Posted tagged ‘Hillary Clinton and Islamist terror’

Liberals Wanted to Talk about Islamophobia at the Debate, but the Real Problem is Terrorism

October 10, 2016

Liberals Wanted to Talk about Islamophobia at the Debate, but the Real Problem is Terrorism, Conservative Review,  Nate Madden, October 10, 2016

distraction-signs

Amid the tawdry, ad hominem cacophony that was the second presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were forced to contend with the implications of a supposed “rise in Islamophobia.” However, a quick look at the facts show that the question and implication really need some context.

Sunday night’s debate was, as expected, laden with pro-Clinton bias from moderators Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz. However, several of the questions submitted by the randomly-selected panel of undecided voters on the stage also carried the hallmarks of prepared layups for the Democrat nominee.

One such topic in particular, asked by one of the attendees, Gorbah Hamed, put the candidates on the spot about how they would deal with “Islamophobia” as president (per the Washington Post):

There are 3.3 Muslims in the United States and I’m one of them. You’ve mentioned working with Muslim nations, but with Islamophobia on the rise, how will you help people like me deal with the consequences of being a threat to the country after the election is over?

To his credit, Trump bridged the question directly to recent terror attacks, and the importance of Muslims patrolling their own communities. Meanwhile, Clinton criticized Trump’s views on immigration from Muslim-majority nations while hypocritically espousing religious freedom for foreign nationals from those nations, despite her own deplorable positions on free exercise for anyone who disagrees with her views on marriage and abortion.

Furthermore, while Clinton made a very big point of agreeing with Trump’s premise that American Muslims need to be “part of our eyes and ears” on the front lines, and bragged about her work with Muslim groups in the U.S. and how she intends to use that experience to defeat ISIS. But she failed to differentiate how her approach to the Muslim community is going to differ from President Obama’s, whose analogous “countering violent extremism” program has already been found as a “catastrophic failure,” according to a recent report.

But I digress. While the issues of Middle Eastern immigration and jihadist terror in the 2016 election cycle have sparked a chorus of concern from the Left over so-called “Islamophobia,” the concerns ignore reality of how big a threat it actually is.

The question hearkens back to a few weeks ago when the Hamas-and-Muslim-Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in the wake of a jihadist stabbing that they were afraid of the blowback from the attack.

“We are concerned about the potential for backlash,” CAIR’s Minnesota executive director Jaylani Hussein said, per NBCNews.com, following last month’s Minnesota mall stabbing. “[Muslims] are being made to suffer for [the terrorists’] acts. They are minorities in our faith. Islam is peace.”

Well, here’s the real story about that blowback.

According to FBI data, ACTUAL incidents of Islamophobia pale in comparison to incidents of anti-Semitism in the U.S. Numbers from December indicate that in the previous year saw, 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes, and the rate of Jewish victims was nearly four times that of Muslim victims at a proportion of roughly 57 percent to 16 percent.

Even in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks — the deadliest Islamist attack in American history — 2002 data from the FBI shows that anti-Muslim hate crimes totaled a grand total 174 for the year. These are, of course, dwarfed when compared to the 1,084 cases committed against Jews, and the 237 committed against “other.”

And it doesn’t stop there: America’s college campuses have become seething hotbeds of anti-Jewish activity. Meanwhile, a report from February finds, attacks on free exercise of religion across the board have doubled in the waning years of the Obama administration.

There was no mention of how America’s Jewish population (with nary a notable terrorist attack attached to its name) is under increasing fire — and has been so for years. Furthermore, recent jihadist terror attacks in San Bernardino to Orlando to Manhattan have taken scores of American lives and have left all of our citizens, regardless of their religion, under siege.

Yet, the question that both candidates were forced to contend with is one that clearly targeted the Republican nominee’s focus on the security concerns that mass migration from Muslim-majority countries generates in relation to America’s national security.

When we look at this issue earnestly, the real threat to American Muslims from the specter of Islamophobia are far less than the threats faced by all Americans from the threat of global jihadism. They’re far less than what American Jews have to deal with both on and off the university campus. And they’re far less than what anyone who runs afoul of the government’s views on marriage, abortion, and contraception face on any given day.

Finally, when it comes to the havoc created by ISIS and other terror organizations that commit atrocities in the name of Allah, President Obama and company are quick to point out that most of the victims of jihadist violence around the world are Muslims themselves. But when it comes to the the same threat posed to those on our own soil, such concerns are nowhere to be found. Rather, they find themselves drowned out by those that worry about a so-called “Islamophobia” epidemic rather than the threat faced by every person in the civilized world, Muslims included, when they leave their homes every morning.

What exaggerated concerns about “Islamophobia” actually do, however, is dull, silence, and distract from the message of those who actually voice that there is indeed a centuries-old problem within Islam — that it creates legitimate security concerns, and that these realities have to be addressed in bold and earnest terms. Those terms might hurt someone’s feelings, after all.

In sum, the “Islamophobia” question was endemic of a host of concerns that the Left has thrown at anyone who dare raise questions about the Islamic nature of jihadist terrorism, or about the safety of the Obama administration’s immigration and refugee policies. However, in light of the numbers and the real security threats faced by Muslims and non-Muslims around the world, that the debates chose to focus on “Islamophobia” really ought to be put into context.

 

Muslim mayor of London to Americans: Get used to terrorism

September 23, 2016

Muslim mayor of London to Americans: Get used to terrorism, American Thinker, Deborah C. Tyler, September 23, 2016

While visiting New York City on 9/21, London’s Mayor Sadiq Khan evidenced mild chagrin in saying terrorist attacks should be seen as “part and parcel of living in a big city.”  He added, “It is a reality, I’m afraid, that London, New York, and other major cities around the world have got to be prepared for these sorts of things.”

Mayor Khan makes it clear that preparing for the sort of thing that causes streets to run with the blood of dozens of innocents should not involve a military response.  He advocates police staying “in touch with communities” and “exchanging ideas and best practices.”

Two aspects of conditioned helplessness are being inflicted on the citizens of Europe and the USA, numbing and incapacitating them enough to surrender their national sovereignty and traditional ways of life to the deepening darkness of globalism.  One aspect is the increasingly laughable harangue by left-wing politicians that patriotic people are racio/phobio/blah-blah-blahists suffering cases of blah-blah-blahism.  Americans receive a new mental diagnosis every week, and they all indicate something very, very bad about us.  President Obama doesn’t pass up a chance to insult the American people, preferably in front of an international audience.  Hillary brought a bit of literary flair to her insults with the “basket of deplorables” remark.  Shoulder to shoulder with the other prominent destroyers of great nation-states and proud developers of lawless tribal territories, Mayor Khan didn’t miss the chance to denigrate the tens of millions of Americans who support Donald Trump.  Khan’s racist-shmacist in-your-face-ist shot was that the Trump movement is “driven by scapegoating.”

But there is a deeper, more psychologically crippling aspect to the mass psychology of globalist takeover then the vilification of patriots, and Khan has chosen to spearhead it.  In his original learned helplessness experiments (now widely considered unethical), psychologist Martin Seligman electrically shocked dogs, which were divided into groups that could or could not do something to stop the shocks.  The dogs for whom the shocks were inescapable developed what Seligman called learned helplessness.  The most helpless dogs simply gave up, lay down, and whimpered.

The mayor of London has just said to all of us, you are those dogs, and there will be inescapable shocks causing death around you.  These shocking events will kill ordinary people like you and your family in the mundane places we all need to go to.  Get used to it.  Accept it.  There is nothing you can do to stop it.

Obama, Hillary, and Khan are committed globalists in the process of dismantling the geographic, legal, and traditional integrity of their respective nations.  But the American and British people are at different stages of conditioning of helplessness to resist.  Therefore, the statements of Obama and Hillary and Khan take different tacks in the normalization of terrorism.  Obama and Hillary are at the stage of insulting Americans’ intelligence about terrorism.  When a white kid commits a heinous mass murder in a church, they know exactly what happened and why it happened, and, as it should be, the outpouring of grief is enormous.  Following each Islamic terrorist attack, Obama and Hillary display the now familiar head-bobbling confusion and say, “We don’t know what just happened, and we don’t know why.”  Their expression of grief is slow in coming if it comes at all.

But England and America have very different histories.  We are an armed population founded on a God-given responsibility to defend ourselves.  Americans are not ready to hear that Islamic terrorism is part and parcel of their everyday lives, uncontrollable as the weather.

The British people are sufficiently crushed in spirit to hear the mayor of London say that what happened in New York during his visit was terrorism and it’s no big deal.  Khan leads the way in saying the lethal terrorism “thing” will be happening over and over around you, so lie down, whimper like the helpless experimental dogs, and get used to it.

Normalizing terrorism with its constant, grinding fear is the greatest tool the globalists have to persuade citizens of the functional democracies to relinquish their borders and rights.  That fear is indispensable to Mayor Khan and to the leftist-globalist cause.  The Islamic terrorist is London’s new Jihadi-Bobbie.  He is walking, watching, and waiting in the streets by night and day, serving a cause, which, according to the city’s mayor, cannot be stopped.