Fifteen years later, it bears remembering what Laila Alawa, a Syrian immigrant living in the United States, publicly tweeted: the worst terrorist attack on American soil, 9/11/01, “changed the world for good.”
One year later, she was appointed to the U.S. Homeland Security Advisory Council’s (HSAC) Subcommittee on “Countering Violent Extremism.”
Trending: Freak Show
Prior to becoming a citizen, one must take the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America. The second phrase of the oath, which she would have repeated and sworn to out loud is:
I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”
But the same year that she became a citizen, Alawa wrote on her blog:
I will always be Syrian. I will always be from Syria. I will always be of Syria.”
Because Syria– not America– is her homeland.
Either Homeland Security missed this public declaration against the U.S., which is troubling for obvious reasons, or it knew about her support of Islam and assigned her to that specific committee for a reason. It appears the latter is more likely.
In early June, The Daily Caller reported that the subcommittee Alawa sits on submitted a report to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, recommending the agency to no longer use words like “sharia” and “jihad” when discussing terrorism.
This is what “Countering Violent Extremism” really means– censoring any accurate descriptions of Islamic terrorism– the very language that Islamic terrorists use to describe themselves. “Political Correctness,” or lying, is now the approach to combat Islamic terrorism.
This is the problem with Alawa, and everyone else like her– they may have a piece of paper stating they are citizens. But they are not American. And they don’t see themselves as Americans either. Citizenship is a formality. It is not a belief or a commitment.
How can one take the Oath of Allegiance and also claim that 9/11 was good for people to “have open conversations about our differences”?
How exactly are people supposed to discuss these differences when they are not allowed to use certain words?
And– what differences– not blowing up airplanes vs blowing up airplanes? How is committing mass murder a good thing?
More importantly– how is America being protected by the agency tasked with protecting it when one of its Homeland Security Council Advisors is an Islamist who views Syria as her homeland and terrorist attacks against the U.S. as a good thing?
Could anything be more ironically tragic?