This is written on Monday, Dec 7, 2015, five days removed from the San Bernardino massacre, and the president has finally called San Bernardino a terrorist attack, and Fort Hood as well.

It’s a start, but his address on Dec. 6 was mostly lies, focusing in part on gun-control, as expected. It makes more sense to issue an AR15 or the equivalent to every law-abiding citizen. Has anyone noticed that terrorists attack soft targets, where people are not armed?   

Paris was bad, if not worse, but it must be because the San Bernardino attack was an assault on my homeland that this is the one that crosses the line for me. To what length will I go to say something to the local authorities about what I see? My bar is pretty low because after doing the necessary research on the religion of Islam, I have no compunctions whatsoever about being labled Islamophobic or racist.

Contrary to the popular claim that Islam is a religion of peace, any Google search of taqiyya and/or kitman will show that Islam is a religion of deception, and with deception established on theocratic grounds, it’s only a small step to indulge in murder in the name of a peaceful religion.

The Quran itself says that Allah is the chief of schemers. This means that lies are acceptable in promoting Islam, and so whenever a Muslim tries to claim Islam is peaceful, the Quran itself tells me not to believe it. Any Muslim reader who is truly peaceful, I grant that the Quran also says, in other places, that Muslims are to practice peace, and I have no problem with you personally, but the same Quran also says that deceit is permissible to further the Islamic faith, up to and including assimilating into a non-Islamic culture under the appearance of peace.  

Many Muslims may not be aware of this, in which case they don’t know their Quran well enough. Conversely, if they do know this, and still claim to be peaceful, it may be true of them personally, but it’s not true of those who twist some parts of the Quran for their own murderous purposes, and their silence can only be construed as further deception.

Of course it’s true that the Bible is twisted in the minds of false Christians for these same purposes, but the teachings of Jesus are to turn the other cheek, whereas the teachings of the Quran leave room for lies and deception. Perhaps the most fundamental difference between the teachings of Jesus and those of Muhammad are that the Quran allows earthly retribution in some cases, which will seem OK to secular people, but the Bible allows no such earthly retribution under any circumstances. Christians are to practice civil disobedience under certain circumstances, but we’re not allowed to practice the Old Testament Mosaic teachings of an eye for an eye.

Here in the United States, Christians generally believe in defending religious freedom, and by extension our homeland and fellow Americans. See Quran 9:5, 9:29, Sahih al-Bukhari 6924, Sahih Muslim 30. Muslims are peaceful only until they have sufficient numbers and resources to do jihad, and they gain numbers by claiming to be peaceful.   

On the subject of what would constitute grounds to report possible extremist attitudes to the authorities, any Muslim who claims that Islam is a peaceful religion, and then gets angry if someone disagrees, would obviously qualify for a look-see. As for Allah, if Allah is the chief of schemers, which the Quran plainly says, then Allah conjures up the names Lucifer, Satan, and Diablo.

Americans need to stay vigilant, and this applies also to keeping a watchful eye on right-wing extremists. We’re told we have to avoid intolerance toward Muslims. The problem has been, and is, Muslim extremists who interpret some of the Quran as license to commit mass murder. The problem is not, and has not been, American intolerance toward Muslims, despite the fact that sharia law is not in keeping with American ideals of equality.

We have been exemplary toward Muslims, and any claim to the contrary would be viewed by this writer as evidence of a terrorist attitude. We consistently see this attitude preached to us by Obama, and now Loretta Lynch. I call them soft on Islamic terrorism. In light of the current Islamic attitude of the extremists, failure to watch Muslims for any sign of intolerance on their part would be foolhardy.

We’ve just seen a seemingly peaceful Muslim get radicalized with virtually no warning that was sufficient to warrant surveillance ahead of time. Our president tells us we can’t judge the Islamic faith by the actions of the extremists, thinking he needs to tell us, but he has no problem with trying to limit gun ownership for all of us because of the actions of some extremists.   

As a final comment, since this administration seems so out of touch with reality, it may be in order to arm yourself on an everyday basis, and also maybe start appointing designated gun-toters, or a small group of them, for any group functions. It seems we need to take matters into our own hands, because the police and sheriff’s deputies can’t be everywhere at once. They do a masterful job, but they’re limited, and to blindly trust in deputized law enforcement as our only line of defense is absurd, and calling them the first line of defense is questionable as long as we have the Second Amendment right to defend ourselves.   

At the risk of being called conspiraphobic, I wonder why this administration adopts an attitude that amounts to an open invitation to Islamic terrorists to commit jihad in America, and since it is so obsessed with not offending any Muslim, or any black thug for that matter, and since it’s so obsessed with taking away access to semi-automatic weapons, I wonder if it’s trying to push us to such a level of anger that it will then deem it “necessary” to impose martial law.

We must remember that this didn’t start with Barack Obama, but he’s certainly the poster child for government control of what we think, say, and do. This is completely and absolutely contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

Eric Knutson is a resident of Dayton.