Silent Moderate Muslims

The recent massacre in Paris has brought again to the fore the question of what so-called moderate Muslims are doing to rid their religion of the cancer that is radical Islam.  In the aftermath of the mass murders, there has been nary a word spoken by moderate Muslims condemning the atrocity. 

There are several instances where moderates within the Islamic community stand by and approve of the machinations of ISIS by their unwillingness to speak out against them.  Whether this unwillingness is fueled by fear or reprisal or tacit approval of what ISIS is doing, it's tantamount to support of the aims and methods employed by ISIS to establish a caliphate based on sharia law throughout the world.

When the mass exodus out of Syria began, women and children featured in the pathetic throngs that were doing whatever they could, however they could, to escape what many in the West believed was certain death.  But as time wore on, the long lines of refugees began to look frighteningly similar:  Men of military age outnumbered women and children to the point that almost none were seen in the long lines that approached European borders and train stations.  Either all the women and children had been left behind or something else was afoot.

It's easy to work on the sympathy of peoples whose natural inclination is to help others.  This is yet another of the cynical tactics employed by ISIS to infiltrate the West with the goal of ultimately establishing their caliphate.  Rather than scrutinize the worn and tattered refugee groups, the Europeans and to a lesser extent the Americans are turning a blind eye to a tactic made famous by Homer.  Once in the more permissive societies they seek to conquer, ISIS foot soldiers will wreak havoc on their refuges in the hopes of weakening them to the point that they can then bring them down and put the caliphate in their place.

The troublesome part in this charade is that moderate Muslims, when confronted by the press, say all the right things about how they loathe the oppressiveness of sharia law, how they reject the bloodlust that is being used to install sharia law and how open they are to living in a pluralistic society.  Yet they do next to nothing to combat radical Islam, going so far as to remain silent about ISIS infiltrators among their ranks as they cross borders.

It's been shown that at least one or two of the murderers in Paris crossed into Europe with refugees.  Did not one actual refugee recognize this plant somewhere along the way?  Was he too scared to report the infiltrator to the authorities?  How is this even possible?

In this country, I haven't heard one notable American Muslim speak out about the outrages committed by their correligionists.  Before I began this post, I looked up Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to see whether he'd spoken out about ISIS.  His point -- that ISIS is no more a representation of Islam as the KKK is of Christianity -- has some merit.  Yet he last spoke about this issue a year ago.  Since that time there have been several atrocities committed by ISIS with nary a word uttered by Mr. Abdul-Jabbar.  There are several athletes in this country who have converted to Islam and I don't recall hearing any of them speaking out against ISIS.  But if Trayvon Martin is gunned down by an overeager neighborhood watch person, or Michael Brown is killed while attacking a copy, we hear from these athletes in one form or another.  Which is the bigger threat:  Rogue cops or ISIS?

The notion that moderate Muslims can stand by silently and claim innocence will be tested if and when ISIS accomplishes its goal.   To mix religious affiliations, I mention the Lutheran pastor Martin Niemoller, who penned the unforgettable poem that is as applicable to moderate Muslims as it was to all those who took no action against the Nazis more than fifty years ago:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Moderate Muslims live in the West because of the freedoms we have.  If they hope to continue to enjoy those freedoms they'd better start speaking up, or their moves to the West will have been for naught.

(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Cankles and the Truth

So the latest Benghazi hearings have concluded, and Cankles is being hailed as a victor in some parts. She has, according to the brainwashed masses, proven her mettle and shown the politically-motivated Republicans what she's really made of.

Well, yes...and no.

To begin, she's not shown that she didn't make mistakes, or that she didn't lie, or that she's capable of taking responsibility for her guilt of omission.  She pandered to her base, mugged for the camera and condescended to duly-elected officials.  The later release of emails by the State Department contradicted her testimony in part.  The trouble is that Marco Rubio's right:  Cankles has the biggest Super-PAC of them all, the MSM.

It matters now how clear-eyed the electorate may be.  The MSM is going to spin Cankles' story so that it can be there if she's elected the first woman president in the country's history.  Nevermind that she's a compulsive liar and narcissist.  She's a woman, and the MSM wants to ride the glory train with her like it did with Mr. Obama.

Allow me to state it once more:  I fully support the notion of a woman president.  It's overdue.  As with any other first, however, the right person has to be that first whatever president.  George Washington was our first president, and the choice was inspired.  Mr. Obama was (nominally) our first black president, but the choice wasn't inspired so much as it was pre-packaged. 

The list of indiscretions -- to choose a less-than-inflammatory word -- connected to Cankles is sordid:

--  Benghazi

-- Email server and FBI statements about the investigation

-- Clinton Foundation donations

-- Various misstatements, e.g., dodging sniper fire in Sarajevo

-- Lack of accomplishments

--  Husband getting preferential treatment from State Department

-- Huma Abedin issues

--  Side-stepping issues

-- Roping off the press

--  Lying about policy stances

This doesn't include her less than stellar tenure as a senator or first lady, but that would be piling on.

It's not going to get much better over the next few months before primary season begins in earnest.  The movie about Benghazi is coming out in January, right before the Iowa caucus vote, and more emails will be released.  The FBI investigation will continue with who-knows-what revelations that will provide. 

Add to all this is the fact that Cankles isn't exactly the most likeable candidate out there and that she faces formidable opposition from a number of potential Republican nominees and it's easy to see that Cankles' coronation is far from certain.  At the root of her problems, however, is her relationship with the truth.  Cankles plays lawyers' games with the truth to suit whatever story she's trying to peddle.  The American people deserve better than that.  The presidency isn't a ceremonial position that looks good on a resume.  One doesn't run for the office simply for the sake of history.  If that's the intention, she should tell us now, because her words are empty and meaningless, given the inaction that usually precedes or follows.  Cankles' relationship with the truth is devoid of any meaning, and that's not good for this country or her citizens.

(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles