• IN THIS SECTION

July 7, 2008

Crossroads in History: The Struggle against Jihad and Supremacist Ideologies

Jeffrey Imm

In fighting Islamic supremacism, instead of an approach only based on tactical measures and efforts at clever twists of terminology, what if America had a true strategy that was instead based on the defense of our values on human equality and liberty?

The true challenge of Islamic supremacism to America and the free world is not about Islam, Islamism, or terrorism, but about us. It is a historic challenge to determine whether we truly have the courage of our convictions on equality and liberty and we are willing to fight for these ideals, or if we will instead accept the continuing growth of anti-freedom ideologies here and around the world.

Islamic supremacists are counting on their belief that America is no longer willing to fight for such freedoms, that it has gotten too soft to do so, and that regardless of the success or failure of individual Jihadist tactics, eventually we will tolerate a continued growth of Islamic supremacism. The crossroads in history that we stand at remains whether or not we will prove Islamic supremacists correct, or if the idea defined in our very Declaration of Independence and chiseled in a marble memorial in America's capital - that "all men are created equal" - is an idea that America will once again sacrifice to defend.

America and the West are at a critical crossroads in history in their faltering struggle with Islamic supremacist ideologies and Jihadist terror tactics. Increasingly, groups seek to halt any meaningful debate and halt any challenge to the ideology behind Jihad, and they seek to redirect such debate and action to focus only on the terrorist symptoms of such a supremacist ideology. Such diversionary efforts are being made by non-violent Islamic supremacist groups and activists, government officials, academics, and media commentators. The solution to this can be found in recognizing how Islamic supremacism (as any supremacist ideology) is opposed to our values, and in understanding America's historical experience in defeating other supremacist ideologies.

1. The Islamic Supremacist Declaration of War on Equality and Freedom

From a counterterrorist perspective, the Al Qaeda declarations of war against the United States in 1996 and 1998 are widely examined as a basis for a "war on terror." However, the Islamic supremacist challenges to equality and liberty have been occurring long before declarations of war by al Qaeda or any other Islamic supremacist terrorist groups.

Three years after the defeat of the Nazi supremacists, in 1948, the United Nations General Assembly advocated a Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) on human rights, freedom, and equality. In addition to abstention by Communist totalitarian nations, the Islamic supremacist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia refused to support such a resolution on equality.

In 1981, the Islamic supremacist Republic of Iran effectively issued a Sharia-based declaration of war on such ideas "when its representative affirmed that the UDHR represented a secular interpretation of the Judeo-Christian tradition which could not be implemented by Muslims; if a choice had to be made between its stipulations and 'the divine law of the country,' Iran would always choose Islamic law." The Islamic supremacists leading Iran were more forthright in their position than Saudi Arabia; they stated clearly and unequivocally that equality and Sharia were clearly incompatible. In the midst of the Cold War, few truly appreciated this as the Sharia declaration of war on equality and freedom that it was.

In 2000, a year before the 9/11 attacks, the 57 nation Islamist supremacist organization, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam as an alternative document that says people have "freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari'ah" - an exclusionary ideology only for Muslims that denies freedom of religion and many other fundamental human rights of equality.

In 2001, nearly two months before the 9/11 attacks, the European Court of Human Rights determined that "the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime, were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society."

Throughout the world on a daily basis, as analysts pore over the details of violent groups and their tactics, the details of terrorist finance, and the details of battlefield theaters, the anti-democratic stories of Sharia repression are widely ignored by many as the war of ideas with Islamic supremacism is not fully understood even today.

2. "All Men Are Created Equal" Versus Sharia

Tacticians believe the war is between al Qaeda and the West, the Taliban and the West, Hezbollah and the West, between Shiite and Sunni "extremists," or between terrorists and those who advocate non-violence. But this tactical view of world war only sees snapshots of individual theaters of violent activity and propaganda. The true aspects of the war remain a clash of ideological views, not merely individual political demands or battles.

Many in the United States and United Kingdom government leadership positions definitely do not want debate on this clash of ideological views, because they rightly fear that this will lead to more, not less confrontation. The historical mistake that they make is the assumption that such confrontation is something we don't need and something we can avoid. American leaders who fear such confrontation ignore the historical lessons of how other supremacist ideologies were fought and defeated.

The root of the real war is the ideas of equality and liberty versus Sharia and an Islamic supremacist form of societal control. Little is written about this war, which has numerous fronts around the world - violent and non-violent, with propaganda fronts, economic fronts, demographic fronts, legal fronts, educational fronts. It is really what happens in this war of ideas, not in the individual battles in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere that will be the deciding factor in our victory or defeat. But to understand this war of ideas, and understand the application of history in fighting supremacism to dealing with Islamic supremacism, we must understand the dual aspects of freedom and how they remain the greatest weapon in America's arsenal.

While Islamic supremacists view their growing population as their greatest weapon, America has its twin towers of freedom - liberty and equality - which combined provides the greatest weapon on Earth against supremacism. Liberty and equality are the twin towers of America that can not and will not fall as long as American retains its commitment to its national values. America has proven the value of these hard-won ideological weapons against supremacist ideologies repeatedly throughout our history.

Liberty alone is not enough to fight supremacism. Liberty is only half of the equation of freedom; equality is the other completing half of freedom that provides the values to truly challenge any supremacist ideology - the values of America that all men and women are created equal. We learned that nearly 90 years after America's creation, and we fought to rectify this with a dual commitment for equality as well as liberty.

In the larger, strategic war against Islamic supremacism, it is America's unique historical experience in the war of ideas against other supremacist organizations that our leaders must examine in finding answers and strategies in fighting Islamic supremacism today.

3. Approach to Confronting a 4 Million Member Terrorist Group

Of all the nations with major terrorist organizations, one particularly stands out in that it faced a problem of having 4 million members of a terrorist organization, and likely many more sympathizers of that terrorist group. I know that the United Kingdom is greatly concerned about its threat of perhaps 4 thousand terrorists, but that is nothing compared to 4 million terrorists.

The nation that addressed this problem of having 4 million members of a terrorist organization took a very different approach to the problem than we are taking today, with our tolerance for non-violent Islamic supremacist groups and a terror lexicon that recommends not using terms that might incite Muslims to join terror groups. The nation I am referencing that faced the 4 million member terrorist group, of course, is the United States of America and the terrorist group was a white supremacist terrorist group known as the Ku Klux Klan. At one point in the mid-1920s, there were up to 4 millions members of the Ku Klux Klan, and there were many more adherents to the political ideology of non-violent white supremacism. But our nation decided that it would confront the ideology of white supremacism, in any form, violent or non-violent, no matter who was offended by such confrontation. Because we stood first and foremost for defending the democratic values of America.

When we look at the issue of Jihad, of Islamic supremacist terrorism, the lesson to be learned is that America defeated the largest terrorist organization, quite possibly in the history of the world, by attacking the values of supremacism as our priority, not worrying whether such confrontation would incite more individuals to join white supremacist terrorist groups, because we needed white Americans to change. In today's world, this lesson shows us that change won't happen by ignoring the Islamic supremacist ideology that forms the basis for Islamist terrorism. That change won't happen by refusing to use confrontational terms that will cause Muslims to critically look at such ideologies. Change requires a confrontation of supremacist ideologies that are contrary to American values.

The lesson to be learned from America's wars of supremacist ideologies - whether it is against the Nazi Aryan supremacists, the white supremacists in the United States or in other nations, or the Islamic supremacists - is that such a war is first and foremost a "war of ideas" - one that confronts such ideologies on multiple levels to attack and undermine such supremacism.

4. America's "War of Ideas" Against Supremacist Ideologies

Confrontation is not always a bad thing. Sometimes it is a necessary thing. Sometimes the only way to stop a bully is to defy him, confront him, and perhaps even knock him down.

Those with a focus on homeland security policy matters, or those who advise on counterterrorism tactics may not look at world issues this way. Their mission is prevent and stop potential attacks on America, and their directive is to find means, any means, to accomplish such tasks... even if this requires avoiding confrontation with ideologies or groups inimical to the United States' values. When such individuals suggest that in preventing growth of terrorism, (a) that the American government not use terms like "Jihad," (b) that the American government deny anything linked to Islamic supremacism in terrorism, (c) that the Muslim Brotherhood be "engaged," (d) that groups such as CAIR, MPAC, ISNA be listened to and approached as a potential audience to discourage "extremism," it must be understood that their goal is to avoid confrontation. Based on their task focus, they are trying to do what they think is the correct thing to do.

Sometimes the correct thing to do in terms of tactical measures is not the right thing to do in terms of defending American values. When America is only viewed as a nation-state of citizens, it is easy to view tactical measures as the appropriate focus. But America is more than merely the geo-political nation state of the United States of America - it is an idea, it is a principle, for many it is a dream - of equality and liberty. When Americans don't stand by the courage of their convictions, it doesn't just hurt America - it hurts the world. Every oppressed person that looks to America as a beacon of hope in a dark world is mocked when we fail to stand tall. They are mocked to look at "their America" - as corrupt and weak as "everyone else."

Whether it is the fight against Nazi supremacism, white supremacism, Apartheid, or Islamic supremacism, it is America's fight - not because of what we are, or who we are, but because of what we believe, what ideals we believe are worth sacrifice. Just as America confronted other such ideologies of supremacism, once again we are faced with a moral and ethical challenge in how to deal with Islamic supremacism. Avoiding this ideological challenge by only debating the details of tactical issues is an approach that is not true to our values and to our identity. Such an approach may work with other nations with other values, but not with America.

Like white supremacism, Islamic supremacism is a hybrid political ideology mixing something unfamiliar to American analysts who focus on relations with nation-states, groups, organizations that can be more readily categorized. While supremacism of religion, race, etc. may be a hybrid political ideology, it is a very real political ideology, and as Americans have seen in the United States, in other nations, and on a transnational basis, such ideologies can be very powerful and threatening to the values we seek to uphold.

What history shows is that defenders of equality and liberty can't defeat or challenge such ideologies merely with military or law enforcement tactics. Fighting supremacist ideologies requires a "war of ideas" that reaches many avenues of national and international society, it requires addressing such ideologies in academia and in the media, it requires addressing such ideologies in governments and in public institutions, it requires addressing such ideologies through economic and public pressures. A "war of ideas" may engage individuals in every aspect of society, but it also requires centralized focus, leadership, and public debate. Most importantly, such a "war of ideas" must be uncompromising on the issues of values of equality and liberty, and confrontational to ideologues who would deny the right of such values. Tacticians are not the individuals to lead of "war of ideas." Tacticians making recommendations on how to avoid confrontation with supremacist ideologies are definitely not those to provide strategic guidance on a "war of ideas."

Every "war of ideas" needs a blueprint of goals and objectives, but most of all it needs inspiration. In the American war on white supremacism, such inspiration came from the values that "All Men Are Created Equal." These values are as valid today in addressing Islamic supremacism as they were in our nation's founding Declaration of Independence and as they were in our actualization of such values in a 100 year long war against white supremacism. But our approach to dealing with this supremacist ideology today is completely different.

Hitler's Germany, George Wallace's Alabama, and the Taliban's Afghanistan share the same blot of supremacist values inimical to our identity. They serve as examples of what could happen if supremacism is not confronted. But our opposition to Nazism, our opposition to white supremacism did not end merely with removing Hitler from power or enforcing American federal civil rights laws in post-Wallace Alabama (and other parts of the country). Our opposition to such supremacist ideologies continued as a war of ideas beyond individual men, individual states. The world war against Nazi Aryan supremacism was a continuing war that involved military, propaganda, educational, political, economic, and social changes throughout Europe. We confronted Europeans who embraced such ideologies to change as individuals. The American war against white supremacism was a continuing war that involved federal legislation, educational changes, economic changes, and social changes throughout America. We confronted Americans who embraced such ideologies to change as individuals.

Yet in facing the Taliban's Afghanistan as a base from which 9/11 hijackers were trained to attack the American homeland, most of the focus is in terms of military issues and logistical "rebuilding" of Afghanistan's infrastructure. We are not demanding that individuals who embraced the Taliban's Islamic supremacist ideology to change as individuals, we are not defining and debating that ideology, and we are not asserting value judgments that such a supremacist ideology is unacceptable. Our focus remains on violent tactics of "extremists" following this ideology, not the ideology itself.

Incredibly, in the minds of some, the Taliban are being viewed as "multi-faceted" and individuals available for negotiation, and rehabilitation back into political governance. Could you imagine suggestions that the Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan were multi-faceted and that attempts should be made to bring such supremacist ideologies into "mainstream" political parties? Yet this is precisely what has been suggested for the Taliban in Afghanistan by members of the United Nations and western political leaders.

The root of such dysfunctional behavior is the unwillingness to discuss the ideology behind the Taliban's actions. "Islamic supremacism" (or the westernized term of "Islamism") and its basis in Sharia are not a topic for discussion in western debate. Per my recent writing on Pakistan, the growth of the influence of Sharia throughout the nuclear weapons-armed Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the efforts of the Taliban to enforce such Sharia law by gunpoint, beheadings, and bombs is also largely ignored by much of the news media and by civil liberty activists. Debate on Sharia is now officially forbidden in United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) public hearings, as recently addressed.

Unlike other battles against supremacist ideologies, we have no war on "Islamic supremacism," because American leadership dares not mention its name for fear of "inciting" Muslims to join "extremist" terrorist groups and promote more violence. Could you imagine American leadership being afraid to criticize the Nazi Aryan supremacist ideology for fear that Nazis would commit sabotage on an American military facility? Could you imagine modern American leadership being afraid to criticize the white supremacist ideology for fear of inciting whites to join the Ku Klux Klan? If we used such tactics to fight other supremacist ideologies... we would have lost such wars - and abandoned our values.

Yet this is the type of world that we find ourselves in today regarding the subject of Islamic supremacism. It is a world where Islamic supremacists have bullied the leaders of liberty and equality into silence on their ideology itself, in hopes that we might contain some of the violent aspects of the ideology for a while. It is a topsy-turvy world where challenging a supremacist ideology leads to charges of "hate" and "bigotry." This is what happens when America prioritizes tactics over values.

-- Where once bombings and killings by white supremacist organizations were condemned by an informed American public and media, now such bombings and killings by Islamic supremacist organizations around the world go widely unnoticed and unreported, unless they happen in Iraq.

-- Where once marches and rallies were held calling for action against white supremacists, now marches and rallies are held calling for inaction against Islamic supremacists, including calls to release from prison Islamic supremacists associated with terror groups.

-- Where once white supremacist groups were excoriated as bullies, now much of academia, the media, and many individuals in American leadership apologize for Islamic supremacist groups around the world as victims, regardless of who is killed or maimed for the furtherance of such a supremacist ideology.

-- Where once we challenged white supremacist segregated schools, now American leadership chooses to ignore Islamic madrassas that teach hate and violence, including ones in the United States funded by the Islamic supremacist nation of Saudi Arabia.

-- Where once we alienated nations that advocated supremacist ideologies, now American leadership recognizes nations such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan that advocate or support Islamic supremacist ideologies as "allies."

-- Where once we sought to destroy the remnants of Nazi Aryan supremacism in defeated Germany, now American leadership allows so-called non-violent Islamic supremacism to continue to grow and gain influence in Afghanistan and Iraq.

-- Where once the media and the creative world publicized the plight of Jews trying to escape Nazi supremacism, now there is a concerted silence by most of the media and the creative world on the plight of those who leave Islam trying to escape from death punishment as "apostates" in Islamic supremacist nations.

-- Where once academia viewed white supremacists as ignorant social outcasts, now today's academia invites representatives of Islamic supremacist organizations as members of forums on homeland security.

-- Where once leaders of America's news media attacked the savage nature of white supremacist ideology, now leaders of America's news media refuse to acknowledge the existence of Islamic supremacism, and the Washington Post and New York Times allows Islamic supremacist representatives of Hamas to publish articles in their newspapers.

-- Where once American leadership used economic leverage against foreign and domestic supporters of supremacist ideologies, now American leadership fails to acknowledge the need for energy independence from Islamic supremacist nations on oil, and continues to fund such supremacism through petrodollars every day.

-- Where once white supremacist "Jim Crow" laws, the supremacist ideology of Apartheid (meaning "separateness"), and Nazi Nuremberg Laws were all condemned by civil rights advocates as violations of human rights of equality, now most civil rights advocates fear to address the impact of Islamic supremacism on human rights, refuse to address Islamic supremacist blasphemy and apostate laws, refuse to address the impact of Islamic supremacist laws on women and the oppressed, refuse to address the impact of Islamic supremacist laws on freedom of speech and expression, and debates on Sharia are forbidden in UN human rights organizations.

-- Where once supremacist ideologies were viewed as savage and unconscionable in civilized society, now academics argue that Islamic supremacism is acceptable because it reflects the "cultural values" of Islamic nations.

-- Where once American school children were taught of the need to reject white supremacism and to reject such code words for such ideologies as "white racial pride," now there is no education to the youth on Islamic supremacism, and they are taught that "jihad" is merely a peaceful struggle.

-- Where once white supremacist politicians were shunned by the American federal government with federal laws passed to undermine and destroy their ideology, now pro-Islamic supremacist organizations are welcomed in discussions with the American federal government, with government representatives attending conferences of organizations listed as co-conspirators in terror trials, that have speakers with a history of supporting Islamic supremacism, and with government representatives sitting beside Islamic supremacist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir that seeks a global caliphate.

-- Where once American federal law enforcement conducted domestic intelligence on white supremacists in an effort to completely undermine their efforts nationwide, now organizations linked to Islamic supremacism provide instruction to American federal law enforcement on how to interface with Muslims.

-- Where once America had a total war on white supremacism (both violent and non-violent aspects), now American leadership seeks to only address violent "extremists" among Islamic supremacists.

-- Where once Jimmy Carter called for embargoes on South Africa due to its supremacist Apartheid policies, now Jimmy Carter physically embraces Islamic supremacist Hamas leaders belonging to an organization listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

-- Where once black American churches provided a bedrock of defiance against white supremacism, now churches such as Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ are being used to promote propaganda by the Islamic supremacist group Hamas, and to praise political Islamic supremacists such as Louis Farrakhan.

-- Where once other American Christian churches also confronted white supremacism, now leaders of some American Protestant Christian churches such as the Presbyterian Church (USA) cordially meet with and promote Islamic supremacists, including terrorist groups such as Hezbollah.

-- Where once we were disgusted by the Nazi promotion of the anti-semitic screed "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" in Mein Kampf, now we ignore the promotion of this hate screed in Islamic republics and among Islamic supremacist groups, and even American liberal Christian religious groups (such as the Presbyterian Peacemakers) invite Islamic supremacist speakers to expound on the Protocols of Elders of Zion at college functions.

-- Where once American government leadership felt that exporting our values of equality and liberty was a priority in global relations, now American government leadership seeks to instead address values of "progress" with global Islamic communities.

-- Where once American leadership challenged supremacist groups and sacrificed as a nation based on the courage of our convictions, we now just don't want any more trouble and will accept compromises to avoid "inciting" Muslims to join "extremist" organizations.

This grim situation will only continue to grow the longer that American leadership fails to acknowledge and address the issue of Islamic supremacism as an ideology, and as an ideology that America firmly and concretely opposes. Confrontation of Islamic supremacism may not be the best tactical approach for avoiding additional violence, but confrontation is unquestionably the strategy necessary to preserve and protect America's values and identity.

One of the greatest such stories is the heroic war on white supremacism and the national battle to make the value of "all men are created equal" a reality. This American war on white supremacism provides a microcosm of the larger international struggle that must be met against Islamic supremacism. The war on white supremacism is not merely an illustration of what steps must be taken against Islamic supremacism within the United States - but demonstrates a blueprint on what steps must be taken around the world.

As we revealed the savagery of American white supremacist ideology in our media, so our media must our now reveal the savagery of Islamic supremacist ideology around the globe. As we spoke out and rallied against white supremacism, so we must now speak out against Islamic supremacism around the globe. As we mocked those who defended white supremacism as a defense for "white racial pride" in America, so we must mock those who defend Islamic supremacism around the globe as a defense of "cultural values." As we undermined white supremacist groups in America, so we must undermine and discredit Islamic supremacist groups in the United States and around the world. As we challenged white supremacism in Alabama, Mississippi and in every state in America, so must we challenge Islamic supremacism in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, and in other nations around the world.

Supremacist ideologies, by their very nature, are at de facto war with equality. Failure to defend the ideology of equality is a de facto victory for supremacism.

Courage - of - our convictions... is more than just a phrase. It is an ethical challenge to generations of Americans past, present, and future. It is the fuel that burns the beacon of equality and liberty. America has a history of heroes that lived for and died for such courage - to stand as an example to those who would come after them.

Will our generation be able to rise to such a challenge, or will it find the burden of defending our values of equality and liberty too heavy? The choice to defend these values will be a costly sacrifice, but an even more costly sacrifice would be to fail to do so.

5. A Declaration of Independence from Islamic Supremacism

In a war of ideas, the individual battles are sometimes less visually obvious than in traditional military battles. But certainly those who remember seeing black churches burned to the ground by white supremacists, who remember the slaughter of 6 million Jews by Nazi supremacists in the Holocaust, who remember the 9/11 attacks by Islamic supremacists in 2001... remember that such horrific violence was more than random senseless acts, but that such violence was a deliberate act of war against a race, against a religion, against a people that values equality and liberty.

These wars of ideas are more than rhetorical battles and debates. They are mortal and moral conflicts that define who and what we are. They are civilizational conflicts that define what values we hold dear and what values we will give our lives to defend. To diminish the magnitude of such moral and values conflicts is an insult to all those whose lives, whose families, whose peace, was sacrificed.

Supremacist ideologies - whether they are Nazism, White Supremacism, or Islamic Supremacism - are not the values of a civilized society. They are the values of a savage society, a society that America's pluralistic democracy can not, will not, and must not appease or tolerate. In our founding Declaration of Independence, we declared that "All Men Are Created Equal." One hundred and forty five years ago, our president declared a war that would challenge white supremacism based on the ideals best summarized in his Gettysburg Address: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

All men and women of all races, religions are equal. This fundamental American value is the antithesis of Islamic supremacism, where freedom of religion is not permitted, where terrorism is lauded as "martyrdom," where "blasphemy" and "apostasy" is punishable by death, where women and non-Muslims are second class citizens, where children are forced into marriage, where girls and women are murdered for "honor," and where the only way - is the Sharia way.

We cannot continue to allow those in denial on Islamic supremacism to persuade our government leadership that such diametrically opposed values can continue to co-exist without confrontation. We cannot continue to let those who would apologize for Islamic supremacism persuade our government leadership that "progress" and "peace" are worth more than the values of equality and liberty that define America itself.

America must make a declaration of independence from the influence of Islamic supremacism in our society, in our government, and in our nation.

A declaration of independence from the influence of Islamic supremacism in America is not an educational issue, it is an issue of determination, of defiance, of willpower. It is a challenge to see if we truly have the courage of our convictions. A declaration of independence from the influence of Islamic supremacism in America and around the world is the moral calling of this American generation - to confront, to defy, and to deny the efforts of Islamic supremacists here and around the world to expand their activist supremacist ideology. We must reject Islamic supremacism influences in our government leadership, our military, our academia, our schools, our news media, and our allies. We must reject Islamic supremacist organizations and their attempts to infiltrate our society and divide our nation. We must defy the efforts of Islamic supremacist organizations to influence our language, to gain a safe haven for their anti-American ideology, and to influence government policy to ignore American values.

With such a declaration of independence from Islamic supremacism, we must face a greater, more dangerous task ahead - a war against the ideology of Islamic supremacism itself. Many fear such a confrontation -- and with good cause. Such a confrontation will result in great sacrifice. But a greater sacrifice would be to abandon our principles of equality and liberty in favor of "progress," a greater sacrifice would be to retreat before a supremacist bully that seeks to manipulate our national and international policies in fear of terrorist retribution, a greater sacrifice would be to allow this current threat of Islamic supremacism to make the sacrifices of generations before us to be in vain in defining America as the defender of equality and liberty.

Islamic supremacists fail to understand that America will survive all attacks and weapons against us, that America will survive all losses and sacrifices in the defense of its values of equality and liberty, that America will survive any catastrophe that may befall its geographical nation or its people. Because America is not just a geographic nation-state, America is not just a group of people, America is an idea itself. This is why we fight for equality and liberty. This is why we sacrifice for equality and liberty. Because this is who and what America is.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

We understood this when we first made our Declaration of Independence, and we fought a war over 100 years with white supremacists to make these values a consistent reality. As we address the new ideological tyranny of Islamic supremacism, we must remember that these truths are just as self-evident today as they were on July 4, 1776. They remain just as important to fight for now, as then, no matter what ideology threatens them.

Editor's note: The full-length version of this article can be found here.

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Jeffrey Imm is Research Director of the Counterterrorism Blog , was formerly with the FBI, and also has his own counterterrorism research web site at UnitedStatesAction.com.

Print This E-mail This

Share It: