Why favor Islamic refugees over Christian refugees?

By Tom Quiner

This letter to the editor appeared in the Des Moines Register this morning:

“We should speak out for Muslims

During an interfaith prayer in the Capitol rotunda on Dec. 13, Protestant pastor and concentration camp survivor, Martin Niemoeller, was quoted: “First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.” [Capitol rotunda hosts community prayer.] If we don’t speak out for Muslims, who will speak out for us?”

I’m confused.

No one is “coming” for American Muslims.

The U.S. has bent over backwards for our Muslim neighbors. They are protected by the First Amendment, as are Christians, Jews, and neo-Paganists.

The Islamic terrorist who slaughtered Americans in San Bernandino had a good job, a nice house, and good relations with his co-workers who even threw him a party.

Interestingly, there are far more “hate crimes” directed towards Jews than Muslims in this country.

On the other hand, we know that Muslims are “coming” for us. They make it clear. ISIS (the Islamic State), in fact, uses those very words. They overtly state that they ARE coming for us, as you can see in the video above.

They don’t use the rhetoric of politicians in making their threats. Rather, they are chillingly direct:

“We will strike America at its heart.”

Americans believe them, because there have been 42 attacks made in the name of Allah on U.S. soil SINCE 9/11.

Democrats and their apologists in the media downplay the Islamic connection to these attacks. For example, in an insult to American’s intelligence, the Fort Hood massacre was characterized as workplace violence by our president.

The left couldn’t mask the Islamic nature of the San Bernadino killing spree.

But there have been far more, such as the Muslim at at Chattanooga whose suicide attack killed five. And there was the Sharia advocate in Moore, Oklahoma, who beheaded a woman as he called for more Islamic terror. And there were the two gay men in Seattle murdered by an Islamic extremist.

Don’t forget about the Muslim dad who murdered his daughter and her lesbian lover down in Port Bolivar, Texas. To make sure people clearly understood his Muslim motives for the killings, he left behind a copy of the Quran open to the page that condemns homosexuality.

These are but few examples from just the last two years.

Americans are the most tolerant people in the world. Many, maybe most, Americans believe that these extremists who kill in the name of Allah don’t represent true Islam. Hollywood celebrity, Ben Affleck, for example, is a big apologist for Islam. He claims that extremists only represent a mere 7% of the more than one billion Muslims worldwide.

And yet immediately after 9/11, Osama bin Laden had higher approval ratings amongst Muslims worldwide than Barack Obama has among Americans today. For example, his approval was 74% in Palestinian areas and 59% in Indonesia in 2003. That’s a lot of Muslims approving of a guy who was a pro-active Muslim terrorist.

Since 9/11, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation of 57 member states refuses to condemn terrorism, characterizing it as “acts of resistance.”

When 3.7 million marched in Paris as a show of solidarity following the Charlie Hedbo massacre at the hands of Muslim terrorists, Muslims were conspicuously absent (as was the American president).

Wouldn’t you feel better if there was some sort of meaningful Muslim backlash against Islamic terrorism?

I’d like you to think about something. Syria’s population in recent years was ten percent Christian. It has now dropped to a mere 2.6% thanks to ISIS attacks, which Pope Francis has characterized as “religious genocide.” And yet our country has admitted only 53 Syrian Christian refugees over the past five years at the same time they want to admit thousands of Muslim Syrian refugees.

If Christians are even able to gain access to U.N. refugee camps, they are preyed upon by Muslims who “come for them”, trafficking in their women and killing Christian men who don’t convert to Islam. Syrian Christians’ plight was addressed by Great Britain’s Lord Alton of Liverpool and Baroness Cox who pleaded with PM Cameron to “urgently consider” the plight of persecuted Christian refugees:

“many Christian refugees, having been terrorised by IS in Syria and Iraq, have had to leave the refugee camps because of cruelties inflicted upon them inside the camps”.

But when Christians leave the  United Nation camps, they lose their opportunity for resettlement to the West.

So in response to the letter writer that began this essay, I would respond: the American president, the United Nations, the American media, the entire leftwing of American politics all speak out on behalf of Muslims, even as Islamic terrorists continue  their world-wide war on non-Muslims.

Here is my question: who speaks on behalf of the Christians in the Mideast who are the victims of religious genocide at the hands of Islamic terrorists?

Why in the world would we want to favor Islamic refugees over Christian ones?