• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

I suppose it was only a matter of time before this happened.

Over the last few weeks, I’ve noticed a bit of an uptick in the activity of certain racist elements in cyberspace, such as the proliferation of white-separatist bloggers and a bit more boldness on their part. A few have communicated with me, I think mostly out of curiosity; although none has been overtly nasty, it is still a decidedly uncomfortable phenomenon.

Quite a few of this bunch I have seen are Europeans, but there are a significant number of Americans and Canadians among them. Largely, these are middle class, skilled whites who claim to have become tired of being demonized, marginalized and disenfranchised by politicians, activists and the press. Unfortunately, rather than perceiving the larger picture of progressive machinations, they – like millions of black Americans and other minorities – simply put their pain down to the evil of other ethnic groups.

There is wry amusement on the part of the more intelligent among these people, that Americans’ invertebrate capitulation to diversity worship has wrought the cultural devastation we see unfolding.

I hate to admit that they have a point there.

Erik Rush’s brand new book is bold, daring and needed: “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession”

And the Obama administration, in good progressive fashion, has done its level best to exacerbate a bad situation. I’ve already asserted that Barack Obama himself wants to see race tensions escalate in the U.S., so I won’t belabor that point further right now. Suffice it to say that by encouraging activism on the part of the worst elements within populations of ethnic minorities, progressives effectively create racism, as well as validate the beliefs of those whose racist tendencies are well-established.

But enough about white bigots. They’re not really the ones about whom we ought to be concerned right now.

I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.

– President Barack Obama, referencing his earlier comments on controversial proposed mosque in NYC, Aug. 14, 2010

In addition to President Obama’s tacit support for the “Ground Zero mosque” being treasonous, his statements concerning America’s traditional tenor regarding this sort of tolerance being fundamental to American values were erroneous, prejudiced and subjective.

Further, he is in no position to lecture Americans on “what our country is about,” because he has never been an American in his mind or in his heart. Obama does not perceive America as “his” country (unless you include the proprietary sense), and he definitely doesn’t know what it’s about. He has never been more than a spoiled, intellectual, globe-hopping twerp, who in his narcissism envisions himself as an uber-evolved, sociopolitical wunderkind who can somehow hold Islam and our other enemies at bay. To that end, he has arranged for Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, chairman of the Cordoba Initiative (the proposed mosque’s builders) to tour the Muslim world as some kind of “cultural envoy.”

While specious arguments apropos the First Amendment and so-called “religious freedom” fly to and fro, most Americans remain oblivious to the symbolism connected to the mosque, whose very name symbolizes Islamic conquest. They aren’t hearing the vitriolic rhetoric on the part of Muslims and imams worldwide being reported by the establishment press, pronouncements that clearly affirm the militancy and belligerent significance of the project.

Many Americans, including conservatives with whom I’ve debated on the subject, believe that we will always remain at a disadvantage with regard to Muslim radicals because Islam, as a religion, enjoys First Amendment protection – ergo, our hands are tied.

There are two reasons I disagree with this assessment. The first I would illustrate, as some have done, utilizing the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” argument. A person would be profoundly unwise to stand on a soapbox outside our nation’s Capitol and advocate storming the building during a joint session of Congress and gunning down everyone therein. There are a number of laws that would be handily brought to bear against such an individual. There are indeed precedents for the prosecution of religious groups that violate the law, such as the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, whose members engaged in sexual conduct with minors and incest.

The second reason I don’t think that the First Amendment case holds water here is because Islam is less of a religion than it is a political ideology with religious trappings. In fact, one might liken it to Nazism; while it did not make the pretense of being a religion, Nazism did hold to certain arcane, quasi-spiritual beliefs. There are other cultish groups that have both religious and social tenets that are considered dangerous; some are even on government lists.

What we are witnessing defies all logic. Unemployed Americans are losing their homes, and Obama is using their tax dollars to fund Imam Rauf’s Muhammadan Misery Tour.

While the Obama administration manages to foment racism on two discrete ends of racial extremism, Americans must begin to seriously consider prudence rather than legalism. The founders of this nation did not intend that the First Amendment protect quasi-religious factions dedicated to the destruction of the United States – and I don’t believe our hands are tied as tightly as some like to think they are.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.