Copyright John T. Reed 2015
During my lifetime, Republicans got a lot of political mileage out of hanging the charge of soft on communism and socialism on the Democrats, also soft on defense, soft on stopping communism’s expansion by violence, soft on terrorism. It is time to hang around their necks the well-deserved accusation of soft on Islamic terrorism. You can easily make a campaign commercial with one Democrat after another responding to beheadings and murders with refusals to call the perps Muslim, “workplace violence,” releasing known Muslim terrorists from Gitmo. The Democrats will counter with accusations of Islamophobia or racism. It won’t wash. Muslims have been around for thousands of years. There was no anti-Muslim feeling in my lifetime in the 1950s and 1960.
There was the dislike of blacks, Jews, and the other groups “Archie Bunker” bad-mouthed on the TV series All in the Family. But he never said boo about Muslims.
What anti-Muslim feeling there are now in the western world arose out of violence committed and threatened by Muslims in the last several decades.
The first prominent Muslims in the U.S. were black Muslims who, from a distance, seemed, and still seem, more like a glowering, black supremacist, antisemitic, revenge-based, street gang, than a religion. Their leaders in America were Elijah Muhammed, Malcolm X (reportedly assassinated by rival black Muslims), and now Louis Farrakhan.
Muslims in Europe were first guest workers, but have turned into violence-threatening, beachheads in every European countries. In terms of antisemitism and advocating and employing violence to conquer territory, they appear little different from the Nazis. Nazism is outlawed in most western European countries. But from the way the Europeans and American liberals are treating Muslim violence, it would appear that if Hitler had just claimed Nazism was a religion, his followers would now have Gott mit Uns churches with swastikas atop their steeples all over Europe along with brownshirt-enforced, no-go zones like the 571 Muslim no-go zones now in France.
We cannot outlaw Nazism in the U.S. but we can probably treat them like organized crime. Their crimes would be things like conspiracy and overt acts of violence, racketeering, possession of illegal weapons, whatever they use to raise money is probably illegal, failure to register as a foreign agent, illegal aliens. It would be a matter of law-enforcement focus and resources.
I have also said that the oath one takes to become a citizen strikes me as being incompatible with Muslim beliefs. Here it is.
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
Note: In certain circumstances there can be a modification or waiver of the Oath of Allegiance. Read Chapter 5 of A Guide to Naturalization for more information.
The principles embodied in the Oath are codified in Section 337(a) in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which provides that all applicants shall take an oath that incorporates the substance of the following:
The language of the current Oath is found in the Code of Federal Regulations Section 337.1 and is closely based upon the statutory elements in Section 337(a) of the INA.
I believe the many, if not a majority, of Muslims, in fact, think the Koran and Sharia law trump the Constitution and laws of the United States. Therefore an extra effort should be made to screen them with regard to granting citizenship and government jobs. The Constitution requires probable cause for search or arrest warrants, when dealing with citizens of the U.S. or legal residents of the U.S., but if you are not yet either, you can be summarily rejected and deported. There is no Constitutional right to become a citizen or a legal resident or even to be granted a visa. And investigating your application to come to the U.S. more thoroughly because of your country of origin or religion does not violate the Constitution. Furthermore, there is substantial probable cause to believe that radical Islam encourages its adherents to conceal their radical Islamic beliefs when trying to infiltrate the countries controlled by infidels including shaving off required beards, skipping mandatory daily prayers, and filing applications for citizenship and government jobs. We are at war with these people—declared by them, not by us. During World War II we did not feel obligated to admit Nazis on First Amendment grounds.
The Constitution does not prohibit profiling. It requires probable cause to issue a search warrant or arrest warrant. The case that made it illegal was one where GA cops noticed that drug couriers followed a pattern of two Latino males in a car with no visible luggage going north on I-95 and scrupulously staying under the speed limit. They stopped such people and found they were carrying drugs to the Northeast. But someone, probably the ACLU, sued saying this was illegal search to stop them. They won that court case.
But increased scrutiny of public behavior is not illegal search. Nor is search of everyone or randomly selected persons as is done when you enter a Federal court building or travel by plane or on New Year’s Eve or within 100 miles of the Mexican border by Border Patrol. Increased scrutiny of public behavior in high-crime areas is not illegal. Increased scrutiny of areas where large scale violence like 9/11 being planned or carried out is not illegal. The issue is not targeting groups by race or origin. That only comes up in searches or arrests when you ask a judge for a warrant. Putting extra cameras or cops in a neighborhood, like some heavily Muslim neighborhood in Detroit does not search per se. The Constitution does not control disproportionate allocation of resources to monitor public behavior, only illegal searches and arrests. Citizens themselves often request more cameras and/or cops.
How would America react to a single Muslim no-go zone here? I think even the liberals would say, “Excuse me. You are prohibiting Americans, including police and firemen, from entering your zone unless they are radical Muslims? I don’t think so.” A no-go zone would draw a Waco-type response. Indeed, I think Waco was actually a religious no-go zone. The government would try to handle another no-go zone with more finesse, but no way can I see the government behaving like those in Europe and allowing a no-go zone.
In the 1960s, there were a number of shootouts between police and the Black Panther Party. They were welcomed in North Vietnam, North Korea, and Mao’s China as heroes. Those shootouts seemed triggered by attempts to set up no-go zones. They occurred in South California, Oakland, Chicago. The Black Panthers moved en masse to Oakland, CA and tried to take over the city government by winning elections. They lost. They later supported Lionel Brown for mayor. He won and rewarded the Panthers for their support.
No-go zones seem to be at least considered contempt-of-cop violations, let alone treason, here is the U.S. They seem to be snuffed out in the U.S. when they reach about one acre in size. I have no idea what the western Europeans were thinking to allow any such places, let alone hundreds of them. It has been said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Apparently, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union IS a suicide pact. We should get out of NATO and allow the crazy Europeans to let the Muslims and/or Russia take them over. Why should we fight for people who won’t fight for themselves—again?
John T. Reed