If the latter sounds implausible — and I’m sure a great many people view it that way — consider what might happen if a certain political party wins the next election.
That party has already demonstrated that it’s willing to back agendas that are both radical and socially destructive. For example, on January 25, candidate Joe Biden tweeted, “Let’s be clear: transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time.” At about the same time, candidate Elizabeth Warren promised a nine-year-old “transgender” child that before appointing a Secretary of Education, she would first get “Jacob’s” approval. That can change of course. Should a new group with a better story of victimization show up, their equality would soon become “the civil rights issue of our time.” If a group of aliens from outer space landed, that would be best of all. It would be the ultimate opportunity for liberals to display their tolerance of the “other.”
But since there are, as far as we know, no aliens from outer space, how about an alien culture — a culture whose beliefs and traditions are almost the inverse of traditional American beliefs? Should Democrats win the next election, don’t be surprised if Muslim rights suddenly replace transgender rights as “the civil rights issue of our times.”
Islamic activist groups such as CAIR and ISNA have already positioned themselves as civil rights organizations. They claim that the population they represent has been victimized by discrimination, unjust immigration policies, and hate crimes. What’s more, American Muslims also happen to belong to a worldwide community of believers which numbers 1.7 billion people. And the vast majority of the global Muslim community care very little about the rights of the transgender community. Should Democrats prevail in November, Warren’s friend, Jacob, could get kicked to the back of the bus — if not under the bus.
To be sure, liberals have already expressed their support of Islam in various ways. One poll revealed that two-thirds of Democrat voters consider Islam to be no more violent than Christianity. And, as we have seen, liberal judges backed by liberal politicians have blocked every attempt by the current administration to ban Muslim migration from certain countries. Moreover, American educators who have been happy to affirm and promote radical views of gender and sexuality won’t hesitate to promote Islam’s radical ideology. In fact, they’ve already begun to act as advocates for Islam. In many schools across the land, middle-school history texts present a whitewashed picture of Islamic history, while in elementary schools, children are asked to memorize the Shahada — the Islamic confession of faith in Allah and his prophet, Muhammad.
And then there are the politicians. The current frontrunner for the Democrats is Bernie Sanders. He’s also the current favorite among Muslim voters, of whom two-thirds are Democrats and only 13 percent are Republicans. In August, Sanders was one of the featured speakers at the Islamic Society of North America convention in Houston, where he received a standing ovation for his promise to overturn President Trump’s travel ban. In addition, Sanders appointed a Muslim as his campaign manager, visited a Los Angeles mosque to commemorate the victims of the New Zealand mosque attacks, appointed Islamist activist Linda Sarsour as a surrogate, and received endorsements from representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.
Meanwhile, according to a piece published in the Middle East Forum, “Elizabeth Warren has been staking out a position as defender of the American Muslim community against the supposed white nationalism of Donald Trump.” Like Sanders, she has also been a featured speaker at questionable Islamic venues such as the Massachusetts chapter of CAIR and the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center which, according to the author, has “deep connections to terrorism.”
Joe Biden? Well, Biden’s main claim to fame is that he was Obama’s VP, and that he was a central figure in carrying out the Obama agenda. Thus, we can assume that, if elected, he would continue the Islamic-friendly policies of the Obama administration.
How friendly? Well, in a speech before the UN, President Obama said that “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.” When you think about it, that’s a strange thing for the President of the United States to say. Was it just a reminder to be more tolerant of other people’s faith? Or was it a threat along with the lines of “obey Islam’s blasphemy laws, and nothing will happen to you; otherwise … ”
In fact, Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, worked closely with the powerful Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to curb speech that was critical of Islam or its prophet. In other words, Clinton put the resources of the State Department in the service of Islam’s blasphemy laws. In this regard, it’s instructive to recall that Clinton’s top aide and confidant, Huma Abedin, had close family and professional ties to the Muslim Brotherhood — a group that champions the blasphemy laws and other provisions of sharia. The Brotherhood, which has been identified as a terrorist organization by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, is sometimes referred to as the “mother of all terrorist groups.”
Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood should have disqualified her for a security clearance, but it would have been “Islamophobic” to say so. It would also have been “Islamophobic” to note that the Obama administration actively abetted the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt under Mohamed Morsi. As Andrew McCarthy, the former federal attorney who prosecuted the Blind Sheik, noted, “the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer $1.5 billion dollars in aid to Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory in the parliamentary elections.” McCarthy also noted that “on a trip to Egypt, Secretary Clinton pressured … (the) head of the military junta … to surrender power to the parliament dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood” and to Morsi.
Of course, the Obama administration’s aid to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was dwarfed by its generosity to Iran’s radical Islamist leaders. Despite its reputation as the world’s leading sponsor of terror, the Iranian regime was showered with money by the Obama administration in return for a nuclear deal that served only to increase Iran’s ability to threaten the world.
Back on the home front, the situation was no better. In response to pressure from Muslim Brotherhood- linked activist groups, John Brennan, then Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, wrote to the FBI and other security agencies voicing Muslim claims that the FBI was using training material that was “highly offensive” to Muslims.
As a result, the FBI and about two dozen other security agencies underwent a purge of any materials that suggested a connection between Islam and terrorism. Radical Islamist groups had, in effect, been given veto power over national security policy.
Meanwhile, some of our security agencies seem to have been severely compromised by Islamic influence. Philip Haney, a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security, provides one example. In his book See Something, Say Nothing, Haney claims that the agency’s policy of “Countering Violent Extremism” had been shaped in large part by “leaders of Muslim Brotherhood front groups.” According to a report in WND, Haney told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee that “the Obama administration ‘modified’ or eliminated more than 800 of his records related to the Muslim Brotherhood network in the United States because they were deemed to be an offense to Muslims.” Haney’s recent death under suspicious circumstances suggests that those networks are still active.
Islamic activists exerted an outsize influence on the Obama administration, and it seems fair to say that had Clinton succeeded Obama as president, their influence would have continued to grow.
Luckily, we dodged that bullet. But the radical Islamic activists didn’t go away. They have been biding their time, and working behind the scenes waiting for another opportunity to arise. The opportunity they’re waiting for may come in November. If Democrats should regain control of the government, we can expect a significant expansion of Islamist power in the United States.
Why? Well, because the current crop of Democrats is even more radical than the Democrats of four years ago. It seems that no idea is too extreme for them to embrace. Encourage pre-teens to transition to the opposite sex? What’s wrong with that? Switch to a socialist economy? Why not? It worked for Cuba, didn’t it? Abridge free speech so that no one’s feelings will get hurt? (Don’t worry, you’ll still be able to say what you want as long as the Ministry of Safe Speech approves). Raise taxes on everyone? Sure. How else are we going to pay for free college and Medicare for all?
The point is, that candidates who believe in the viability of such proposals are capable of believing anything. They’ll believe that “Islam” means “peace,” and that increased immigration from Islamic societies will only enrich our society. And they’ll have no problem with appointing someone named, say, Abu Bakr Allah Akbar as head of Homeland Security. Of course, they won’t deem it necessary to vet Mr. Akbar. It would be offensive to put him through the humiliation of getting a security clearance. In fact, it would be Islamophobic.
But who, one might ask, would vote for candidates with such suicidal inclinations? Well, how about the 51 percent of young Americans who, thanks to their leftist professors, view socialism more positively than capitalism? Who would vote for the Democratic slate in the next election? Well, just about anyone who feels he deserves a free college education, loan forgiveness, Medicare for all, and a minimum wage sufficient to cover all of life’s expenses. In other words, there is a sizable number of people who are looking to the government to take care of them. So, it’s no small matter that the candidate who currently leads the Democrat pack is an avowed socialist, and that the rest of the candidates lean only slightly less to the left.
The defeat of the Democrats will be no slam dunk. In addition to the perennial appeal of the socialist solution, there are half a dozen other factors that could change the odds in favor of the hand-wavers party. Last week brought warnings of a global pandemic which, in turn, sparked a 4,000 point selloff in the stock market, and fueled speculation about a possible recession. The “black swans” have suddenly made their appearance and are flapping all around us. So, it’s likely that more people are beginning to wonder if the old guy with the flapping arms and the angry eyes isn’t right about the evils of capitalism.
The possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood could sweep back into the corridors of power suddenly seems less remote. In fact, the Islamists never really abandoned those corridors. Although President Trump vowed in a 2016 speech that “support networks for radical Islam will be stripped out and removed one by one,” there is not much evidence that this has happened.
In an article for the Middle East Quarterly, Sam Westrop points out that, with the exception of shutting down the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism program (which had been compromised by Islamist involvement), “Islamism is flourishing.” Westrop maintains that “support networks for radical Islam remain intact, and leading Islamist organizations continue to enjoy government endorsement and patronage.”
Under the Obama administration, the deep state had been thoroughly seeded with Islamist sympathizers, and, to all appearances, the Trump administration has not been successful in rooting them out. With the Democrats in power once again, Islamist influence on government and society will almost certainly be greatly magnified.
One can also expect an increase in Islam’s global power. Although the advent of the Trump administration didn’t put an end to Islamist penetration of the deep state, it did mark a turnaround in American policy toward global Islamic expansion. The Trump administration instituted more realistic policies on borders and immigration, strengthened our relationship with Israel, and delivered a serious setback to ISIS. In addition, Trump pulled out of the suicidal Iran nuclear deal, increased sanctions on Iran, and, through the elimination of General Soleimani, served notice that Iranian aggression would no longer be tolerated.
Should Sanders or Warren or Biden or (insert your favorite Democrat candidate here) win in November, those gains will be rolled back, and the U.S. will revert to the Obama-era policy of appeasement and enablement of Islam. A Democrat victory means that the hand of Islam will be strengthened both within and without the borders of the U.S.
President Ronald Reagan reminded us that “freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” Now we need to contend with the possibility that the extinction of freedom is only one election away.
William Kilpatrick is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right from Wrong; Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West; and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. Professor Kilpatrick’s articles on cultural and educational topics have appeared in First Things, Policy Review, American Educator, and various scholarly journals. His articles on Islam have appeared in Crisis, Catholic World Report, The Catholic Thing, National Catholic Register, and other publications. He is also the author of Insecurity, a dark comedy about political correctness run amok in the military and the government. For more of his recent articles, visit his website, turningpointproject.com.