Shame on the publishers and editors of the Charlotte Observer. Shame on you for your lack of courage, both intellectual and moral. You know what the truth is about the history of violence that is Islam, but presenting that truth to the public does not serve your political agenda. Whatever that is and what good it's supposed to do I have yet to figure out, so then let me make a couple of points and then ask if you would dare refute them.
- It's pretty well established and undeniable that Islam is deeply and violently anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti western civilization in general.
- In its more contemporary forms and directions it is unseverably linked to the horrors of Nazism.
If the President were to invite a representative of the American Nazi Party to the White House would you be offended and express your outrage at such an act on the editorial page if not the front page of the paper? Of course you would. You pay lip service in sympathy for the victims in Paris and Copenhagen and produce rhetoric about the importance of "freedom of speech" but when it come to actually speaking the truth about the nature of that violence, your silence is deafening if not defining.
So why then do you remain all but silent when President Obama invites members of that same Muslim Brotherhood organization, that consorted and still sympathizes with the Nazis to this day, into the White House? Would you have your readers subscribe to the White House's foolish notion that the ISIS butchers aren't Islamic? OK then answer me this; Just what are the differences between the tactics ISIS is using to conquer today and the tactics Mohamed used in the 7th century? Would you have us entertain the further foolish notion that the actions of the Crusaders of the middle ages provide a thin justification for ISIS barbarity today? Ok then answer me this; Just how many tens of thousands of Europeans were carried off into slavery by Islam's Mediterranean pirates and the Caliphs of Spain?
During the 1930s so called reputable media outlets dismissed the stories of Nazi atrocities against the Jews as "rumors" or simply rhetoric that they had used to win power. A New York Times journalist who was on the scene openly denied the deliberate mass starvation that was being inflicted in Ukraine. Is that the kind of "journalistic tradition" you are trying to uphold? The "rumors" of the Holocaust and the Holodomor were only exposed as truth after a long and terrible war and the end of decades of enslavement in the Soviet empire.
The years of denial and appeasement led to a vicious collaboration between Germany and Russia, a global conflagration and Eastern Europe enslaved for nearly five decades.
Today's modern practitioners of virulent anti-Semitism openly declare both their goals of conquest and enslavement of the West, and demonstrate for all the world to see what lies in store for any who stand in their way. CAIR decries as "hate speech" the accurate labeling of ISIS sawing of the heads of 21 Coptic Christians as "Islamic barbarity". And the denials and appeasement continues.
So just what will it take for the editorial policy of the Observer to acknowledge reality? Must we have our own Islamic no go zones in Charlotte? Must ISIS raise its flag over the Vatican? Public beheadings of the College Cardinals at the Spanish Steps?
I don't harbor the slightest illusion that you will publish this in whole or in part, but I feel an obligation to my conscience to present it.