America’s resolve in fighting Islamists
Islamists on the march? Move along; nothing to see here…
Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
The gruesome killing of a British soldier in London this week by Islamists and the attendant reactions by the press and politicians make clear two things: One, that Islam cannot be treated as a legitimate faith in the American tradition and in the context of the First Amendment, and two, Americans must wrest control of our country from liberal-progressives with all due speed, and by any means necessary.
I borrow the phrase “by any means necessary” from 1960s civil rights leader Malcolm X (who ironically, was a Muslim) for the same reason he did. While he knew a call for armed insurgence by blacks would have brought down the wrath of the entire law enforcement machine upon him and his colleagues, he also knew it was important to impart a sense of relational gravity to the struggle. Hadn’t those who initiated the American Revolution done so over less injustice than blacks had suffered under segregation and Jim Crow laws?
It has also been pointed out that those who initiated the American Revolution did so over far less than that which the Federal government currently practices across many fronts – but I digress…
Days after the machete and meat cleaver killing of the British soldier, it still took some effort to find any information on the soldier, even his name. He was consistently referred to in the press as “an active duty British soldier,” or simply “a British soldier.” In any case, the young man who was hacked to death in broad daylight on a London street this week was 25-year-old Drummer Lee Rigby, of the 2nd Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.
It is apparent that the lack of references to his identity was an avoidance to humanizing Rigby on the part of the press, risking the ire of his fellow human beings, who disdain such barbarity. Thus, Rigby remained an obscure living piece of meat to which some angry men put an end because they were angry.
On May 22, British Prime Minister David Cameron called the killing “a betrayal of Islam,” and said that “there is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.” We know this to be false, however, relegating Cameron’s words to abject propaganda. Despite the admonitions in Islamic scripture encouraging all manner of violence and the rhetoric of Islamists, politicians in Europe and America continue to apologize for this perverse cult, and savvy Muslims capitalize on this, claiming in the face of atrocity after atrocity committed by Muslims that Islam is a “religion of peace,” and that we simply do not understand it.
On the heels of this crime, which has understandably drawn international attention, President Barack Obama came under fire from Republican leaders for urging the repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the 2001 law that essentially authorized the War on Terror. The President explained that he wants to fight terrorism without keeping the country on a “perpetual wartime footing.”
Given Obama’s painfully evident affinity for Islam and the goals of Islamists, only a fool would fail to recognize that his intention is to further weaken America’s resolve in fighting Islamists. Like David Cameron, after the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing, the Obama administration made every effort to play down Islamist connections with regard to the brothers Tsarnaev, despite all evidence supporting same.
So, despite the fact that America ought to remain on a wartime footing, it’s business as usual for Obama, using whomever remains willing to shill for him. Unmindful of several scandals that threaten his administration, he ignores the risk of further shaking the faith of the American people and forges ahead with attempt to undermine the War on Terror, essentially asserting that it is either over or does not exist, as Islamists turn up the heat worldwide.
Why is it an imperative for liberal elites such as Cameron, Obama, and their ilk to render their countrymen defenseless against common criminals and machete-wielding primitives? I would submit that there are varied rationale, some being similar and more general. In general, liberal elites hold to a fantasy that they can control violent crime and terrorism, and that the sparse victims of same are a small price to pay versus the danger of having a populace that is actually able to defend itself – and possibly rise up against tyranny someday.
In Obama’s case, it runs a bit deeper. He is a leftist elite and a tyrant, to be sure, but he also wishes to see Americans suffer. Raised with a deep disdain for the American system and the prosperity and comfort that we have enjoyed for so long, his goal has always been to entirely supplant the system and attenuate our level of prosperity… by any means necessary. Whether it is through an “orderly decline of the dollar” as his benefactor George Soros has offered, an abrupt economic collapse, or widespread civil unrest brought about by jihadis is hardly relevant. Rest assured that the administration has contingencies for each.
With Islamists on the march however, and the emerging scandals revealing more evidence of this administration’s criminality on a daily basis, resistance is beginning to mount in areas that have been heretofore either passive or outright enabling; these would be Republican leaders and the press. Whether the administration has crossed an imperceptible line of acceptability, or these agencies are just beginning to see the malevolence of the Obama agenda (in which case I’ve given them far more credit for intelligence than they deserve), the administration is now clearly off-balance.
The fact that they may not yet perceive this, like a prize fighter who has just suffer the first stunning blow of their career, does not matter. It is time to close in.