For years we watched the TV series The Flying Nun. We are now watching the made-for-TV spectacle The Flying Imams.
These six imams were behaving precisely the way hijackers might while waiting for and then boarding a domestic American flight, deliberately trying to frighten passengers by praising Saddam Hussein and cursing America, changing assigned seats, asking for seat belt extensions (which can be used as weapons), and loudly chanting Allah Akbar as did the Islamic terrorists aboard the September 11 flights.
Where the "flying nun" went around providing comfort and spreading love, the "flying imams" acted to create discomfort and spread fear. They did not treat their fellow passengers as fellow countrymen but as enemies they wished to intimidate.
The imams, in a move to intimidate Americans into becoming silent sheep, are suing not only the airlines for removing them from the plane, but also those passengers who alerted the plane’s stewards and captains of the unusual and frightening behavior. This lawsuit is a first in American history.
One senses that the lawsuit was the end goal of the coordinated scenario by the flying imams. Its purpose: use the courts to intimidate American citizens and business into accepting and living with further demonstrations by Islamist trouble-makers intent on doing what they want to our civic life whenever and wherever they choose. It is a first step in making our life here in America uncivil and unbearable, as they are doing in dozens of countries around the world. This in-your-face intimidation conveys their message: "Islam rules."
The right of a citizen to protect himself is enshrined in — at least — the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. If so regarding for example, owning arms, then certainly when it comes to notifying authorities of a suspicion that one is to be soon harmed. We call it: self-defense. Indeed, there is no greater act of self-defense that carries with it so little danger than one which simply notifies the immediate authorities. One would think that those against gun ownership would support the notion of foregoing guns and instead using words. Wrong.
Many liberals are against gun ownership not because guns can kill but because they are against the whole notion of self-defense — even verbal self-defense. And as in gun ownership, where critics of it, like Rosie O’Donnell and other celebrity stars, oppose it for you and me, they don’t oppose it for themselves. They own guns. Anyone not of their political belief is, in their mind, a red-neck and hence unentitled to own a gun or even inform authorities. Self-defense, as with gun ownership, is, for the self-styled elites, only for those with "correct" political and social views.
It is similar to free speech. According to liberals, speech calling for the death of President Bush, a heart attack for Dick Cheney, or calling conservatives Nazis or evangelicals bigoted or like terrorists, is First Amendment protected. But speech by leading conservatives is condemned as "hate-speech" and therefore prohibited and censored. For the elitists, the rights granted by our Constitution are for elitist liberals only, not for those conservative "red-necks" and "social straights" who cannot be trusted to live with those freedoms and who must be stopped in the exercise of those freedoms for the sake of defending "minorities."
And who is a minority group? Anyone liberals view as being on their political side — even the Flying Imams and other anti-American Muslims. Though there are hundreds of millions of them they remain, for liberals, a "minority group" given their non-acceptance of mainstream American views.
American Civil Liberties Union types are relishing the opportunity to deny the average American, who the ACLU disdains, from defending himself even when such defense is done simply through speech. They will try to deny you and me not only the Second Amendment but the First as well.
Moreover, liberals don’t want us to go to the police, because they despise the police. Not until they have had a chance to use the courts to tie the hands of the police will liberals accept any police participation. Liberals will use the court to strip the police from any enforcement and decision-making and force them to conform to new, already-in-the-making politically correct guidelines.
As for other liberals, they will take the side of the imams who deliberately tried to frighten American passengers and now are trying to exploit our system to make it illegal for grandma softly to whisper her concern to a policeman, while making it legal to firghten people actually and deliberately if done by Muslims against American Christians or Jews. In fact, over 120 Democrats voted against a Republican-sponsored motion in the House last Friday which would exempt citizens from lawsuits when informing the authorities of suspicious terror-type activity.
There is no question that if a group of Christian clerics got on board a plane and began loudly defending Hitler and scaring people, the ACLU would find it proper if some Jewish passengers were frightened. They would not call the frightened Jews racists. Heck, if someone were on board praising George Bush, they’d find that ample reason to notify the authorities.
In today’s politically correct world the greatest evil is racism. Indeed, we are, it seems, required to first prove we aren’t racist. Why? Because of the left’s assertion, now accepted in all liberal quarters, that all whites are prima facie racist. Self-defense of and by the individual is, the left believes, not important in comparison to first proving you are not a racist against a particular group. One exception, however. Racism against white evangelicals is allowed — proving the adage that there is an exception to every rule.
Years ago, a judge on summary judgement would have thrown out such a case as a denial of the passengers’ elementary First and Second Amendment rights. Indeed, no lawyer would have taken a case defending an imam’s right to terrorize innocent people, deny the need for an airline to protect its passengers, and make it unlawful for an American to ask the police for protection. But in today’s America, the necessity first to prove one isn’t a racist takes precedence over the basic need to try to keep oneself from being blown up on a plane.
We know what’s coming. Soon, only non-Muslims will be stopped and searched by gate attendants, but never Muslims. For, what employer and employee wants to take the chance of being sued as a racist? Worse, soon Islamic preachers and "activists" will on our own American streets freely and openly call for our destruction (as some are already doing ) and be defended as simply exercising their free speech. Yet those who have been threatened by Islamists here will be hauled off to court for "racial finger-pointing" if speaking to the police about the threat. It’s already happening in Europe, where the European Union has created "guidelines" for government officials to keep them from uttering offensive words and phrases — such as "jihad," "Islamic, or "fundamentalist." — when speaking of terrorist attacks.
This is what demented liberalism has brought. This is what the hard-core left of 50 years ago always wanted: the self-destruction of America through its own courts and leaders. At first, this goal was accepted only by a radical fringe. Over time, however, it has percolated through the universities down to many sociologists and legal activists and, now, too many courts. Their philosophy: the citizen is to become the stranger and the stranger the owner. Are we not already becoming strangers in our own land?
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter