(May 2) Today, in what is probably a new personal best in bad timing, former actor and martial artist Chuck Norris published a commentary in World Net Daily in which he accused President Obama of being a supporter of Islamic extremism and Sharia law. Here's what he wrote:
1) There is no greater proponent of the partnership of America and Islam (and therefore Shariah) than President Obama himself. I'm not saying he is a Muslim but a Muslim advocate and apologist. He said it himself. He declared his explicit mission in Cairo in June 2009 for the whole world to hear, when he vowed to establish "a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world. … That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." Have you ever heard of a president talk about "partnership between America and [the religion of] Islam"? And a presidential responsibility to "fight" for the Islamic religion? Or are we naïve enough to believe that Obama's "fight" will never entail an advocacy for Shariah law when it permeates Islam?
I'm certain that many Islamic extremists are well-pleased with the progress they are making in America. They are not only following the instruction of foreign radicals but American ones as well. Even Saul Alinsky would be proud of jihadists, about whom he could have been writing these words from his "Rules for Radicals" (Page 6): "Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing."
In the wake of President Obama's announcement yesterday that Osama bin Laden was killed by US forces acting under his orders, you might think that Norris's face might be a little red this morning. To be fair to the ex-actor though, the timing of publication was probably not under his control. The editorial was part 3 of a series he's been doing entitled The Top 10 US Sharia Infiltrations and was undoubtedly written and scheduled to appear before the news of Bin Laden's death became known. Norris, who's been penning a column for the right-wing WND since 2006. is a very religious conservative himself and has long been on a personal crusade against the creeping Islamification of America through Sharia law. You've alread read one of his "evidences" above. Here are a couple more:
2) Our politically correct culture has also ushered in a host of politically correct politicians and judges who are now legislating and advocating pro-Islamic culture and practice. The New York Times even published a multiple-page report on how the "White House quietly courts Muslims in the U.S." In Part 1, I mentioned President Barack Obama's adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, who advocated Shariah on a British television show. Another example is, in February 2010, President Obama also appointed Rashad Hussain to serve as his special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC, an inter-governmental body of 56 Muslim countries, which also forms an official body represented in the United Nations. (Where is the same treatment from this White House for countries that uphold Judeo-Christian values to unite and have the same treatment that allows them to form an official body represented in the U.N.? Or any other religion for that matter? There's something rotten in the state of Denmark!)
My God! That would be as bad as appointing a Catholic as ambassador to the Holy See. Wouldn't that mean that he or she would be secretly working for the Vatican instead of us? Oh wait, President Obama did appoint a Catholic (Miguel H. Diaz) as ambassador to the Holy. So, for that matter, so did his predecessor, President George W. Bush. In fact Bush's appointee, Mary Ann Glendon, was appointed by Pope John Paul II to be president of the Roman Catholic Church's Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. I guess that means both Bush and Obama were secretly promoting the takeover of the US by Catholic Canon Law. Oh Chuck Norris! Why didn't you warn us of this insidious plot too?
Here's number 7 of Norris's "evidences" (from part 2 of his editorial, published April 25):
7) Legislators now in 15 states in the U.S. have put forth bills to ban international law and Shariah from being applied in their states. Are we going to label them all as paranoid? Or are they protecting our Constitution and rule of law as they should? I'm so grateful that many legislators are not sticking their heads in the sand about the potential threat that international law can have on our republic and our way of law and life.
Since the First Amendment of the Constitution already protects our laws from religious entanglements, yeah, maybe we could label them paranoid. That's a kinder suggestion than the alternative; that these conservative legislators are cynically trying to stir fear and paranoia in their constituents so they will turn out in greater numbers at election time. Still, Norris may have a point. Religious conservatives have been trying to weaken the wall of separation between church and state for a long time now and if they're successful, the wall might be breached for more than just meddling by dominionist evangelicals.
If Chuck Norris is unhappy by the timing of his latest article's publication, that's nothing compared to the public's disappointment with him. Where have you been since 9/11/2001, Chuck Norris? We expected you, or maybe 24's Jack Bauer, to have hunted down and kicked Osama bin Laden's ass a long time ago. Instead, you let that pussilanimous, socialist, Kenyan-born, secret Muslim, Barack Hussein Obama do it for you. We feel so let down, Chuck!
If you enjoy my articles, you can click on "subscribe" at the top of the page and you'll receive notice when new ones are published.
Comments