In a January 29, 2016 article for FrontpageMag, titled “The Hypnotic Dance of Death,” Russian expatriate Alexander Maistrovoy compares the hypnotic dance of a small Siberian carnivore to the “dance of death” that Islamists use to mesmerize western political leaders.
Maistrovoy describes a small Siberian animal, the stoat, which, although tiny by comparison to other animals, is quite adept at trapping and eating much larger and faster animals. He tells us that the stoat doesn’t stalk its prey, it doesn’t sit in ambush, and it doesn’t catch its prey on the run. Instead, it performs a hypnotic dance of death in front of a rabbit or hare with “wriggles, acrobatic leaps and somersaults.” The stoat dazzles its prey with its dance before gradually approaching it and sinking its teeth deep into its throat.
Maistrovoy asks, rhetorically, why the larger animals allow themselves to be bedazzled by the stoat’s deadly dance, a phenomenon that biologists are unable to explain. He compares it to the inability of sociologists or anthropologists to explain why it is that western political leaders seem unable to recognize the obvious danger that Islam represents for all non-Muslims. He notes that, “Western elites have foredoomed their own people by means of somersaults and acrobatic tricks, and doomed them to the same fate of the unfortunate rabbit… ”
A December 17, 2015, letter from Senator James Lankford, Oklahoma’s first-term junior senator, is a perfect example of the head-in-the sand attitude of western political leaders. In response to my earlier letter, in which I requested a direct response from the senator, himself, as opposed to a generic staff-generated “Dear Constituent” response, Lankford began by thanking me for contacting him with my concerns about Islamic immigration. Then he went on to explain that, “The First Amendment to the Constitution protects the right of all Americans to practice the religion they choose, or no religion, without fear of government interference or retribution. He explained, “As a man of faith, I believe each American has the right to choose his or her own belief system. While I do not practice the Muslim faith, I do not believe it is criminal or subversive to simply be a Muslim.”
He goes on to say, “Religious liberty is vital to a free nation. The First Amendment to the Constitution states, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Disruption of religious liberty for one person endangers the liberties of us all.”
What the senator is suggesting, without actually putting it into words, is that all non-Muslim Americans should engage in a suicide pact. What he fails to recognize is that Islam is not a religion, subject to First Amendment protections, as we in western cultures understand the term. Rather, it is a complete political, legal, economic, military, social, and cultural entity, posing as a religion. Wherever we find them, its adherents refuse to assimilate into host country cultures, insisting that they be allowed to exist as a separate and distinct culture, not subject to the laws of their host countries. In order to accomplish their ends, they rely on anti-western directives of the Quran to preach the overthrow of their host governments, by force and violence if necessary.
The senator is apparently unaware that our country has always taken steps to protect itself from domination by foreign ideologies. For example, in reaction to the Communist threat of the Cold War era, the U.S. Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed the Communist Control Act of 1954. Section 2 of the Act reads, in part, as follows:
“The Congress hereby finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States… The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power renders its existence a clear, present, and continuing danger to the security of the United States…”
Under Section 3 of the Act, the Congress unequivocally stripped the Communist Party of any and all constitutional protections. Section 3 reads as follows:
“The Communist Party of the United States, or any successors of such party, regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof… by force and violence, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities which have heretofore been granted to said party or any subsidiary organization by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby terminated…” Is there any plausible reason why we should respond any differently to Islam and its radical adherents?
Donald Trump has suggested that the United States call at least a temporary halt to all Muslim immigration until our Homeland Security officials have developed processes to adequately vet the flow of Muslim migrants. The reaction to his suggestion was swift and predictable. Liberals, Democrats, and members of the mainstream media were quick to denounce him, while members of his own party called upon him to withdraw from the Republican presidential primaries. House Speaker Paul Ryan took the unusual step of denouncing Trump, saying, “Normally, I do not comment on what’s going on in the presidential election. I will take an exception today. This is not conservatism. What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for and, more importantly, it is not what this country stands for.” So how will Senator Lankford and Speaker Ryan react when polls show that the people they represent overwhelmingly agree with Trump? They fail to acknowledge that most Americans do not want Muslims living next door to them, nor do they want to increase our existing Muslim population.
One would think that members of Congress would have at least a minimal understanding of current immigration law. For example, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Public Law 82-414 (the McCarran-Walter Act), Section 212(a), enacted two years prior to the Communist Control Act of 1954, provides no less than 31 criteria under which “classes of aliens shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into the United States.”
Included among these, Section 212(a)(19) bars entry to “any alien who seeks to procure, or has sought to procure, or has procured a visa or other documentation, or seeks to enter the United States by fraud, or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact.” Can all of the “refugees” now seeking asylum in the U.S. provide indisputable evidence that all of the information they have provided is factual and verifiable? Section 212(a)(27) bars all aliens “who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reason to believe, seek to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally, to engage in activities which would be prejudicial to the public interest, or endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States.”
Section 212(a)(28) of the Act denies access to all aliens “who are anarchists, or who have at any time been members of or affiliated with any organization (such as Islam) that advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government of the United States by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.” This is precisely what Donald Trump has suggested, and it is precisely this law that Jimmy Carter cited in his Executive Order of April 7, 1980, in which he invalidated the visas of all Iranians in the country and prohibited the issuance of new visas to Iranians for the duration of the Iranian hostage crisis.
Islam is the only “religious” movement on Earth that proposes to extend its dominion to every corner of the Earth by rape, murder, terror, and oppression. And since the 95% of Muslims who are described as either “moderate” or “un-radicalized” appear unwilling to play an active role in keeping their radicalized brethren in check, we have no long term alternative but to quarantine them… prohibiting them from residing anywhere among the civilized nations of the Earth.
In early September 2015, hundreds of Muslims rioted in the streets of Sidney, Australia, apparently in response to an anti-Islamic film. As wounded police officers were dragged to safety ahead of the advancing mob, the jihadists chanted, “Obama, Obama! We love Obama!”
Yes, they love Obama and it’s pretty clear by now that he loves them. He is the closest thing we have to an Islamic “stoat” who has mesmerized our political leaders, Republicans and Democrats alike, into believing that we have little to fear from Muslim immigration. That simply is not the case. Our political leaders live each day inside protective cocoons, safe from the bloodlust of the Muslim muhajirs, whose sole purpose in life is to impose their brutal 7th century culture on 21st century Judeo-Christian nations. And since our political leaders appear unwilling to do what is necessary to protect us, we will ultimately find ourselves taking matters into our own hands.
On September 12, 1683, the greatest Muslim assault on the Christian world was halted at the gates of Vienna by the combined forces of the Germans, the Poles, and the Lithuanians. Now, in the early years of the 21st century, the German government and other European governments have capitulated and the gates of Vienna have finally been breached. And unless we defeat them in the deserts of the Middle East and in the streets of Europe in the months and years ahead, they will surely confront us at the Statue of Liberty, the Washington Monument. And in the streets of America. If that comes to pass, western civilization will be lost forever.
Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College. He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.