|
Accountability
and Defying Islamic Supremacism
February 16, 2009
by Jeffrey Imm
Responsible for Equality And
Liberty (R.E.A.L.) and
Anti-Jihad League of America
http://www.realcourage.org/?p=43
http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/blog/imm-articles/125.html
Our generation shares the responsibility to challenge Islamic
supremacism in America and around the world. Our responsibility is
based on our nation and our leaders'
accountability in defending our inalienable human rights of equality
and liberty - which demands that we reject all supremacism, including
Islamic supremacism. Such accountability on human rights also
requires that we challenge those in denial on this threat who seek our
surrender to Islamic supremacism abroad and at home. Failure
to defy Islamic supremacism will not only cost us our freedoms - it will
also cost us our identity, as
those who appease and support such supremacism will seek to use our
nation's influence and power as a weapon against freedom - as we have
recently seen in other nations. To effectively defy Islamic
supremacism, we must use our
existing consensus in equality and liberty as a tool to ensure that
Islamic supremacism is treated like any other supremacist ideology that
would seek to threaten our freedoms. We know that outrage against
supremacism is not enough; we are responsible to
act to defy such supremacist ideologies that threaten our freedoms
and take a public stand against them.
1. Accountability to Human Rights Means Saying "No" to Supremacism
Of all the many recent reports of
Islamic supremacism's progress against
equality and liberty, surely the most disturbing to me has to be the
report of Pakistan's Foreign Minister Qureshi's audacity in
telling U.S.
envoy Richard Holbrooke that the United States needs to start
negotiating with "reconcilable elements" of the Islamic supremacist
Taliban in Afghanistan.
Did the U.S. government express outrage or anger such outrageous demands
that the U.S. to negotiate with the same Taliban organization that aided
and abetted Al-Qaeda in planning the 9/11 attacks on the United States?
Did it walk out of such discussions? Most importantly, did America's
government vehemently say "NO"?
America's history has taught us that there is no "going along" or
"working with" "reconcilable elements" of supremacist ideologies.
Supremacists are not "reconcilable" to the inalienable human rights of
equality and liberty. Supremacists don't compromise on their ideology,
which is based on a lie that they are inherently superior to others. We
know this. We have seen, fought, and
defied such supremacism in this generation's
lifetime. We know that a supremacist offer of "separate but equal" means
no equality at all. We know that a supremacist offer to reign in violent
activities is a false promise that they cannot and will not keep. We
know that the power of supremacism is only blunted when we
confront and
defy its ideology. We hold the
truths as self-evident that all men and
women are created equal and have the inalienable human rights of
equality and liberty. Supremacists don't.
Most of all, President Obama should know this lesson as well, if not
more so, than others. He is the greatest beneficiary thus far in America
of such defiance, such unwillingness to compromise with supremacism.
Because others said "no" to supremacism, Barack Obama not only
has his
rightful human rights in America, but also he could fully realize the dream
that "all men are created equal."
But all of this history, knowledge, and wisdom is lost in the American
government leadership's position on Islamic supremacism, an ideology
that it refuses to acknowledge, preferring meaningless terms such as
"extremism." Our leaders have forgotten that being accountable to human
rights means saying
"no" to supremacism - including
Islamic supremacism.
Instead of "no" we hear a deafening silence from our government leaders
to the greatest threat to the human rights of equality and liberty in
the world. Instead of the American government expressing outrage at calls
by the Pakistani government for America to negotiate with so-called
"reconcilable" Islamic supremacists, we have Mr. Holbrooke
stating that
"I am here to listen and learn." Instead of Pakistan's Foreign
Minister's outrageous recommendation defied,
FM Qureshi praised his
talks with Mr. Holbrooke as a "new beginning" in ties with the U.S.,
stating "this administration has a different approach and starts on a
different footing, that was a very pleasant change."
It gets worse. The
Daily Telegraph reports
that "Mr.
Holbrooke is expected to support a new approach which will involve....
secret talks with 'persuadable' Taliban leaders and allies in
Afghanistan."
Supremacists know that cowards will always find an excuse as to why it
is inconvenient to say "no" to supremacist ideologies. In fact, that is
precisely what supremacists count on - those who are unwilling to hold
them accountable for their violent ideology of hatred and lies, based on
a cowardly fear to say "no" to their ideology. Every time you don't say
"no" to supremacism, its adherents interpret this as a cowardly way of
saying "yes" that you will tolerate supremacism's influence on human
rights.
America's actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan has increasingly become a
swirling vortex of tactics without a strategy, without a consistently
defined enemy, and without a moral stance on the
Islamic supremacist
ideology that continues to fight us there. Our young men and women
continue to be sent into battle without American military and
governmental leadership's accountability in honestly and seriously
defining the enemy. The fundamental lesson that fighting supremacism
requires a moral accountability in defying its ideology is lost on
policy and tactical wonks who keep making the same mistakes over and
over. Our soldiers can risk and sacrifice their lives, but our
government and military leaders cannot gather the moral courage to say
"no" to the ideology of Islamic supremacism. In fact, such leaders fear
to even use the very words, preferring to talk about "extremists" or
resorting to the
sophomoric term "bad guys."
So when our leaders can't say "no" to the ideology of Islamic
supremacism, what should we expect from those who don't view Islamic
supremacism as an ideology that needs to be challenged?
Accountability to the
inalienable human rights of equality and liberty
demands that free men and women say "no" to all supremacist ideologies,
including
Islamic supremacism. But instead, we continue to see our
taxpayer dollars being used in discussions with those who seek
our
surrender.
2. The Diplomatic Initiative to Surrender to Islamic Supremacism
Abroad
What Pakistan Foreign Minister Qureshi's
comments demonstrate is
precisely how little moral courage the advocates of Islamic supremacism
think Americans have. "Diplomats" such as Pakistani Foreign Minister Qureshi seek to help America retreat and surrender from a war that they
believe America cannot even fight, let alone win. There is no surprise
that Islamic Republic of Pakistan government officials would seek the
U.S. to negotiate with such "reconcilable elements" of the Islamic
supremacist Taliban. As early as August 2007,
former Pakistan President Musharraf called for the "mainstreaming" of the Islamic supremacist
Taliban.
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has continued to allow the
Taliban to
develop a Sharia mini-state comprising portions of the Pakistan North
West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Federally Administered Tribal Areas
(FATA). Pakistan Prime Minister Adviser
Rehman Malik has justified this, by stating that Pakistan decided to
enforce Sharia in Swat upon its accession to Pakistan in 1962.
Pakistan's government leaders
continue to
appease
Islamic supremacism by offering full
implementation
of Sharia in these parts of Pakistan. Regardless, there has
continued to be a
litany of
daily atrocities
against
humanity and
human rights by the Taliban against the
helpless and the
hopeless.
But Pakistan leaders' primary difference with the Islamic
supremacist Taliban is in the
Taliban's tactics, not the
Taliban's goal
to implement Sharia. In fact,
approximately 75 percent of the Pakistan public
consistently support such goals of implementing "strict Sharia"
throughout all of Pakistan. Members of the
Pakistan Army call the
Taliban "patriots" and major Pakistan
press organizations have run
editorials calling the Taliban "sons of the soil"
and "the upholders of the integrity of Pakistan." This is why
Pakistan's "father of the Islamic nuclear bomb"
A.Q. Khan was released
and is viewed by many Pakistanis as
a hero, not despite his
black
market efforts to spread nuclear weapons to
our enemies, but
because of
it. Moreover, Pakistan's own government oppresses equality and liberty
with its own
Sharia laws and anti-freedom laws that oppress individuals
for Islamic
"apostasy"
and
"blasphemy" --
something that
Pakistani
legislators seeks to export around the world. So clearly, it is no
surprise that
Pakistani government leaders would make excuses for the
Islamic supremacist Taliban, even as
U.S. Senator John Kerry and Senator
Richard Lugar seek to have American taxpayers pay $1.5 billion dollars
to Pakistan a year, which
Pakistan demands without conditions. This is
precisely how a bully would treat one considered to be a coward.
In the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan,
President Karzai's
repeated
pleas
for
the Taliban
to "reconcile" with its Islamic government have
fallen on deaf ears, for the same reason. Since
September 2007,
Afghanistan President Karzai has been
offering the Taliban a role in the
Afghan government, and
continues to seek such
"reconciliation" with the
Taliban today. The Taliban views that it is winning the war to recapture
Afghanistan, why should it stop fighting? ABC, BBC, and ARD recently
released
poll
results that shows that the
Afghan public blame the US more than
Taliban for violence; this
poll also shows that only 8 percent of those
polled view the Taliban as Afghanistan's biggest problem. Without a
defined ideological enemy of Islamic supremacism and with
American
leaders accepting a policy of "reconciliation" towards the Taliban, it
is no surprise that Afghanistan President Karzai asked in November 2008
when we could end the war in Afghanistan. What greater signals could our
leaders send that we are determined to surrender? On November 25, 2008,
the
AP reported that President Karzai stated that "the international
community should set a timeline to end the war in Afghanistan."
Karzai
was quoted as stating "If there is no deadline, we have the right to
find another solution for peace and security, which is negotiations."
We can hardly be surprised by this. Who is the enemy in Afghanistan -
the Taliban - unless we are seeking to negotiate with them? In October
2008,
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was reported to have
endorsed such a policy of "reconciliation" with the Taliban, as part of
his
"war on extremism" tactics. This appears to be a tactical direction
that the Obama administration will also continue. U.S. government
analysts have tried to make the fine distinction between the "Taliban"
and "Al-Qaeda," to allow a "political solution" with the Taliban that
allows it to be viewed as separate from Al-Qaeda. The
argument
is that the Taliban represents a "regional" threat, whereas Al-Qaeda is
a transnational threat, and therefore appeasing the Taliban is somehow
an acceptable form of surrender. They deliberately ignore the fact that
Taliban is a transnational threat
(which continues to threaten Europe, U.S., Israel, and other nations)
which
does not recognize boundaries, seeks to
create a global Islamic supremacist caliphate, seeks
jihad against the non-Muslim world, and shares the Islamic
supremacist
goal of implementing Sharia. Such appeasers ignore all of this
so that they can lay the ground work for
"peace in our time" with the Taliban. The moral failure remains the
same, however. Such appeasement towards Islamic supremacists and failure
to confront the ideology will only expand
the threat of Islamic
supremacism. This appeasement will teach Islamic supremacists that their
tactics are working to continue to gain power and influence for Islamic
supremacism.
Such a mentality of surrender is hardly limited only to Pakistan,
Afghanistan, and American government officials. Leaders from
other NATO
countries have already sought to position themselves for surrender as
well. On February 9, 2009, the
United Kingdom also announced a new envoy
to both Pakistan and Afghanistan, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, an Arabic
speaker who has previously been Britain's ambassador to Saudi Arabia. On
October 2, 2008, the
London Times reported
about a memo that Sherard
Cowper-Coles allegedly sent to a French diplomat "reportedly saying that the
campaign against the Taleban insurgents would fail." According to
the Sherard Cowper-Coles memo
reported by London Times:
"the only realistic outlook for Afghanistan would be the installation of
'an acceptable dictator.'" The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(predictably)
replied by stating
that the reports of the Cowper-Coles memo were a "distortion" of his
views. But this was immediately followed by a
London Times commentary
supporting such a view as reported regarding the alleged Cowper-Coles
memo as "straight-talking." Days later UK Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith
echoed such sentiments
stating "we're not going to win this war,"
followed by a
chorus of agreement by other foreign policy leaders among
European NATO nations. This is the same UK,
whose
former Defense Secretary
Browne called for the Taliban to be "involved in the peace process,"
whose
MI6 engaged in negotiations with
the Taliban in Afghanistan. In the United Kingdom today, the James Bond
of the 21st century seeks to negotiate with, not confront, the enemies
of freedom.
Can we be surprised that Islamic supremacists are confident in America's
near-term surrender and withdrawal from challenging Jihadists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, when
American government leaders can't even name the enemy and its Islamic
supremacist ideology? When we fail to be accountable for human rights,
supremacists expect the surrender of those who could defend equality and
liberty, not only in foreign nations, but also in their own nations.
While some would look at individual nations or groups as the
source of terrorist threats, the reality is much more troubling.
The reality is that stopping Islamic supremacist terrorism tactics from
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, etc.,
is not enough. The challenge is greater than such a
tactical-based, "whack-a-mole," reactive approach. The true
challenge is to defy the ideology of Islamic supremacism itself as a
global threat to equality and liberty. Islamic supremacism
terrorism is simply a tactic of
Islamic supremacism adherents, and the failure to challenge the
ideology itself demonstrates that that tactic is working.
Failure to
recognize and defy Islamic supremacism as part of our
responsibility to be accountable for equality and liberty is the single
worst mistake that a free nation can make. Such a failure not only
will lead to a greater risk of terrorism, but also will lead to
a deterioration of equality and liberty in a free nation itself.
3. The Ghost of a Supremacist-Appeased Future
We can see the consequences of failing to be accountable for our
responsibility in defending equality and liberty, by simply looking at
the failures of another nation.
What are the consequences of failing to defy
Islamic supremacism?
Imagine a nation
notorious for being one of the major "exporters" of
Jihad in the world. Imagine a nation where Jihadists
publicly
support
terrorist attacks on America, where Jihadists repeatedly plot
mass-casualty terrorist attacks on the United States (not
once, not
twice, not just
three times), where
funding to groups fronting for
terrorists is promoted by government officials, where
foreign individuals
representing terrorist organizations are allowed to enter the nation to
speak
on tours,
and where known supporters of terrorist organizations freely make
television and
public conference appearances. Imagine a
nation with a
long history of
providing
a
"covenant of security" for Islamic supremacists, so notoriously
well-known as an appeaser that
Osama Bin Laden sought to live there. Imagine a nation whose
protestors publicly seek to
"Slay Those Who Insult Islam,"
"Kill
Those Who Insult Islam,"
"Behead Those Who Insult Islam," and
"Butcher Those Who Mock Islam." Imagine a
nation
where armed police run from Islamic protestors
who call the
police "cowards," "kuffar (infidels)," and chant "Allahu Akbar" as
they chase the police down the street.
Imagine a nation where America's
CIA is currently monitoring the efforts of 4,000
Jihadists from that nation who are viewed to be a threat to American national security.
Imagine a nation where
40 percent of the CIA efforts
are concentrated on preventing attacks on the United States from that
nation's residents and citizens. Imagine a nation where America's
homeland security department has
repeatedly
warned about that nation's
citizens as a threat to American national security and has sought
(unsuccessfully)
visa restrictions to protect America from the threat of its citizens.
Imagine a nation
whose citizens are a concentration of Islamic supremacist terrorism for
their region, and are viewed as a
"mainstay of global 'jihad'" efforts around the world.
Imagine a nation where its
non-profit organizations
publicly call for
"jihad" and
support Muslim violence.
Imagine a nation whose
"security minister" calls for talks with Al-Qaeda
and whose
"security forces" negotiate with the Taliban. Imagine a nation
whose "security" efforts involve
promotion of an
individual who supports
Jihad in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel, who seeks the creation of
Islamic states, and who seeks "the triumph of the Taliban." Imagine a
nation
where
individuals listed as
leading
"counterterror" organizations
come from the Islamic supremacist Muslim Brotherhood and
view
Israeli children to be legitimate targets of Jihadists. Imagine a nation where
an Interpol-wanted, convicted terrorist advises on that nation's "counterterrorism."
Imagine a nation where senior
government employees are
activists in Islamic supremacist groups that seek to create a global
caliphate and
call for killing of American soldiers.
Imagine a nation where
its primary
"counter-extremist" organization
publicly praises an
individual that
supports an international terrorist
organization, is
against freedom of religion,
defends wife-beating, calls for the
death penalty for adultery, and
seeks the promotion of Islamic supremacist Sharia. Imagine a
nation whose primary
"counter-extremist" organization
leader defends the "right" of Jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq to wage
war. Imagine a nation where its natives infiltrate
American
news
organizations,
universities, and
counterterrorist organizations to
offer a
sympathetic view of Islamic supremacists as a political force
that should be engaged with and influence American
security
strategies
and
education. Imagine a nation where
local law enforcement officers are expected to be trained on the
importance of Islamic supremacist Sharia law.
Imagine a nation whose
leaders call on foreign nations to develop their
constitution based on "Islamic law," whose leaders
seek
the
acceptance of Sharia law and
Sharia courts in their own nation, and where
Sharia courts operate
today. Imagine a nation whose
$18 billion
Islamic supremacist Sharia finance sector is one of the largest in the
world and whose
government aggressively
promotes Islamic Sharia finance.
Imagine a nation whose
foreign minister calls for Islamic supremacists
to "channel" their efforts into gaining political power. Imagine a
nation whose
senior foreign policy analyst publicly rants about "f***ing
Jews," and calls for Israeli soldiers to be "wiped off the face of the
Earth."
Imagine a nation where
60 percent of its Muslim schools have Islamic
supremacist links, where
a
third of its Muslim students freely admit their beliefs that killing in the name of Allah
is justified, and where a
significant percentage seek the incorporation of Sharia law into that
nation's law. Imagine a nation where
school children are punished if they don't take
place in prayers to worship Allah, where
Muslim children are asked if
they hate Jews, and where school teachers are punished if they dare to
seek to have
joint assemblies of children - committing the "offense" of not providing segregated
assemblies for Muslim children. Imagine a nation with
schools where children are taught that Christians are "pigs" and Jews
are "monkeys." Imagine a nation where a significant number of
Muslim youth
openly admit to supporting organizations such as Al-Qaeda, and where
a
third believe that those who covert from Islam to another religion
should be put to death.
Imagine a nation whose institutional and government leaders seek to silence those challenging
Islamic supremacism, not only of their
own citizens, but also
those from
foreign nations, exerting pressure to silence people from and in other
nations, including America. Imagine a nation where
"extremists" are
those who dare to challenge Islamic supremacism.
Imagine that this list... is just barely touching the
surface of the Islamic supremacist infiltration and appeasement of such a nation.
Perhaps you think I am referencing Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Pakistan? No
doubt you think I am referencing a nation that harbors those who seek
the destruction of equality and liberty? Surely this is not a nation
that you think America would have a
"special relationship" with --
except perhaps as an adversary?
In fact, the nation I am referencing is the United Kingdom.
This brief portrait of the endless failures by the United Kingdom to
defy Islamic supremacism and be accountable for defending equality and
liberty - is to provide context towards the
UK Home Office's recent actions to deny Netherlands legislator
Geert Wilders freedom to speak in the UK Parliament regarding Islam.
Given the state of the UK, such actions by its government can hardly be
a surprise. The UK Home Office's rank hypocrisy regarding Geert
Wilders is pathetically embarrassing as the weakness of a government that
has clearly surrendered to Islamic supremacism. The
UK Home Office claimed that its objectives in silencing Wilders was to
"stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages,"
while its
security minister calls for talks with Al-Qaeda, while it allows
Hezbollah supporters to enter the UK to tour the nation, while its
promotes an individual calling for Jihad and supporting the Taliban,
while it
funds an organization that
praises
Egypt's Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa (a
known Hezbollah supporter and
Islamic supremacist). This is the same
UK Home Office that allows its employees to be members of the
Islamic supremacist
Hizb ut-Tahrir, which seeks the
creation of a Islamic supremacist caliphate,
supports jihad, and whose leaflets have
been
reported by BBC to include "threats against Jews to "kill them
wherever you find them'" -- the same Hizb ut-Tahrir organization that
reportedly radicalized British suicide bomber Omar Shariff -- the
same Hizb ut-Tahrir organization whose
speakers state
"democracy is un-Islamic." So this makes it clear that the UK Home
Office's use of the meaningless term "extremism" is merely a political
ploy to silence only those who would challenge their efforts to maintain
a "covenant of security" between the UK and Islamic supremacists.
There will be no silencing of former
Al-Muhajiroun leader Anjem Choudary and the "Islam for the UK"
group, who provided a forum on November 10, 2008 in the UK for
Omar Bakri Muhammad , who
told the audience "Do not obey the British law... We must fight and die
for Islam." "Islam for the UK" has another meeting
scheduled for March 3, 2009 where it will seek to encourage Muslims
to develop a global Islamic supremacist caliphate. But this isn't
"extremism" for the UK Home Office. Nor did UK Home Office
concerns about "extremism" halt a
Muslim Brotherhood festival for the terrorist group Hamas in London on
February 15, 2009 - just a few days after the UK Home Office
silenced Geert Wilders. The fund raising Hamas festival in
London included Wagdi Ghuniem, who has been thrown out or run out of
most countries, except of course, the UK --
the same Wagdi Ghuniem, who promotes Jihad and calls Jews "apes."
Not surprisingly, this Muslim Brotherhood festival for the Hamas
terrorist group also included so-called British
"counterterror leader"
Kamal Al-Helbawy,
the "former" Muslim Brotherhood spokesman in UK, who
supports
attacks on Israeli children, and is viewed as
"really respected" by
British journalists in "counterterrorism" such as CNN's Peter Bergen and
Paul Cruickshank.
When one understands that the UK Home Office's real agenda is to silence those
who would point out their abject surrender to Islamic supremacism, it is
clearly no surprise that they would not want Geert Wilders to speak.
It is also not surprising that
other UK institutions have sought to silence Briton Douglas Murray
and others; Mr. Murray, a challenger of Islamic supremacism in the UK,
was silenced by the London School of Economics in "the interests of
public safety."
But what you may not realize is the UK Home Office has also
aggressively sought to influence debate in the United States as well.
On June 24, 2008 in Washington, DC, the
UK Home Office
sent a representative to a George Washington University panel discussion
that I was part of, regarding the definition of "jihad" to dissuade
Americans from using the term "jihad" or "Islamist" when discussing
Islamic supremacist terrorism. In our nation's capital, this foreign
government sought to sway American debate to ignore the Islamic
supremacist nature of Jihad.
Two months later, I was told by a well-known American blog on
counterterrorism subjects that the UK Home Office had written them in
complaint of my articles regarding Islamic supremacism in the UK and
sought to have me silenced (an American). I was told that the
representative of the UK Home Office was specifically angry about
an article where I questioned why the Quilliam Foundation was
publicly
praising on their web site Egyptian Mufti Ali Gomaa -
a known supporter of
Hezbollah and
Islamic supremacism -- while Quilliam claims to oppose "Islamism."
A
few weeks before that Senators Kyl and Coburn had written then
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asking why U.S. government funds were
supporting ISNA's meeting with this same Ali Gomaa. Like ISNA, the
UK Home Office does not need such scrutiny of the facts, and this
particular American blog chose to discontinue my articles on Jihad and
Islamic supremacism. (Four months later, the Quilliam
Foundation was given
1 million pounds sterling of British taxpayer funds -- and their
support for
Ali Gomaa remains on their public web site.)
The UK Home Office's agenda in protecting
its "covenant of security" with
Islamic supremacism is not going to be limited to silencing just
visiting European legislators such as Geert Wilders. It seeks to
silence Americans in this country as well, and it will doubtless
continue to use its resources and influence within this country to do
so. This shows the stakes in failing to defy Islamic supremacism
-- surrender will not only undermine support for equality and liberty,
surrender will also alter your relations with free nations committed to
being responsible for equality and liberty. While we must continue
to
support the resistance movement
by individuals in the UK who are still committed to equality and
liberty, we must recognize that the current British Home and Foreign
Offices and their supporters have abandoned all pretense of commitment
to equality and liberty, preferring appeasement and infiltration by the
enemy. It has gone well down the road to becoming an
enemy-occupied, collaborationist,
"Vichy Britain."
Moreover, some publicly promote their collaborationist credentials to
impress Islamic supremacists, as shown by the February 15, 2009 report
of the
Archbishop on Canterbury's claims that he has persuaded "a number of
fairly senior people" to support the growing incorporation of
Islamic supremacist Sharia law in the United Kingdom. Some wear
their surrender proudly.
This is the treacherous, sinister, perverted future that would await
free people who fail
to be accountable in defying Islamic supremacism; those who fail to defy
it will eventually become a tool of the enemy to protect your "peace"
through submission. Failure to defy Islamic supremacism will not
only cost us our freedoms... it will also cost us our identity.
In Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol," there is the well-known story
of Scrooge facing the
"ghost of Christmas yet to come," a grim reaper
that points to Scrooge's dishonor, disgrace, and grave. Scrooge asks
"Are these the shadows of the things that Will be, or are they shadows
of things that May be, only?"
This is the question to America regarding what we must learn from the
grim and sad tale of the United Kingdom's appeasement of Islamic
supremacism. The deteriorating United Kingdom serves as a cautionary
example of the future that awaits us, should we fail to be responsible
for equality and liberty today.
Americans can choose another path. Our destiny remains in our hands. Our
ability to forge a new path of defiance against
Islamic supremacism and
in defense of equality and liberty remains the responsibility of our
generation.
4. Consensus Building and Accountability
What does such responsibility for equality and liberty mean in terms of
defying Islamic supremacism? Does it mean building a consensus
among the American public and our leaders on the threat of Islamic
supremacism? Or does it mean being accountable for actively
defying Islamic supremacism in public? Certainly, it means both.
But our efforts at consensus building should not overlook that
America already has a
fundamental consensus on equality and liberty. We have
declared such a consensus that "all men are created equality" and that
all human beings have the inalienable human rights of equality and
liberty - as our
declaration of our very identity as a nation, and as a people.
This is is who and what we are. We don't need to build this
consensus; we simply need to effectively use it. This American consensus
is shared by nations around the world that adopted the
Universal Declaration
of Human Rights in 1948. We, not just as Americans, but as
humanity, hold these truths to be self-evident. Such declarations
of our human rights form the international basis for our defiance of
Islamic supremacism. Where this consensus in human rights still is not
effective is in understanding the supremacist nature of our challenge
today. In America, we have
defied those who would teach white supremacism to our children in
schools, exercise white supremacism in business and public activities,
seek racial segregation, or seek to promote white supremacism in our
laws and government. As a nation, we have proven that our
government and the mass majority of our people understand and reject
such supremacism. But this commitment and consensus has not yet
been effectively applied to
Islamic supremacism.
It is our obligation as a free people, responsible for equality and
liberty, is to demand - why not?
In America, a nation dedicated to equality and liberty, the individual
freedom of thought of white supremacists does not translate into a
national tolerance of white supremacism and racial segregation in our
schools, our places of worship, our businesses, our non-profit
organizations, our public events, our laws, and our government.
Our freedoms do not permit hate and supremacism to overtake our
inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. We do not and
will not tolerate this.
Therefore, we must also demand that our religious freedoms are not
warped to translate into a national tolerance of Islamic supremacism and
segregation in our schools, our public places, our businesses, our
non-profit organizations, our public events, our laws, and our
government. We must similarly demand that Islamic supremacism must
not overtake our inalienable human rights of equality and liberty.
We must demand an end to the tolerance of this.
Our obligation in being accountable for defying Islamic supremacism
demands that, as a people responsible for equality and liberty, we
publicly speak out against such Islamic supremacism and call for an end
to its sinister influences in America and around the world.
The key in consensus building against the threat of Islamic supremacism
lies in utilizing the consensus of freedom that we already share today
to defy and condemn those who would have a different standard that
allows tolerance of Islamic supremacism to undermine our unity in
equality and liberty.
Our accountability in defying Islamic supremacism requires that we
demand the same standards for Islamic supremacist practices, ideology,
businesses, organizations, and messages - that we would have for any
other supremacist organization that seeks to undermine equality and
liberty. Our accountability must also reject the conscious
"ignorance" by our leaders on Islamic supremacism as a convenient excuse
to avoid their responsibility to defy it. Ignorance is not an
excuse. Such leaders understand that we are a nation committed to
equality and liberty. They simply need to act consistently on the
principles set down and the profiles of courage by our founding fathers,
human rights leaders, and past presidents. It is time once again
for the American public and our leaders to truly show the courage of our
convictions as a nation responsible for equality and liberty.
5. The Wisdom to be Responsible for Equality And Liberty
If anyone in America should understand the need to be responsible for
equality and liberty, it should be President Obama. If America had
failed to maintain its steadfastness in
defying white supremacism then,
like it is caving on
Islamic supremacism now, Barack Obama not only
would not be President today, we would still be fighting for his basic
inalienable human rights of equality and liberty.
We fought that
war because we believed then, as we must continue to believe now,
that "all men are created equal" and because we view the
inalienable human rights of equality and liberty as
self-evident
truths. Such a responsibility for equality and liberty
was not just the responsibility of our founding fathers or of generations
past. It is the responsibility that declares our identity as Americans
and what America is. We must not forget the wisdom learned by the
sacrifices of so many before us. We must not let the pain and
frustration of our current times blind us to the wisdom of what we have
learned in the past, and how such lessons can rescue equality and
liberty today.
After Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed, Bobbie Kennedy
told an
audience: "My favorite poet was Aeschylus. He once wrote: 'Even in our
sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,
until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the
awful grace of God.'"
Such wisdom, that
all men are created equal, remains hammered in stone
in our nation's capital and imbedded in our
national soul yet today.
We have learned that wisdom from America's own long, painful, bloody
history in facing down supremacism that there is no "going along" with
supremacists until someday they decide to "reform" on their own. That
day will never come by wishful thinking. That day will never come if we
don't take a moral stand on the inalienable human rights of equality and
liberty. It took America over
100 years of pain and suffering to learn
that lesson. Going along, looking the other way, and wishing things were
different will never make a difference.
We have the wisdom and the history to know that silence will never
change supremacism.
But this knowledge is not enough. It is not enough to merely be
outraged. It is not enough to merely be disgusted. It is not enough to
merely be frustrated. It is not enough to merely write and speak to those who
share our concern about supremacism.
Wisdom and our history demands that we
act to defy supremacism, as we
did in the past, and as we will in the future. There are many ways to
act, to inform, to educate, to lobby our legislators, to contact our
federal government on issues, and share information among ourselves.
Such slow and steady working in education and consensus-building is
admirable hard work of devoted defenders of liberty.
But what will it take to awaken our national shame to those who would
appease Islamic supremacism?
As others
face prosecution for their willingness to defy Islamic supremacism, isn't it
about time that we truly show some defiance of our own? Some
inaccurately believe that the
human rights movement against Islamic supremacism "doesn't have the numbers"
to show public defiance. They believe that we don't have enough
people willing to take a public stand in support of equality and
liberty, defying Islamic supremacism. But as we have seen by
others' brave stands, all it takes to show defiance is merely one.
When will the sons and daughters of "the home of brave" rally in public
against Islamic supremacism? As
women are abused
and
children are killed
in America
and around the
world by Islamic supremacists, where are the public protests
demanding their protection? Why can
sponsors of
Islamic supremacist Sharia finance
continue to enjoy unfettered business as usual - without our
protests throughout our nation? Why are our
government
representatives allowed to seek U.S. tax dollars to fund nations that
support Islamic supremacism - without our protest? Why are our government
representatives allowed to
talk to those who would appease the very
Taliban who abetted attacks on our nation - without our protest?
The wisdom to be responsible for equality and liberty also demands our
public defiance to those would appease and support
Islamic supremacism.
We must stand and we must march.
We will never march alone. Even if one of us were to be the sole
protestor of our defiance to Islamic supremacism, we will be joined by
the spirit of our founding fathers and of all those who have bravely
stood defiantly against supremacism and in defense of equality and
liberty. We stand together, yesterday, now, and tomorrow, united against
Islamic supremacism, and united in our
responsibility for equality and
liberty.
The dawn of our movement in public defiance of Islamic
supremacism is on the horizon. It is time for us to stand together to
own that responsibility and destiny.
We will Fear No Evil. We will Defy It.
[Postscript - see also Sources
documents for references, additional reading, and background information.]
|
.jpg){kind=link}