Image 01 Image 03

Senator Ben Sasse: We should tell the truth about the enemy we face

Senator Ben Sasse: We should tell the truth about the enemy we face

“We owe it those who died last week to tell the truth about the nature this conflict.”

“This neighborhood should not be part of war zone. This neighborhood should not be a battle ground, so why is it?” asked Sen. Ben Sasse standing outside of the site where the San Bernardino terrorist attacks took place.

“Because we’re an open society. We’re a free society and our enemies hate freedom.” Sen. Sasse explained.

Sasse continued:

“We owe it to those who died this week to tell the truth about the nature of this conflict. We owe it to these fourteen, we owe it to their families, we owe it to the service men and women in uniform who are abroad right now fighting for our freedom, some of whom will come home in caskets. And frankly, we owe it to those who are still yet to die in the future.

All adults know that the jihadi attacks we face on our homeland are not over. These will not be the last people to bleed and die because we are a free society, but we should tell the truth about the enemy we face. We should tell the truth about them, but we should also be honest about who we are. We should reaffirm our core values.

We are not at war with terrorism — which is just a tactic. We are not at war with some empty sociological label called “extremism.” We are not even just at war with ISIS, though we’re obviously at war with ISIS.

This is not about workplace violence. This is not about global warming or gun shows. This is not about income inequality. This is not about kids from broken homes, as tragic as that is. This is not about anything that we have done wrong. This is about who we are. This is about the nature of freedom.

So who are we? We’re people who unite around the Constitution.

…We are most certainly though, at war with militant Islam. We are at war with violent Islam. We are at war with jihadi Islam. We are not at war with all Muslims. We are not at war with Muslim families in Dearborn, Michigan who want the American dream for their kids. But we are at war with those who believe that they will kill in the name of religion.

President Obama said tonight he’s worried about a backlash against American Muslims. I am too, and you know what the best way to combat that is? With the truth. By being clear about who we are and what we stand for and by being clear about those who would try to kill us because we believe in freedom.”

As they say, “and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


America won’t wake up until Radical Islam bombs the Kardashians.

    pfg in reply to Fen. | December 7, 2015 at 9:17 pm

    Which is a good idea in and of itself.

    But com’n, Ben. What’s with the militant Islam, violent Islam, jihadi Islam stuff. Save all of the words. It’s Islam. That’s the evil ideology. Straight up Islam. No need for descriptors. Of course not all Muslims are terrorists. We understand that some of them have read the stuff in their holy books and reject it. But not many.

    They all read the same Koran. The same Koran.

    Reminds me of the South Park movie where we went to war with Canada after they bombed the Baldwin family.

    Maybe that’s why ISIS hasn’t hit any celebrities…

There’s this Islam

And there’s this one

Another way to say it is that we can distinguish people of good will by which document they choose to embrace.

One thing that is a new development, and a good one, is that Muslims, world-wide, have become willing to repudiate the Daesh, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Radegunda in reply to Valerie. | December 8, 2015 at 4:37 pm

    Some of the signatories of the “Common Word” document have elsewhere expressed approval of aggressive jihad to spread the rule of Islam globally — which isn’t surprising, since aggression has been the beating heart of Islam from the time of Muhammad, and since Muslims have a pattern of saying quite different things to infidels vs. Muslims.

    One document crafted to lull us into complacency does not cancel out 1,400 years of normative Islam, which has been aggressively intolerant and proudly totalitarian. And if repudiating Islamic barbarism is a “new” development, what happened to the notion that Islam was lovely until Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood misled Muslims about their faith?

    When Muslims start repudiating large parts of the Quran and the moral example of Muhammad, there will be cause for optimism. Meanwhile, Muslim aggression around the world has been increasing, and Muslim migration into Western countries has been rapidly devastating the advanced and humane civilizations that were built over many centuries.

    Muslims have to decide if they want to be civilized or not. It’s folly for the rest of us to pin our hopes on the tiniest signs of ostensible progress while we invite them in to destroy our civilization.

    Radegunda in reply to Valerie. | December 8, 2015 at 5:39 pm

    The Sheikh and Imam of Al-Azhar in Cairo refuses to say that ISIS is un-Islamic because, as he acknowledges, the beliefs they express are fully consonant with orthodox Islam. He might quibble with their methods, but the highest authority in Sunni Islam holds the barbarians of ISIS to be real Muslims.

    Recently, an Egyptian graduate of Al-Azhar (who’s a critic of ISIS) said that the program of ISIS is completely in accordance with what’s taught at Al-Azhar, the global capital of Sunni orthodoxy.

    Who’s to say that Al-Azhar has a perverted view of Islam?

      Milhouse in reply to Radegunda. | December 8, 2015 at 8:53 pm

      True, but misleading. What he said was “I cannot denounce ISIS as un-Islamic, but I can say that they cause corruption on earth”. He also called for them to be killed, crucified, and have their limbs chopped off.

Political correctness, championed by liberals, had a direct hand in killing those 14 people in San Bernardino. All of this could have been prevented if the terrorist couple’s neighbors had actually spoken up. Liberals need to take a large portion of the blame for the blood that was spilled, and we can’t be shy about calling them out on it.

I said as much a few days ago on my blog:

And here’s a little bit about Michael Wetzel, a father of 6 killed in the terror attack:

How truly sad it is that a representative makes such a statement, that we should tell the truth, and it makes the news… Don’t get me wrong, I applaud what it is that he is saying, but why should it make the news? I guess it is further proof of just what has become of our society.

The good senator is still not saying the most important thing: we are at war with ORTHODOX Islam. Yes we are at war with militant Islam and violent Islam, and “radical” Islam. Orthodox Islam is all of those things, but none of those things are anything more than orthodox. They are 100% ORTHODOX Islam.

That is why Trump’s proposal is perfectly reasonable, with just a little modification. It would be perfectly reasonable to bar ALL Muslim immigration, and it would be reasonable to bar even U.S. citizens from re-entering the country if they are orthodox Muslims. That is because it is perfectly reasonable to criminalize orthodox Islam as a vast conspiracy to commit mass murder, as it absolutely is.

The defense of religion act gets this right. The bar to religious discrimination (to legal consequences for following the edicts of one’s religion) should be an intermediate scrutiny test. In the Peyote cases the Supreme Court set the bar too low, saying that religion cannot not grant any permission to violate any otherwise legitimate criminal law. Unfortunately, we have no effective lower-bound criterion for what constitutes a legitimate law. The “rational relation to a legitimate state interest” test does not require that the law in any way be rational, or even that the relation of the law to the legitimate state interest be rational. All it requires is that there rationally be a relation.

Intermediate scrutiny should be applied to ALL laws, so there is no harm, and much good, in applying it when religiously sanctioned behavior conflicts with criminal law. But intermediate scrutiny absolutely does not protect conspiracy to commit mass murder, which orthodox Islam absolutely COMMANDS. ALL orthodox Muslims MUST support this behavior, or they aren’t orthodox. So it is perfectly appropriate to criminalize orthodox Islam, which allows much more than just keeping Orthodox Islamic U.S. citizens from re-entering the country. The one’s who are here should all be kicked out, or thrown in prisoner of war camps, because they are waging war against us.

Post 9/11 the U.S. declared war on those who attacked us on 9/11. That is orthodox Islam, and all members of this sect can reasonably be treated as not just criminals but enemy soldiers. We are in a war people, and the country damned well better wake up to it. Of course that is not going to happen until the orthodox army that has already invaded Europe rises up to commit the religiously commanded slaughter. Disarmed Europe is going to die, en masse, all of them, except for the trash that converts, and the females who are considered rape-worthy. There is going to be genocide.

THEN will we make up? Very questionable.

Of course it is not all Muslims, but it IS all ORTHODOX Muslims. They are ALL waiting for the day when they will rise up and slaughter the unbelievers. That is orthodox Islam. It is one giant mass murder conspiracy. It is madness to let religion be a shield from the laws against such behavior. Start prosecuting the bastards. It would be perfectly legitimate to send the military after them, and once they know we are onto them we will probably have to. It is a war. But in the meantime, we should at least be punishing them under criminal law for their participation in conspiracy to commit murder.

    Milhouse in reply to AlecRawls. | December 8, 2015 at 8:37 pm

    and it would be reasonable to bar even U.S. citizens from re-entering the country if they are orthodox Muslims.

    This can never be reasonable, because US citizens have the right to enter the USA, no matter what they’ve done. Neither the congress nor the president has the authority to prevent it.

    And the first amendment’s protection for freedom of expression, including the freedom to express hostility to the USA, is absolute. No matter what, it is absolutely forbidden to impose any penalty on a person for simply saying that the USA is wrong and its enemies right. Treason requires an overt act that aids the enemy, and is motivated by support for the enemy. Mere adhesion to the enemy, without an overt act, is protected speech.

    Milhouse in reply to AlecRawls. | December 8, 2015 at 8:51 pm

    YOu’re also wrong about Islamic orthodoxy. The sheikh of al-Azhar, than whom there can be no more orthodox a Sunni, opposes IS and al-Qaeda. As Radegunda noted above, he admitted that he can’t condemn them as apostates, but he nevertheless denounced them as sinners, and called for them to be killed, crucified, and to have their limbs chopped off. That makes it as clear as can be that opposition to such terrorist groups is at least as orthodox as support for them.

Read The US Constitution , Then read the Koran. The Two are NOT compatible in any measure. These Islamists are living in the 14th Century Their Koran says to lie if necessary ,but to enslave or Kill them or get them to pay you & give up all possessions to them. Do they think Americans are going to comply to their demands. Those lazy moochers can earn their own way. They are told to take all the Infidels own.Your thinly pretend Religion, which is actually a form of Governance, and not a Religion. You are sworn to kill us. We believe you. Leave our Country.