Is Islam a menace to America?
The recent firebomb attack in Boulder, Colorado, against people demonstrating in favor of Israel has set in motion a policy process that is long overdue and provides a timely vehicle for a discussion the USA should have engaged in years ago regarding the intentions of Muslims toward non-Muslims.
Step One is determining the firebomber’s motive. That’s easy, because he told us:
“Allah is greater than the Zionists,” declared fire-bomber Mohamed Sabry Soliman in a video testimonial prior to the June 1 fire bomb attack that injured several Americans.
Accepting Sabry’s religious view as sincere, we need to learn how he segues from that view to fire-bombing Jews. Exactly what is the connection?
Image created using AI.
Step Two in this policy process is asking the right question.
Accurately perceiving the policy issue universal to the specific event, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has cogently inquired, “Why would any civilization that actually wants to preserve itself allow for any migration that is negative to the country as a whole?”
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller: “Why would any civilization that actually wants to preserve itself allow for any migration that is negative to the country as a whole?”
— America (@america) May 31, 2025
Why indeed? The desire for self-preservation noted by Miller is a desire that would naturally manifest itself in various policy preferences regarding immigration, energy, climate change, crime, etc.. On every one of these topics, the progressives among us promote a policy choice that would lead to the destruction of the American nation.
This calls to mind the passage in the Declaration of Independence which reads But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
Indeed, the list of progressive policy positions is a long train of abuses pursuing invariably the same object, the destruction of America.
Step Three in the policy process is interim mitigation. As though in direct response to Miller’s perceptive question, President Trump has announced a ban on travel from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
Note that many of those states are Islamic.
Trump’s ban springs from his conviction that America is indeed a civilization that actually wants to preserve itself.
Step Four in this policy process should be an open and public congressional investigation into the goals and objectives of Islam. It must be understood that it is not Islam’s theological beliefs that are at issue.
To the contrary, it is the practical goals and objectives that must be investigated and exposed for all to see. And if the investigation reveals that Islam seeks the death of all Jews and Christians and the death or domination of all non-Muslims, then step five of the process is federal legislation appropriate to protect us from this menace.