Obama To Blame For Anti-Muslim Sentiment? No, The Bigots Are

Who's to blame for the rise in anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States, President Obama or those who have actually been encouraging bias against Muslims?

Commenting on a recent, rather silly, attack on a mosque involving bacon of all things Glenn Reynolds speculates that the rise in attacks on mosques is attributable to the President’s own policies:

It occurs to me that right after 9/11 we saw the beginning anti-mosque demonstrations but those quickly dissipated. Why? Probably because right after this march, we had Bush’s WTC bullhorn speech and people started to feel confident that Bush would protect the country. With less confidence in Obama, are they resorting to self-help? It’s a long way from bacon to beheadings, of course, but a sense that the powers-that-be can’t be trusted to protect the country is dangerous and destabilizing.

With all due respect to Professor Reynolds, this strikes me as more than a little over the top.

For one thing, the only people who are truly responsible for acts of violence or bias directed against Muslims because of their religion are the people who committed those acts, and perhaps the people who encouraged their anti-Muslim sentiment. It wasn’t President Obama, for example, who compared Islam to Nazism, or suggested that Muslims may not be entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. If anyone is responsible for the rise of anti-Muslim sentiment, it’s people like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, who have turned the expression of bias against Muslims into something of a career, and have even managed to get profiled in The New York Times and on 60 Minutes because of it. Part of their anti-Musilm rhetoric has included attacks against the President, and insinuations that he is in fact a “secret Muslim.” To suggest that Barack Obama is somehow responsible for this strikes me as more than a little silly.

For another, this kind of criticism ignores the fact that there is very little substantive difference between anti-terrorism policy under Barack Obama and anti-terrorism policy under George W. Bush. The Obama Administration has kept the prison at Guantanamo Bay open, it continues to defend the warrantless wiretapping program that the Bush Administration took heat for from the left, and it’s even gone so far as to publicly issue an assassination order for an American citizen. In Afghanistan, they have, perhaps unwisely, chosen to ramp up the American military commitment there. Suggesting that there has been any change in policy that makes the idea that Americans are “less confident” simply ignores reality.

Barack Obama has made plenty of mistakes in his eighteen months in office, but to suggest that he is somehow responsible for a rise in what can only be described as religious bigotry is just absurd. Rather than trying to find yet another thing to blame the President for, conservatives would do well to condemn the bigotry and those within heir ranks who have been perpetuating it.

FILED UNDER: Barack Obama, Islam, Politicians, Religion, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. anjin-san says:

    Agreed.

    >a sense that the powers-that-be can’t be trusted to protect the country

    I would be interested in hearing a rational argument against a single Obama policy that has actually weakened our national defense position. So far I have not heard one.

  2. Brummagem Joe says:

    Obama is widely accused of being a muslim by whack jobs on the right so this according to “professor” reynolds means that he’s responsible for anti islamic attitudes in the US. Of course the relentless barrage of anti Islamic propagaganda from right wing bigots ranting on about Islamofascism, caliphates, Osama bin laden is coming to get you, would have nothing to do with it?

  3. Eric Florack says:

    so we’re not supposed to discuss such matters , for fear of being labeled a bigot?

    nice try it is shutting down all serious conversation.

  4. Mark says:

    Nice job girls. They should have saved a few seats on The View set for you….a gaggle of hot flashes and heavy stomp offs would have been entertaining.

  5. Eric Florack says:

    As for what policies have weakened us, certainly, his nuclear policies have weakened us. Obama seems convinced that nuclear weapons and the nuclear balance of powers can be separated from the rest of our international security and fire. The fact of the matter is is our strategies have historically been inclined with our nuclear security policies. In essence, you can’t get to zero nuke ability without basically decimating all of our security policy as it exists. Our U.S. nuclear weapons provide deterrence on worldwide basis. The fact is, we do that intentionally, because we have Allies that are in dangerous places of the world. Israel, for example. So, in places like Israel, when the nuclear umbrella and they’ve been residing under is currently being dismantled, the left in this country, yourself included, Anjin, love to complain when a nervous Israel starts making noises about defending itself.

    Like any good Liberal, you make the assumption that reading the world of nuclear weapons means ridding the world also of alliances and security commitments to deal with the threats. as usual, you’ve got it wrong. The Chinese for example, talk about their interest in the zero option, often, and they point out their desires. For them, it is not just a matter of bringing down the weapons; they complain that we must disentangle itself from alliances, and also must reduce or eliminate its conventional superiority.

    So much for the argument Obama makes about relying on our conventional superiority.
    All, and by the way, shall we mention the radiance? We certainly have conventional superiority over them. But the funny part is, these are the very people you want to reduce their nuclear stockpiles in response to our proposed reduction. And they’re not going to do it. Agreements, you see, have to happen on both sides. That’s called reality.

  6. sam says:

    @Bit

    “So, in places like Israel, when the nuclear umbrella and they’ve been residing under is currently being dismantled, the left in this country, yourself included, Anjin, love to complain when a nervous Israel starts making noises about defending itself.”

    Full of shit as always. Israel is more than capable of defending itself with nuclear weapons, as is pretty much well-known. As for our own nuclear capability, you’re even more full of shit:

    The Obama administration’s 20-year plan for the U.S. nuclear arsenal would reduce the number of deployed and stored warheads from 5,000 to a range of 3,000 to 3,500 and significantly increase spending on the complex that maintains them, according to newly disclosed documents.

    Unclassified sections of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s plan show that annual costs for the weapons complex would increase from about $7 billion in fiscal 2011 to $8.4 billion in 2017 and more than $9 billion by 2030.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/14/AR2010071405719.html

    How many do we need? Fvcking idiot.

  7. anjin-san says:

    > Like any good Liberal, you make the assumption that reading the world of nuclear weapons means ridding the world also of alliances and security commitments to deal with the threat

    Like any good idiot driven only by party doctrine, you make moronic assumptions about what I think.

    A single Trident sub can pretty much destroy any nation on earth. There is zero, repeat zero chance of nuclear weapons being eliminated from our arsenal, regardless of feel-good press releases and speeches. People with any degree of sophistication, a group to which you do not belong, know the difference between PR and serious policy. Perhaps you can show me where our nuclear deterrent is inadequate in reality, as opposed to in poorly written pieces in “the American Thinker”.

    As for Israel, I am of the opinion that the roughly 400 nukes they have in their arsenal, combined with their vastly superior air force, provide a pretty decent umbrella for them. I have no problem with Israel defending itself. Starting an elective war based on a far right agenda within Israel is another thing entirely.

  8. anjin-san says:

    > How many do we need? Fvcking idiot.

    See, we cannot be secure unless we can destroy the world several times over. Doing it only once is just not good enough for a armchair warrior like bitsy…

  9. sam says:

    “Nice job girls. They should have saved a few seats on The View set for you….a gaggle of hot flashes and heavy stomp offs would have been entertaining.”

    Does anybody know what the hell that means?

  10. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    I know it is bigoted to name your enemy, but that is the tactic an enemy uses to gain an advantage when they do not wish to be recognized as an enemy. Since Mohammed decided to start a religion, it has been the purpose of Islam to gain dominance both politically and religiously through out the world. It has mostly been spread by use of the sword. That should serve as edification for those anti Americans who usually post here. First I remember was an attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon which killed over 270 Marines who were there on a peace keeping mission. They were killed by MUSLIMS. There has has been ongoing attacks on innocents throughout the world but American embassies were attacked twice in the 1990’s by MUSLIMS, the USS Cole was attack and U.S servicemen were killed by MUSLIMS. An attempt to bring down one of the World Trade Center building by bombing which failed, was done by MUSLIMS. People who turned out to be MUSLIMS highjacked several airplanes and ran them in to building causing thousands of deaths on September 11, 2001. MUSLIMS killed people in Spain and England. MUSLIMS murdered a Dutch artist for daring to depict Mohammed in what they say was disrespectful. MUSLIM attacks have killed people in Russia and India, yet it is somehow bigotted, at least according to the minimal thinkers who are too stupid to recognize the enemy. Question for the brilliant Anjin/san. Hey crackhead! How do YOU tell the difference between a radical and moderate MUSLIM?

  11. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Sam you are the idiot. We need enough to have some left after we use what we have on those who richly deserve to have them used on. They ought to test one on your house just to make sure it works. Collateral damage, but you probably live in a progressive area whch would be improved by the loss.

  12. Janis Gore says:

    “Nuke the Middle East and polish the glass” is the elegant formulation I’ve heard in the past.

  13. An Interested Party says:

    “Nice job girls. They should have saved a few seats on The View set for you….a gaggle of hot flashes and heavy stomp offs would have been entertaining.”

    On the contrary, it is the breathless hysterics who want to blame the president for EVERYTHING that are acting like this…

    “They ought to test one on your house just to make sure it works. Collateral damage, but you probably live in a progressive area whch would be improved by the loss.”

    Once again, this loathsome piece of shit hopes for violence for his political enemies…the formulations that one must be able to think up while one is sitting at home sucking off the government teat…

  14. Juneau: says:

    Who’s to blame for the rise in anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States…?

    Radical Muslims. Yes, its that simple.

  15. M. Bouffant says:

    How can you read the claptrap that two-faced libertarian/gov’t. employee Reynolds types daily, & then yourself type: “With all due respect to Professor Reynolds, this strikes me as more than a little over the top?” Respect? Due? Come on.

  16. anjin-san says:

    > Radical Muslims. Yes, its that simple.

    I see. So the recent rise in anti-Muslim sentiment being driven by those folks who have only heard about 9.11 in the last 18 months or so.

  17. Eric Florack says:

    How many do we need?

    If you’d stop and thinbk for a moment, you’d understand two things.

    One: That the numbers game is one of perception.
    Two: That lowering the number of such weapons is not the stated goal of the Obama Administration.

    Of course if you’d stop and think, you’d not be a leftist.

    A single Trident sub can pretty much destroy any nation on earth. There is zero, repeat zero chance of nuclear weapons being eliminated from our arsenal, regardless of feel-good press releases and speeches.

    Well, based on his stated policy objectives, Obama doesn’t seem to be aware of that. Perhaps you’d best advise him on the matter?

  18. anjin-san says:

    Ummm. Bit?

    Governments have all sorts of “stated policy objectives” that they are not serious about persuing.
    You should be aware of that. Sadly, since you are not, we are treated to another round of hysteria from you. Perhaps it is because you are the only one in the world with a dedicated music server and are too busy rocking out to do the reading…

  19. anjin-san says:

    That the numbers game is one of perception.

    Yes. And anyone with even partial brain function percives that we could toss 90% of our nukes and still pretty much kill everyone. We could lay waste to Iran, something you seem to be very eager to do (as long as you don’t have to do the fighting) with a small fraction of our military power. Hopefully reason will prevail, and this will be avoided. A war between Iran and America would be a vast tragedy.

    Personally, I think nukes have been a good thing on a few levels. We avoided WW3, which almost certainly would have been fought in the late 40s or early 50s in the absence of nukes. The world continues to avoid major wars, and hopefully this is a trend that will continue.

  20. Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    This site deserves better commentors.

  21. narciso says:

    The Administration insist in scapegoating it’s domestic political adversaries as terrorist ( re the DHS report) while bends over backwards to deny the Salafi/Wahhabi network that enabled Major Hasan, the Little Rock recruitment station shooter, the Christmas Flight bomber, Times Square et al, it sought to penalize those who had done the difficult job of interrogating the likes of KSM, it furthers the divisive goals of Imam Rauf, and it dawdles in Afghanistan, is AWOL during the Iraniangreen movement, but it totally focused on the raging crisis in Tegulcigalpa, and is always
    ready to slap down Israel, People can draw inferences, specially when advisor Brennan insists on calling Jerusalem by it’s Arabic names, Al Quds

  22. c.red says:

    This is an easy one and hardly ideological. We have way more nukes than we need and Doug has it exactly right.

  23. DavidL says:

    Where I would see an Islamic terrorist, Obama would see a potential, or maybe in fact, campaign donor Did Obama bow down to his ankles out respect to his campaign donors? I don’t know and the Obama campaign is not telling.

  24. Mike says:

    So, if radical Muslims are to blame for anti-Muslim feelings in America, are occupying American troops to blame for anti-American feelings in the Middle East? Hmmm….

    PS – eliminating many/most nuclear weapons will make us safer – just as a gun in your house, we’re more likely to end up with one of our weapons being “lost” and used against us than actually using it against an enemy… less nukes to keep track of would be a good thing. As long as we keep enough to blow up the solar system, we’ll be ok… (damn Martians)

  25. mannning says:

    I would call out the Muslims themselves that have demonstrated many times their willingness to terrorize the West, and the MSM that daily publishes the horrific acts of these Muslims as the basis for the rise in anti-Muslim sentiment in America. It takes little imagination to transfer the acts of sabotage and mass murder around the world by Muslims into the very real possibility of such actions beikng undertaken here in the US by Jihadists. This is confirmed in many minds when we actually do experience acts of terrorism in the US iteslf or on US property and people overseas. for which there are extensive lists for all to read. There is far too much wishful thinking concerning the benign intentions of Jihadists and their supposed inability to hit the US hard today as they did on 9/11/01.

    Those apologists who keep on saying it is a very small group of Muslims that is active in Jihad should reexamine the reporting in Iraq over time, where tens of thousands of them faced our troops. It is a small step from slipping Jihadis into Iraq to slipping them into the US via Mexico or Canada and thence to welcoming Islamic communities here, and these groups are well-financed with petrodollars. The hard fact is we do not know what the exact level of threat is that they pose to us, but it most certainly is not benign, and it must be ferreted out.

    To the degree that our efforts to close the borders to illegal entrants have been put on go-slow, and to the degree that our police forces throughout the nation have been severely
    hobbled in finding and deporting illegals of all stripes by this administration and its far too liberal State Department, they too must take blame from an uneasy public that perceives relatively open borders to be a deadly threat to us.

    To the degree that actual terrorist crimes are covered up and not given the proper treatment, such as the seriously muffled Ft. Hood event, even our military is sucked into improper actions by the administration. The public rightly wants such actions to be labeled for what they are and handled as Jihadist actions, and they see this administration as derelict in this regard: meaning, of course, Obama and his Czars and minions. But our President can bow and scrape and plead for sanity in front of a huge Muslim audience, and then run like hell so as not to hear the jeers and laughter.

    Then too, we had some of the worst Jihadists all locked up and tucked away in Guantanimo, but our President tried mightily to close the base and transfer the inmates to the US. He has not succeeded yet, thank God, but the worst of it is the release of quite a number of inmates, only to face them again on the combat fields in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a message there for the most avid supporters of Obama: he knows not what he does (and neither do we!)

  26. matt says:

    “Those apologists who keep on saying it is a very small group of Muslims that is active in Jihad should reexamine the reporting in Iraq over time, where tens of thousands of them faced our troops. It is a small step from slipping Jihadis into Iraq to slipping them into the US via Mexico or Canada and thence to welcoming Islamic communities here, and these groups are well-financed with petrodollars. The hard fact is we do not know what the exact level of threat is that they pose to us, but it most certainly is not benign, and it must be ferreted out.”

    Dude we’re occupying Iraq and every time we kill innocents or ram someones car cause they are stuck in traffic or do any numbers of things we do over there we’re creating resentment and anger. The reality is most of the people who you are labeling as Jihadists are just locals that are sick and tired of Americans killing and disrespecting their people daily. Quite frankly if the roles were reversed I’d imagine you and others would be doing the exact same thing. I know if I had to deal with the bullshit the Iraqis deal with daily I would of snapped by now. SO following your logic we should just be carpet bombing Iraq at this point.

    I also don’t get how you think that tens of thousands of people AREN’T a very small amount when compared to the reality that there is over 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world. For comparisons sake there are about 2 billion Christians in the world (which also includes a small amount of nutcases around the world committing terrorist attacks).

    Tell me right now what changes to the law has the Obama administration done to cause this “severely hobbled” state of immigration enforcement? Otherwise you’re just blaming OBama for the status quo which you for some reason didn’t care about during Bush’s administration when everything was exactly the same (including the immigrants “problem”).

    “To the degree that actual terrorist crimes are covered up and not given the proper treatment, such as the seriously muffled Ft. Hood event, even our military is sucked into improper actions by the administration.”

    Seriously muffled? Are you on crack or something? I saw reports on every major station for months after the event. Every detail of the attack and of the attacker himself has been played over and over. And what order from the president has “sucked” our military into “improper actions”?

    “The public rightly wants such actions to be labeled for what they are and handled as Jihadist actions, and they see this administration as derelict in this regard: meaning, of course, Obama and his Czars and minions. But our President can bow and scrape and plead for sanity in front of a huge Muslim audience, and then run like hell so as not to hear the jeers and laughter.”

    I’m fine with labeling a terrorist act a terrorist act now the problem is unless the person committing the act is brown or Muslim you people don’t seem to want to call it a terrorist act. You insist on calling anything done by a Muslim a terrorist act but you object when a white christian man is called a terrorist for killing a doctor or flying a plane into a building or bombing a federal building. Get off the czar bullshit you know as well as anyone that’s just a talking point to score cheap political points while ignoring the reality of what you call Czars (Bush had as many and they used to be called political advisers before a democrat got in office). Your last line is just pure insane bullshit made up by someone who obviously is borderline nuts when it comes to talking religion..

    “Then too, we had some of the worst Jihadists all locked up and tucked away in Guantanimo, but our President tried mightily to close the base and transfer the inmates to the US. He has not succeeded yet, thank God, but the worst of it is the release of quite a number of inmates, only to face them again on the combat fields in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a message there for the most avid supporters of Obama: he knows not what he does (and neither do we!)”

    Dude you’re confusing stuff done under Bush’s watch with Obama. Yes Bush released several people that ended up fighting us but the reality is OBama was planning to keep those that committed crimes in a real prison instead of some pseudo legal black hole which diminishes the USA. Also there have been many people released who were innocent and never held a grudge against us for torturing and abusing them for years based on no evidence which I find quite amazing. I don’t believe I would have the capacity to forgive a country if they kidnapped me tortured me and abused me like we did to them…

  27. mannning says:

    It took 20 or so Jihadists to effect 9/11. What could tens of thousands of Jihadists do to the nation?
    We aren’t faced with 1.5 billion Muslims in America; more like 4 million, some significant number of whom are Jihadists.

    As to Hansen, the Pentagon has steadfastly refused to label his action a terrorist or jihadist action. Why?

    The label czar has just the right connotation for what these people are doing, using the power vested in them by Obama to screw the nation. What business is it of the government that some men make a lot of money?

    There has been a steady drip of releases since Obama took office, and it is my recollection that one of them recently showed up as a major player in AQ. Better to have kept the lot down there under lock and key than to lose the life of one US soldier to a released prisoner. You are obviously far, far too overwrought by “world opinion” because of our locking up captured combatants, which is the usual war practice. World opinion doesn’t buy us much either way.in this conflict.and it shouldn’t be used to guide war policy. Bleading heart pacifists never were very good at conflicts.

    Your rant about brown men versus white men shows where you are coming from. I am talking about Muslims of any color that undertake Jihad. as part of their religious belief. They can be green for all it matters.

    I find it amazing that anyone could vote for Obama in the first place, and he has exceeded all of my worst predictions so far, with more to come. What ever happened to his “open government ” that is now largely hidden from view until he decides to make a pronouncement? Why is he maneuvering to subvert the will of the people regarding amnesty for illegals? and on and on, ad nauseam. Talking about borderline nuts!

    I really don’t know where you get any idea of what I thought of the Bush Administration, its policies and decisions, but I am not at all confused about which were good and which were bad IMO.

    Gee, maybe I am wrong and Obama knows exactly what he is doing to us! God help us!

  28. mannning says:

    For a good porton of the Iraqi conflict, AQ operatives were streaming in from almost every Islamic nation. They weren’t locals at all, but trained insurgency troops sent in to help the locals. Just as they could be sent in to help their locals anywhere on earth.

  29. John425 says:

    I’m waiting for the first idiot who claims anti-Muslim sentiment is the fault of the Joooos! Or the GOP.

    Mataconis says: “Barack Obama has made plenty of mistakes in his eighteen months in office, but to suggest that he is somehow responsible for a rise in what can only be described as religious bigotry is just absurd.”

    However, Doug, this administration’s obsequiousness towards things and nations Muslim heightens the perception that he is a defender of Islam rather than the defender of America.

  30. matt says:

    “It took 20 or so Jihadists to effect 9/11. What could tens of thousands of Jihadists do to the nation?”

    It took two Christian white guys to effect Oklahoma city on April 19th. So I don’t really get your point.

    “We aren’t faced with 1.5 billion Muslims in America; more like 4 million, some significant number of whom are Jihadists.”

    You’re right I’m afraid to go to the store these days due to all the suicide bombings going on. I cannot even get a simple tenderloin these days without some Jihadist trying to cut off my head. Last night I found a Jihadist hiding in my closet waiting for me to go to sleep. God help us deal with these significant number of Jihadists…

    “As to Hansen, the Pentagon has steadfastly refused to label his action a terrorist or jihadist action. Why?”

    Yeah and the Pentagon refuses to label Columbine a terrorist attack or Scott Roeder James W Von Brunn etc as a terrorist.. I wonder why???

    “The label czar has just the right connotation for what these people are doing, using the power vested in them by Obama to screw the nation. What business is it of the government that some men make a lot of money?”

    You’re a hilarious dude. So apparently to you this Nation consists of “some men” who make a lot of money…

    “There has been a steady drip of releases since Obama took office, and it is my recollection that one of them recently showed up as a major player in AQ. Better to have kept the lot down there under lock and key than to lose the life of one US soldier to a released prisoner. You are obviously far, far too overwrought by “world opinion” because of our locking up captured combatants, which is the usual war practice. World opinion doesn’t buy us much either way.in this conflict.and it shouldn’t be used to guide war policy. Bleading heart pacifists never were very good at conflicts.”

    Great we agree they should be moved out of the black hole into super max federal prisons where they can be easily isolated and have utterly no chance of escape while removing the international burden of us keeping Guantanamo open. Dude are you seriously trying to claim the guy that seriously ramped up our killing of AQ and taliban members a bleeding hear pacifist? What universe do you exist in?

    “Your rant about brown men versus white men shows where you are coming from. I am talking about Muslims of any color that undertake Jihad. as part of their religious belief. They can be green for all it matters.”

    Christians engage in holy war as part of their religious belief too hell even Buddhists engage in the killing of heretics/infidels.. Like I clearly explained to you before it’s a matter of local culture not the religion.

    “I find it amazing that anyone could vote for Obama in the first place, and he has exceeded all of my worst predictions so far, with more to come. What ever happened to his “open government ” that is now largely hidden from view until he decides to make a pronouncement? Why is he maneuvering to subvert the will of the people regarding amnesty for illegals? and on and on, ad nauseam. Talking about borderline nuts!”

    It’s funny I’m disappointed in Obama because he’s Bush lite when it comes to openness and such but you are just disappointed in him cause he’s a democrat. What amnesty are you talking about? What the hell are you getting this crazy from? You make all these claims of treason and subverting the will of the people but all you can provide is just incredibly vague assertions. Look people voted for him THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE voted him in after looking at his policies. Deal with the fact that the WILL OF THE PEOPLE doesn’t always equal your will..

    “I really don’t know where you get any idea of what I thought of the Bush Administration, its policies and decisions, but I am not at all confused about which were good and which were bad IMO.”

    I’m basing it on your posts here. I’ve been lurking here for a very very long time and I’ve had ample time to see your cheer leading…

    “For a good porton of the Iraqi conflict, AQ operatives were streaming in from almost every Islamic nation. They weren’t locals at all, but trained insurgency troops sent in to help the locals. Just as they could be sent in to help their locals anywhere on earth”

    Dude it’s like you have no concept as to what the Sunni awakening was about. Those people were streaming in because the locals LET THEM cause the locals SUPPORTED THEM cause they were sick to shit of what they saw as arrogant Americans shitting all over them and their country. Once we started dealing with that perception we started seeing results and managed to turn the locals against the Jihadists in a lot of areas..

    John the problem is unless the president is going around shitting on Islam you think he’s GOTTA be a supporter….

  31. matt says:

    Manning and the like aren’t going to be happy till they completely alienate the Muslims in this country. They don’t seem to realize that because Muslims are so integrated into American life we’re actually safer. When a group of people feel like part of the whole they are much much much more likely to report outsiders who are trying to cause trouble.

  32. matt says:

    I’m wrong I should of said 1 Christian white guy as we don’t seem to be counting the people who weren’t pulling the trigger