How to Respond to Muslim Blackmail and Threats

In 1983 President Reagan gave a speech to the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando Florida. This is the speech in which he first called Russia an “evil empire”. According to Wikipedia, Reagan also made a case in this speech for deploying NATO nuclear armed missiles in Western Europe in response to the Soviet Union installing new nuclear missiles in Eastern Europe. Liberals had a cow. They were terrified that Russia would retaliate somehow. They thought that Reagan was rash to provoke the communists not only with words but then with the actual placement of nuclear missiles. Liberals moved the hand of the doomsday clock a bit closer to 12 as they anxiously worried that the USSR would retaliate against what Reagan said in that speech.

Luckily the Democrats weren’t running the country and instead we had President Reagan. This great leader presented a determined front and not once back downed when confronted with Russia’s blackmail threats to harm us if we didn’t remove our missiles or abandon the idea of a Star Wars defense or even arrogantly used terms like the evil empire. There was also a huge uprising from the UN and other countries but our leader, unlike the clamoring liberals, was not afraid of what anyone else might think of us; Reagan basically could care less and kept to his path of standing up for America. Of course we all know now that it was Russia who blinked in this cold war and the course of history changed dramatically including the fall of the Berlin Wall pictured left. But what would have happened if Reagan was fearful of Russian retaliation and, like the Democrats, worried that Americans might be killed and therefore gave in to Russia’s threats? How different might history be if Reagan didn’t have the fortitude to identify Russia for what it was – an evil empire that needed to be destroyed.

If this country had the guts to go toe-to-toe against a large country with nuclear weapons then why can’t we stand up to a bunch of street rabble with stones, homemade explosives and a few guns? Please understand that I don’t agree with Rev. Terry Jones who plans to burn the Quran in retaliation of 9-11. But this is America where he has the right to do this just as liberals and anarchists have the right to burn the flag. I hope the Reverend will decide that it is wrong but it would be more harmful in the long run if he backed down because of threats from Muslims worldwide.

I am deeply disappointed in General Petraeus for passing on the Muslims threats of harming our soldiers if Rev. Jones goes forward with his book burning. This is blackmail, pure and simple and the US should never back down to it. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that the threats were issued by street rabble rousers, probably the same Arabs who were cheering in the street after 9-11. We must not empower this group which is exactly what would happen if Rev. Jones backs down because of their threats. So shame on the General for even giving voice to their blackmail threats.

If we back down to their threats then we have established a very harmful pattern. For what will we back down to next? There is a lot of passion and anger over the building of the mosque in NY City. What would happen if General Petraeus gets on TV to tell us that Muslims are threatening to kill soldiers if we don’t let them build the mosque? Do we back down then?

Actually, the two events are very similar. Muslims can build the mosque in NYC but it would be wrong and insensitive to Americans while on the other hand Rev. Jones can burn the Quran but that also would be wrong and insensitive to the Muslims. The difference, however, is that Americans might protest in the streets about the mosque but it never would even occur to us to take to the streets threatening to kill Muslims if they don’t move the proposed mosques. Yet no one thinks twice about Arabs taking to the street in protest with burning effigies and threatening to kill us, this time because of the book burning. Why are they held to a lesser standard than we are?

Reverend Jones is wrong to want to burn the Quran but he is right when he asks when do we stop backing down to them. I also think that once again the mainstream media is slanting the news. I was listening to a local radio talk show and to my surprise all the callers were backing the Reverend. Like me, they didn’t agree with what he planned to do but believed he had the right to do it. And yet the MSM portrays only those protesting against the book burning. In fact the MSM is guilty of escalating the fear of retaliation if the minister burns Qurans on Saturday with the slanted stories they broadcast on their news programs. (It is also interesting to note that the Arab world didn't threaten us like this when Bush was president as I think they feared Bush who they saw as some cowboy who they didn't know what he would do next. Only now when Barrack Hussein Obama is president do they feel free to blackmail us...)

In the light of this standoff – the Rev. threatening to burn the Quran vs. Muslims threatening to kill our soldiers in retaliation if the Quarn is burned – I can’t help but wonder what would Reagan do? Just as Reagan believed the USSR was the evil empire, Rev. Jones believes that Islam and the Quran are evil. Perhaps I am wrong but if Reagan were our president today I can almost hear him state that America has freedom of speech which protects Rev. Jones. Though Reagan may disagree with burning the Quran, if the Middle East street Arabs actually harm one hair on a US soldier in retaliation then Reagan will bomb them back because nobody threatens our soldiers or tries to blackmail us. And if they do then they will regret it. {sigh} I do miss Reagan for instead of a staunch patriot who would stand up for America we have a conciliator and appeasement seeking President and General who apologize for this country and worry about what some thugs might do.. God help us if they manage to force Rev. Jones to back down to the street Arabs threats.

Postscript. Sometimes I amaze myself. I wrote this Weds. afternoon and set it aside as I became busy with other things. Then last night while I watched tennis the Imam in charge of the NY City mosque got on Larry King’s show and sure enough he threatened an explosion of anger and violence if America doesn’t let them build the mosque at that location by Ground Zero. I wish I had gotten this one wrong but here it is, the next threat. Forget the Rev. in Florida with burning the Quran. America is faced with these new threats of violence – now what? General what is your response – do we back down on this, too? And if so, what will come next? Or do we act like proud Americans and tell that Imam and the Arab street rabble that America does not and will never respond to blackmail and threats. Mainly I just wish somebody, anybody in Washington has the nerve, as Reagan did, to basically tell them to go to hell!

NYC Mosque vs. Thomas Jefferson

Everybody agrees that our Freedom of Religion gives Muslims the right to build the NYC mosque. Everybody, that is, except Thomas Jefferson. This founding father knew that the time would come when someone would try to subvert and misuse our freedoms and here is his response to that:

A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger are of higher obligation.

This quote by Thomas Jefferson was used at the very end of a book by an Egyptian woman who immigrated to the US and converted to Christianity when she was 30. Until then she had been a Muslim in an Arab country, following the Sharia laws and living a life of fear and subjugation. The book, Cruel and Usual Punishment by Nonie Darwish is a fascinating insider’s look at the Islam religion, Sharia laws and how they came into being. But it was the author’s last chapter regarding America which I found to be both compelling and chilling.

You can almost hear the desperation in Ms. Darwish’s voice as she tries to convince the reader that Islam is not a religion of peace. For example, she states that there are 35,213 references in the Koran, Sharia laws and various Muslim scriptures basically advocating killing non-believers. Yes, the Old Testament is also rather bloodthirsty in places however the whole premise to Christianity is Jesus’ messages in the New Testament. He repudiated the Old Testament and taught that in the face of violence we should turn the other cheek and He gave us the Golden Rule. Islam, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. In the early parts of the Koran Mohammed was respectful of the “People of the Book” meaning Jews and Christians. As both Muslims and Jews were desert tribal people back then there was a natural affinity that is until Jewish tribes declined Mohammad’s “request” that they convert and join his tribe. Their refusal triggered a hatred of all Jews continuing to this day. From that point forward the Koran gets bloodier and bloodier in its suggested treatment of all infidels and apostates.

For Islam, this hatred of Jews has remained unchanged in the past 1400+ years. One example in Darwish’s book is that in 2005 the British House of Commons passed a bill aimed at curbing religious hatred. A delegation of prominent Muslims applied to have Islam exempt from the bill since followers of Mohammed must humiliate, hate, distrust, deceive and kill Christians and Jews. They therefore knew that readings from the Koran would be hate crimes under the new law as hatred of non-believers continues to be a central doctrine of Islamic scriptures. The scary part is that anti-Semitism is facing resurgence particularly in Europe which has experienced a large influx of conservative Muslims.

Ms. Darwish brought up an interesting and very relevant point about her former religion. In the US we strongly believe in separation of Church and State. Muslims, however, have intertwined Islam with the Sharia laws. You can’t have one without the other. The author then stated that historically, once Muslims start building mosques in a country they will next begin to push for acceptance of Sharia laws. This is already happening here and in Europe. We have all started to hear of stories ranging from taxi drivers refusing passengers carrying alcohol to Muslim women wanting to take their drivers license picture in full regalia with only their eyes showing.

But why are we letting them get away with it in the first place? Either it is a religion (Islam) or it is a political party with their own set of laws (Sharia). Darwish wondered what would have happened if Lenin had said that Communism was a new religion and began building Communist temples in the US under our Freedom of Religion. What is the difference? We must enforce separation of Church and State allowing Islam without Sharia. Muslims in America must obey our laws and recognize that this is a country where women are treated equally, daughters aren’t killed if they “dishonor” their fathers and we settle disputes in courts not with violence. And just as we forced Mormons to change their religion to fit in with out monogamous society so must we deal with any illegalities found in Islam/Sharia.

As the NYC mosque situation was hitting the headlines I was reading this book which made it that much more chilling. At the end of her book, Ms. Darwish, who lived her first 30 years in a conservative Arab country asks “the West to send a strong and firm message to Muslims everywhere. Muslims need to hear that the human right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is above the right of any religion that wants to take it away. Muslims need to hear the word ‘No’”.

Although Ms. Darwish ends her compelling book with Jefferson’s quote, on the next to last page is another timely quote:

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage. – Author Unknown.

So which stage are we at and can we learn to just say 'No'?