So, Who Are You Gonna Call?
Vol: 121 Issue: 25 Tuesday, October 25, 2011
One might have suspected that it was something that had been ordered on Day One, but it actually took until about Day One Thousand before the administration was comfortable with officially banning the truth within government circles.
US Deputy Attorney General James Cole was given the task of making the announcement during a speech at George Washington University Law School. It appears that the Department of Justice has had a change of heart since those terrible days following 9/11.
Back then, the Department of Justice wanted every American to help out. Remember when the DoJ was encouraging Americans to report anything suspicious to the FBI? The DoJ still wants you to do that, but first, you need to understand what “suspicious” means in the New Normal.
“Suspicious” is when a white male Christian calls in to report that a Middle Eastern-looking male between the ages of 17 and 35 is behaving in a strange manner.
For example, suppose a Middle Eastern looking male suddenly charges the cockpit of an aircraft.
If your first instinct is to tackle him to prevent him from hijacking the aircraft, then you are the one that is suspicious. After all, he could just as easily be suffering from an intestinal bug and was looking for the bathroom when you put him in a headlock and dragged him back to his seat.
When the plane lands, you stand as good a chance of being arrested than he does. After all, he has an excuse — he had to go to the bathroom. You, on the other hand, are suspected of racial discrimination.
Why else would you assume he was an Islamic hijacker? How do you know he wasn’t a Christian. . .?
“This kind of stereotyping and hate runs counter to the basic values of equality and religious liberty on which this nation is founded. We must never allow our sorrow and anger at the senseless attack of 9/11 to blind us to the great gift of our diversity. All of us must reject any suggestion that every Muslim is a terrorist or that every terrorist is a Muslim. As we have seen time and again – from the Oklahoma City bombing to the recent attacks in Oslo, Norway – no religion or ethnicity has a monopoly on terror.”
Did you catch that? “As we’ve seen, time and again?” Time: 1995, Oklahoma City. And again: 2011, Oslo Norway. See? Not every terrorist is a Muslim. There were TWO incidences of non-Islamic terror in the past eighteen years!
Ummm, what were the religious motivations behind Oklahoma City, again? McVeigh was a lapsed Catholic. In a 2001 biography of McVeigh, authors Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck talk about displays of McVeigh’s religiousity during the Gulf War:
“On Sunday mornings, the recruits were required to either attend church services or spend an hour cleaning the barracks. McVeigh, an agnostic, chose to clean the barracks until he found out that nobody took attendance at church. One Sunday, he signed up for church and just slipped away from the rest of his platoon. He found a field of tall grass and lay there, a little worried about snakes, but enjoying the opportunity to relax in solitude. The following Sunday, McVeigh signed up for church again. This time, he sneaked into an old abandoned barracks to kill time.”
Whoops! Maybe McVeigh wasn’t motivated by religion, after all. But what about Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik? The mainstream media and the Obama administration were both quick to identify Breivik as a “Christian fundamentalist” based solely on two criteria: Breivik was white. And he wasn’t a Muslim.
It wasn’t that Breivik was a Sunday school teacher somewhere. If he belonged to a recognized Christian church, nobody can name it. He wasn’t a believer in Jesus Christ and told investigators that it wasn’t necessary to believe in Jesus to be part of his ‘movement’.
In reality, the single most compelling piece of evidence suggesting Breivik was motivated by Christianity, (as far as the mainstream was concerned) was not Breivik’s non-existent devotion to Christianity, but his all-consuming hatred of Islam.
So what the Deputy AG did in his speech was commit the exact same offense his whole speech was aimed at railing against: he pre-judged the motives of an entire religion based on the actions of two individuals.
There is no organized Christian group dedicated to committing random acts of terror against non-Christians. There are no Christian groups citing the Bible as the justification for the destruction of innocents.
The Far Left tried to equate abortion clinic bombers to Christianity, but that only works among the ignorant. It takes quite an effort to find a moral equivalency between the murder of an abortionist by a lone nutbar and the murder of 3000 random strangers by an organized group dedicated to the murder of strangers as a matter of religious duty.
AG Cole went further in his efforts to prove that Islam is a victim of American intolerance . . . just listen to the litany of crimes committed against Islam. . .
“Those crimes and the resulting prosecutions have taken place in nearly every part of the country. To name just a few examples, the Department successfully prosecuted an Arlington, Texas man for setting fire to playground equipment at a mosque in July 2010. We brought to justice three men who spray painted swastikas and “white power” on a mosque in Columbia, Tennessee, and then burned it beyond recognition. In March 2010, a husband and wife were convicted of harassing with ethnic slurs and physically assaulting an Indian-American couple on a public beach in South Lake Tahoe; the male victim was beaten so badly that he suffered multiple broken bones in his face. And earlier this year, a former employee of the Transportation Security Administration pleaded guilty to federal hate crime charges for assaulting an elderly Somali man in May 2010 because of the man’s race, national origin and religion.”
These are terrible crimes for which the individuals involved have been rightly punished by the DoJ. But when you examine them a bit more critically, one has to wonder . . . given the topic at hand, which is clearly to make the case that Islam is getting a raw deal in America . . . is this Cole’s BEST case?
Spray-painting swastikas on a mosque? Beating somebody up? SIX examples covering a period of more than TEN years? The nonsense continues . . .
“The Department also has committed itself to protecting the rights of Americans of all faiths to build places of worship and to worship in peace. Last October, for example, the Department filed an amicus brief in support of a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee that had been met with strong opposition and a lawsuit. In doing so, the Department sought to unequivocally convey its position that a mosque, or a gurdwara, is a place of worship to be treated the same as a church, synagogue, temple, meeting house or any other religious assembly and it is entitled to full protection by federal law.”
If I were a Muslim, hearing that the DoJ was planning to treat a mosque with the same respect that it has for a church would not be very reassuring. I don’t know of a single instance in which the DoJ brought a suit against Islam for violating the separation of church and state.
I don’t know of a single case in which the DoJ has forbidden Muslim prayer on public property — but I DO know of several cases where the DoJ defended their right to pray on public property.
Christians aren’t allowed to even TALK about their faith in public. There are no public school curriculum on “Christian Studies” but there are MANDATORY public school courses on Islam.
That is not a right extended to Christians.
Remember, this is a speech given at George Washington University School of Law in which the Department of Justice is making its case AGAINST religious discrimination. Deputy Cole’s closing remarks were therefore dripping with irony:
“I’m honored to work with you and my colleagues at the Department of Justice in the effort to fully realize America’s highest ideals of religious tolerance, equality, and justice for all.“
Religious tolerance for all?
The purpose of Cole’s speech was to let everybody know that he had “recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security.”
The method chosen to accomplish this goal is to purge all references to Islam or Islamic jihad from any examination of Middle Eastern terrorism. In so doing, the administration has removed any consideration of the motives, beliefs or goals behind the terrorist attacks against US interests.
Dwight C. Holton, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon, emphasized that training materials for the FBI would be purged of everything politically incorrect: “I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”
See? It is simple. Anything that suggests Islam has a tendency towards violence is intolerant of Islam’s famous and well-known history of peace and love and tolerance of other religions, and such intolerance will NOT be tolerated by a Department of Justice and a president that stand for tolerance.
If some inconvenient facts about Islam managed to creep into FBI training manuals, like for example the fact that Osama bin Laden is a Muslim, or that al-Qaeda is an Islamic movement, then the best way to “fix” it is by putting one’s fingers in one’s ears, closing one’s eyes and repeating “I can’t hear you” over and over.
Holton said that he had spoken with Attorney General Eric Holder about FBI training materials that Holton claimed were “egregiously false,” and that Holder “is firmly committed to making sure that this is over….we’re going to fix it.” Holton said that this “fix” was particularly urgent because the rejected training materials “pose a significant threat to national security, because they play into the false narrative propagated by terrorists that the United States is at war with Islam.” (emphasis mine)
The entire speech was filled with what George Orwell called “double speak” — when words are arranged it such a way so as to convey exactly the opposite of what they actually mean.
It seems that by ‘stereo-typing’ Muslims (the way that Cole’s speech stereotyped Christians) Americans are being “blinded to the great gift of our diversity.” Actually, what Americans are being blinded to is the great gift of our unity.
It is the United States, not the Diverse States, because “diversity” means exactly the opposite of “unity.”
The Diverse States of America is what America was under King George. The United States was what those diverse states became after declaring Independence.
The DoJ’s tactic here is actually quite brilliant. By portraying the average Christian as a bigot and the average Muslim as the victim of bigotry, the DoJ has confused fact with bigotry so effectively that any effort to introduce facts sounds like bigotry, whereas inventing facts not in evidence sounds like tolerance.
So the next time you see something suspicious and are tempted to call the FBI, here are a few things to keep in mind.
If the suspicious character is an apparent Muslim male between the ages of 17 and 34 and he is doing something like shouting “Allahu Akbar” while mowing down a crowd of pedestrians with his car, it has NOTHING to do with Islam.
It is most likely a case of white American Christians who are mobbing his moving vehicle, hoping to yank him out of it and beat him up because he is a Muslim.
Because that’s what white American Christians like to do.
Just because of a couple of thousand terror attacks by guys that claim to be followers of Islam doesn’t mean that it is Islamic terror. Everybody knows that it’s the Christian terrorists that the DoJ needs to keep an eye on.
They’re pretty sneaky.