Comments (60) | Add a comment
Sherman Frederick
Call evil by its rightful name
Updated: Apr. 10, 2012 | 9:57 a.m.
This column is not for the politically correct moral relativist.
So if you can't stand the thought of clearly naming (and confronting) the evil of terrorism among us, I'd ask you to move along now. The rest of us need to plainly think about how the "can't-we-all-just-get-along" approach to public safety endangers everyone.
Consider the current example of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who joined (or should we say was "embedded" with?) the U.S. Army and then massacred 13 unarmed soldiers at Fort Hood.
So long as American liberals, beginning with President Barack Obama, can't muster the honesty to call the acts of evil by Maj. Hasan by their rightful name, our citizens remain sitting ducks for those who, at this very moment, plot to do us harm. This is a teaching moment, Mr. President. Repeat after me ...
... Nidal Hasan is a jihadist.
... Nidal Hasan committed acts of terrorism.
... Nidal Hasan is every ounce the terrorist as the 9/11 hijackers.
... Nidal Hasan warrants no less serious scrutiny than Timothy McVeigh, who, by the way, was a certified, no-question-about-it terrorist.
Why is that not plain as day? Because for moral relativists (like our president), there is no right and wrong -- only shades of gray. They urge accommodation of evil in the name of tolerance.
It's why we negotiate with Iran.
It's why old ladies in wheelchairs get frisked at the airport while guys with beards and bombs in their shoes walk through unchecked.
It's why police who pull over a Mexican national with drug priors in a routine traffic stop don't check the credentials of his look-a-like passengers in the car.
It's why we forbid soldiers on a military base from carrying weapons.
It's why the Las Vegas police run background checks on casino workers, but then can't sort the work cards by countries of origin like, say, countries on the terrorist watch list.
Maj. Hasan is simply the latest sad case in point.
Maj. Hasan spoke openly (and ignorantly) about how his Muslim faith demanded the severed heads of infidels. He argued against Muslim soldiers killing other Muslims in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He kept counsel with radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki, who had previous contact with two of the 9/11 hijackers.
Investigators speaking on the condition of anonymity told reporters they wanted to investigate Maj. Hasan thoroughly but feared they would be "crucified" if they launched a probe into a Muslim officer communicating with his imam.
So instead of a clear-headed, hard-nosed investigation of this budding terrorist, authorities demurred and, in deference to the punitive policies of the Obama administration, placed public safety behind political correctness.
Even now, well after the massacre when it is clear Maj. Hasan the jihadist demanded scrutiny, our president still can't bring himself to use the word "terrorism."
Instead, he tells us not to jump to conclusions.
Jump to conclusions?
Mr. President, Maj. Hasan talked with co-workers about cutting off the heads of infidels. He maintained ties to a radical imam and, finally, he killed 13 U.S. soldiers while screaming "Allahu Akbar!" And you ask us not to jump to conclusions?
That's just crazy talk. So long as the president maintains that wingnut PC attitude which says the only moral clarity is that there is no moral clarity, his ability to make the hard decisions to keep us safe remains questionable.
Stand by for more terrorism. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the unvarnished truth.
Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@ reviewjournal.com) is publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Is Sherm on the CIA payroll? Is Warren? Or, are they on the payrolls of any one or more of our other intelligence community entities?
These are legitimate questions with a "yes" or "no" answer. Sherm? Warren?
How many members of our intelligence community operatives will Sherm be getting drunk with this Holiday Season?
How about Warren?
Ideologically, Obama and his Dem Congressional minions are all socialist pacifist liberals. It is their PC sacrament to dis America , blame White Western Civilization for America's and the global problems to create victims that will be dependent on the Dem Party here. Then globally, the USA will simply be another Zimbabwe where we redistribute monies, tax the rich, forget our own national security, our own domestic energy resources which would make our military unbeatable and keep our nation warm and running up to speed. Liberals have to be PC because they have lost hope in American exceptionalism as well as the Creator who made America from its foundation a noble experiment for liberty and freedom. Liberals really don't like those two attributes because people tend to choose them over tyrannical government fiat. So, of course, Islamofascism must not be named as an enemy because Obama is an egalitarian who does not believe anyone, thing, idea can ever be equated as superior or right.
Another diversionary story from the real enemy of the working class. To find out more about this war on the working class, see theamericaninjusticesystem.blogspot.com