In Afghanistan, being gay is a violation of both Sharia and the penal code punishable up to death. Taliban officials have executed gays by stoning them and bulldozing walls over them to crush them to death. Meanwhile, the nation's top leaders and military officers get away with "bacha bazi" — vile acts of child rape and enslavement of young boys.
You might think it sensible to ask the massive flow of Afghanis emigrating to America their views on such matters. But remember: In the perverse world of the politically correct, any kind of religious or national security "profiling" is a violation of "who we are."
Now comes the horrific Orlando bloodbath at a gay nightclub, perpetrated by the gay-hating son of a radical Afghan supporter of the Taliban. Via the Washington Post, Seddique Mateen, father of shooter Omar, is a zealous Muslim whose YouTube videos salute “[o]ur brothers in Waziristan, our warrior brothers in [the] Taliban movement and national Afghan Taliban" for "rising" up. He also appears to be an unstable nutball who thinks he's president of Afghanistan and has lobbied Congress and the State Department.
What questions, if any, regarding Sharia, politics, and his Muslim extremism did consular officers or immigration officials ask Seddique Mateen before granting him entry into our country? Under what program was he admitted?
For his part, U.S.-born shooter Omar Mateen was on the "radar screen" of the FBI multiple times (just as the Muslim Tsarnaev family had been on the intel radar screen before the Boston Marathon bombing) and had reportedly pledged allegiance to ISIS.
So much for assimilating in America.
Lawmakers are still trying to get answers on the family immigration histories of the jihadists involved in the San Bernardino attacks as well as more than 70 other individuals with terror ties. Expect the Obama administration to similarly drag its feet in response to questions about how the elder Mateen got in/remained here and how the younger Mateen slipped through the homeland security cracks.
As I've noted before, anti-profiling activists and "Islamophobia" decriers want it both ways. They damn federal homeland security officials when they gather intelligence based on threat factors and behavioral factors — and damn them in hindsight if they don't. FBI agents are condemned as bigots when they attempt the most modest of surveillance measures and heightened scrutiny of Muslim immigrants from jihadist breeding grounds, and they are damned as bumblers when they fail to act on information gathered through those means.
Remember: Muslim groups balked after 9/11 when federal investigators went to mosques to ask about knowledge of terrorist attacks.
Those who moan about any form of ethnic, religious, and nationality profiling are the first to attack federal officials for not doing enough in the wake of the latest terrorist attack (before hitting the snooze button so after and reverting to p.c. form). I'll never forget hypocrite Maureen Dowd, The New York Times' resident chaise lounge general, after the FBI admitted that it had resisted Phoenix FBI agent Kenneth Williams' recommendation to profile Arab/Muslim flight students in the summer of 2001:
"Now we know the truth," she whined. "The 9/11 terrorists could have been stopped if ... the law enforcement agencies had not been so inept, obstructionist, arrogant, antiquated, bloated and turf-conscious, and timid about racial profiling."
That timidity stems from these same stupid open-borders elites who demand that we kneel at the altar of blind multiculturalism, no questions asked.
This is what you get when Washington abandons protection of our nation's sovereignty for "diversity uber alles."