Call evil by its rightful name

This column is not for the politically correct moral relativist.

So if you can't stand the thought of clearly naming (and confronting) the evil of terrorism among us, I'd ask you to move along now. The rest of us need to plainly think about how the "can't-we-all-just-get-along" approach to public safety endangers everyone.

Consider the current example of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who joined (or should we say was "embedded" with?) the U.S. Army and then massacred 13 unarmed soldiers at Fort Hood.

So long as American liberals, beginning with President Barack Obama, can't muster the honesty to call the acts of evil by Maj. Hasan by their rightful name, our citizens remain sitting ducks for those who, at this very moment, plot to do us harm. This is a teaching moment, Mr. President. Repeat after me ...

... Nidal Hasan is a jihadist.

... Nidal Hasan committed acts of terrorism.

... Nidal Hasan is every ounce the terrorist as the 9/11 hijackers.

... Nidal Hasan warrants no less serious scrutiny than Timothy McVeigh, who, by the way, was a certified, no-question-about-it terrorist.

Why is that not plain as day? Because for moral relativists (like our president), there is no right and wrong -- only shades of gray. They urge accommodation of evil in the name of tolerance.

It's why we negotiate with Iran.

It's why old ladies in wheelchairs get frisked at the airport while guys with beards and bombs in their shoes walk through unchecked.

It's why police who pull over a Mexican national with drug priors in a routine traffic stop don't check the credentials of his look-a-like passengers in the car.

It's why we forbid soldiers on a military base from carrying weapons.

It's why the Las Vegas police run background checks on casino workers, but then can't sort the work cards by countries of origin like, say, countries on the terrorist watch list.

Maj. Hasan is simply the latest sad case in point.

Maj. Hasan spoke openly (and ignorantly) about how his Muslim faith demanded the severed heads of infidels. He argued against Muslim soldiers killing other Muslims in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He kept counsel with radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki, who had previous contact with two of the 9/11 hijackers.

Investigators speaking on the condition of anonymity told reporters they wanted to investigate Maj. Hasan thoroughly but feared they would be "crucified" if they launched a probe into a Muslim officer communicating with his imam.

So instead of a clear-headed, hard-nosed investigation of this budding terrorist, authorities demurred and, in deference to the punitive policies of the Obama administration, placed public safety behind political correctness.

Even now, well after the massacre when it is clear Maj. Hasan the jihadist demanded scrutiny, our president still can't bring himself to use the word "terrorism."

Instead, he tells us not to jump to conclusions.

Jump to conclusions?

Mr. President, Maj. Hasan talked with co-workers about cutting off the heads of infidels. He maintained ties to a radical imam and, finally, he killed 13 U.S. soldiers while screaming "Allahu Akbar!" And you ask us not to jump to conclusions?

That's just crazy talk. So long as the president maintains that wingnut PC attitude which says the only moral clarity is that there is no moral clarity, his ability to make the hard decisions to keep us safe remains questionable.

Stand by for more terrorism. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the unvarnished truth.

Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@ reviewjournal.com) is publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.