by Paul R. Hollrah –
The opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games are always a breathtaking spectacle. With each Olympic experience, one wonders what great technical and artistic miracles special effects technicians will produce for future Olympic ceremonies. This year we were told that we could also look forward to seeing the greatest Olympian of all time, Michael Phelps… the winner of 19 gold medals in previous Olympics… marching at the head of the U.S. contingent, proudly carrying the stars and stripes.
But when the U.S. team entered the stadium we were immediately distracted. There, in the first row of athletes, just off Phelps’ left shoulder, was a young Muslim woman wearing a hijab. What were the chances that, of the 554 members of the U.S. team, the one Muslim athlete on the team would end up marching in the front row? Was it an accident… pure chance? Or was she purposely placed in the front row by U.S. Olympic officials in an excess of political correctness?
It didn’t take long for the young woman, Ibtihaj Muhammad, to answer that question for us. In an interview with the Associated Press, she said, “I wish that, not just my life, but the lives of Muslims all over the world were a little bit easier, particularly in the United States. I’m hoping that with my first time appearance as a member of Team USA here at the Olympics, I’m hoping that the rhetoric around the Muslim community will change.” She went on to say, “I am excited to represent not just myself, my family, and my country – but also the greater Muslim community.”
A report in the August 8, 2016 edition of frontpagemag.com, titled “Muslim-American Olympian Criticizes her Country,” explained that, while Michael Phelps was elected by his teammates to carry the American flag, he was pressured to decline the honor in favor of Ms. Muhammad. According to the report, a CNN op-ed piece addressed to Phelps by W. Kamau Bell, suggested, “America has enough tall, successful rich white guys hogging the spotlight,” and that, “Muhammad carrying the flag would be nearly a one-stop inclusion shop.”
One wonders whether Ms. Muhammad has ever expressed concern over the difficulty of everyday life for Christians living in countries with Muslim majorities… assuming they are even allowed to live there. It is difficult to avoid the thought of what fate might have in store for a young Christian or Jewish woman who might go to a Muslim country and complain publicly about her “treatment.”
It was also interesting to ponder the nature of Ms. Muhammad’s sport. Was she a swimmer, a diver, a volleyball player, or a gymnast? We could quickly reject all of those possibilities because of the skimpiness of the costumes worn in those events. Participation in any of those sports would have made her an immediate target of Muslim religious police who might have had her stoned to death for exposing too much of her body. Or they might have ordered her father or a brother to kill her in an “honor killing” for bringing shame upon her family name.
As it turns out, Ms. Muhammad’s sport of choice is fencing. This is understandable because, given the penchant of Muslims for hacking, stabbing, or slashing non-Muslims with knives, axes, machetes, and other sharp instruments, it’s only natural that Ms. Muhammad would gravitate toward the fencing competition. Fighting and attacking others with knives and other sharp objects appears to be in the Muslim DNA.
If Ms. Muhammad is unhappy in America, or made to feel ill at ease, one wonders why she continues to live here. She is certainly free to live in any one of the many majority Muslim countries of the world. She would likely be unable to drive an automobile, go to college, marry the man of her choice, participate in sports, or leave her home without being accompanied by her father or a brother. But what the heck… if that would make her happy then she should go for it. Most Americans would be happy to help defray the cost of a one-way plane ticket to the destination of her choice.
Like most Muslims in the U.S., Ms. Muhammad appears to be upset that she is expected to fully assimilate into American society. It has apparently escaped her attention that, when Germans, Swedes, and Norwegians arrived in America, they made no demands that the people already here must become Lutherans. She is apparently unaware that, when Italians and the Spanish arrived here in large numbers, they made no demands that all Jews and Protestants must convert to Catholicism. And when the British began arriving here in the 16th century, they made no demands that all Native Americans must swear allegiance to the Anglican Church or forfeit their lives. Yet, in the late 20th century and the early 21st century, Muslims emigrating to America arrive here fully convinced that it is their duty to ultimately convert all non-Muslim Americans, and that the U.S. Constitution and U.S. federal and state law should be superseded by Sharia law.
In a July 14, 2016 article in the Washington Times, titled “Deport all Muslims who support shariah law,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is quoted as saying that, while all Muslim mosques should be monitored, the American ruling class is afraid to do so. He said, “This is the fault of Western elites who lack the guts to do what is right, to do what is necessary… We better rethink the rules, or we’re going to lose the war.” He concluded by suggesting that we should identify all Muslims who believe in Sharia law over U.S. law and deport those who do.
Gingrich’s politically incorrect suggestion created a firestorm of criticism from liberals and Democrats, much like Donald Trump’s suggestion that all Muslim immigration should be put on hold until we find a way to adequately vet them. What critics fail to understand is that we already have sufficient statutory authority to do exactly as Trump and Gingrich suggest.
For example, every Muslim immigrant who obtains U.S. citizenship though the naturalization process is required to take the statutory citizenship oath, as prescribed by Congress. The oath reads, in part, as follows: “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same… and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
In other words, the U.S. citizenship oath requires all immigrants, including Muslims, to renounce all other allegiances and requires them to agree to abide by the U.S. Constitution and all federal and state laws. And if an immigrant later decides that he/she cannot abide by that oath, and insists upon subjecting themselves to a legal system other than U.S. law, U.S. law provides that they may be subject to a process called “denaturalization,” and ultimately deported.
The grounds for denaturalization are as follows:
1) Falsification or Concealment of Relevant Facts. (Examples include failure to disclose past criminal activities or lying about one’s real name or identity).
2) Refusal to Testify Before Congress. (Naturalized citizens may not refuse to cooperate with congressional committees investigating their participation in groups or organizations whose stated purpose is to harm U.S. officials or overthrow the U.S. government).
3) Membership in Subversive Groups. (Citizenship may be revoked if the government can prove membership in a subversive organization within five years of becoming a naturalized citizen. Examples include, but are not limited to, ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc.).
4) Dishonorable Military Discharge. (Immigrants obtaining U.S. citizenship by serving in the military may have their citizenship revoked if they are dishonorably discharged before serving five years). .
Children granted citizenship based on a parent’s status may also lose their citizenship after that parent has been denaturalized. When U.S. citizenship is revoked, the defendant is subject to deportation as soon as the verdict is rendered.
Included among these, 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 that advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government of the United States by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.” It is this statute that President Carter cited in his Executive Order of April 7, 1980, invalidating the visas of all Iranians then in the United States and prohibiting the issuance of new visas to Iranians for the duration of the Iranian hostage crisis.
Not only is Islam completely incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, making it impossible for a devout Muslim to hold full allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law, Islam is the only “religious” movement on Earth that proposes to extend its dominion to every corner of the globe by rape, murder, terror, and oppression. Speaker Gingrich warns, “We better rethink the rules, or we’re going to lose the war.” I disagree. There’s no need to “rethink the rules.” The necessary laws are already on the books. What we lack is the courage to enforce them.
Ms. Muhammad may be honestly concerned that the lives of Muslims all over the world could be “a little bit easier, particularly in the United States.” I would suggest to her that it would be difficult for us to make life in the U.S. any easier for Muslims. It’s too bad she can’t feel the level of unease that most Americans feel every time radical Islamists decide to kill large numbers of innocent people… just because the Koran tells them it’s their duty to do so.
|August 13, 2016
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.