Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
End the Islamist Epidemic in America
My slightly edited response to the New York Times front-page editorial:
All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murders might have been prevented through improved gun laws. That is right and proper.
But new gun legislation does not matter to the dead in California, nor did it in Chattanooga, Boston, Garland, Fort Hood, New York City and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on platitudes and political correctness, excusing an ideology dedicated to the unfettered spread of ever more deadly terror attacks.
It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that Islamists can commit acts designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are acts of war, barely concealed and deliberately promoted as tools of religious intolerance and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for jihad’s victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on radical Islam, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about gun control. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, violent crime.
Apologists for Islamism are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific terrorist. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective terror prevention. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers launched attacks illegally in places like Israel that do have aggressive profiling of potential terrorists. Yes, they did.
But at least that country is trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating special hate speech protections for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of terrorist attacks, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large numbers of Islamist radicals.
It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Constitution. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.
Certain kinds of Islamists, like the poorly vetted killers in California, and certain kinds of jihadist activity, must be outlawed to protect civilians. It is possible to define those people in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who tolerate those kinds of people to stop making excuses for the good of their fellow citizens.
What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?
Published in Islamist Terrorism
Excellent.
Slight edit. I believe the only people who died in the Garland attack were the terrorists. I don’t think we much care their thoughts on legislation or anything else.
Very nice article and a cut well above the NYT both in authorship and substance. Well Done.
Well said. We are in an ideological war. We cannot win it if we do not acknowledge its driving force.
There was a time when this article would have been on the front page of the NY Times and the NY Times piece in some kooky underground paper.
In the way that the NYT is now arguing that it’s time to collect 300 million guns from Americans, I wonder how they’ll be able to collect 300 million opinions, belief systems, and political leanings, so they all will now point the correct way, the NYT way?
Hey, the Amendments are up for grabs. That’s what they’re arguing here. It’s only reasonable.
Like.
When our military was fighting radical Islam in the Middle East, soldiers understood they were helping to reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks on American civilians at home. Now that we’re not serious about attacking radical Islam over there, no one outside the Middle East is safe.
And, of course, we have Representatives Don Beyer, Liz Norton, and Betty McCollum attending Friday prayer services in solidarity with the Little Terrorist Mosque of Falls Church. I wish I had even the slightest interest in a Volvo so I could not buy one from Beyer’s dealership.
*golf clap*
Very well done Jon.
Your summary of the ill effects of narrative vs. intelligence is deadly accurate. But, and ain’t there always a but, the very last word may be too weak. Decency isn’t what many of us yearn for, as fine a trait as it is. We’re seeking clear-eyed leadership from a fellow patriot.
Far too many people in leadership positions lack even the elemental skills necessary to execute their responsibilities, and examples are legion. Ignoring the over-exposed obvious prime example of Obama (Satan), the current Secretary of State is high on the list of failed leaders. Following him closely are the hordes of beta males running our administrative state, cowering behind the skirts of she-devils like Hillary and other impotent figureheads.
Sure is refreshing to see clear commentary such as this, Jon.
This and anonymous’s post yesterday are the correct type of response.
Solutions will challenge our ability to handle paradox. We must aggressively deal with the issue of Islamist terrorism AND we have to be mindful of the words of the Constitution. People generally don’t handle paradox well.
Very big like on this one.
Excellent reply to the NYT.
(nods)
The problem, Jon, is how to define this threat so that any new anti-terror laws proposed cannot be used by the forces of government against the citizens who may reasonably exercise their political opposition. That’s not to say that the levers of government are not used to oppress the opposition (read: the IRS scandal et al) but a law that outlaws any “terrorist” tendencies could easily be redirected against political rivals. BTW, we have laws that prohibit all the things that must be accomplished in advance of a terror plot.
One sea change might be a movement to encourage a trained and armed citizenry, a would be militia, to intervene in any future terror plot, and laws protecting those who provide such defense, from legal harassment should they be forced to act. Let’s let the citizens defend themselves. If half the number of dead and wounded were armed, I like their odds against two shooters.
Please explain how paradox clouds this issue or otherwise challenges clarity. Denying entry to our country for existential reasons, only one of which is deadly cultural incompatibility, is necessary for our common security. How does the Constitution make this logically or theoretically difficult? It’s a given that it’s difficult for feckless traitors to even properly read the document, but how so for patriotic citizens?
I’m not talking about new immigrants. I’m talking about not trampling the rights of moderate Muslim Americans. When fear dominates we can be tempted to overreact. Certainly hasn’t been a problem at this point, but it could be.
Don’t concede this point to them. What is “reasonable” to them is anything but for the rest of us.
The terrorists in San Bernardino arrived through normal immigration channels (possibly under false pretense) were engaged/married, gainfully employed, paid their rent, and didn’t trouble their neighbors.
Other than an apparent Facebook post by the woman what evidence is there that they were anything but moderate muslims legally immigrating to America?
I understand the distinction. All pivots on the definition of “moderate”, I suppose. The Tsarnevs (sp) were moderate, right up until the marathon. There is no functional distinction between citizens and anyone we allow to live here unmolested.
Don’t forget that despite his unpopular missteps, McCarthy was correct about the subversion of our country. Coulter knows and tells all…
Exactly the point I made above, but didn’t see your post first. This is the real difficulty, and it’s not ill-suited to strict constitutionality.
Are you implying that the NY Times is not today ‘some kooky underground paper’?
This could have been stopped ahead of time without one new law. A huge issue is the culture which has produced a neighbor who feared being accused of racism more than he feared the curious stream of middle-eastern men and their deliveries. Much of America has lost the will to be America.
Then there’s the government, who could have handed the budding Jihad-ette’s visa application to an intern armed with Google maps who would have determined that her Pakistani address was non-existent, thus her application fraudulent and her sorry rear back on an airplane out of the country.
There was a bomb factory in their garage, they unlawfully modified the weapons, they had multiple low level contacts with individuals that were on the terror watch lists, he grew a full beard and she wore the most conservative style of clothing, they in the week prior to the attack made numerous changes to their digital profiles, and changed how they allocated assets, they tried to erase/hide their digital signatures in the time leading up to the events. All in all, with the hindsight that comes from the investigation, there are a lot of indicators, that simply are not evaluated correctly. They do not fit the profile for true “moderates” rather they fit the profile for extremists working to hide their extreme views (with the benefit of hindsight). These are precisely the type on individuals we are most vulnerable to, as our desire to not impact the rights of true moderates let the baddies use our own civil society against us, and we have to figure out how to do good intelligence on these types of individuals without sacrificing precisely what is important about our culture. A very difficult issue to resolve.
Will these ‘moderate Muslim Americans’ disavow publicly any Islamic precepts that lead to acts of terrorism and crimes against individuals, including honor killings, forced marriages, and any other Sharia law that conflicts with Constitutional rights? Are they fearful of doing such or do they simply adhere to a belief that is un-American?
The nature of the Islamist (not Islamic) threat is such that it will never be completely eradicated. But it can be reduced to a level where, whatever sad events do occur for the affected individuals and families, our society can remain reasonably safe, sane and free. How does this happen? First, we accept that government will not, cannot, ensure complete security. More importantly, government leadership has to acknowledge this and stop trying to limit our ability to defend ourselves and stop selling us that giving up personal liberty and privacy will ensure our safety. Second, we must be clear on what this particular threat is: Islamism — an ideology that permits and encourages violence as a religious act. Islamism is not the sole threat we face, but it is the current threat and is being protected by Progressive policies. Third, we need to engage in civil disobedience against political correctness and disempower those people and policies who promote the notion that “hate” is somehow distinct and different from any other crime and can be a crime in and of itself.
Our leadership has to acknowledge that while all Muslims may not be Islamists, or that Islamism may not be Islamic, all Islamists identify as Muslims.
Are there behaviors or practices that one can refer to as Islamic (broadly supported by Islamic adherents otherwise referred to as Muslims) that violate U.S. Constitutional concepts of individual rights?
Great post, Jon.