In the past week, we’ve seen an almost comical level of political correctness and stupidity coming out of the Left and the usual suspects among supposed conservatives wishing to make themselves “acceptable” to the masters of our academic and pop culture.
Specifically, the smart set devolved into paroxysms of outrage over the announcement of Ted Cruz’ national security team, including as it did such national-security figures as Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy and former CIA analyst Clare Lopez, who rightly decried the destruction of America’s national interest encompassed in the Obama administration’s embrace of the Arab Spring.
Gaffney, who has warned repeatedly of the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence operation within the American government — an endeavor undeniable to anyone possessing familiarity with the government’s treatment of those within it who dared raise questions about the enemy’s threat doctrine in the War of Terror — was castigated as a “notorious Islamophobe,” as designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a leftist propaganda organ which commonly uses libel as a fundraising tactic. For Cruz to include Gaffney in his national security team was sent up as a sign that he wasn’t on board with America’s “smart” approach to the civilizational conflict with militant Islam that, despite the conceits of our betters, has been going on for the better part of 1400 years.
It took just a few days from the commencement of that tempest in a teapot to its boiling-over in Brussels, the seat of not just the European Union and NATO but the continent’s abject surrender to Islam. On Tuesday a well-organized cadre of ISIS terrorists lit off bombs at the city’s airport and a major train station, killing dozens and injuring more than 100. That attack was apparently planned for elsewhere in Europe, but when Belgian police managed to capture Salah Abdeslam, a prime suspect in the November attacks in Paris, the terrorists changed their plans and staged a well-executed assault on Brussels.
Which indicates a level of sophistication far greater than one would expect from the standard jihadist radical. That, built on top of the fact that Abdeslam was caught mere blocks from the house where he grew up in the Brussels suburb of Molenbeek, a rapidly-Islamicized community which, while it’s not quite a no-go zone for the police has become a place where the residents no longer cooperate with law enforcement in any meaningful way, isn’t very encouraging. He managed to hide under the noses of the police in Molenbeek for four months after the Paris attacks, despite perhaps the largest manhunt on the European continent since Joseph Mengele died in Brazil.
In short, Brussels has devolved into yet one more European city with an unassimilable Muslim population rife with jihadists, overwhelmingly dependent on the welfare state and completely hostile to the values and standards of the host country. The terror problem in Brussels is of a piece with the rape problem in Stockholm and Malmo and Cologne, the sexual grooming and white sex slavery of Rotherham and Marseille and the jihadism of Paris — and Europe’s political class has responded to shocking revelation after shocking revelation of the depravity of their new residents with cover-ups and shaming of concerned citizens with terms like “racist” and — here it comes again — “Islamophobe.”
The egg on the faces of America’s politically correct crowd hadn’t even been wiped away when they proceeded to level the same tired charges against Cruz when he made a perfectly rational suggestion; namely, that America ought to enlist local law enforcement in efforts to make sure no American neighborhoods become a Molenbeek.
Which is entirely reasonable. After all, there are areas in, for example, Minneapolis where the Somali population serves as a recruiting hotbed for Al-Shabaab; it’s worth questioning why there are enough Somalis anywhere in America to constitute a large enough community to be noticed, but since they’re here it seems perfectly rational for law enforcement to treat that community as at-risk.
Oh, but no. Cruz’s suggestion was immediately panned as Islamophobic. ThinkProgress actually called the NYPD’s intelligence operation aimed at preventing a reprise of 9/11, which is akin to that prescribed by Cruz, “disastrous” despite the fact New York has escaped a major terrorist incident for the last 15 years.
Leaving aside the dubious nature of “Islamophobia” as a word which even ought to be in common usage, who can deny it’s in America’s interest to use local law enforcement to mitigate the threat of violence from at-risk Muslim communities? Are there not mosques throughout the country (Boston, Oklahoma City, San Bernardino) where a history of jihadism can be proven? Should there not be an effort made to know who the terrorists are before they go active?
Local cops have a long history of infiltrating gangs and organized crime in order to break up threats to the peace. Where there are jihadists planning a Brussels or a Chattanooga or a 9/11, we expect law enforcement to intervene before loss of life occurs. Why wouldn’t the cops be tasked to look out for jihadists?
We’ve been here before. In the 1930s, as German Nazism was on the rise, the German-American Bund flourished as a vehicle for spreading Nazi propaganda and American sympathy for the German cause in an effort to keep this country out of the European war that was to come. But when it became clear that America would eventually join the war on the Allied side the federal government acted quickly and ruthlessly to put the Bund out of business. By the time we did enter the war in December of 1941, it was all but kaput, and whatever was left was quickly mopped up — to such an extent that when the Germans landed saboteurs on the New York and Florida coasts from submarines in 1942 they were quickly rounded up for lack of any support structure of note.
Why on earth would we not seek to repeat the success we had in rolling up the Nazis’ spy and influence operation by enlisting all our assets to insure that American Muslims remain mostly an asset rather than the threat European Muslims present?
It’s mind-boggling that Cruz’s statement is even controversial. But the same people criticizing it were calling his foreign policy team, among whom was a strong element of people who understand the threat the jihad poses, ugly names before Brussels.
You’ll never hear those people admit they have no idea what they’re talking about. It’s not in their DNA. They didn’t get where they are by succumbing to embarrassment at successive failure.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.