So here we are again, some ten days out: The Islamic creed has inspired butchery, treason, and mayhem, this time in a California city; and the Liberal creed has induced cowardice, misdirected antipathy, and paralyzing intellectual confusion.
An immigrant woman passed two government background checks, despite falsifying her immigration documents and propounding Jihad online; she conspired with her husband, a traitor, to commit bloody slaughter, before meeting her demise with him at the hands of local police; and according to our liberals, we can rest assured that a third background check, part of some “common sense” gun control, would have prevented the massacre this Jihadist couple perpetrated.
We have seen as recently as Paris the impotence of gun control in the teeth of committed terror cells. Belgium, despite gun regulations far in excess of those venerated “common sense” laws, and closer to the ideal of such sages as The New York Times editorial board, has been exposed as a major market in the trafficking of illegal weapons. Now Belgium does not share a long frontier with a lawless land, as America does with northern Mexico. Belgium shares borders only with sophisticated social democracies characterized by strict gun control regimes. And yet Belgium remains a stronghold of illegal weapons dealers whose readiness to supply the Jihad cannot be controverted.
If our liberals could muster one tenth of the outrage they reserve for those who defend an American right to bear arms, and vouchsafe it instead to those to take up arms, as soldiers of Allah, against the defenseless and unarmed, we might discover some ground for civic compromise. For instance, we might find a compromise with liberals by immediately disarming all Muslims who have falsified documents to gain entry into this country, as a sensible prelude to deportation.
If our liberals could summon a small portion of that indignation for defiant critics of Islam, which they have on so many occasions exuberantly exhibited with McCarthyite vigor, and reserve it instead for the political arm of Islamic supremacy, the seditionists and apologists, who are forever warning darkly that criticism of Islam will have dire consequences, we might discern an avenue for patriotic accommodation. For instance, rather than mau-mauing opponents of Islam from the heights of the Justice Department, and threatening a curtailment of Free Speech on the subject of Islamic terror, liberals could join a general encouragement to repudiate the microaggressions that issue from Islamic pressure groups.
If our liberals could possibly relax, just for a moment or two, their rictus of anti-American suspicion, and reflect that perhaps the more emphatic suspicion ought to fall on the perfidious brutality that emanates from the earliest antiquity of the Islamic religion, down to its latest manifestation in ISIS, we might conceivably come to some efficacious accord between American political factions.
But as things stand we have a faction that is above all alarmed by the expanding power and influence of the Jihad, and another faction that is above all alarmed by the former’s alarm.
E. g., it is beyond all possible cavil that liberals in America have exhibited more sustained outrage at a presidential candidate who recommends a temporary cessation Islamic immigration, than they have at bloody Islamic treachery.
There is something truly mindboggling about this discongruity. We are invited to believe that to speak ill of a religion, even inferentially, is worse than murdering in the name of it.
Meanwhile, The New York Daily News ran a disgraceful article which walked right up to the edge of declaiming that one of the slaughtered victims in San Bernardino deserved what he got, since he wrote some harsh arguments about Islam on social media.
So the particular lesson is this: Should the misfortune of being murdered by jihadists befall you, and it transpires that you have on occasion spoken ill of Muslims, some liberals, hopped up on the sanctimony that so often drives them, will pronounce that you had it coming.
Social media criticism of Islam, according to liberals, is worse than the Islamic motivated assassination of random innocents.
There is another grim fact here that reflects extremely poorly on the preoccupations of liberalism. Press reports tell us that neighbors of these San Bernardino jihadists observed some suspicious conduct from them over a period of time, and on account of an aversion to “racial profiling,” declined to report it. So political correctness, in a very direct manner, cost fourteen lives, and many more maimed and shellshocked.
I should like to ask patriotic liberals how they account for these perversities. I should like to ask what rationality there is in the proposition that excluding Islamic immigrants, even temporarily, is worse than extinguishing innocent life out of obedience to Islamic principles. For that is the only conclusion we can draw from the spasm of liberal denunciation that has consumed a couple news cycles.
What will happen in the coming weeks none can tell. In France an extraordinary thing has happened: the Jihad has knocked the Socialists out of contention in wide swaths of the country. A far-right party preaching French patriotism and French identity (for such things count as “far-right” today) leads in popularity, and may only be thwarted by the connivance of center-left and center-right milquetoasts. In point of fact many Republicans here would not scruple to throw in with Clinton, should Trump gain the GOP nomination, thus commencing a trans-Atlantic betrayal of patriotism and national identity.
Now France has for her most prominent patriotic leaders les duex belles femmes blondes and an scraggly novelist, while we have a bombastic real estate magnate turned reality TV star. Alas for us. None of these celebrity politicians may attain high office, but they have already blazed a trail of unpredictable patriotic and popular public theater, if the reader will excuse the alliteration and well as my French.
But even the most subtle Big Data quant, armed with the most powerful processing speeds for his analytics, could not have augured, even a year ago, that we would enter 2016 with a Le Pen leading French and a Trump leading American polls.
In conclusion, while we should hesitate at prognostication, we should not hesitate to set down first principles.
Islam is a permanent problem, arising out of an ancient religion that is brimming with self-confidence and evangelical fervor. It is absolutely incumbent upon all of us to talk truth and not falsehood about Islam.
Our last two Presidents and most Western leaders have lied to us. Islam is not a religion of peace, but of war and conquest and subjugation. Where Islam is, terror will be there as well.
A first responsibility of American policy is to minimize the expansion and influence of Islam on our shores.
[Updated 12/14 to fix some grammar mistakes --Ed.]