Most mornings, I absently-mindedly turn the TV to Fox and Friends as I’m stumbling about engaged in my morning beautification ritual. OK. You got me. In my case, “beautification” is definitely a relative concept on the order of “shovel-ready jobs,” but you get the idea, I’m sure. There is an exception, however. I mean to my watching of Fox and Friends. The beautification problem never goes away.

Friday mornings when Geraldo Rivera is on, I normally mute the damned thing, or change to the History Channel or something similar, but May 8th, woe is me, I didn’t, and as usual, I was complicit in substantially raising my blood pressure.

The narcissistic, self-important…oh, you get the idea, Mr. Rivera was excoriating Pamela Geller, the anti-jihadist activist whose draw Muhammed art contest/conference in Garland, TX was attacked by, you guessed it, jihadists, last weekend. Fortunately, Ms. Geller knows her enemies well and a more than sufficient police security force was present and were able to immediately stop what would surely have been mass murder were they not present.   I’ve also written about that incident in Garland, TX: We Were Lucky, and Garland, TX: The Responsibility Lies With… 

Rivera, as one might expect, while giving very weak lip service indeed to the idea that violence isn’t justifiable, relentlessly attacked Geller, suggesting that she was responsible for the violence directed at her and several hundred innocent Americans. Geller is a hater, her every utterance is “hate speech,” which obviously shouldn’t be allowed, she’s mean and nasty and picks on poor, innocent Muslims, and she isn’t furthering a civil, logical debate, which is what Rivera suggested is needed to convince Jihadists to lay down their arms and sing Kumbaya.

credit: the

credit: the

At least he didn’t agree with the oh-so-smug and nuanced Marie Harf in suggesting that Jihadists may be reformed through job programs, but I’m sure that was only because there wasn’t enough time in the segment for him to get around to it. Oh yes, Rivera admitted, glancingly, that Geller’s speech is First Amendment protected, but dove back into his self-righteous blathering about being very careful never to inflame the hyper-sensitive sensitivities of the perpetually aggrieved adherents of the religion of peace.

It all comes down to this: are we willing, for whatever reason, to limit our discourse to that which will not insult and provoke people for whom our mere existence is insulting and ample provocation for mass murder?

We are dealing with people—and I use that term merely because on the DNA level, they are technically Homo Sapiens—who actually believe their god demands they kidnap, rape, mutilate, crucify, behead and otherwise beat, abuse and murder anyone who does not believe as they do and who will not commit mass murder as they do. Despite their faith specifically admonishing them never to kill fellow Muslims, they do so with glee and in huge numbers, and simply because those fellow Muslims do not believe quite as fervently as do they. These are people who threaten, daily, to commit genocide and whose entire reason for living is taking over the world and remaking it, by force, in their own medieval, brutal, brutish and retrograde image.

We can mollify such people by refraining from drawing images of Muhammed? If we never say anything any Muslim might consider criticism of their religion/politics, this will prevent terrorist massacres? This will satisfy them, change their minds, and guide them off the path of Jihad toward peace and tolerance? I’d no idea creating universal peace was so easy!  Why haven’t we done this earlier?

While their leaders tend to be educated and have enjoyed the benefits of modern, technological society, a great many of their followers are not, know only the Madrassa, and many others are psychopaths and sociopaths, demons in human form, taking advantage of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to act out Satan’s will on their fellow man under religious cover. Our current state of affairs is no different than giving 6th century barbarians modern weapons and allowing them to take over entire nations, which, come to think of it, is precisely what is happening.

Most terrifying, we are on the verge of all but handing the keys to nuclear weapons to the worst Islamist terrorist state in the world. That will be quite the legacy for Barack Obama, particularly if Iran uses nucs to obliterate Washington DC before Mr. Obama can abscond with the silverware as the Clintons did.

Part of the faulty logic employed by Rivera and many other Jihadist sympathizer/enablers is the idea that decent people must never criticize religion in any way. For this supposedly noble sentiment to be even remotely able to pass the laugh test, we must ignore the innumerable instances of progressives ridiculing Christianity and Christians in the vilest possible ways and terms. We must also ignore the wholesale slaughter and extermination of Christians by the oh-so-sensitive Jihadists that are the subject of this little essay.

Let us then employ the calm discourse and logic Rivera so highly esteems.

First, however, we must understand that Islam is not a religion, but a political/economic system with religious overtones to give its otherwise reliably barbaric and despotic practices holy authority and legitimacy. Its holy text actually demands of its adherents brutality, subjugation, enslavement and mass murder. It specifically calls for the murder of Jews, and to a somewhat lesser degree, Christians. Therefore, any application of the most basic logic demands that we recognize that logic will not prevail against the dictates of Islam, for it claims the blessing of god.

We can assume, probably accurately, most Muslims do not wish to harm others, nor would they actively take the path of Jihad, but we can also assume that untold millions of Muslims are at least sympathetic toward, if not outright supporters of, those that will take that murderous path. Logic also demands that we recognize that it is Jihadists that are actually following the letter of their “faith.”

Oh, but there are “moderate” Muslims, and it is their hearts and minds we must win that they reform their faith as Christianity was reformed.

Once again, logic and fact get in the way. Christianity does not mandate the murder of anyone, nor does it mandate the forced conversion of anyone to Christianity. While it is true that in the past, some Christians engaged in murderous excesses, they were not, in any way and in any reasonable interpretation of scripture, following the Bible. Therefore, “reform” of Christianity consisted of doing away with politics and actually following scripture–the separation of church and state–which has led to centuries of the relative absence of religious strife.

But what of Islam? In Islam there is no separation of church and state. The state is the church. To reform Islam will require Muslims to rewrite, or at least to ignore, substantial portions of the Koran. Rivera ridiculed those who point to specific murderous and violent passages of the Koran, but they exist and they motivate millions to murder, wanton slaughter and war.

Again, we come back to the real problem: Islam demands the world be subjugated and converted to Islam, and by force. It demands the enslavement or murder of any that resist. Contemporary jihadists hate Americans because we are, to their way of thinking, “the Great Satan,” the foremost force opposing their dreams of world domination. They save a special hatred for Jews, thus is Israel “the Little Satan.”

It is, therefore, our mere existence that inflames them, that causes them to drive 1000 miles to commit mass murder, and that will cause many more to act on the threats of ISIS.

As much as the Obama Administration would like to ignore it or distract us the war is here, on our soil, and it will worsen. Voluntarily abandoning the First Amendment, our ability to criticize and educate about a murderous and brutal political philosophy masquerading as a religion not only abandons, as Abraham Lincoln called it, our ancient faith, but will do absolutely nothing to convince medieval barbarians to abandon their desires for murder and domination. They need nothing more than the fact that a worldwide caliphate does not yet exist, nothing more than that everyone is not yet a Muslim, and their kind of Muslim, to hate and murder.

Drawings of Muhammed or complaints about any actual criticism of Muslims or Islam are only excuses reserved to fool and motivate the willingly gullible, those willing to betray their birthright in the service of leftist ideology. How can any rational, moral person weep crocodile tears at the faux anguish of a jihadist over a depiction of Muhammed as they plot to cause real anguish: mass murder?

As always, appeasement only invites and encourages war. We do not preserve America by giving up that which makes us American in a vain attempt to salve the eternal outrage of those who are, by their very nature, eternally outraged. Those that think otherwise have unwittingly, and in some cases, proudly, assumed the mantle once beloved of Communists: useful idiots.

Fighting this war begins with each of us. It begins by making such acts of cowardice and stupidity socially painful and costly. It begins with each of us calling such people what they are and making them uncomfortable when they defend or excuse the most vile, vicious and deadly threat of our time. It begins, and becomes successful when such people see those of us willing to fight for America and freedom and western civilization and find themselves, by their warped and diminished reflections in us, ashamed and afraid, of their fellow countrymen who have backbones–at first, and eventually, hopefully, of the Islamist barbarians who long to cut off their worthless heads–and ours–with dull knives.