By now, most of you probably have heard of the news stories coming out of England, where law enforcement and other public officials turned a blind eye to widespread rape and child molestation (over 1,400 victims) committed by Muslims, because they wanted to avoid stereotyping Muslims. Allison Pearson writes at The Telegraph:
Men of Pakistani heritage treated white girls like toilet paper. They picked children up from schools and care homes and trafficked them across northern cities for other men to join in the fun. They doused a 15-year-old in petrol and threatened to set her alight should she dare to report them. They menaced entire families and made young girls watch as they raped other children.
... The living dolls of Rotherham were bent and twisted to their masters’ will. There was no escape. As the sterling Professor Jay observes, South Yorkshire Police “regarded many child victims with contempt”.
One 11-year-old known as Child H told police that she and another girl had been sexually assaulted by grown men. Nothing was done. When she was 12, Child H was found in the back of a taxi with a man who had indecent pictures of her on his phone. Despite the full co-operation of her father, who insisted his daughter was being abused, police failed to act. Four months later, Child H was found in a house alone with a group of Pakistani men. What did the police do? They arrested the child for being drunk and disorderly and ignored her abusers.
... Front-line youth workers who submitted reports in 2002, 2003 and 2006 expressing their alarm at the scale of the child sex-offending say the town hall told them to keep quiet about the ethnicity of the perpetrators in the interests of “community cohesion”.
Fear of appearing racist trumped fears of more children being abused. Not only were negligent officials not prosecuted, they prospered. ...These same officials which turned a blind eye to the Muslim rape gangs were willing to take children away from a family who supported the UKip political party and, therefore, were opposed to multiculturalism.
Although there is, to my knowledge, no similar incident of a cover up of Muslim rapes in the United States, we are actually seeing a more insidious and dangerous tactic by government officials--turning a blind eye on Muslim domestic terrorism to focus on the less likely "right wing" terrorist threat. The Washington Free Beacon reports:
The FBI’s most recent national threat assessment for domestic terrorism makes no reference to Islamist terror threats, despite last year’s Boston Marathon bombing and the 2009 Fort Hood shooting—both carried out by radical Muslim Americans.
Instead, the internal FBI intelligence report concluded in its 2013 assessment published this month that the threat to U.S. internal security from extremists is limited to attacks and activities by eight types of domestic extremist movements—none motivated by radical Islam.
They include anti-government militia groups and white supremacy extremists, along with “sovereign citizen” nationalists, and anarchists. Other domestic threat groups outlined by the FBI assessment include violent animal rights and environmentalist extremists, black separatists, anti- and pro-abortion activists, and Puerto Rican nationalists.This is no real surprise. The Obama Administration has been denying a link between Islam and domestic terrorism threats for years. Officials called the Ft. Hood shooting "workplace violence." Even now, Obama can't bring himself to acknowledge that ISIS is directed in its actions by tenets of Islam.
The flip side is that government officials focus on so-called "right wing" groups, and unfairly malign conservatives or groups that tend toward being conservative. There was, of course, the 2009 Department of Homeland of Security memorandum warning of "right wing extremists" which included veterans, supporters of libertarian candidates, or pretty much anyone opposed to administration policies on firearms, abortion, or immigration. (See also, here and here).Then in 2013, it was discovered that the military was teaching that white Christian heterosexual men had unfair advantages, and labeling "evangelical Christians, Catholics and a number of high-profile Christian ministries as domestic hate groups." Part of the problem is that the government seems to rely on the Southern Poverty Law Center for its list of domestic extremist and hate groups, although the SPLC itself ignores Islam and has crossed the line to simply vilifying conservative groups generally. (See also here and here).
There are several consequences to this willful blindness by the government. First, it creates a security state inimical to our form of government. Second, it is a breach of the social contract between government and citizen, that encourages the citizen to take matters into his own hands. As Glenn Reynolds commented about the U.K. scandal:
The legal system is, ultimately, an ancient bargain: Renounce your mob violence and blood feuds and we will provide you with justice. It could be argued that such a default as this calls the whole bargain into question, and justifies self-help along ancient lines.Finally, as happened in the U.K., it distracts the government from solving problems. Thus, due to political correctness, we cannot take the necessary steps to destroy ISIS ("to kill the spirit as well as the body of the enemy, so terribly as to make sure that it will not rise again, and that nobody will want to imitate it."), lest we injure their civilian supporters. Even though ISIS examines deadlier weapons to use against us, the Administration does all it can to aid and abet illegal border crossings. The Administration has no strategy--or a failed one--with dealing with the real terrorists. We walk along the precipice of destruction, and we have leaders that have deliberately worn blindfolds.