Monday, August 31, 2015

1st Amendment: Mohammed Cartoons Cross The Line But CAIR Gets Away With Claiming Scott Walker Enables ISIS By Calling Them Muslim Terrorists


Daniel Greenfield

What Exactly Should He Be Calling The Islamic State?
This argument is so stupid that it really ought to come with its own frontal lobotomy. But that doesn't stop assorted Muslim Brotherhood front groups and their lefty useful idiots from making it anyway.

[Ed; What CAIR needs is a U.S. Attorney General/DOJ/FBI investigating the daylights out of them followed by a Congress holding them accountable as "Adhering To" and "Giving Aid and Comfort" to Enemies of the United States.]

U.S. Constitution Article III
Section 3.Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
"With this, Scott Walker is actually enabling ISIS by characterizing their acts as being Islamic terrorism," said Robert McCaw, government affairs manager for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "He is taking a peaceful religion of 1.6 billion people and misappropriating it to ISIS, allowing them to wrap themselves in the religion's name and stake a claim to it."
McCaw was referring to Walker's first foreign policy address as a presidential candidate, delivered on Friday at The Citadel military college in South Carolina, during which he referenced Islamic extremists or radical Islamic terrorism 11 times.
What exactly should he be calling the Islamic State?
Let's set aside the stupid premise of the CAIR argument that the Muslim world is sitting around waiting to decide whether ISIS is Islamic based on what the governor of Wisconsin says. (I'm pretty sure it isn't.)
ISIS is an Islamic terrorist group in the most literal sense possible. It engages in acts of terror in order to impose Islam on others and fulfill Islamic goals. It defines itself as an Islamic organization in both nature and mission.
We can pretend, like John Kerry, that it's un-Islamic, but based on what exactly? ISIS is probably more faithful to the Koran than most Muslim groups out there. And is it really the role of the US government to decide what real Islam is and isn't? What exactly happened to the left's hallowed dedication to separation of church and state? Or does that not apply? Is there to be no separation of mosque and state?
And isn't that kind of ISIS-like?
Walker didn't decide to call ISIS the Islamic State. Its leaders did. And it's in keeping with the commonplace placement of Islam in the name of Islamic terror groups. Shooting the messenger doesn't change the message. The Islamic State is Islam. If McCaw wants to change that, he can take his case to an Islamic theocracy which is qualified to decide the issue.
The United States isn't one of those. Yet.

No comments: