Armed with apologies and shielded with hope 8

No satire could surpass the reality of the Obama administration’s stupid pretense that the attempt by the Muslim terrorist, Faisal Shahzad, to set off a car bomb in New York had nothing to do with Islam’s jihad against America and the whole non-Muslim world.

Ann Coulter – whom we like for making us laugh, though we stop our ears when she beats her Christian drum – writes here about the administration’s non-existent strategy for combating terrorism while refusing to notice the common motivation of the terrorists.

Extract:

It would be a little easier for the rest of us not to live in fear if the president’s entire national security strategy didn’t depend on average citizens happening to notice a smoldering SUV in Times Square or smoke coming from a fellow airline passenger’s crotch.

But after the car bomber and the diaper bomber, it has become increasingly clear that Obama’s only national defense strategy is: Let’s hope their bombs don’t work!

If only Dr. Hasan’s gun had jammed at Fort Hood, that could have been another huge foreign policy success for Obama.

The administration’s fingers-crossed strategy is a follow-up to Obama’s earlier and less successful “Let’s Make Them Love Us!” plan.

In the past year, Obama has repeatedly apologized to Muslims for America’s “mistakes.” …

He has apologized to the entire Muslim world for the French and English colonizing them — i.e. building them flush toilets.

He promised to shut down Guantanamo. And he ordered the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to be tried in the same courthouse that tried Martha Stewart.

There was also Obama’s 90-degree-bow tour of the East and Middle East. For his next visit, he plans to roll on his back and have his belly scratched like Fido.

Despite favorable reviews in The New York Times, none of this put an end to Islamic terrorism.

So now, I gather, our only strategy is to hope the terrorists’ bombs keep fizzling. …

If our only defense to terrorism is counting on alert civilians, how about not bothering them before they board airplanes, instead of harassing them with useless airport “security” procedures?

Both of the attempted bombers who sailed through airport security, I note, were young males of Middle Eastern descent. I wonder if we could develop a security plan based on that information? …

Who on earth made the decision to allow Shahzad the unparalleled privilege of becoming a U.S. citizen in April 2009?

Our “Europeans Need Not Apply” immigration policies were absurd enough before 9/11. But after 19 foreign-born Muslims, legally admitted to the U.S., murdered 3,000 Americans in New York and Washington in a single day, couldn’t we tighten up our admission policies toward people from countries still performing stonings and clitorectomies?

  • C. Gee

    snark:

    “Due process” can take many forms. Military tribunals offer due process. Any and all privileges and rights of citizenship may be forfeited – under law. Some acts might by their very nature bring about instant forfeiture of certain rights of the perpetrator. Certain acts of war, for example, like leaving a car to explode in a city street , may call forth a different set of due process rules for the perpetrator than the criminal code. The legal question is “did he do it” – similar to “is he an enemy combatant” for military tribunals. Once it is established that he did – and a confession will suffice – there is no need for further due process. Punishment is the next step.

    A set of policies – including immigration, and enforcing laws against sedition (even when sheltered by religion), not permitting religious exemptions to enforcement of laws, not permitting religious practices which break laws – would go some distance in protecting Americans from a self-declared enemy. Maybe grant an appeal. But why have a jury?

    Your civil libertarian piety rings hollow in a war that is being waged on the streets here and now. Calling the war random acts of criminality does not alter the reality of the belligerence. They are at war with us. We had better recognize that.

    • snark

      But why have a jury?

      Why not? It's one of the things that sets us apart from the culture of the jihadis that you are abhorred by. So why abandon it. It appears that Shahzad has indeed confessed. The evidence should be overwelmingly enough to easily convict him and send him to prision for the rest of his life. Even in a court with a jury trial. So why not.

      I understand that there are actions by which persons can forfeit their rights and even their citizenship. And if Shahzad is convicted of a crime that warrants that then his citizenship should be revoked. But why revoke it before he is convicted? Why are you affraid of our system of justice? How does a military tibunal make us any safer?

      A set of policies – including immigration, and enforcing laws against sedition (even when sheltered by religion), not permitting religious exemptions to enforcement of laws, not permitting religious practices which break laws – would go some distance in protecting Americans from a self-declared enemy.

      Perhaps they can bring back the Alien and Sedition Act? What religious practices which break laws are currently permitted?

      Your civil libertarian piety rings hollow in a war that is being waged on the streets here and now. Calling the war random acts of criminality does not alter the reality of the belligerence. They are at war with us. We had better recognize that.

      How do you propose to win this war? By further radicalizing billions of muslims? Do you think you can kill all the radicals without just creating even more to take their place? Do you think you can voilently eradicate Islam? Do you think having president Obama stand up and declare war on Islam would make the people of the US any safer? If people like yourself were incharge of our foreign policy you would really know what war in the streets looked like. And our Constitution would be in tatters. But from everything you write it seems that's what you really want.

  • snark

    And what do you, and Ann Coulter, propose that Obama should do to prevent a person from loading their car full of propane, gasoline and gunpowder and making it into a bomb? How does the president develop a national security policy that prevents that? I'll remind you that Timothy McVeigh was not a muslim or of Middle Eastern descent.

    And no harsh words for the GOP Senators who want to deny terror suspects, even those who happen to be AMerican citizens their Miranda warnings but can't comprehend the usefulness of denying people on the terrorism watch list of the right to purchase firearms? How do you defend that?

    • Jillian Becker

      Snark –
      From Obama we know better than to expect – with dread and disgust – anything but the further destruction of whatever's best about America, the America that stands for and embodies the ideal of individual liberty.

      A different, pro-American, president would start by naming the enemy – Islam – and then form effective policy. He or she would appoint competent people to carry it out, not someone clueless like Janet Napolitano.

      Long may American citizens be armed to protect themselves against all assailants and enemies, including jihadis and the enforcers of tyranny!

      • snark

        So no answers just generalizations about a “different” president forming an “effective policy”. Blah blah blah.

        From your failure to address my questions I take you are ok with people like Sen Lindset Graham protecting the right of people like Faisal Shahzad to purchase whatever legal firearms he would like to? Apparently he thinks “jihadis” have the right to be armed as well.

        And how exactly is declaring “Islam” to be our enemy going to stop someone from doing what Shahzad did? Namely, filling a car with a bunch of easily available off the shelf items and turning it into a rolling bomb? How do you prevent this without trampling on “individual liberty”?

        And what exactly is the problem with “mirandizing” terror suspects. The US justice system has functioned well for over 200 years. What's the fear about trying terror suspects in a court of law? Isn't that fact that we recognize the rights of people, even terrorists, what makes our nation and its Constitution better than places like the nations of the Middle East where they do not? Why do you want the US to be more like the terrorist breeding grounds?

        • Jillian Becker

          Shahzad didn't carry out his act of terrorism with a gun.

          No one can stop people buying stuff and using it to harm their neighbors. But as Islam is waging war against us, what Muslims do and preach inside America should be watched with deep suspicion and in readiness to act.

          Never in the history of the world (until now in America under the Obama administration) have enemy combatants been allowed the civil rights of citizens. A traitor should instantly lose his citizen's rights. He has by his actions repudiated them.

          Whose side are you on?

        • snark

          Shahzad didn't carry out his act of terrorism with a gun.

          But he could have. So you avoided the question again. Do you believe people on the terrorist watch list should be able to legally purchase something like an AK-47? And if one does and walks into Times Square and opens fire on innocent people will you blame President Obama as well?

          No one can stop people buying stuff and using it to harm their neighbors. But as Islam is waging war against us, what Muslims do and preach inside America should be watched with deep suspicion and in readiness to act.

          Do you believe that the same is true of American militia memebers like the Hutaree members who were plotting terrorist attacks against American law enforcement personnel? You seem interested in giving the Federal government pretty broad powers of monitoring private behavior. What happens when they use similiar justification to monitor say Fundimentalist Christians who threaten violence against doctors who provide abortion services? Should the Feds monitor them as well?

          Never in the history of the world (until now in America under the Obama administration) have enemy combatants been allowed the civil rights of citizens.

          But what is it that is so bad about that? How does that make us less safe?

          A traitor should instantly lose his citizen's rights. He has by his actions repudiated them. Instantly? Without due process? Some federal government department should just be able to make that decision before he is deemed guilty of anything? Shahzad is an American citizen. You think he should be stripped of his citizenship immediately before he has received due process before the law? And you are the one's sticking up for individual liberty? Do you feel the same about the Hutaree members? How about the guy who flew his plane into the IRS offices in Texas? Did he forfeit his citizenship by attacking the American government?

          Whose side are you on?

          Why, is my loyalty in question simply because I am asking you to explain your positions? Perhaps you think I should have my citizenship revoked too?

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention The Atheist Conservative: » Armed with apologies and shielded with hope -- Topsy.com()