The left and terror

American Thinker ^ | November 08, 2009 | J.R. Dunn

[neverdem]

The Jihadis will return. We know this, in the same way that we know about death and taxes. Thanks in large part to the weakening of our defensive efforts under the new administration, there will be further attacks against this country's population, perhaps even worse than those of 9/11.  (This week's attack by Nidal Malik Hasan serves to underline the threat.)

When this attack occurs, we will see an end to all the nonsense. Our present drift regarding terror policy is occurring only because Americans have been encouraged to put unpleasant realities at a distance, to live in a dream world where all the bad stuff happens to other people. 9/11 has ceased to signify. Terrorism has become a matter of bad manners. As my grandfather might have put it, this country is in for a rude awakening.

When it comes (and sad to say, it will need to be even worse than the Hassan attack) people will want answers and action. They will get both. Few things move faster than a frightened politician, particularly a politician frightened by his own constituents. Fearful pols will see to it that current efforts to undermine American security will come to an abrupt halt. The law enforcement paradigm will be overturned. The attempts to "Mirandize" Islamist terrorists -- to turn them into esoteric versions of American street criminals, protected by the same legal constraints -- will cease. Contingent efforts to criminalize American security officials doing their best to protect the country will be curtailed. All the deeply complex questions fabricated over the past few years will be abruptly simplified.

But there is one thing that will not be addressed: the role of the American left.

The American left is unparalleled at wriggling out of deadly cul-de-sacs of its own creation. Consider how many times since the Vietnam War this country's left has involved itself in activities that in saner epochs would have resulted in lengthy jail sentences. Support for the Sandinistas and the Salvadoran FMLN, the Nuclear Freeze movement (a KGB operation from start to finish), cooperation with Palestinian and related terrorist groups. In each case, the left continued its involvement until the bitter end; and in each case skipped off with no consequences. This offhand attitude toward sedition has its roots in the excesses of the witch-hunt era. The aura of martyrdom donned by the left since the early 50s has bought them a free pass for over half a century. 

The myth concerning the left and the terror conflict asserts that American leftists pulled together with the rest of the country until such Republican Saurons as Cheney, Rove, Ashcroft, and their puppet W simply went too far: persecuting innocent citizens, impugning the Constitutional rights of the poor Jihadis, and shocking the world with their viciousness and brutality. As the sole exemplars of moral purity in the millennial world, the left had no choice but to begin "speaking truth to power".

My own experience suggests otherwise. In September 2001 I had a part-time position as copy-editor for a small but well-known national magazine. Within days of 9/11 -- and I mean days; not weeks or months -- while the smoke was still rising, I began receiving copy containing pieces suggesting that the terrorists -- Moussaoui in particular -- were poor, misunderstood victims in need of therapy. That there was far more to the event than appeared -- one short piece contained the first suggestion I saw of what was to become known as the "Truther" movement. But possibly the worst was a call for the assassination of John Ashcroft by one of the magazine's regular writers. Calling the editor's attention to this, I was told that it was not necessarily Ashcroft, since the writer did not mention his full name. (It was "John A.", or something of that sort.)

I simply exploded. I've seen a lot from lefties - we all have. There's no limit to their nastiness, their vindictiveness, their callousness. It's this lack of everyday morality that truly distinguishes them from the mass of Americans. So I shouldn't have been shocked. But I was, and I was not willing to accept it. My main gig at the time was five blocks from the WTC, and hundreds of people I had known in passing were no longer of this earth. My patience for the kind of thing I was seeing was strictly limited.

I wrote a short memo outlining my objections. What I got in reply was a blast of vituperation accusing me of slander, McCarthyism, and promoting censorship. That last was quite true; that's exactly what I was doing. But wartime changes things -- certain activities that are perfectly acceptable in times of peace have to go by the board. Or did (editor's name here) really think that he'd breeze through airport security as usual on his next business trip?

In the midst of the exchange I received further copy. It contained more of the same. I sent it back with an ultimatum. I got more abuse in reply, and so I walked. 

That's how it looked from my small corner. No lag time, no hesitation -- left-of-center writers knew what was required of them and produced it. There were similar signs on the wider public stage -- Michael Moore berating the Jihadis for their choice of targets, Some obtuse blurt from Susan Sontag. That nameless pol in San Francisco blaming America first. But much of the left decided the better part of valor lay in keeping their mouths shut -- courage is not a widely-displayed trait in that crowd either.

Of course, it didn't remain that way. First came the niggling over the Patriot Act, followed by Fahrenheit 911, the incisive foreign policy analyses of Ward Churchill, and Cindy Sheehan's assorted campouts. But it was Iraq that proved to be the crack through which the left wriggled back to its accustomed status. Abu Ghraib was the fulcrum by which leftists were able to turn public trust and support of the anti-terror campaign to nagging doubt. Justified shock and disgust at the Abu Ghraib photos was amplified by the media in their expert fashion. Within months, such doubts had expanded to include not only the war effort in Iraq, but the overall conduct of the war against terror. Rarely has the misbehavior of a few malcontent backwoodsmen had such heavy consequences.

Not a single aspect of the U.S. policy was left unaffected. The foreign wiretapping program ("listening in on U.S. citizens"), the bank surveillance effort, the terrorist rendition program, and of course Gitmo, all received the Abu Ghraib treatment. Those images of tormented Iraqi prisoners had a deep and extended impact: if Abu Ghraib could happen, why couldn't all the rest happen too? That quivering sense of doubt was all the left needed to put themselves back in the sedition business big time.

We know where it led to. We have reached the point where successful programs are being abandoned, where national defense has taken a back seat, and where decent men out to protect their homes and fellow citizens are being targeted for legal sanction. The left has gained a shoddy and partial triumph. Though they could not destroy the despised Bush administration or throw away Iraq, they have the consolation prize of shutting down all those evil programs and betraying the people of Afghanistan. No fall of Saigon or Watergate this time around, but they'll make do.

There is only one way this will end: people are going to die. Americans will be killed in large numbers and under the most horrifying circumstances in attacks that could very likely have been prevented. And when this occurs -- as it must -- what will the left do? The same as they did after 9/11. Grab a kid-size American flag from somebody else's hand and stand waving it frantically until the moment of potential retribution is safely past.

What motivates this kind of behavior? The answer lies in the leftist worldview, which is simplicity itself. (It has to be simple, designed as it is to be comprehended by workers, peasants, and college students.) The world is divided into oppressors and victims, with history a dialectical struggle between the two. The oppressor is anyone who holds power, the victims everyone else. By definition, the U.S., as the worlds reigning power, is an oppressor state. In fact, the greatest of all oppressor states, worse than Assyria, worse than Rome, worse than Hitler's Germany, because it has craftily convinced much of the world that it is no such thing.

As for the Jihadis, they are victims in arms -- revolutionaries acting against the imperial state, like the Viet Cong and the Sandinistas before them. Islam, reactionary politics, contempt for women -- none of that matters, as long as they are active against the common enemy. And the role of the Western leftist is to support and assist these heroes, exactly as occurred with all the revolutionary movements in the past. By "speaking out", by "defying authority", and above all by undercutting any efforts to combat the new revolutionary vanguard. But what of the real victims, you ask, all the innocents left scattered like broken, burnt dolls in New York, and Bali, and London, and Madrid? "Little Eichmanns", in the immortal words of the renowned plagiarist, Ward Churchill. Or perhaps you prefer ancient the leftist slogan: "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

Clearly, American leftists cannot act otherwise. They can never be truly patriotic in the real sense, in the sense of sacrifice and overcoming doubts, of valuing their country as a larger expression of family and neighborhood. To ask that of them is to ask them to give up their higher allegiance, to demand that they stop being leftists, stop being progressives, stop being the world's holy fools. And that is to ask too much.

This is a historically unique situation, a product of the modern temperament. Never before would effective treason by a large minority have been tolerated, particularly involving such crucial sectors as media, academia, and education. This is not a stable condition, and it cannot be maintained for long. There is no reason why it should be.

So how do we respond? We'll pause here to allow the loud cry of "Hang ‘em all!" to roll over us and commend everyone involved for their enthusiasm, if not their prescription. But what we need, though perhaps not as final, is something effective and workable within with contemporary social norms. 

The first step is not to buy their story. There is nothing wrong with the fact that we believed the left the first time around -- it involved an unprecedented event. They assured us that 9/11 was different, a good war, the war one against reaction, that they could support in good conscience. We were obliged to listen -- they were fellow citizens, after all, those who had died screaming amid flames their friends and acquaintances as well. But now we know it as a lie, one that they will inevitably repeat. So we must turn away. And that can be a problem. Understanding the limitations of human nature, conservatives have a tendency to hand out second chances whether deserved or not. This is commendable under most circumstances, but not these, not when lives are at stake. We yank drunk drivers out of cars; we must also yank leftists out of the public sphere.

The second step is to identify them. Call them out by name, relentlessly and repeatedly. Note how scarcely a day goes by without some (often dozens) of disparaging references to Gov. Palin. The left knows how this is done, how to assure that the public overlooks nothing and forgets nothing. Turnabout is fair play. Again, conservatives tend to be squeamish, to hesitate before pointing fingers. There is no excuse for that here. As the old saying goes: don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

The third step is to target them, isolate them and render them harmless. The question is how we go about it. The left itself may well have put the weapon in our hands. The attacks against Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, among many others, have been so noxious and vicious as to change the way such tactics are currently received. The public has become hardened to such attacks. Much is accepted now that would not have been accepted even a few years ago. We need to take advantage of this. Ask questions, poke around, find out where the bones are buried and use the shovel. The left threw out the rulebook: now they need to pay the consequences. (This is not unprecedented. In fact, it's a historical commonplace. Few are aware that Joe McCarthy was supported by the Communist Party in his Senate run -- the CPUSA loathed his opponent, Robert LaFollette, Jr., as the son of one of their deadliest enemies during the Progressive era. The Tailgunner is supposed to have studied their tactics of bullying and humiliation with interest.)

Van Jones should act as our model. A few years ago, it wouldn't have mattered that Jones was associated with a nut cult like the Truthers. Now everything matters, and everything goes under the microscope. Jones was a critical figure to the administration, one for whom they were willing to put their reputations on the line to save. It made no difference. Once exposed, and hammered, and spotlighted, he was shown the door and wished luck with his further endeavors. For this outcome, he has no one to thank but his own comrades on the left.

Need we ask if all of them have something hidden, something they'd truly rather not see in the light of day? They all do. Consider Barney Frank. Consider Bill Ayers. Consider Ward Churchill. Under the old dispensation, he might well have been given a pass for his more vicious remarks under "freedom of expression" as understood in this fallen age. But that wasn't all -- far from it. Ward turned out to be a plagiarist, hustler, cheat, and poser of master status. When it all poured out, even as left-wing a campus as Boulder had to cut him loose.

Nobody on the planet earth quite equals the left for simple worldly corruption. The Renaissance princes might have been able to teach them a thing or two, but nobody else. Dig, and you will find. While digging, we might wish that things were different, that we could operate in as civil a manner as many of us would prefer. But we are not at the moment living in a civil epoch. No one reading these words ever has. We know of such a world once -- where decency is honored and nobility is a way of life, only because we have read about it. We are living in a different period now, a period in which our opponents feel completely at home. We cannot allow ourselves to be backed down by thugs such as these. To paraphrase Boccaccio: any tactic against such would-be tyrants is legitimate.

There is a difference between dissent and desertion, criticism and undermining. That difference has been lost amid a fog of relativism in the past few decades. But behind that fog, the hard stone of reality remains. It's no longer a game. People are going to die because of the actions taken by this country's leftists. Recognizing those differences has become a matter of life and death.   

The terror conflict is a two-front war. It always has been, as reluctant as we have been to admit it. The time to open the second front is coming.

J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker.

[Marine_Uncle]

Eventually I will purchase the book. If it is the good Lord's will for it to happen. Till then I wonder how many new twists the author will provide that I have not already considered/discovered to be the case over the past thirty years of so. If Mr. H does not go into the details as who runs the world in the background, sadly what many who in innocence could consider capitalist by nature... then the whole story is not being portrait. Some dare to call it conspiracy. Things would not have progressed along the paths during the past two centuries as they have without the willing hands on from the world's most powerful and rich families, banking systems and industrial leaders.
So in due time I shall evaluate the writings of Mr. Horowitz.

[bitt]

great read ping!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

He has another one...Shadow Government...

The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party

Haven't read it.

[MrB]

It might not be a "conspiracy" as much as it is just a common mindset.

Read this - it's a very good examination of that mindset:
The Secret to the Suicidal Liberal Mind

[Gritty]

Excellent article.

The smiling mask of the evil devil which hides behind the Left is slowly being peeled off. Expect it to become even more vicious to those pulling it off as they do.

Quite frankly, I would not be surprised if extreme and targeted violence is next against some of it's more vocal and successful critics.

This is one war the Left doesn't hesitate to fight with the goal of total victory.

[Jackknife]

bttt

[ExSoldier]

BOOKMARK for later disbursal and discussion.

[ExSoldier]

It was a matter of happenstance that Obama chose to shove through Health Care and his cap and tax proposals first to our political benefit as far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned. Eventually if left unchecked (read the election of 2010 and 2012) he will get around to the gun issue. Before that can happen I am virtually certain that a Fort Hood debacle will occur in a major shopping mall sometime between the day after Thanksgiving and New Years Day.

God willing there will be one or more individuals on hand with a concealed weapon's permit and they will SHUT IT DOWN before it can really begin to roll. If that happens, gun control in this country will be a dead horse for the foreseeable future. As well it ought to be! My guess is that a Jihadi bent on destruction will choose from the ranks of states where SHEEP roam the malls and stay away from enclaves where sheepdogs thrive.

And yet as we saw with the heroes on FLT 93, possession of a firearm does not necessarily a sheepdog make. The spirit of a true sheepdog will draw him or her to the conflict whether or not they are armed and their force of will shall win the day, perchance to the same result as FLT 93 but terror will be stopped. Having a firearm and the skill to employ it effectively just makes the task a tad bit easier.

[Marine_Uncle]

Thanks E.

[potlatch]

Thanks bitt, it is a very good read. Some quotes I especially noted;

“There's no limit to their nastiness, their vindictiveness,
their callousness. It's this lack of everyday morality that truly distinguishes them”.

“It's no longer a game. People are going to die because of the actions taken by this country's leftists. Recognizing those differences has become a matter of life and death”.
[As we just experienced!!]

“Few things move faster than a frightened politician”.
J.R.Dunn

And, the grand finale - that it will take another massive attack before the ‘left’ sees the light.

[bitt]

What’s behind America’s politically correct ‘love’ of Islam?

David Kupelian

---

Posted: November 09, 2009
9:25 pm Eastern

© 2009

The second they heard about the Fort Hood massacre, millions of thinking Americans wondered in their gut: “Oh God, is this another crazy Muslim terrorist carrying out a one-man jihad, as has happened so many times before?”

Then, when the alleged perpetrator’s name and religion were made public (Nidal Malik Hasan, a lifelong Muslim) along with eyewitness reports he had shouted the obligatory pre-terror-attack proclamation, “Allahu akbar” (”Allah is greatest”) before commencing his orgy of slaughter, their suspicions were confirmed: This was surely a major attack on the American homeland by a Muslim terrorist.

Further evidence quickly rolled in: Hasan had reportedly refused to fight fellow Muslims, called the war on terror a “war on Islam,” told a co-worker Muslims had a right to rise up and attack Americans, and reportedly had posted online his astoundingly twisted belief that an Islamic suicide bomber was morally equivalent to a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.

In other words, although the Army had many warnings Hasan was a certifiable, America-hating, jihadist “ticking time bomb” waiting to go off, it did nothing to avert last week’s terror attack. Why?

And why, after the truth about Hasan became undeniable following his mass slaughter, does the government, as well as its mouthpiece the establishment press, agonize in their usual pathetic manner over what could possibly have motivated the Army psychiatrist to coldly, methodically murder 13 and wound 38 others?

Shortly after the attack, right on schedule, the FBI announced it wasn’t terror-related.

Time magazine moronically blamed posttraumatic stress disorder – even though Hasan has never been deployed in a war zone.

The shooter’s relatives insisted he had been the victim of religious harassment because of his faith, which must have made him snap.

According to the Washington Post, the problem was that Hasan was lonely. That’s right, the newspaper’s report, titled “The lonely life of alleged Fort Hood shooter,” was subtitled: “’He was mistreated. He didn’t have nobody. He was all alone,’ says neighbor.”

Meanwhile, President Obama warned Americans against “jumping to conclusions” about what might have motivated the shooter.
Why, after a Muslim commits a terrorist act, do authorities always announce almost instantaneously – before they could possibly know – that the attack was not terror-related?

Why do the news media always torture themselves and their readers with the most wildly improbable explanations in their attempts to avoid the obvious truth?

Before we answer these questions, lest you think I overstate the case, take a quick trip with me down jihad memory lane.

Remember the beltway snipers? In October 2002, Muslim convert John Muhammad along with 17-year-old Lee Boyd “John” Malvo paralyzed the Washington metropolitan area for three bloody weeks, killing 10 and critically injuring three others. But after their capture, most in the media were loath to focus seriously on Islamic jihad as a motive, despite the fact that Muhammad had praised the Sept. 11 hijackers and had threatened to commit major terrorist acts within the U.S.
Like alcoholics uncomfortable with facing the painful truth, the media retreated into comfortable denial. Their standard analysis of what made Muhammad tick included anything and everything except jihad. Thus, the Los Angeles Times offered up no less than six possible motives for Muhammad’s killing spree, according to Daniel Pipes, an expert on militant Islam. They included “his ‘stormy relationship’ with his family, his ‘stark realization’ of loss and regret, his perceived sense of abuse as an American Muslim post-9/11, his desire to ‘exert control’ over others, his relationship with Malvo, and his trying to make a quick buck,” said Pipes – “but did not mention jihad.”

“Likewise,” he adds, “a Boston Globe article found ‘there must have been something in his social interaction – in his marriage or his military career – that pulled the trigger.’”

This see-no-jihad, hear-no-jihad, speak-no-jihad mindset has become standard operating procedure for the establishment press.

On July 4, 2002, a cab driver named Hesham Hadayet walked into the Los Angeles International Airport and shot two people to death before being shot and killed by a security guard. Despite the fact that Hadayet was Egyptian and that he had chosen the Israeli El Al ticket counter as the site for venting his rage, any suggestion that Hadayet was carrying out his own personal jihad was immediately dismissed.
“Investigators … believe that Hadayet was simply an overstressed man who snapped,” reported the Los Angeles Times. “He was known as a quiet, observant Muslim,” added the Times, which explained away the killer’s virulent anti-Semitism by saying, “While Hadayet occasionally mentioned a hatred for Israel, [one former employee] saw it more as a cultural perspective on Mideast politics than an emotion that would fuel violence.”

One of the worst air disasters in modern history, Egypt Air Flight 990 crashed into the Atlantic shortly after takeoff from New York in October 1999, killing 217.
Two and a half years later, the National Transportation Safety Board finally reached the same conclusion that virtually everyone else had immediately after the crash – that the plane’s Egyptian copilot, Gameel El-Batouty, had cut power to the engines and intentionally sent the plane plummeting into the ocean, killing all aboard.

But the government panel declined to suggest a motive, except to speculate that El-Batouty might have “committed suicide.”

Suicide? Pardon my French, but I think “mass murder” or “terrorism” would much better describe the wanton annihilation of hundreds of innocent people. Yet, despite the fact the copilot had calmly repeated over and over the Arabic phrase “Tawkalt” (”I rely on Allah”) for almost a minute and a half during his deed – and that such behavior, according to the report, “is not consistent with the reaction that would be expected from a pilot who is encountering an unexpected or uncommanded flight condition” – federal investigators steered clear of suggesting jihad as a motive.

The U.S. government, not wanting to offend Muslim sensitivities, rarely mentions “Muslim” or “Islamic” when describing Islamic terrorism. For example, when a massive jihad plot to blow up 10 airliners over the Atlantic and kill thousands was foiled in 2006, then–Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff briefed his agency using only the word “extremists” to describe the plotters – no mention of Islam. All of the two dozen would-be terrorists were Muslims.

This syndrome has just gotten worse since the ascension to the presidency of Barack Obama, who takes every opportunity to criticize America and fawn over Islam – even calling America “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world” and bowing obsequiously before the Muslim king of Saudi Arabia.
So, why do we have this stubborn inability to come to grips with Islam?

Everyone attributes it to “political correctness,” but I think it’s time to move beyond that shallow, passé, near-meaningless phrase.

Do we dare admit what is really at play here? The truth is actually very simple.

We are afraid of Islam.

We are intimidated by Islam.

And because we are afraid of and intimidated by Islam, Islam is changing us – in two distinct and profound ways.

First, as is appallingly obvious, we’re afraid to criticize Islam openly, for fear of having our head cut off or having a fatwa put out on us like the director of the new “2012” film, or we’re afraid of being sued by some of the very litigious Islamic organizations like CAIR, or we’re afraid of being called a racist, extremist, hater or “Islamophobe” thanks to the tyranny of political correctness, or we’re afraid of offending those in power and thereby risking our position, stature or other advantage. This reaction, while perhaps selfish and cowardly, is more-or-less conscious and strategic.

However, for some it goes much deeper: Being intimidated by Islam (or by anything, for that matter) actually causes some of us to mysteriously grow sympathetic toward it, to defend it, to side with it, even to convert to it. This unconscious shift in attitude, in response to fear of being hurt, is called the Stockholm syndrome, named after the 1973 Swedish bank robbery during which the four terrorized hostages sided with their criminal captors while disparaging the police risking their lives trying to save them.

We need to understand that a certain percentage of us, when we’re intimidated and upset, start to emotionally gravitate toward and agree with whatever is intimidating us. Not just superficially, as a temporary tactic of placating a bully so he won’t hurt us, but more profoundly, deep down in the inner sanctum of our being where our thoughts and feelings germinate and our loyalties bloom.

Intimidation – that is, causing others to react with upset and fear – is a fundamental principle of mind control, fully capable of causing the victim’s loyalties to shift toward the intimidator, whether a schoolyard bully, gang leader, child molester, hostage-taking bank robber or Islamic radical.

“Political correctness” – which is basically a low-grade Stockholm syndrome playing out on a broad societal stage – is actually a subtle form of brainwashing. Even establishment mouthpiece Newsweek, in its famous Dec. 24, 1990, cover story on the then-new phenomenon of political correctness on college campuses (titled “Thought Police”) conceded this truth when it reported: “PC is, strictly speaking, a totalitarian philosophy.”

Bottom line: We’re intimidated, bullied, threatened, terrorized – and so we capitulate, not just in word and deed, but in thought. Get it?

Most of the time, of course, this occurs below the radar of our own consciousness. We don’t understand what’s really happening. So we interpret our growing sympathy and affinity for whatever intimidated us as evidence of our loving, open-minded, enlightened nature. In reality, it’s the result of craven weakness on our part.

The problem with Islam

Now imagine there’s a religion, which we’ll call “Religion X.” Many adherents to “Religion X” live peaceful lives in pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Whatever their religious doctrine is, they don’t bother anybody.

But other adherents to Religion X believe – indeed, are taught by prominent clerics, including within the U.S. – that they must rule the world, and that the lord of their religion condones, even encourages, their killing those who refuse to convert to Religion X, or who leave Religion X.

So, one contingent of this religion we are inclined to allow freely to exist within our borders – indeed our laws and culture demand it. But virtually all Americans would rightly categorize the other contingent of the same religion as a murderous, mind-control cult that should be driven from our shores.

The problem with Religion X, then, is that it’s really hard to distinguish one type of adherent from the other.

That’s the problem we’re having with Islam. Every time a jihadist like Hasan goes on a terrorist killing spree, invariably all who knew him say they were totally stunned, as he was always so “calm, cool and soft-spoken.” And yet there were warning signs, such that were we not blinded by our fears and cowardice, we would not merely have seen them, we would have acted on them – and prevented last week’s terrorist attack.

According to the London Telegraph, in an article headlined, “Fort Hood gunman had told U.S. military colleagues that infidels should have their throats cut”:

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America’s Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.
He also told colleagues at America’s top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire.

Hasan made these incendiary jihadist comments “in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington, D.C.” during a talk on the Quran, according to the report.

And how did his fellow doctors respond?

Although they were horrified, “One Army doctor who knew him said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier had stopped fellow officers from filing formal complaints,” reported the Telegraph.

Are you with me? “A fear of appearing discriminatory” caused 51 brave American soldiers to be shot by an Islamist monster, 13 fatally.

This inordinate fear, implanted in us by the lords of politically correct attitude, the subtle brainwashers of modern, secular society, is to blame.

It gets worse, much worse. As ABC now reports, “U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al-Qaida.”

The evil of “political correctness” – the totalitarian manipulation of thought, foisted on us by twisted elitist sociopaths who hate America and everything our soldiers have fought and died for over the last two centuries, and continue to fight and die for – has to end. Now. It’s over. This nation must rise up and defy the insane thought control that is destroying our country right before our eyes.

In America, a land of precious and unique freedoms, there exists a natural and healthy tension between our cherished First Amendment religious freedom for all Americans – including Muslims – and our paramount need to protect our country from infiltration, subversion and terror attacks by “true-believing” Islamic jihadists. This tension must be resolved by our striking exactly the right balance, but that balance can be achieved only when we first rise above fear and cowardice, and defy the treacherous PC mind-control culture that is poisoning our minds and crippling our national security.

One last point: If you really want to do something besides complain about the spread of Islamic radicalism in the United States – a level of infiltration already far more advanced than you can imagine – then make a donation to WND’s legal defense fund. We are defending, at great expense, two people who most definitely are not intimidated by Islamic radicalism: “Muslim Mafia” co-author and former federal agent Paul David Gaubatz and his son Chris Gaubatz, who daringly penetrated the belly of the Islamist beast in the U.S. for six months, retrieved 12,000 pages of smoking-gun documentary evidence, reported their findings in the blockbuster book (already the basis for new congressional investigations) – and are now being sued by a terror-front group that wants the evidence of its plots and misdeeds returned! We have hired the best First Amendment lawyer in the country, and we can and must win this all-important fight, but it’s expensive – so please help. OK?

Join WND in defending “Muslim Mafia” investigators.

---

David Kupelian is vice president and managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com and Whistleblower magazine, and author of the best-selling book, “The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom.” He is a dynamic speaker and has been featured on Fox News, MSNBC, CBN and many other media outlets.

[potlatch]

Thank you bitt, that is just an outstanding article. A voice of reason.

I was interested in following the process from ‘intimidation’ —> ‘fear’ —> ‘sympathy’ —> ‘acceptance’ and equating it with the Stockholm Syndrome.

Also the part about, “Political correctness” – which is basically a low-grade Stockholm syndrome – is actually a subtle form of brainwashing”.

I wonder how many remember the Patty Hearst kidnapping, where she eventually joined her abductors in bank robberies?

Or the pretty young blond girl, who was held captive by a couple not far from her home, and grew attached to them!

Now it’s not just individuals, but half our country!

[Seadog Bytes]

Thanks!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Don W]

the ~7 million UN troops already on US soil.

ANY sort of documentation, please!

Even the "Truthers" don't make such MORONIC claims.

[Don W]

EVERY one of those “UN” vehicles were HUMVEES, which are used EXCLUSIVELY by UNITED STATES MILITARY.

Nice try, Skeezix.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

For much more on this Jihad attack see this thread:

Fort Hood Texas: Free Republic Archives

[Freedom2specul8]

Thanks so much.. am updating the archive now.

[Freedom2specul8]

It does look like I may have missed this one. Thanks for helping Ernest..