6/8/2017 - Ann Coulter Townhall.com
In Britain, as in the
U.S., when an Islamic terrorist is said to be "known to law enforcement,"
the translation is: "He is being actively ignored by law
enforcement."
After the latest
terrorist attack in Britain -- at least as of this writing -- Prime Minister
Theresa May bravely announced, "Enough is enough!"
What is the point of
these macho proclamations after every terrorist attack? Nothing will be done to
stop the next attack. Political correctness prohibits us from doing anything
that might stop it.
Poland doesn't admit
Muslims: It has no terrorism. Japan doesn't admit Muslims: It has no terrorism.
The United Kingdom and the United States used to have very few Muslims: They
used to have almost no terrorism. (One notable exception was chosen as the
National Freedom Hero in this year's Puerto Rican parade in New York!)
Notwithstanding the lovely
Muslim shopkeeper who wouldn't hurt a fly, everyone knows that with every
tranche of peace-loving Muslims we bring in, we're also getting some number of
stone-cold killers.
Former Prime Minister
Tony Blair dumped millions of Third World Muslims on Britain to force
"multiculturalism" on the country. Now Britons are living with the
result. Since the 9/11 attack, every U.S. president has done the same.
President Bush admitted Muslim immigrants at a faster pace after 9/11 than we
had been doing before 9/11.
Whatever the 9/11
attackers intended to accomplish, I bet they didn't expect that.
Now we can't get rid of
them. Under the rules of political correctness, Western countries are
prohibited from even pausing our breakneck importation of Muslims, much less sending
the recent arrivals home.
In defense of the poor
saps responding to every terrorist attack with flowers, candles and hashtags,
they have no ability to do anything else. Western leaders are in full
possession of the tools to end Islamic terrorism in their own countries, just
as their forebears once ended Nazi Stormtroopers.
Unable to summon the
backbone to defeat the current enemy, the West is stuck constantly reliving
that glorious time when they whipped the Nazis. In almost every Western country
-- except the one with an increasingly beleaguered First Amendment -- it's
against the law to deny the Holocaust.
Are we really worried
about a resurgence of Nazism? Isn't Islamic terrorism a little higher on our
"immediate problems" list? How about making it illegal to make
statements in support of ISIS, al-Qaida, female genital mutilation, Sharia law
or any act of terrorism?
The country with a
First Amendment can't do that -- the most that amendment allows us to do is ban
conservative speakers from every college campus in the nation.
But if our elected
representatives really cared about stopping the next terrorist attack, instead
of merely "watching" those on the "watch" list, they'd
deport them.
To this day, we have a
whole office at the Department of Justice dedicated to finding and deporting
Nazis even without proof they personally committed crimes against Jews. But we
can't manage to deport hearty young Muslims who post love notes to ISIS on
their Facebook pages.
If the Clinton
administration had merely enforced laws on the books against an Afghani
immigrant, Mir Seddique Mateen, and excluded him based on his arm-length list
of terrorist affiliations, his son, Omar, wouldn't have been around to
slaughter 49 people at an Orlando nightclub last year.
If Secretary of State
John Kerry, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson or anyone else in our
vaunted immigration vetting system had done his job, Pakistani Tashfeen Malik
never would have been admitted to this country to commit mass murder in San
Bernardino a year after she arrived. Before being warmly welcomed by the U.S.,
Malik's social media posts were bristling with hatred of America and enthusiasm
for jihad.
We're already paying a
battery of FBI agents to follow every Muslim refugee around the country. When
they find out that one of them lists his hobby as "jihad," we need
them to stop watching and start deporting.
Paul Ryan, Mitch
McConnell, the rest of the useless GOP -- and obviously every Democrat -- have
the blood of the next terrorist attack on their hands if they don't make
crystal clear that admiring remarks about Islamic terrorism is a deportable
act.
But they won't do it.
That's "not who we are," as Ryan famously said. True, most Muslims
are peaceful. Guess what? Most Nazis were peaceful! We didn't knock ourselves
out to admit as many of them as we could, screening out only the Nazis
convicted of mass murder.
Before we were even
formally involved in World War II, the FBI was all over the German American
Bund. No one worried about upsetting our German neighbors. (Perhaps because
they knew these were Germans and wouldn't start bombing things and shooting
people.)
But today, our official
position is: Let's choose love so as not to scare our Muslim neighbors. Isn't
that precisely what we want to do? Facing an immobile government, two British
men -- by which I mean British men -- were sentenced to PRISON for putting
bacon on a mosque in Bristol last year. One died in prison just after
Christmas, an ancient religious holiday recently replaced by Ramadan.
If we can't look
askance at Muslims without committing a hate crime, can't we at least stop
admitting ever more "refugees," some percentage of whom are going to
be terrorists and 100 percent of whom will consume massive amounts of
government resources?
No, that's "not who we are." Until any
Western leader is willing to reduce the number of Muslims in our midst, could
they spare us the big talk? "We surrender" would at least have the
virtue of honesty.
No comments:
Post a Comment