Why the Burkini Ban is Right

The media has found its latest civil rights cause. It’s not the plight of Christians in Muslim countries who are being blocked from coming here as refugees because Obama’s refugee policy favors Muslims. Obama brought over 2,000 Syrians here in July. Only 15 of them were Christians.

It’s not the rising fear of an Islamic terrorist attack in Jewish synagogues. I have lately witnessed unprecedented levels of security at synagogues including guards in body armor and checkpoints. Racist Muslim violence against Jewish synagogues has been a staple of Islamic terrorism for too many years.

But instead the media has highlighted the civil rights cause of the burkini.

The “Burkini”, a portmanteau of “Burka”, the all-encompassing cloth prison inflicted on women in Afghanistan by the Taliban, and “Bikini”, was banned in France along with its parent, the Burka.

While Muslims massacre innocent people in the streets to shouts of “Allahu Akbar”, the media has once again decided to ignore these horrors in favors of broadcasting some petty Muslim grievance.

Does it matter what Muslim women wear to the beach? Arguably the government should not be getting involved in swimwear. But the clothing of Muslim women is not a personal fashion choice.

Muslim women don’t wear hijabs, burkas or any other similar garb as a fashion statement or even an expression of religious piety. Their own religion tells us exactly why they wear them.

“O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies that they may thus be distinguished and not molested.” (Koran 33:59)

It’s not about modesty. It’s not about religion. It’s about putting a “Do Not Rape” sign on Muslim women. And putting a “Free to Molest” sign on non-Muslim women.

This isn’t some paranoid misreading of Islamic scripture. Islamic commentaries use synonyms for “molested” such as “harmed”, “assaulted” and “attacked” because women who aren’t wearing their burkas aren’t “decent” women and can expect to be assaulted by Muslim men. These clothes designate Muslim women as “believing” women or “women of the believers”. That is to say Muslims.

One Koranic commentary is quite explicit. “It is more likely that this way they may be recognized (as pious, free women), and may not be hurt (considered by mistake as roving slave girls.)” The Yazidi girls captured and raped by ISIS are an example of “roving slave girls” who can be assaulted by Muslim men.

Muslim women who don’t want to be mistaken for non-Muslim slave girls had better cover up. And non-Muslim women had better cover up too or they’ll be treated the way ISIS treated Yazidi women and the way that Mohammed and his gang of rapists and bandits treated any woman they came across.

That’s what the burka is. That’s what the hijab is. And that’s what the burkini is.

And this is not just some relic of the past or a horror practiced by Islamic “extremists”. It’s ubiquitous. A French survey found that 77 percent of girls wore the hijab because of threats of Islamist violence. It’s numbers like these that have led to the French ban of the burka and now of the burkini.

When clothing becomes a license to encourage harassment, then it’s no longer a private choice.

Muslim women wearing a burka, a hijab or a burkini are pointing a sign at other women. The sign tells Muslim men to harass those other women instead of them. It’s not modesty. It’s the way that Muslim women choose to function as an instrument of Muslim violence against non-Muslim women.

In the Islamic worldview, sexual violence is the fault of the victim, not the perpetrator. From the dancing boys of Afghanistan to the abused women of Egypt, the fact of the assault proves the guilt of the child or the woman who was assaulted.

“If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat?” the Grand Mufti of Australia said. “The uncovered meat is the problem.”

The Grand Mufti wasn’t discussing cats or meat. He was talking about gang rapes by fourteen Muslim men. "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred,” he said.

This is why there is a burka ban and a burkini ban. It’s why there should be a hijab ban. The existence of these garments gives license to Muslim men to target non-Muslim women. They allow Islamists to impose them as a standard by singling out women who don’t wear them. And they encourage Muslim men to carry out assaults on non-Muslim women who don’t comply with Islamic law.

That is what France has rejected. It’s what every country that respects the rights of women to be free from being “molested” by the “believers” who get their morality from Mohammed, a serial rapist and pedophile from whom no woman, including his own son’s wife, was safe, ought to reject.

The media has chosen to be deeply outraged by France’s ban of the burka and the burkini. It does not seem especially interested in the fact that Saudi Arabia forces women to wear the abaya, a covering not too different from the burka, not to mention not being allowed to drive or often leave the house. Or that Sudan’s Islamist regime arrested Christian women in front of a church for wearing pants.

It’s not that the left feels that women ought to be able to wear whatever they want in other countries. Certainly not non-Muslim women in Muslim countries. But that it believes that Muslims ought to be able to do whatever they want, whether it’s impose dress codes at home, resist dress codes abroad or even impose dress codes abroad. And the first targets of these dress codes are inevitably women.

Islam expands through violence. It imposes its standards through violence. Before the ban, the burkini, much like the burka, had already come to be associated with violent clashes. In one such incident in France, a man was shot with a harpoon. It’s not surprising that the French have grown tired of this.

The burkini ban, like the burka ban, is understandable. And yet it’s not a final answer. It limits the scope of Muslim violence against women. But it does not meaningfully contain it or end it.

It’s not the cloth itself that is the problem, but the Islamic attitudes that attach themselves to it. And the only way to stop the spread of Islamic attitudes toward women in Europe is to end Islamic migration.

The wave of sexual assaults by Muslim migrants in Germany make it quite clear that the moralistic amorality of Islam, in which women who aren’t dressed the right way are fair game, cannot coexist with the right of European women to leave the house without wearing approved Islamic garb.

Europe must choose. Australia must choose. Canada must choose. And America must choose.

Banning the burkini or the burka alone will not stop the assaults. Only ending Islamic immigration will.

Nation Building or Islam Building

Nation-building has become a very controversial term. And with good reason. Our conviction that we can reconstruct any society into another America is unrealistic. It ignores our own exceptionalism and overlooks the cultural causes of many conflicts. It assumes that a change of government and open elections can transform a tribal Islamic society into America. They can’t and won’t.

But it’s also important to recognize that what we have been doing isn’t nation-building, but Islam-
building.

Nation-building in Germany and Japan meant identifying a totalitarian ideology, isolating its proponents from political power and recreating a formerly totalitarian state as an open society. That is the opposite of what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq, never mind Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen and all the rest.

We did temporarily pursue de-Baathification in Iraq. But the Baathists were just Saddam’s cult of personality. Saddam was a problem in Iraq. But he wasn’t the problem in Iraq. His rule was a symptom of the real problem which was the divide between Sunnis and Shiites. The real problem was Islam.

Because we failed to recognize that, de-Baathification failed. The Baathists just folded themselves into ISIS. The Sunni-Shiite war went on even without Saddam. Today Sunnis and Shiites are still killing each other in Iraq much as they had for a long time. We have boiled this war down to ISIS, but ISIS, like Saddam is just another symptom of the political violence and divisiveness inherent in Islam.

Instead of secularizing Iraq, our efforts at democracy only heightened divisions along religious lines. The “Lebanon” model for Iraq with power sharing arrangements between Sunnis and Shiites was doomed.

Iraq’s first election was dominated by the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. If that name rings a bell, it should. It came out of Iran. You know, the original Islamic Revolution. The “free” election had given a boost to an Islamic terror group whose goal was the creation of an Islamic State in Iraq.

The bloodiest days of the Iraq War actually came when two sets of Islamic terror groups fighting to create an Islamic State began killing each other… and us. We know one of those groups today as ISIS. The other group is the Iraqi government. And a decade later, they’re still killing each other.

Instead of nation-building in Iraq, we practiced Islam-building. Iraq’s constitution made Islam the official religion and the fundamental source of legislation. Its first real law was that, “No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.” The new Iraq we had built was an Islamic State.

We did no better in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan whose constitution declared much the same thing. Its first parliamentary elections saw victories for the National Islamic Movement of Afghanistan and the Islamic Society. As in Iraq and Syria, the distinctions between the bad Islamists and the good Islamists were often fuzzy at best. We had replaced the bad Islamist warlords who raped and murdered their enemies with the good Islamist warlords who raped and murdered their enemies.

Our nation-building had created an Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and an Islamic State in Iraq. It was no wonder that the fighting never stopped.

Matters grew much worse with the Arab Spring when Obama and Hillary’s Islam-building project flipped countries that had been democratic and secular in the loosest sense into the tar pit of political Islam.

Coptic Christians were massacred and churches were burned in Egypt. The Christian communities in Iraq and Syria were threatened with annihilation. The Jewish community in Yemen may be close to disappearing entirely. The Yazidis were raped and murdered on a genocidal scale by the Islamic State.

But in many cases they were just collateral damage from fighting between Sunni and Shiite Islamists, and among Sunni Islamists battling each other for dominance.

The ugliest part of Islam-building was that the resulting conflicts between Islamists and secularists in Egypt and Tunisia highlighted starkly just how wrong our policy was. Instead of backing secular and democratic forces, Obama had thrown in with Islamists. And even after the Muslim Brotherhood was overthrown in Egypt, his administration continued advocating on behalf of its Islamic reign of terror.

If we had practiced actual nation-building, then we would have identified Islamic tribalism as the central corrosive force in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Islamic political movements as the totalitarian threat in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. Our efforts would have been directed at isolating them and keeping them out of power while working to democratize and secularize these countries on the old Turkish model. It might not have worked, but at least it would have been nation-building, not Islam-building.

Nation-building might very well have failed. America doesn’t have infinite resources and the lives of our soldiers are precious. Assuming that we can upend radically different societies is excessively optimistic.

But we didn’t even try.

What we have been doing in this century isn’t nation building. Instead we’ve been empowering our enemies. We’ve been sticking our hands into Islamist snake pits and playing, “Find the Muslim moderate” and refusing to learn any better no matter how many times we get bitten.

We have been perfectly happy to help the Islamic terrorists that our soldiers were shooting at last week so long as their leader signed some sort of accord paying lip service to equality yesterday. We didn’t just get into bed with the Muslim Brotherhood, but with former affiliates of Al Qaeda and current proxies of Iran. We allied with the Sunni and Shiite Islamist murderers of American soldiers in Iraq.

And all we got for it was more violence, chaos and death.

Even without Islam, ethnic and tribal divisions would have made nation-building into a difficult challenge. But Islam-building didn't just leave wrecked societies, but terror threats. Tensions between Arabs, Turkmen and Kurds wouldn’t have led to massacres in Paris and Nice. Only Islam could do that.

Islam takes local conflicts and makes them global. That’s why disputes over the authority of the House of Saud led to the mass murder of thousands of people in New York or why Arab attacks on Israel became a burning international issue. Or why Sunni and Shiite feuds in Iraq and Syria led to a massacre of attendees at a rock concert in Paris.

That is also why the combination of Islam and politics in any form is an existential threat to us.

Not only should we not be subsidizing it in any way, shape or form, but we should be doing our best to stamp it out. If we must have any form of nation-building, it should be the building of secular nations in which Islam is isolated and detached from any political involvement.

We have two options for preventing the spread of Islamic political violence into our countries. The first is a ban on Muslim immigration. The second is a ban on Muslim politics. The former has been dubbed isolationism and the latter nation-building. Neither term is truly accurate, but they capture the essence of the choice.

We however have chosen a choice that is far worse than either. We have opened our doors to Muslim migration while opening Muslim countries to further Islamic political involvement. We have Islamized terror states and ourselves. Is it any wonder that we suffer from a severe Islamic terror threat?

Open borders for Islamic terror and Islam-building have led to our current state of national insecurity. We have made the world more dangerous by backing Islamic politics and we have made our countries more dangerous by welcoming in Muslim migrants to be indoctrinated into terror by Islamist organizations. The more we build up Islam, the more we destroy ourselves.

How America's Polygamy Ban Blocked Muslim Immigration

A hundred years ago, Muslims were furious over an immigration bill whose origins lay with advocacy by a headstrong and loudmouthed Republican in the White House.

The anti-immigration bill offended the Ottoman Empire, the rotting Caliphate of Islam soon to be defeated at the hands of America and the West, by banning the entry of “all polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

This, as was pointed out at the time, would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world” into the United States.

And indeed it would.

The battle had begun earlier when President Theodore Roosevelt had declared in his State of the Union address back in 1906 that Congress needed to have the power to “deal radically and efficiently with polygamy.” The Immigration Act of 1907, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, had banned “polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

It was the last part that was most significant because it made clear what had only been implied.

The Immigration Act of 1891 had merely banned polygamists. The newest law banned anyone who believed in the practice of polygamy. That group included every faithful believing Muslim.

The Ottoman Empire’s representatives argued that their immigrants believed in the practice of polygamy, but wouldn’t actually take more than one wife. This argument echoes the current contention that Muslim immigrants may believe in a Jihad against non-Muslims without actually engaging in terrorism. That type of argument proved far less convincing to Americans than it does today.

These amazing facts, uncovered by @rushetteny reveal part of the long controversial history of battles over Islamic migration into America.

Muslim immigration was still slight at the time and bans on polygamy had not been created to deliberately target them, but the Muslim practice of an act repulsive to most Americans even back then pitted their cries of discrimination and victimhood against the values of the nation. The Immigration Act of 1907 had been meant to select only those immigrants who would make good Americans.

And Muslims would not.

In his 1905 State of the Union address, President Theodore Roosevelt had spoken of the need “to keep out all immigrants who will not make good American citizens.”

Unlike modern presidents, Roosevelt did not view Islam as a force for good. Instead he had described Muslims as “enemies of civilization”, writing that, “The civilization of Europe, America and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization", praising Charles Martel and John Sobieski for throwing back the "Moslem conquerors" whose depredations had caused Christianity to have "practically vanished from the two continents."

While today even mentioning “Radical Islam” occasions hysterical protests from the media, Theodore Roosevelt spoke and wrote casually of “the murderous outbreak of Moslem brutality” and, with a great deal of foresight offered a description of reform movements in Egypt that could have been just as well applied to the Arab Spring, describing the "mass of practically unchained bigoted Moslems to whom the movement meant driving out the foreigner, plundering and slaying the local Christian."

In sharp contrast to Obama’s infamous Cairo speech, Roosevelt’s own speech in Cairo had denounced the murder of a Coptic Christian political leader by a Muslim and warned against such violent bigotry.

Muslims had protested outside his hotel, but Teddy hadn’t cared.

The effective implementation of the latest incarnation of the ban however had to wait a year for Roosevelt’s successor, President Taft. Early in his first term, the Ottoman Empire was already protesting because its Muslims had been banned from the country. One account claimed that 200 Muslims had been denied entry into the United States.

Despite these protests, Muslims continued to face deportations over polygamy charges even under President Woodrow Wilson. And polygamy, though not belief in it, remains a basis for deportation.

Though the law today is seldom enforced.

American concerns about the intersection of Muslim immigration and polygamy had predated Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson. The issue dated back even to the previous century. An 1897 edition of the Los Angeles Herald had wondered if Muslim polygamy existed in Los Angeles. “Certainly There is No Lack of Mohammedans Whose Religion Gives the Institution Its Full Sanction,” the paper had observed.

It noted that, “immigration officials are seriously considering whether believers in polygamy are legally admissible” and cited the cases of a number of Muslims where this very same issue had come up.

A New York Times story from 1897 records that, “the first-polygamists excluded under the existing immigration laws were six Mohammedans arrived on the steamship California.”

To their misfortune, the Mohammedans encountered not President Obama, but President Herman Stump of the immigration board of inquiry. Stump, an eccentric irascible figure, had known Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth and had been a wanted Confederate sympathizer during the Civil War.

In the twilight of his term, Stump had little patience and tolerance for either Islam or polygamy.

The Times story relates the laconic exchange between Stump and the Muslim migrants.

“You believe in the Koran?" asked President Stump.

"Thank Allah, yes," responded the men in chorus.

“The Koran teaches polygamy?" continued the Inspector through an interpreter.

"Blessed be Allah, it does!"

"Then you believe in polygamy?" asked Captain George Ellis.

"We do. We do! Blessed be Allah, we do," chorused the Arabs, salaaming toward the setting sun.

"That settles it," said President Stump. "You won't do."

President Stump’s brand of common sense has become keenly lacking in America today.

None of the laws in question permanently settled the issue. The rise of Islamist infiltration brought with it a cleverer Taquiya. The charade that Muslims could believe one thing and do another was dishonest on the one hand and condescending on the other. It was a willful deception in which Muslims pretended that they were not serious about their religion and Americans believed them because the beliefs at stake appeared so absurd and uncivilized that they thought that no one could truly believe them.

Theodore Roosevelt knew better. But by then he was no longer in office.

Unlike today’s talk of a ban on Muslim migration from terror states, laws were not being made to target Muslims. Yet Muslims were the likeliest group of foreigners to be affected by them. Even a hundred years ago, Islam was proving to be fundamentally in conflict with American values. Then, as now, there were two options. The first was to pretend that there was no conflict. The second was to avert it with a ban.

A century ago and more, the nation had leaders who were not willing to dwell in the twilight of illusions, but who grappled with problems when they saw them. They saw civilization as fragile and vulnerable. They understood that the failure to address a conflict would mean a loss to the “enemies of civilization”.

Debates over polygamy may seem quaint today, but yet the subject was a revealing one. Islamic polygamy was one example of the slavery so ubiquitous in Islam. The enslavement of people is at the heart of Islam. As we have seen with ISIS, Islamic violence is driven by the base need to enslave and oppress. Polygamy, like honor killings and FGM, is an expression of that fundamental impulse within the private social context of the home, but as Theodore Roosevelt and others understood, it would not stay there. If we understand that, then we can understand why these debates were not quaint at all.

American leaders of a century past could not reconcile themselves to Islamic polygamy. Yet our modern leaders have reconciled themselves to the Islamic mass murder of Americans.

Thus it always is. When you close your eyes to one evil, you come to accept them all.

Gary Johnson's Seventy-Five Percent

This is the summer of Gary Johnson. The former New Mexico governor who has been steadily drifting left over his career is now doing his best to make Hillary Clinton into President Hillary Clinton.

Back in 1999, Johnson rejected overtures from the Libertarian Party for a presidential run. “I'm a Republican, and I'm not going to run for President.'”

Both parts of that statement proved to be lies.

Libertarian and non-libertarian supporters see a principled politician in Gary Johnson. But Johnson has always been a political chameleon, shifting his colors to win elections.

Gary Johnson is now desperately courting Bernie Sanders voters. Johnson told CNN that, “We think that about 75% of what we’ve got to say really ties with Bernie Sanders supporters.” At CNN’s Town Hall, he claimed it was 70 percent. On C-SPAN, he claimed it was 73 percent. How many Socialists are there in the Libertarian Party? Apparently it’s all in the numbers.

Whatever the number is though, it’s probably true because Gary Johnson excels at reinventing the percentages of his principles to fit the political needs of the moment.

Johnson is best known for his support for pot legalization, but few people remember that it came after he won a second term by vowing to be tougher on crime than anyone else. The libertarian hero was originally in favor trying 13-year olds as adults. But the modern Gary Johnson is against three strikes laws and backs Black Lives Matter. It’s a long way from running as the guy who would try 13-year olds as adults and make sure that every convict would serve “every lousy second” of his sentence to endorsing a racist hate group that protests “mass incarceration” and “police genocide.”

But Gary Johnson has always been evolving with an eye on the next phase of his career. His “evolution” was most obvious during his lame duck second term. It really picked up as he began working on a national career. His pathetic attempt to dress up as Bernie Sanders is the final phase of that career.

Johnson explains his leftward tilt by claiming stupidity. His eyes are now “open” to racial discrimination. As governor of New Mexico, he was “naïve” and didn’t think the government made mistakes with the death penalty. Johnson is always discovering new things, like discrimination or mistaken convictions, with childlike enthusiasm to explain why he abandoned his prior politics.

But the truth is that Gary Johnson panders. He has always pandered. He’s pandered on abortion, on crime and on education spending.

The libertarian hero touts a track record of cutting spending. But Johnson didn’t become popular by cutting spending, but by making a show of appearing to. Under him, state budgets rose from $4.3 billion to $7.2 billion. New Mexico went from a debt of $1.8 billion to a debt of $4.6 billion.

Those aren’t quite Obama numbers, but they certainly aren’t libertarian numbers.

While Gary Johnson made a show of vetoing bills, the actual money went on flowing. This is a familiar tactic practiced by certain Republicans who claim to be fiscal conservatives, throwing loud tantrums for public consumption while the money train keeps on running. And that’s what Johnson was doing.

Johnson’s pandering is often erratic. He was for NAFTA and then was briefly against it. He signaled opposition to TPP before coming out for it. After rejecting conservative ideas, Johnson is still stuck with the contradictions between libertarianism and the Bernie Sanders supporters whom he is trying to court.

And he’s discovering that he can’t truly court both at the same time. Johnson is pandering to too many different demographics. And when in doubt he panders to the left rather than to libertarians.

It’s why Gary Johnson actually went to the left of Obama on gay marriage. Johnson complained that Obama wasn’t doing enough to force all states to assent to gay marriage.

"Instead of insisting on equality as a US Constitutional guarantee, the President has thrown this question back to the states. When the smoke clears, Gay Americans will realize the President's words have gained them nothing today and that millions of Americans in most states will continue to be denied true marriage equality. I guess the President is still more worried about losing Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia than he is in doing the right thing,” Johnson bleated.

It said something about Gary Johnson’s libertarian credentials that he felt that Obama wasn’t violating the rights of states, not to mention freedom of religion, hard enough.

Asked about the difference between gay marriage and polygamy, Gary Johnson could not give a coherent answer. But that’s because Johnson has no principles, only populist gimmicks.

He isn’t a libertarian. He has no notion of ideas. He just happens to excel at getting attention with publicity stunts.

Meanwhile William Weld, Johnson’s VP, seemed on board mainly to make his number one appear libertarian by comparison. Weld believes that, “The problem with handguns is probably even worse than the problem of the AR-15”.

Responding to a question about Black Lives Matter, Weld said that, “We have to get them in to education and just concentrate the power of the government, trying to make sure that there are jobs available for them. It's a national emergency and when there's a national emergency, the government has to respond. Libertarian or no libertarian.”

No libertarian is the correct answer. Weld is neither a Republican nor a libertarian. He’s a liberal who isn’t left-wing enough for actual liberals. The same is true of Gary Johnson.

Gary Johnson isn’t a third party alternative. Instead he’s latching on to dissatisfaction in both parties while clumsily trying to pretend that he has some sort of consistent principles.

And those kinds of tactics are not new.

There are independent politicians who genuinely offer an alternative viewpoint. There are others who are just opportunists. One of the better recent examples is Lincoln Chafee.

What Gary Johnson wants most of all is to seem cool. It’s his Achilles heel. It’s why he backed legal pot, gay marriage and now Black Lives Matter.

Even on the best of days no one would mistake him for an intellectual. But on most days, he wants the popularity that came easily to Bernie Sanders once he was embraced by the left. And so Johnson emphasizes how much he in common he has with Sanders hoping that the mindless flocks of Bernie supporters will stream to his campaign.

They won’t.

The only possible successful outcome of a Johnson campaign is President Hillary Clinton. Johnson is clearly comfortable with that. If he has 70 or 73 or 75 percent in common with Bernie Sanders, how much does he have in common with Hillary Clinton?

Moderates and Radicals in Islam and the Left

The core strategic problem we face is two conflicts with two ideologies that operate subversively until they are in power. That is, instead of stating their agenda openly, Islam and the left operate as false fronts maintaining a friendly moderate image while pursuing a far more radical agenda.

The distinction between moderates and radicals is at the heart of the debate about Islamic terrorism. Much as it used to be at the heart of the debate about Communism and its fellow travelers. Everyone will concede that there are indeed radicals, if only ISIS and Stalin. What they will deny is the extent of the complicity and, more significantly, the fact that the radicals were pursuing the same ends as the moderates, an Islamic Caliphate or a Communist dictatorship, only more rapidly and ruthlessly.

The thing that must be understood is that moderates do not disavow radicals. Rather they bridge the gap between the radicals and the larger society, justifying their ends, and eventually their means, while pretending to disavow them. Radicals reject any dialogue. Moderates emphasize dialogue.

Moderates will verbally reject the means with which an end is pursued. Accordingly they will reject terrorism. They may even claim to reject the ends, such as an ideological dictatorship, but they will, in good fellowship, ask you to accept their premise which inevitably leads to the acceptance of both the ends and the means.

For example, moderates on the left and in Islam will ask you to accept that terrorism is caused by American foreign policy. Once you have accepted this premise, then you have partially justified terrorism and paved the way for accepting an "Arab Spring" that eliminates the consequences of American foreign policy by properly Arabizing and Islamizing the governments of the region.

Likewise, if you accept the premise that Israel's presence in its '67 territories is driving terrorism, then you have signed on to everything from BDS to the destruction of the Jewish State.

If you concede that crime and violence are driven by class and racial inequities, then you accept that the only way to end this "class war" is massive taxation and wealth redistribution through government intervention that addresses the root cause.

That is not the way it seems to most people. And that is why the "moderate" strategy works so well.

Once you have accepted the moderate definition of the root cause, you will inevitably be forced to accept the radical remedy. This is true across a spectrum of lower level policies. For example, accept that homosexuality is genetic and gay rights become the inevitable and inescapable outcome. That is how the root cause defines the outcome. And this is how moderates achieve radical goals.

Moderates convince you to accept their premise of the root cause. Then they argue for sensitivity to the radicals whose motives have suddenly become understandable. Finally they argue for a settlement in which a compromise is reached that will allow the radicals to achieve a moderate version of their ends.

The Muslim Brotherhood takeovers of the Arab Spring are an example of a compromise to avert Islamic terror aimed at creating a Caliphate. The ultimate outcome is the same, but the moderates dress it up as a kinder and gentler alternative.

And this is the core strategic problem that we face.

The radicals are not any kind of serious physical threat. We could destroy ISIS easily if we chose to unleash our full force against them. The same is true for every single Islamic terror group in the world. And, for that matter, their state sponsors too.

The real threat is always the subversion of the moderates. The challenge then becomes the need to expose the false facade of the moderates. This leads to a push-pull struggle. The moderates cry that they are being unfairly victimized by hateful people. There are shouts of red-baiting and McCarthyism, profiling and bigotry. Their critics are paranoid and unhinged. The moderates even assert that there is something ugly and "Un-American" about asking them to account for their agenda.

And this is really the core argument made by the two allied subversive ideologies. It is "ugly" to expose their views, to quote them, to bring them to the surface. It is intolerant. It's not the way that respectable people should behave. And the moderates, who pose as respectable people precisely to play on the weakness of the middle class for being respectable, understand that this is the ultimate weapon.

Respectable people do not accuse the friendly Imam on the block of belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood or promoting Jihadist texts. They do not accuse the cheerful teacher in the school whom everyone likes of pushing anti-American views on her students. That is not respectable behavior.

And moderates, who pretend to be respectable, excel at pushing the respectable shame button.

It doesn't matter if it's true. It's ugly to discuss it. That is respectability simplified. It's much better to talk about how much we have in common, to speak about how we can unite and make the world a better place. And the moderates have plenty of ideas in that regard. All of them involve accepting their premise of what the world's problems are and how they can be improved by a series of proposals that would culminate with mass tyranny and murder.

There are actual moderates of course.

The majority of those on the left aren't harboring secret plans to build gulags. They would find the idea horrifying. Likewise many Muslims in Western countries don't support Islamic terrorism.

They are moderates, but only in the sense that they have not yet signed on to radical ideas. Not in the sense that they would fight and oppose them to their very last breath. They are mostly moderates out of a lack of conviction rather than a surplus of it.

Subversive organizations operate through incremental radicalization. The average American liberal of twenty years ago would not have supported half of what he vocally advocates for today. Even Obama and Hillary were against gay marriage when they ran for office. In a few years they moved from opposing a policy to threatening to prosecute those opposed to it. That is how the left works.

Obama and Hillary always had a consistent position. The leadership of the left had one. It was the ordinary rank and file liberal who might have been in the dark until the whistle was blown and the herd stampeded toward the next policy abyss. A year ago those same liberals might have felt uncomfortable with the notion of men using the ladies room. Today they would fight a civil war for it.

The process operates the same way across a spectrum of policies. The left keeps its more moderate followers in the dark about its real goals. Then once the stampede begins, the moderates who derive their sense that they are good people from following the ideas of the left, quickly fall in line.

The same is true of Islam. Plenty of Muslims would not be happy with an immediate transition to ISIS. But plenty are willing to back the more incremental attempts to build a Caliphate through political Islam in Turkey or through the Muslim Brotherhood. Their moderation, like that of many Germans in WW2, consists of an unwillingness to know what dirty deeds are being done.

The moderates bridge this gap both for their rank and file, and for the outsiders who have to be fooled into accepting their premise in order to accept their ends. Their greatest weapon is respectability. When cornered, they insist that they are just nice people who want to make the world a better place. And their critics are bigots, nasty people, who don't want everyone to get along and spread disunity.

And doesn't everyone just want to get along? Isn't that nicer and better? Isn't it a good thing that there are passionate young people who want to make the world a better place?

The chief ally of the moderates is this sort of middle class respectability. The moderates paint their critics as radicals who have no solutions. When in fact they themselves are radicals with a final solution. And yet combating this sort of happy talk remains our greatest challenge.

Yet it is also a passing challenge.

Middle class respectability is a function of a sense of security. When that sense of security begins to implode as a society experiences chaos, the middle class stops clinging to respectability.

And then the real conflict begins.

We may well be approaching that phase. Economic decline and Islamic terror are leading to a radical break with respectability. We are entering a radical age in which the moderates take off their masks and radicals of various stripes gain great influence and openly recruit for their cause.

This will be a shattering experience for many. It will be a very ugly one in many ways. And yet the only way to avert it would be to expose the false moderates who are driving this process for what they are. And this is exactly what those who have the most to lose from a radical rise refuse to do.

None of this is a new phenomenon. History is repeating itself.

Black Law Enforcement Lives Don't Matter

In the spring of 2000, Fulton County Sheriff's Deputy Ricky Kinchen and fellow Deputy Aldranon English went to serve a warrant in downtown Atlanta. Both Kinchen and English were African-American.

Kinchen had graduated Morris Brown College, a historically black college that had been founded in 1881 and named after one of the founders of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. He had spent almost a decade serving the public in his current job and was married to Sherese Kinchen and had two children.

At his killer's trial, Sherese testified that, "When Ricky was killed, I lost a part of myself. Ricky was not only my husband, he was my friend for 18 years. He was my confidant and my rock, and now he's gone."

Ricky Kinchen and Aldranon English were approaching a store owned by Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, formerly known as H Rap Brown. Brown had converted to Islam after a term in prison and a shootout with police officers in the seventies. He had shot to fame as the very violent chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. Typical lines included, "It's time for Cambridge to explode, baby. Black folks built America, and if America don't come around, we're going to burn America down.”

When Kinchen and English were approaching him, Brown was known as Imam Al-Amin, a Muslim religious leader who headed the Community Mosque and was a key figure in the National Ummah.

He was no less of a terrorist for it.

Al-Amin opened fire with a rifle on the two African-American law enforcement officers. Deputy Aldranon English was wounded and he stumbled to a nearby field to save his life. Deputy Kinchen was shot and fell. Al-Amin ran out of bullets, took a handgun from his black Mercedes, pointed it at the fallen African-American officer as he lay dying and shot him between the legs three times.

Deputy English survived the attack. Later he would break down in tears on the stand as he described the murder of his partner. Defense lawyers for Al-Amin worked to rig the jury, removing anyone who disliked the violent racist Black Panthers hate group that Al-Amin, in his former life as H Rap Brown, had been associated with. They ended up with a jury of six black men, three black women, two white women and one Hispanic woman.

The jury, including the six black men and three black women, found Al-Amin guilty as hell of the murder of an African-American police officer. Al-Amin and his two wives, the younger of whom was a teenager when they were married, who lived in houses three miles apart from each other, frowned as the verdict was read. Al-Amin was sentenced to life in prison. There would be no parole.

Outside the church where Deputy Ricky Kinchen was buried, the line of police cruisers stretched for miles as officers paid tribute to a fallen brother. His casket, covered in the flag, was carried out to honor and glory. If there had been any justice, Deputy Kinchen would be remembered as a hero.

Instead Al-Amin has become a martyr among black nationalists, including among the latest incarnation of the racist movement, Black Lives Matter. The recently released Black Lives Matter policy agenda calls for freeing a number of cop killers, including the murderer of Deputy Ricky Kinchen. Al-Amin is one of Black Lives Matter’s heroes. It doesn’t matter at all that he took a black life.

Black lives don’t matter to Black Lives Matter. Black Nationalist terrorism does. The racist hate group describes the murderers of black and white police officers as “political prisoners”. It demands the removal of Assata Shakur, a particular icon of Black Lives Matter, from "international terrorist lists" and an end to the bounty for the capture of the fugitive who helped murder New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster.

Black Lives Matter also agitates on behalf of Kamau Sadiki, formerly known as Freddie Hilton, Assatu Shakur’s ex-boyfriend.

Hilton had been busted for the sexual abuse of his girlfriend’s 12-year-old daughter. The Black Nationalist icon had allegedly molested the little girl for seven years. Eager to get out of trouble, he began talking to the police and it didn’t take them long to connect him to the murder of Officer James Green who had been killed by Hilton on orders from a superior in the Black Liberation Army.

If the life of Officer James Green doesn’t matter to Black Lives Matter, perhaps the life of that little girl should. But it clearly doesn’t.

Finally Black Lives Matter’s policy agenda speaks out for the murderers of Sergeant John V. Young. Young was killed with a shotgun blast inside a police station by Black Nationalist terrorists who were also involved in the attempted murders of seven police officers. One of their vilest crimes was the bombing of St. Brendan’s Church where the funeral of Patrolman Harold Hamilton had been taking place.

Hamilton’s three little children were nearby when the bomb, filled with nails and screws, went off.

If all had gone off according to plan, the bomb would have exploded as the casket with the fallen officer was being carried past it. But the timing was off and no one was hurt. But not for lack of trying.

"To the violent and the criminal our efforts to halt this kind of lawlessness will be condemned as acts of oppression," Governor Ronald Reagan declared. "Let them call it what they will. I'm unable to hear the whimper of the criminal above the cry of the victim and the weeping of his widow and children."

Black Lives Matter still calls it oppression. It demands that we hear the whimper of the cop killer.

It is no coincidence that the cop killers that Black Lives Matter is agitating for were associated with the Black Liberation Army. Or that the hate group traffics in rhetoric about police genocide that is ominously similar to those of the racist killers and terrorists that it defends. Black Lives Matter does not care about the lives of black people or of anyone else. It is a terrorist organization that seeks power through terror. It plays the victim as cover for its abuses.

The life of Ricky Kinchen has no value or worth to Black Lives Matter. It cares nothing about the pain that the father of two felt when Al-Amin stood over him, pointed a gun and pulled the trigger for no other reason than to torture him and to cause a dying officer more unspeakable pain. We must never forget that this is what Black Lives Matter supports. We must never forget that these are their heroes and their role models. We must never forget that the murder of police officers associated with Black Lives Matter campaigns is not an accident, but a design.

That is why Black Lives Matter complains about the execution of Black Nationalist terrorist Micah X. Johnson after his murder of 5 Dallas police officers in its policy agenda. Whether it’s decades ago or today, Black Lives Matter supports the murderers of police officers.

Free Michelle Obama's Slaves

At the DNC, Michelle Obama put on her victimhood hat one more time and declared, “I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves.”

But that’s too past tense. Michelle’s house continues to be built and maintained by slaves. Her lavish lifestyle of endless vacations, parties and public appearances is funded by millions and millions of slaves.

Michelle Obama lives a life that is more lavish and luxurious than that of the average plantation owner. She has 26 staffers that are part of a White House staff of thousands. That’s more than many crowned heads of state. Compare that to 12 servants for Thomas Jefferson.

Michelle has more directors than some corporations. And working for her is a Marie Antoinette experience. “The First Lady having the wrong pencil skirt on Monday is just as big of a f___ up as someone speaking on the record when they didn’t mean to or a policy initiative that completely failed,” one former staffer said.

Of course that’s their business. Michelle’s staffers chose their jobs and they get paid. It’s the taxpayers who have to pay for it all who are forced to be her unwilling slaves.

Michelle’s house, her luxurious lifestyle, is built by taxpaying slaves who are forced to turn over their money to fund her pleasures. She spent more money on one night in Morocco than the average American family will see in five years.

In Dublin, Michelle Obama and her entourage took a sightseeing trip that cost over $250,000. Michelle's people bought up 30 rooms at the five-star Shelbourne Hotel while she stayed in the Princess Grace Suite which has more living space than most American homes. The Shelbourne Hotel wasn't built by slaves. But it was funded by them. So are all of her jaunts, excursions and parties.

When she shops around Paris and then flies over to London in a 757 to see the sights in London, her slaves pick up the tab. When she and her husband decide to fly out for a “date” to New York while the city is shut down, it’s her slaves in the big city watching the motorcade pass who have to pay for it. Their Africa trip cost millions. American slaves paid for it with their blood, sweat and toil.

Maintaining the Obama lifestyle cost $1.4 billion a few years ago. It’s unknown what it costs today.

Obama’s White House parties cost anywhere from $200,000 at the cheap end to over $500,000. Americans have no more freedom to decide whether to pay for another Obama vacation or event than slaves did in deciding how to serve their masters and mistresses.

All they can do is watch from a distance while their masters stuff their faces, gallivant cheerfully on tours through foreign countries while staying at posh hotels and then make them work to pay for it.

In the last election, Obama told Americans that they weren’t responsible for their accomplishments. “You didn’t build that,” was his message to his slaves. They didn’t build that. He did.

But they did build that.

Slaves built the Obama lifestyle. Slaves who struggle to get by. Who scrimp and save to have a few hundred dollars on hand in case of an emergency. That’s the cost of a single dish at a dinner to their masters in the White House. Slaves who fear losing their jobs and being unable to provide for their families watch their hard-earned money being squandered on another vacation and another party.

America’s slaves have watched the nation’s wealth become concentrated around the Washington Versailles. At the peak of Obama’s misrule, the Beltway area boasted 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the country. Obama won 8 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the country in the last election.

It’s not hard to guess why.

The Obama lifestyle is just the tip of the iceberg. Tens of thousands of more modest government plantation owners cling to their skirts living off the stolen toil of the government’s slaves.

Government, like slavery, is an institution. Like slavery, it claims to civilize its dependents. In reality it exploits them. It promises them security in exchange for freedom. It takes away the products of their toil and then tells them that they didn’t build that. It claims a false moral authority to exploit them.

Michelle Obama is a slave-owner lecturing her slaves about slavery. And Michelle and Barack are the tip of a very large institution which is built on depriving Americans of their political and economic freedoms.

Slavery was based on the notion that some people are superior to others. That same idea runs through Obama’s speeches. It is the lifeblood of the twisted thing that the left has turned liberalism into.

The Obamas have the right to enslave us because they are on “the right side of history”. They can exploit us because they know what is better for us. They can take the work of our hands from us because we didn’t build that, they and all the rest of our government masters did the real building.

At the Democrats circus of hate in Philly, it ought to be remembered that this was where Thomas Jefferson wrote that “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” were inalienable rights and that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Governments do not gain their authority from any innate superiority, but from consent. The Obama theory that government gains power in proportion to its historical moral superiority is slavery wrapped in hypocrisy.

It is time to end slavery all over again. It is time to free Michelle Obama’s taxpaying slaves.

The first step to ending slavery is to recognize its fundamental injustice. It is unjust that a working family ought to work its fingers to the bone so that Michelle Obama can enjoy yet another sightseeing tour. It is unjust that a class of parasites claiming to be public servants can draw unlimited amounts of money on the credit of people trying to make ends meet. It is unjust that Michelle Obama can own hundreds of millions of people as slaves.

And it is an injustice that must end.

Nineteenth century slavery ceased to be an issue in the nineteenth century. Twenty-first century slavery is the issue that we must tackle today.

Stop Lone Wolf Terrorism by Ending Muslim Immigration

Lone wolf terrorism is the biggest trend in Islamic terrorism. Unlike classic Islamic terrorism, it requires no cells stretching across countries the way that 9/11 did. The perpetrators don’t even need to enter the country under false pretenses the way that the World Trade Center bombers did.

In many cases, they are already citizens. Some were even born in their target country.

Classic counterterrorism is directed at organizations. It’s inadequate for stopping individual Muslim terrorists like Omar Mateen who was able to murder 49 people at a nightclub in Orlando or closely related duos like the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston or the husband and wife team who carried out the San Bernardino terrorist attack which took the lives of 14 people.

Even the standard technique of planting informants into mosques, deeply opposed by the Islamic lobby in the United States, fails when individuals decide to act alone or only trust their wives or brothers to be in on the plot with them. If an individual Islamic terrorist fails to let his plans slip, either online or to an FBI informant, stopping him can be extremely difficult if not entirely impossible without a stroke of luck.

And Islamic terrorists only need to be lucky once. We have to be lucky every time.

Every absurd Islamic terror plot broken up by law enforcement, the type of thing dismissed by the media and ridiculed by commentators, launching rockets at planes, underwear bombs and blowing up trains, contained the seed of a horrific terrorist attack just like Orlando, Boston or Nice.

When you turn on the evening news and see a running death toll, it’s because one of those absurd and ridiculous terror plots actually succeeded. And it’s happening more and more often.

The reason is simple. Unlike classic Islamic terrorism which required organization and infrastructure, the new brand of Islamic terror only needs one thing… Muslims.

Lone wolf terrorism operates entirely off the existing Muslim population in a particular country. The bigger the Muslim population, the bigger the risk. Any Muslim or Muslims who have settled in a particular non-Muslim country can answer the call of Jihad at any given time without warning.

There is no way that the FBI or other law enforcement agencies could begin to monitor even a fraction of the Islamic settler population sympathetic to terror. The FBI alone has almost 1,000 active ISIS cases it was investigating last year in all 50 states. It does not have nearly the resources it needs to handle them.

As the Muslim settler population in the country increases, the number of cases will grow. No matter how much law enforcement expands the scope of its operations, it will not be able to keep up with the high natural birth rates of the Muslim settler population whose terrorists don’t need a fraction of the training or skills that trained law enforcement figures do. The more the Muslim population grows, the more terror attacks like Orlando, Boston and Nice will get past law enforcement.

Any technological or logistical solutions to this crisis on the law enforcement end will only be band aids.

The source of the problem is Islamic immigration. That is the only possible solution. The only way to reduce the growth of the lone wolf Islamic terrorism problem is to reduce or end Muslim migration.

If this is how bad it is when Muslims are only 1% of the population, what happens when the Muslim settler population doubles and then doubles again? Accompanying these rising population numbers will be rising influence by the Islamic lobby. Islamic groups such as CAIR with a history of terror ties and opposition to counterterrorism will have even more power to stymie law enforcement investigations. The end result will be far more successful Muslim terrorist massacres taking place on a constant basis.

Muslim immigrants are already inherently privileged when it comes to their ability to enter this country ahead of far more peaceful and far more deserving groups. For example, the vast majority of Syrian refugees admitted to this country are the Muslims who perpetrated and are perpetuating their religious war in the region rather than their Christian and Yazidi victims who face slavery and genocide at their hands.

This Islamic immigration privilege must be withdrawn. Muslim immigration must at the very least be scaled back to a level that law enforcement can cope with. At best it must end entirely until the Muslim world manages to stabilize its way of life to the extent that it can peacefully co-exist with non-Muslims.

There will be endless arguments over what percentage of Muslims support terrorism, but our own experience of recent attacks shows that many of them came from attackers who overtly appeared to be “moderate” and “ordinary”. For every Islamist activist dressed in Salafist fashion and tweeting praise of ISIS, there is at least one, if not many more, whom you would pass on the street without a second look.

Before the Boston Marathon bombing, the Tsarnaevs did not seem like Jihadists. They would have been classed with the general category of “moderate” Muslims. And then they struck.

That is how it is.

The internet has decentralized terrorist training camps. Any Muslim can acquire the skills and equipment he needs to kill a few or a dozen or even a hundred if he chooses to follow his religion.

Not every Muslim will shoot up a nightclub or bomb a marathon, but we have no foolproof way of telling them apart. And even many Muslims who would not shoot up an office party in San Bernardino will still sympathize with the perpetrators. And even those Muslims who don’t will often continue supporting the Muslim lobby of organizations like CAIR that stymie law enforcement investigations of Islamic terrorism.

Muslim immigration makes Muslim terrorism worse.

Once we understand this inconvenient truth, then everything else naturally flows from it. The type of terrorism that we are dealing now won’t be beaten by breaking up organizations or droning terrorist leaders in training camps in Yemen or Pakistan. The enemy is right here. He speaks our language. He walks down our streets. He looks at us with hate in his Halal heart and he plots to kill us.

He may pledge allegiance to ISIS or Al Qaeda, but he is part of the larger organization of Islam. It is this organization, more than any of its Jihadist factional subdivisions, that represents the true threat.

Lone wolf terrorism is a viral threat that is spread by Islamic migration. We can only end it by closing the door. As long as the door to the Muslim migrant stays open, we will live under the threat that our neighbor or co-worker will be the one to kill us tomorrow or the day after that.