The powerful European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, has vowed that “no matter how bad terrorism or the migrant crisis gets, the European Union will never give up on open borders”. In fact, migration is one of his “top policies”. The severity and absurdity of his words are a provocation to the victims of jihadist terror and crime that have ravaged Europe.
In Juncker’s view, wide open borders is “one of the four fundamental freedoms of the founding Treaty of Rome. It is an inviolable principle.” The Treaty of Rome was intended to be about economic solutions, unity, solidarity, peace, fairness, etc. — in other words, good intentions for the whole. To hold the view of indiscriminate open borders no matter what happens is a reckless abandonment of responsible leadership.
Juncker is known as an odd character anyway with his “happy slaps, rambling speeches and jaw-dropping insults”. David Cameron once had to “fend off” Juncker’s attempts to hit him in the face. His absurd comment about the migrant crisis should come as no surprise, given his expect-anything type of persona; but appallingly, Juncker’s view is shared by many Western leaders today, as the strange leftist-jihadist alliance continues to work to the detriment of democratic values and free societies.
When it comes to the connection between Islam and violence against non-Muslims, one fact must be embraced: the majority of those in positions of leadership and authority in the West are either liars or fools, or both.
No other alternative exists.
The reason for this uncharitable assertion is simple: If Islam was once a faraway, exotic religion, today we hear calls for, and see acts of, violence committed in its name—or the name of its deity “Allahu Akbar!”—practically every day. And many of us still have “ears that hear and eyes that see.”
It’s no secret: Muslims from all around the world and from all walks of life—not just “terrorists” or “ISIS”—unequivocally and unapologetically proclaim that Islam commands them to hate, subjugate or kill all who resist it, including all non-Muslim “infidels.”
This is the official position of several Muslim governments, including America’s closest “friends and allies,” like Saudi Arabia and Qatar; it’s the official position of Islamic institutions of lower and higher learning—from Bangladeshi high schools to Egypt’s Al Azhar, the world’s most prestigious Islamic university; and it’s the official position broadcast in numerous languages on Islamic satellite stations that air into Muslim homes around the world.
In short, there’s no excuse today for ignorance about Islam—especially for those in positions of leadership or authority. Yet it is precisely they who most vehemently deny any connection between Islam and violence.
Betty was in the bathroom dyeing her platinum hair black while the kids played with her teenage sister down the hall. Betty had recently left Bob. He’d beaten her, which was officially a crime, but there wasn’t any use in calling the cops. A hometown boy and typesetter for the Limon Leader, Bob knew everybody in their small Colorado burg on the plains, from the police station to the butcher. Betty, my future grandma, was a 23-year-old outsider from Wichita—a social challenge likely not helped by her unapologetic wearing of miniskirts in 1968.
Two years prior, Betty had blown into Limon, 90 miles west of the Kansas border, with her four-year-old daughter, Jeannie, and a pair of go-go boots. Her mom, Dorothy, and little sisters, Polly and Pud (as in “puddin’”) were along, too. Betty and Dorothy both had just washed their hands of Kansas men. Back in Wichita, Dorothy’s third husband, Joe, had strangled her. Betty’s jealous first husband, my biological grandfather, routinely beat her up and, Betty suspected, had paid someone to throw gasoline on her male friend’s face and set it on fire. So Betty and Dorothy piled the kids in a jalopy and headed west, destination unknown, to start over.
“Why Limon?” I asked her once.
“It was where our car broke down,” Betty said with a shrug.
On July 18, a young man stormed through a train outside of Wurzburg, Germany. Crying “Allahu Akbar,” (God is greatest) he brandished an axe high into the air, then slashed at the men and women seated around him. Within minutes, the car, as one person described it, ” looked like a slaughterhouse.”
Then he fled.
By the time the day had ended, five people had been seriously wounded: four on the train, and a woman who had the misfortune of walking her dog at the moment he passed by. She remains in critical condition.
A day later, the Islamic State took credit for the attack, calling the killer, a 17-year-old refugee who was ultimately shot and killed by German police, a “soldier for ISIS.” It was the first full-scale Islamic terrorist attack in Germany.
But it was not the first Islamic terrorist attack on a train. Far from it: starting with the 2004 commuter train bombings in Madrid and the July 7, 2005 bombings of the London Underground, trains and metros have been a common target for extremist groups. Some efforts, like the bombing of the Brussels metro station this past April, succeeded; many more have failed. But the attempts, successful or not, betray a gaping hole in international security, and one that may not be easy to repair.
I received this note from a former Muslim:
“Respected Ms. Geller, I am from a Muslim background, and I am a big fan of your work. I have watched your videos and you inspire me a lot. I have left Islam after having a terrible experience. Islam really ruined my life. Even though I have left Islam, I want some spirituality in my life. What do you suggest me? I will like to encourage you to keep exposing Islam for what it is.”
I asked her if she would write up her story, so that people can understand what actually goes on in devout Muslim families:
Is Islam good for individuals? Is Islam good for societies?
It is almost universally assumed by elites that Islam is good, and that even to ask such questions is offensive. But there is good reason to raise them anyway.
Paris prosecutor Francois Molins said Monday that the Nice truck attacker Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel “showed a certain recent interest for radical jihadist movements.” French interior minister Bernard Cazeneuve likewise said that he “appears to have become radicalised very quickly.” A neighbor of Bouhlel’s wife noted: “Mohamed only started visiting a mosque in April.”
Yet apparently contradicting all this was authorities’ subsequent announcement that Bouhlel had planned his attack for months. Either authorities were caught flat-footed, which would be no surprise, and the neighbor was wrong or lying about Bouhlel’s mosque attendance – or else Bouhlel underwent a serious change, growing more religious and beginning to attend mosque as he began plotting his jihad attack.