A No-Go-Zone for Muslims in America?
Covering a topic with no end in sight, as they usually do, CNN has been highlighting negative comments about Donald Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims coming to America until the nature of the Muslim terrorist threat can be analyzed and addressed. The terms include “unhinged,” “offensive,” “unconstitutional,” and “reprehensible.”
The term “unhinged” more appropriately applies to Trump’s critics.
The usual talking heads are brought on to express alarm. Larry Sabato on CNN called it a “turning point” for Trump and the possible end of his campaign. Over on Fox News, supposedly a rival network, Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard called Trump a bigot. On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Mika Brzezinski said the Trump proposal scared her.
The American people are scared, but not of Trump. They are scared of terrorists. Trump seems to be the only political figure with anything approaching a solid proposal to keep potential killers out of the United States.
America has just witnessed two Muslim killers in San Bernardino carrying out a massacre, and all that the media can do is unite in anger against a candidate who proposes a ban on Muslim immigration until the two major political parties running Washington, D.C. can figure out what to do.
If anything, Trump’s proposal is cautious. He is giving Democrats and Republicans a chance to solve the problem before more massacres take place. This is supposed to be alarming?
Trump’s proposal can certainly be fine-tuned to make sure that Muslims with security problems or risks in their backgrounds can be kept out. But rather than accept the proposal as a serious topic for discussion, commentators on both the “right” and “left” sides of the major media are engaging in name-calling against Trump.
Demonstrating the staying power of the liberal media and their ability to cause a panic, in this case generating fear of Trump, the new House Speaker, Paul Ryan (R-WI), was quick to declare at a news conference that while he normally stays out of the GOP’s presidential nominating process, he just had to say he was disgusted with Trump’s proposal.
Ryan and some other Republicans have proposed a temporary pause in allowing some Muslim refugees coming into the U.S., but they are balking at a complete ban. They somehow think it would be un-American, during a time of war, to keep advocates of a threatening foreign ideology, Islam, from entering the U.S.
President George W. Bush treated Islam as a “religion of peace.” There may have been a diplomatic rationale for such a statement coming shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when the U.S. wanted leads from the Muslim community about terrorists in their midst, but more than 14 years later, with the Middle East in flames and American blood being spilled in the cities of Paris and San Bernardino, such terminology cannot be justified. It is a denial of reality.
The media saw for themselves the Koran in the killers’ apartment. What was that for? Since we know the killers were devout Muslims, it is logical to conclude that they read the Muslim Holy Book and understood its message. This is the conclusion our media are desperately eager to ignore. They don’t want to face facts.
Ordinary Americans can read the Koran for themselves and many have. They understand that, in contrast to the “love your enemies” message of Jesus Christ, Muhammad spread violence and terror, just as some Muslims are doing today. America is their main target.
This, then, helps explain the pathetic Republican response to Trump. They don’t want to admit he has a point because to do so means that George W. Bush had it wrong as well. To put it charitably, Bush, a Christian, had been duped. Obama, by contrast, seems to be a true believer in the power of Islam. After all, he told the U.N. that the future didn’t belong to those who slander the prophet.
Denouncing Trump has become a media and political substitute for solving the problem, which begins at the top, in the White House, with a President who is seemingly oblivious to the need to prevent mass murder on American soil because he, too, believes in Islam as a religion of peace. It is delusion that borders on a mental disability.
Our stoner president, who claimed days before the massacre that there was no credible threat to America, had to give a White House address on Sunday to try to appear that he is on top of the problem. The people are not fooled. They understand that the media are in the business of protecting Obama, no matter how many Americans die.
Obama’s approach, which opened the door to last week’s attack that resulted in 14 dead and 21 wounded, is mildly criticized by the media as being “out-of-touch” with the terrorism problem. Trump, on the other hand, is called every name in the book, including “fascist,” and is being compared to Hitler, simply because he proposes banning those with a presumed commitment to jihad. How do you identify these Muslims? Our security people can’t identify all of them. But surely the picture of the killers entering the U.S. in 2014, along with evidence of their foreign travel and connections, is enough to raise questions.
The criticism of Trump, especially by commentators on the right, masks their impotence in rectifying Obama’s record of damage and destruction. They not only failed to alert the American people to Obama’s Muslim and Marxist sympathies when he first ran for office, but have been making excuses for Congress not taking action to remove him ever since.
As part of their vilification campaign against Trump, CNN and other media feature the views of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group which got $500,000 from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.
CAIR was quick to represent family members of one of the San Bernardino Muslim killers at a time when the FBI was still trying to figure out what exactly had happened. That seemed very strange. Why didn’t the family alert the authorities in advance? Is it possible they had no idea what was going on with Syed Farook, who was acting and looking like a jihadist more than a year ago? Or worse, did they consider him a mainstream Muslim?
Earlier this year, a report implicated Alwaleed in financing the terrorist group al Qaeda, out of which ISIS emerged. Alwaleed, an investor in the parent company of Fox News, once bragged about forcing Fox to stop referring to Muslim rioters in France as Muslims. More recently, he was suspected of pressuring Fox to stop documenting the existence of “no-go-zones” in France where non-Muslims are afraid to go. There are similar such areas in other European countries.
The worst may be yet to come. Not only is our country still open to potential terrorists, but wealthy Arabs and Muslims are poised to take over major media properties in the U.S., in order to further expand their influence and control.
As amazing as it seems, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is nearing the end of a public comment period, after which it plans to vote to accept tens of billions of petrodollars from the Middle East by overturning the ban on foreign investment in and control of the U.S. media.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s Al Jazeera is trumpeting the news that Alwaleed is planning to spend $32 billion on so-called charitable causes. This could easily translate into money for media, mosques, and various other assorted Muslim causes in America.
It is all right to have “no-go-zones” or Muslim enclaves in European countries, which are already suffering from Muslim terrorism and desperately trying to prevent more massacres there.
But when Trump proposed a no-go-zone for Muslims in America, while authorities figure out how big the threat is and how to stop it, the media engage in their knee-jerk forms of political correctness.
The media organizations that act like they are indifferent to the security concerns of ordinary Americans are well on the way to becoming “no-go-zones” for accurate and truthful news and information.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.