Home Lynching Herman Cain
Home Lynching Herman Cain

Lynching Herman Cain

Herman Cain is being lynched for taking a stand. And the people doing it are Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives. Commentators who complain about the "race card" are eagerly laying down the "bigot card" because Cain did what few candidates are ready to do. He clearly spelled out the problem with Islamic involvement in American public life.

If as some insist, Cain's campaign was brought down by his statements about Islam-- then Republicans have accepted the Dhimmi Principle that the viability of a candidate depends on taking a moderate position on Islam. A moderate position being skeptical, but not particularly confrontational. A position that easily leads back to that old "Handful of Extremists" saw.

All this comes down to is an Islamic vetting of presidential candidates. And everyone attacking Cain over it has given CAIR their victory.

All the little condescending pieces on how Cain was a good candidate until he went a little too far off the reservation deserve a head pat from a black gloved hand. What better victory for the Islamists than to have conservative pundits falsely attribute Cain's campaign problems to his opposition to Islam?

What did Cain say that was so wrong? He questioned how Muslims could reconcile a theocracy with participation in American public life. And he came out on the side of communities fighting back against mosque projects. And that's bigotry. Don't ask why it's bigotry. It is. And if you don't believe me, go ask CNN or the Washington Post.

Playing the bigot card is cheap and easy. It's free. And value free.

The real question we should be asking, is it permissible to question the bona fides of members of an ideology that has murdered millions around the world and thousands in America? Can we actually ask whether a theology that calls for the subjugation of the world disqualifies you from taking an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States?

There are two obligations here and they are incompatible with one another. We cannot look into the soul of another person, but the contradiction between the two must be asked and answered. And if we cannot do that, then we have already given up freedom of speech and thought, and exchanged it for the conformity of political correctness. So we say that after a Muslim kills he may be criticized, but not before the fact. And close our eyes to the origin of the act.

Is there a "Good Islam" and a "Bad Islam". The Islam of decent people and of evil terrorists. But where do we find this "Good Islam"?

Not in Pakistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia. What about Indonesia, with its genocides, Malaysia with its church burnings or Egypt with its persecution of the Copts? Forget Muslim countries then, what about countries with Muslim minorities. Nigeria, Thailand and the Philippines. How many heads would you like to see.

Why must we ask is the Muslim world less pluralistic, less free and more intolerant than the countries where they are demanding the right to impose their theocratic legal system on others. And what exactly will happen when they gain that power?

Can you imagine that America will retain its freedoms under a president who believes that the Koran is the writ of heaven, that non-Muslims are inferior, that women are subhuman and that only laws based on the Koran are just?

Can you imagine that police chiefs who believe that women cause their own rapes will protect rape victims? Why even bother asking, when cabbies who believe that seeing eye dogs drive away angels refuse to carry the blind.

When cartoonists go into hiding and Muslim soldiers open fire on their fellow troops, there is no serious debate to be had over what happens when the Koran and the laws of the United States intersect with one another. And the results are bloody.

If religious and ethnic minorities are persecuted in the Muslim world, and if even religious and ethnic majorities are set on by Muslim minorities in the non-Muslim world, then how hard is to figure out what comes next for America? Do we really need a map or a diagram. Should we go once again to the Ground Zero Mosque to understand how much contempt and how much deception is woven into the campaign to subjugate us. To wipe away our laws and freedoms and replace them with the ravings of a 7th century bandit who murdered and raped his way across the desert, turning a multicultural society into a fanatical wasteland.

It is easier not to deal with these uncomfortable questions. To assent to CNN and the WaPo and all the other outlets of the manufactured consensus. To nod your head and say, "Cain went too far. There may be some bad eggs out of Mecca, but we shouldn't be bigots."

So let's talk about bigotry. Talk to the Copts of Egypt, the Christians of Pakistan and Malaysia, or the Jews of Iran. Learn about bigotry from them and what happens when political power is vested in the hands of members of a cult that preaches the absolute political dominance of their theocracy.

Do you want bigotry? The cemeteries of the world are filled with the victims of the Koran. And their number grows year by year. Go the graves of the murdered and the dead, and mumble to them about bigotry. Tell them that singling out Muslims isn't nice. It's not proper. It's not the American Way-- or that flavor of the American Way cooked up by liberals around 1965.

When Orwell wrote 1984, few Americans imagined being too afraid to speak their minds. Now it's 2011 and we are learning to be afraid. And when someone stands up to speak what we know is the truth, then we shiver and bring out the rope. We lynch him as a sacrifice. The way that Europeans denounce Israel, and prosecute Koran burning. An offering for the Dhimmi altar.

This isn't about Cain, who has backtracked his earlier comments. This is about cowardice. Not physical cowardice, but the cowardice of the mind. The timidity of stepping beyond a reasonably safe opinion and following it to its logical conclusion. Of even raising the subject. And the glee of destroying the man who steps slightly to the right of you. Who dares to say what you do not.

Should we be banning Muslims from public office or keeping mosques out of communities? Certainly we should be able to have that question, without cries of "bigot" coming from people who should know better.

If nothing else, the butcher's bill we have paid in the last decade gives us the right to ask those questions. The dead on our side and the killers on theirs means that we have paid for the right to ask those questions in blood. And we go on paying for it with unrecognized sacrifices and unspoken terror. A conspiracy unmasked there, a bomb plot exposed here. An assault there, a rape here.

But will we ask those questions? The Constitution won for us Freedom of Speech, but what worth is it if isn't used. It won for us Freedom of Religion, but what use is it if we allow that freedom to be taken away from us by a theocracy that does not recognize the existence of such a thing. There is no need to take a red pencil and X out any parts of the Bill of Rights. By allowing them to fall into disuse, by destroying the reputations of anyone who makes use of them, we will have accomplished the same thing.

It is startling to me sometimes to see how much bolder the Europeans are than us. What would the condemners of Cain make of Geert Wilders and Oriana Fallaci, or Brits like Pat Condell. Europe may be under siege, but it still has men and women who rise up and speak the truth. And we who have Freedom of Speech enshrined in the Constitution are prisoners of politically correct timidity.

Maybe your back has to be up against the wall to be able to speak out that way. And maybe we must wait for our own No Go Zones, and our own Islamic Councils. To see firsthand that we are losing the country. Maybe when that day comes it will be the shushers of Cain who will be shushed and the ridiculers of a man who dared to speak the truth who will be humbled . When speaking out in the face of terror is no longer a crime and when challenging theocracy is no longer out of sorts.

I would hope and pray that it doesn't take that. That we need not be schooled to desperation before we are allowed to ask whether we can retain our freedom under the rule of a creed that calls every man a slave.


  1. Christine30/7/11

    Well, that took some guts. Freedom of speech, what a concept!

  2. Anonymous31/7/11

    Sorry but I think this is a bunch of bunk. I've seen just the opposite to be true. It was when he spoke out about islam that people applauded him. Both times when he "held back" from being strong and truthful about islam, that his support lost strength. America is sick of islam & want something done about it before we become another Europistan. The stronger he is on islam, the more conservatives support him.

  3. Orianna falacci had more fans in the USA than in EUrope where she was considered a nut. didn't Allen West also do an about face because of his chances? He made all sorts of noises against Islam till he took the candidacy seriously, then he started to differentiate between "moderate" and "islamism".

  4. I agree 100% with everything you say, Daniel, but I'm frankly disgusted with Allen West and Cain. A Pajamas Media article details Cain's back-pedaling on the mosque issue -- his bike being held up by the Muslim Brotherhood and the ISNA as he performed the feat. Go here for the article. Did no one ever brief Cain on the Brotherhood's antecedents, or on the directors of the ISNA? Or about CAIR? The MSA? The candidate who took an uncompromising, un-aplogetic, informed stand on Islam would be the vote magnet Islamists and Muslims would fear the most, as well as the MSM.


  5. Anonymous31/7/11

    It is astounding that, the same week that another would-be jihadist is arrested at the gates of Fort Hood for attempting added murders, we are also awash in criticism of Cain for raising the subject of the right of our neighborhoods to defend themselves from having Muslim centers situated in their communities.

    I am reminded of the event about two years ago, during one of the recent state-of-the-union addresses, when a Representative yelled out "Liar" as the President was citing the Constitution. The Representative was pilloried by all commentators, but was also inundated with campaign contributions from citizen donors who were voting their agreement with his denouncement of President Obama with their check books. I wonder if Cain is also perhaps receiving extensive support from citizen donors.

  6. Mark Matis31/7/11

    Concur with Anonymous and Edward Cline. Mr. Cain has been backpedaling furiously lately, and does NOT have my support.

  7. Yes I'm aware that Cain has backpedaled, my point is that this isn't about Cain, it's about some in the party silencing itself.

  8. victoria_2931/7/11

    The problem with Cain is not just hid flip-flop IMO it is his general ignorance of situations. First he had no clue about Right of Return. Secone he shredded the Constitution when he said he would not put Muslims in his Administration (I am not saying this is a bad thing, but I am damn sure saying I don't want a President that doesn't know this is non-Constitutional), then he back pedaled on that-but further shredded the Constitution by saying that he would make a Muslim take a "loyalty oath" different from what he would a Baptist, Catholic, etc. His repeated stupid statements & ill-informed comments shows that not only is he himself ignorant but that he has the poor judgment to hire incompetent people or he would have much more information before he opens his mouth.

  9. Daniel: Agreed. It isn't enough the the MSM and CAIR and The Brotherhood look for the teeniest little departure from PC-think -- they're always waiting in ambush -- but for one's alleged allies to wish one to "cool the rhetoric" or we'll be unpopular, lose votes, alienate people, etc. -- that's evidence of creeping dhimmitude not only to Islam, but to the dissolving acid of secular political correctness. And today's polliticians simply haven't the intellectual and moral character or stamina to withstand the pressure. It's a crucial moral and philosphical war we're fighting, not a popularity contest or a straw poll. Too much is at stake, most politicians in the GOP just don't deserve to be in the conflict. They'll sell us out every time.

  10. Mark Matis31/7/11

    I would note that those in the GOP screaming the loudest are routinely described as "moderates" by ABCNNBCBS and their dead-tree fellow travelers. Some people call them RINOs. I think the more descriptive term is jackasses-in-elephant-suits.

    Being called "evil" by them is a compliment, in my view. And ANYONE who does not grovel at the feet of Muslims will ALWAYS be castigated by them.

  11. Cain losing popularity--to what do we attribute that to? Who knows? The guy is a flake.

    When asked about his position on Afghanistan,
    he said he has to wait until he is briefed with classified information. What secrets could there be, that would determine strategy? Clearly, he just wants to punt the issue and not alienate anybody.

    Cain is also in favor of the anti-drugs war. That by itself, is a non-starter. Because prohibition is the main fund-raiser for Al Qaeda. In fact, drug warriors give aid and comfort to the enemy at a time of war. If done knowingly, that's grounds for a charge of treason, which federal grand juries should look into.

  12. Edward, exactly

    Mark, unfortunately the RINO's are often quite eager to use that as an attack

  13. Last year it was "Racist!" This year it's "Bigot!" It's always been "Jew!" Badges of honor all.

    The real issue is how how does any society embody freedom of expression/action in the face of would-be tyrants using whatever means necessary to establish tyranny? No, Voltaire, I will not defend to the death your right to say what you wish if what you wish to say is that you want to kill me because of who I am.

    At least Cain and West were willing to dip their toes in the water, unlike the rest of our spineless, deaf, dumb and blind so-called representatives. (My Congressperson is the clueless Donna Edwards, who replaced the corrupt Albert Wynn.)

  14. Even Fox News seems to be toeing the leftist line. The recent failed Fort Hood terrorist was (when I was watching) referred to as a soldier, which is incidental to his being another Muslim killer wannabe.
    Fox is even using the Obama term "revenues" instead of taxes when talking about the debt ceiling debacle. One more reason to get my info from the Net (Greenfield, Cashill, et al) and unplug the idiot box for good.

  15. Politicians today do not speak their minds , not truly and the situation with Cain is one reason why. They are silenced and muffled with PC garbage.

  16. James B from Canada1/8/11

    I left a comment about dhimmitude and PC thought in the Republican party ( I washed my hands of the Dems a decade ago).

    Iwill try again but I am sure that the Sultan will block this comment:

    The USA needs to learn more lessons about Islam. 9/11 was not enough.

  17. I haven't blocked any comments

  18. pschieber1/8/11

    "While I stand by my opposition to the interference of Sharia law into the American legal system … I am truly sorry for any comments that may have betrayed my commitment to the U.S. Constitution and the freedom of religion guaranteed by it. Muslims, like all Americans, have the right to practice their faith freely and peacefully."
    This wasn't much of an apology. He stated his opposition to the interference of Sharia law into our legal system. Isn't that the problem he stated to begin with?
    As far as touring the facility- If he didn't go then the cries of bigot would have been louder. Personally I think he finessed it quite well.
    And Daniel, once again you wrote a great piece.

  19. Another great and depressing read Daniel.

    I always wonder how many of our politicos are receiving bribes from Islamonazi NGO's or countries -- either before or after the fact of their service.

    Here in Southern California, CAIR backed their candidate in a local, city election to the tune of one million dollars, but he still lost.

  20. "Muslims, like all Americans, have the right to practice their faith freely and peacefully."

    Therein lies the rub.

    Muslims have to wage jihad and strike terror in the heart of unbelievers, they have to plot and engage in sedition and whatever it takes to replace 'man-made law' with the sharia.

    'Practicing their faith' involves committing any kind of crime to destroy infidel society.

    Therefore, the question if Islam is a religion as we understand it needs to be examined.

    We cannot coexist. Islam must, by definition, dominate by all and any means. Separation is the answer, the only one.

  21. @Sheik

    I can only agree w/you. You wouldn't believe the ridiculous arguments I've had w/lieberal idjits about "moderate" muslimes. To believe in their bullshit theory of the "moderate" muslime, one most hold true the concept that these "moderate" muslimes REJECT MOST of the ideology implicit in their faith (incl. things like explicit, rabid, genocidal antisemitism). And while I've read of muslimes who have done this (i.e. reject the rabid antisemitism of their faith)
    they have only done so by re-defining Judaism and thus antisemitism (which included things like categorizing Jews who support Israel as "false" Jews).

  22. Linda Rivera5/8/11

    I'm behind with my e-mail and only just read this.

    Daniel, this is an excellent article! If something isn't done now, America will end up like Europe and the UK which due to the massive Muslim immigration invasion are all going to become Islamic nations ruled by Muslims. G-D help them.

    We are ALL betrayed by our leaders and media.

    In Pakistan and Bangladesh the suffering and fear that Hindus, Christians and Sikhs endure from Muslims is so dreadful, all of the Hindus, Christians and Sikhs need to be rescued immediately.


Post a Comment

You May Also Like