Like frogs, who are incapable of detecting the smooth, slow approach of a snake because their eyes are only adapted to see the quick movements of flies, western nations seem unable to see the infiltration of their homelands by an insidious ideology whose sworn goal is to destabilize, out-populate, overwhelm, and conquer them.
The rubbish we hear from politicians and media and celebrities about “love” and “standing with refugees” and “uniting against hate” is just that – rubbish. It’s the worn out, hackneyed language of hippie one-worldism, a fuzzy utopianism, and an utterly naive view of mankind and history. The world is not and has never been a peaceful, fair place. A few of the constants throughout our history on this planet have been war, scarcity, injustice, and chaos.
That these realities have been greatly mitigated in modern times is a tribute to the success of democracy and free speech, the belief in the inherent value of the individual and inalienable rights, free enterprise, and strict limits imposed on absolute power. But the threat of evil and misfortune is never too far away, always prowling at the edges of civilization and waiting to reassert their traditional supremacy whenever nations and empires can no longer hold together.
The debate about Muslim immigration in the western world has nothing to do with “racism” or “xenophobia” as some like to lecture us. These people forget that the vast majority of people like me who are worried about the demographic onslaught of Islamic influence into the west in recent years never worried about immigration per se before about 2012. We are all descended from immigrants, as leftists correctly point out. But the profound shift that has so many people deeply concerned is that we’ve given up insisting on assimilation as well as taking any notice of whether our national security is threatened. These were always significant considerations in decades past, and many who applied for citizenship to the U.S. in the last hundred and fifty years were disallowed, and for sensible reasons.
Muslims (most of whom are economic migrants and not refugees at all) are the only group of people coming to the West without intention to assimilate to their target cultures, a fact eminently provable by examining the results of decades of Muslim immigration in France, Sweden, Germany, and other European countries who are way ahead of us. Enclaves of sharia law, “no-go zones” where local and national law do not apply and are not enforced, have created black holes in the fabric of these nations where little is known to the outside world, and what news does occasionally escape these closed communities reminds us very much of war, scarcity, injustice, and chaos.
For all the negative things we can say about ISIS, they’re very upfront about their feelings towards us, give ample warning of attacks, and even sometimes reveal the methods they’re using. One thing ISIS and other terrorist groups have repeatedly said is that they are using the stream of Muslim migrants to the west into which to seed their jihadi operatives. Well, that makes plenty of sense and we’ve already seen the fruits of that strategy.
It’s not hateful or racist or to state that we must stop importing Muslims now. Nor is it hateful or racist to state that we’ve already allowed in hundreds to thousands of unvetted, extremely dangerous individuals who should never been accepted. These people must be deported and returned to their home countries, as Ann Coulter argues below, and there’s no need for us to cringe or worry what people will think about us for saying so. Those who have come to America to be Americans, to work and raise their families peacefully and abide by the law of the land are welcome to stay. But criminals, terrorists, and those seeking to overthrow our way of life have no place in our country.
All We Need Is Love … and Deportations
by Ann Coulter [Frontpage Magazine] * 8 June, 2017
In Britain, as in the U.S., when an Islamic terrorist is said to be, “known to law enforcement,” the translation is: “He is being actively ignored by law enforcement.”
After the latest terrorist attack in Britain — at least as of this writing — Prime Minister Theresa May bravely announced, “Enough is enough!”
What is the point of these macho proclamations after every terrorist attack? Nothing will be done to stop the next attack. Political correctness prohibits us from doing anything that might stop it.
Poland doesn’t admit Muslims: It has no terrorism. Japan doesn’t admit Muslims: It has no terrorism. The United Kingdom and the United States used to have very few Muslims: They used to have almost no terrorism. (One notable exception was chosen as the National Freedom Hero in this year’s Puerto Rican parade in New York!)
Notwithstanding the lovely Muslim shopkeeper who wouldn’t hurt a fly, everyone knows that with every tranche of peace-loving Muslims we bring in, we’re also getting some number of stone-cold killers.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair dumped millions of Third World Muslims on Britain to force “multiculturalism” on the country. Now Britons are living with the result. Since the 9/11 attack, every U.S. president has done the same. President Bush admitted Muslim immigrants at a faster pace after 9/11 than we had been doing before 9/11.
Whatever the 9/11 attackers intended to accomplish, I bet they didn’t expect that.
Now we can’t get rid of them. Under the rules of political correctness, Western countries are prohibited from even pausing our breakneck importation of Muslims, much less sending the recent arrivals home.
In defense of the poor saps responding to every terrorist attack with flowers, candles and hashtags, these are people who have no ability to do anything else. Western leaders are in full possession of the tools to end Islamic terrorism in their own countries, just as their forebears once ended Nazi Stormtroopers.
Unable to summon the backbone to defeat the current enemy, the West is stuck constantly reliving that glorious time when they whipped the Nazis. In almost every Western country — except the one with an increasingly beleaguered First Amendment — it’s against the law to deny the Holocaust.Are we really worried about a resurgence of Nazism? Isn’t Islamic terrorism a little higher on our “immediate problems” list? How about making it illegal to make statements in support of ISIS, al-Qaida, female genital mutilation, Sharia law or any act of terrorism?
The country with a First Amendment can’t do that — the most that amendment allows us to do is ban conservative speakers from every college campus in the nation.
But If our elected representatives really cared about stopping the next terrorist attack, instead of merely “watching” those on the “watch” list, they’d deport them.
To this day, we have a whole office at the Department of Justice dedicated to finding and deporting Nazis even without proof they personally committed crimes against Jews. But we can’t manage to deport hearty young Muslims who post love notes to ISIS on their Facebook pages.
If the Clinton administration had merely enforced laws on the books against an Afghani immigrant, Mir Seddique Mateen, and excluded him based on his arm-length list of terrorist affiliations, his son Omar wouldn’t have been around to slaughter 49 people at an Orlando nightclub last year.
If Secretary of State John Kerry, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson or anyone else in our vaunted immigration vetting system had done his job, Pakistani Tashfeen Malik never would have been admitted to this country to commit mass murder in San Bernardino a year after she arrived. Before being warmly welcomed by the U.S., Malik’s social media posts were bristling with hatred of America and enthusiasm for jihad.
We’re already paying a battery of FBI agents to follow every Muslim refugee around the country. When they find out that one of them lists his hobby as “jihad,” we need them to stop watching and start deporting.
Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, the rest of the useless GOP — and obviously every Democrat — have the blood of the next terrorist attack on their hands if they don’t make crystal clear that admiring remarks about Islamic terrorism is a deportable act.
But they won’t do it. That’s “not who we are,” as Ryan famously said.
True, most Muslims are peaceful. Guess what? Most Nazis were peaceful! We didn’t knock ourselves out to admit as many of them as we could, screening out only the Nazis convicted of mass murder.
Before we were even formally involved in World War II, the FBI was all over the German American Bund. No one worried about upsetting our German neighbors. (Perhaps because they knew these were Germans and wouldn’t start bombing things and shooting people.)
But today, our official position is: Let’s choose love so as not to scare our Muslim neighbors. Isn’t that precisely what we want to do? Facing an immobile government, two British men — by which I mean British men — were sentenced to PRISON for putting bacon on a mosque in Bristol last year. One died in prison just after Christmas, an ancient religious holiday recently replaced by Ramadan.
If we can’t look askance at Muslims without committing a hate crime, can’t we at least stop admitting ever more “refugees,” some percentage of whom are going to be terrorists and 100 percent of whom will consume massive amounts of government resources?
No, that’s “not who we are.”
Until any Western leader is willing to reduce the number of Muslims in our midst, could they spare us the big talk? “We surrender” would at least have the virtue of honesty.