Worldnutdaily Grand Poobah Joseph Farah writes a typically hysterical column extolling the virtues of Pam Geller’s latest bit of crazy, which is a handbook for fighting the marauding hordes of Muslims set to take over America any minute now. I especially loved this line:
Are you willing to lie down and accept the multicultural mumbo-jumbo that suggests America must embrace a future of second-class citizenship for women, a dual legal system that stands the Constitution on its head and the kind of violence and terrorism and aggression that characterize so much of the Islamic world?
In competitive debate, the negative team offers disadvantages to the affirmative team’s plan. A disadvantage has two basic parts, a link and an impact — the plan causes X and that’s bad because it leads to Y. And the Islamophobe crowd offers an argument with that same structure: Islamists are going to take over America (link) and that’s going to be bad because it leads to beheading people, killing infidels and so forth (impact).
But their responses to critiques of this argument are fundamentally dishonest because they pretend that disputing the link part of their argument means one is in favor of the impact taking place. But that’s completely illogical. The imposition of Sharia law would, of course, be a terrible thing for the country and for me in particular. I am, after all, one of the infidels that could end up losing his head as a result. No one is questioning that this impact scenario would be a very bad thing indeed.
There is only one way in which the Islamic extremists can succeed in diminishing American liberty, by making us so afraid of them that we cast aside the constitutional safeguards that protect us from governmental intrusion in the name of keeping us safe from the overwhelming threat. And folks, they succeeded in doing that the minute we passed the Patriot Act.