasoning abilities of most Americans.
But you don’t get off so easy, Mr. President.
Obama at half-brother's wedding 1990s

You have just given us too many dots to connect. It’s almost like you’re daring us to state the obvious.
You claim to be Christian, yet whenever you mention Christians or Christianity, it is always in the pejorative. Here you are at the Presidential Prayer Breakfast, Feb 5, 2015, lecturing Christians on, believe it or nuts, their intolerance:
“And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.  In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”
And why do you almost always fail to mention the Christian victims of ISIS? It’s almost pathological...
“We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism  -- terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.” 
For twenty-some-odd years you worshipped at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, the church of your pastor, Reverend Wright. This church is more a political entity than a spiritual one, as Americans got to see those endless loops of fiery anti-white, anti-American, “the chickens have come home to roost,” excerpts from his sermons. What is preached in these churches for inner-city blacks is sometimes called “black liberation theology.” In your book, “Dreams of my Father,” you remark about one of the precepts that you found particularly attractive: “Disavowal of the Pursuit of ‘Middleclassness.’” This is one of the “Black Ethics” comprising the “Black Value System” adopted by these churches. None of them mention Christ. All of them relate to being black.
Quoting Trinity church literature, you wrote:
“While it is permissible to chase ‘middleincomeness’ with all our might,” the text stated, those blessed with the talent or good fortune to achieve success in the American mainstream must avoid the “psychological entrapment of Black ‘middleclassedness’ that hypnotizes the successful brother or sister into believing they are better than the rest and teaches them to think in terms of ‘we’ and ‘they’ instead of ‘US’!”

According to an article in Breitbart.com regarding your relationship with the Church:

“Obama’s only qualm was whether Trinity’s opposition to“middleclassedness” was sincere, given its    “disproportionate number of black professionals.” Eventually, Obama says, he embraced God–and Wright’s church.10

Your flavor of black political empowerment is not the MLK, Civil Rights 1960s variety. You are of a different generation. That movement was all about inclusion. "Stop keeping us out! We want admission to the middle class—and beyond. We want in. Stop discriminating against us!"
Your pedigree is the 1970s “black power” movement. The Black Panthers. Angela Davis. Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Stokely Carmichael. It wasn’t about wanting what whitey had. It was about rejecting everything about whitey—including his “middleclassness.”
And his religion. The 1970s black power movement was also about Malcom X and the Nation of Islam. To truly reject whitey, and Satanic Amerika, Islam offered an answer that provided real historic roots, the answer to it all. A framework where Reverend Wright’s hatred of white America found its true home.
You are the son of a Shiite Muslim Kenyan father. After divorce, your mother married an Indonesian Muslim man and the family moved to Indonesia. Indonesia is home to the largest Muslim population in the world. It is overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim. You lived there from the ages of six to ten. Though you initially attended a Catholic school for grades one and two, you switched to an exam school that welcomed all faiths. You were registered as a Muslim and received religious instruction accordingly. This was, after all, your heritage.
Are you really a Christian, Mr. President? If so, why do you struggle so when you have to say the word? Why do you avoid saying the word, as when speaking of ISIS’ victims?
President John Kennedy, the nation’s first and only Roman Catholic president, was compelled to publicly proclaim that should he be elected he would not “accept instructions” from the Pope. 
Similarly, Mitt Romney during his presidential campaign in 2007 publicly affirmed that his religion, Mormonism, would have no impact on his execution of presidential duties should he be elected. Romney is a pastor in his church.
But Islam is different from the other major world religions. Besides its religious component, it prescribes a rule of law. There is no separation of ‘church’ and state in Islam. Nations that are ruled under Islamic law are theocracies by definition. Any Muslim president has a clear obligation to clarify where his obedience to his religion ends and his duties as secular commander-in-chief and leader of the Free World begin.
There is only one Christian theocracy in the world: the Vatican city-state. The nations of Europe (and the U.S., though many are at pains to admit it) have Christian foundations, but they are in no way, shape, or form theocracies.
In the U.S., when a Christian bakery refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, there was figurative hell to pay. In Saudi Arabia, homosexuals caught in the act merit the death sentence. Beheading is the common method.
There exists a clear and abiding contradiction between Islam and a democratic republic.
Did you make a decision many years ago that in order to rise in US politics you could not do it as a Muslim? Did you make a pragmatic decision to hide your true faith and adopt Christianity? Does Reverend Wright know this? As your spiritual mentor throughout much of your adult life, did he advise you on this?
Islam allows Muslims to deceive non-believers when it is beneficial to the cause of Islam.  It’s called Taqiyya. Allah will not hold you accountable for recanting Islam if it is necessary.
Once elected, did you plan to be an emissary of Islam to America, and is the global jihad now frustrating your goals along these lines?
Are you a Muslim, Mr. President? If so, are you Shiite, like your step-father? How did it impact your desire for the nuke deal with Iran? What part did it play in your obvious deference to Iran? Does it account for your directions to have our naval officers submit to humiliation by their Iranian captors earlier this year while the negotiations were ongoing?11
These are the questions many Americans would like answered, Mr. President. If you have indeed deceived the American people with regards to your religion and the impact it has had on your decisions, what is the crime and the punishment?
Article 3, Section 3 - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 

#  #  #

[1] Bratton, William J., Police Commissioner.  New York City. NYPD.  Crime and Enforcement Activity in New York City.  2015. http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/year_end_2015_enforcement_report.pdf

[2] “Bombshell: Whistleblower Claims DHS Scrubbed Records That Might Have Prevented Orlando And San Bernardino Attacks.” Staff.  The Sean Hannity Show. (Philip Haney, founding member of DHS, to Sean Hannity. In 2009 and again in 2012, DHS HQ issued orders to delete records.) 15 Jun. 2016. http://www.hannity.com/articles/war-on-terror-487284/bombshell-whistleblower-claims-dhs-scrubbed-records-14816541/)

[3] Pew Research Center. The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society  30 Apr. 2013.  

[4] Kern, Soeren. “UK: What British Muslims ReallyThink.”  Gatestone Institute  17 Apr. 2016. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7861/british-muslims-survey

[5] Hennessy, Patrick and Kite, Melissa. “Poll reveals 40 percent of Muslims want sharia law in UK.”  The Telegraph 19 Feb, 2006 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

[6] Sims, Kris. “Strong support for Shariah in Canada.”  Atlantic Bureau, Toronto Sun  11 July 2016   

[7] Kern, Soeren. “Europe: Islamic Fundamentalism is Widespread.” Gatestone Institute   16 Dec. 2013  http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4092/europe-islamic-fundamentalism

[8] Barrett, James. “Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Those Who Use ‘Anti-Muslim’ Speech That ‘Edges Toward Violence’”.  The DailyWire  4 Dec. 2015. http://www.dailywire.com/news/1593/loretta-lynch-vows-prosecute-those-who-use-anti-james-barrett

[9] (Some Islamic nations, such as Egypt, have outlawed slavery) Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam  8/5/90,  U. of Minnesota, Human Rights Library.  5 Aug. 1990 http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/cairodeclaration.html.

[10] Pollak, Joel B. “Obama a Muslim? No. Joined Racist Church? Yes.” 18 Sept. 2015 Breitbart.com http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/18/obama-a-muslim-no-joined-racist-church-yes/

[11] Larter, David,U.S. “Navy rebukes Iran after propaganda viseo shows sailor crying.” 10 Feb. 2016  NavyTimes   http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/02/10/iran-images-riverine-crying-strong-condemnation-navy/80186322/

No comments:

Post a Comment