“You’re worried about Islamic terrorism? That is a false flag or an op.” If you believe the people who tell you this, you are the sucker. And if America ignores the very real problem of radical Islam, and you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, you’ll end up dead.  That is the message across America for the last couple of weeks, and it’s coming in loud and clear. Yesterday alone, there were two Islamic terror attacks. The first happened at Old Dominion in Virginia, when ISIS-linked Mohamed Bailor Jalloh, 26, stormed a classroom and demanded to know if it was an ROTC class. He then shouted — wait for it — “Allahu akbar!” I know: you’re shocked. He shot and killed the professor, Army Lt. Col. Brandon A. Shah, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Atlantic Resolve, before a group of heroic cadets jumped into action and stabbed Jalloh to death. So who was the terrorist? According to the New York Post, he was a naturalized citizen from Sierra Leone and a former Virginia National Guard member. Were there any red flags? Just a few. Fox News reports that Jalloh was forced to leave the military after he tried to provide material support to ISIS. He was a follower of Anwar al Awlaki, the now-dead leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The DOJ prosecution documents show Jalloh praised a July 2015 terror attack in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in which a radical Islamist killed four Marines and a Navy sailor. He was actually arrested in 2016 after attempting to buy an assault rifle in Northern Virginia and then sentenced to 11 years in prison. Then he was released just 15 months ago for good behavior. Good behavior. So we released an actual, honest-to-God, ISIS-affiliated terrorist into the population for “good behavior.” Did he drop his terror support somehow? If so, what was the evidence that he had? Why did America owe him a free run of the country after he decided to side with an actual, honest-to-God terrorist group? It should be noted that Jalloh received the victim treatment from leftists in the media. In 2016, The Intercept, a far-left publication, printed a sympathetic piece quoting his family, who said he was set up by the FBI. His brother told The Intercept that Jalloh was just another “Mohammad” who got set up. The problem, you see, was really Islamophobia. Never radical Islam, just Islamophobia. So was that attack at Old Dominion the only radical Islamic terror attack of the day? Of course not. Halfway across the country, at one of the biggest Reform Jewish synagogues in America, a radical Muslim suspect named Ayman Mohamed Ghazali, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Lebanon who received a visa as the spouse of a U.S. citizen and was naturalized under the Obama administration, tried to drive an explosive-laden car into the entrance of a preschool with 140 students in attendance.  According to the New York Post, “He barreled down the hallway before security opened fire, killing the suspect.” That attack started a fire in the building. The driver was killed while he was in the car. Police found in the car a rifle and mortar shells. The suspect allegedly came from Dearborn Heights, Michigan. The synagogue was located 20 miles north of Dearborn, an Islam-dominated city represented in Congress by radical Islamic terror apologist Rashida Tlaib. How radicalized is Dearborn? In recent days, some Dearborn mosques have been praising Ayatollah Khamenei. In 2025, the city decided to honor terror-supporting activist Osama Siblani with a street sign. Siblani is a radical Muslim who openly speaks of his pride in terror leaders like deceased Hezbollah head Hassan Nasrallah, whom he called a great leader, saying he was “proud” of him. He also advocated for Hezbollah to make Israel “taste the Lebanon poison.” When a resident of Dearborn showed up at a city council meeting to protest naming a street after this radical Islamist, the mayor of Dearborn told him to get out of the city and then called him — wait for it — wait for it — wait for it — an Islamophobe. Unsurprisingly, there were some people in the media who found excuses for the terror attack at the synagogue. Over on GB News, one commentator explained that this was an “Israeli temple” and thus presumably deserving of its fate. The argument here seems to be that if you are a pro-Israel Jew in the United States, then it’s totally fine for a terrorist to drive a car laden with explosives into your synagogue. Ryan Grim, formerly of The Intercept, reported that the terrorist had family members recently killed by Israel and its current action against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Even if that’s true, it makes for a rather strange defense of these terrorist actions. The mass murder of 1,200 Jews on October 7 in Israel has caused precisely zero Jews, zero, to drive an explosives-laden car into a mosque or near a Muslim school. There’s just something about radical Islam that isn’t quite the same. Of course, as we have been following, the two attacks yesterday were not the first attacks of the last few weeks. Last week, we reported on a radical Islamic terror attack in Austin, Texas, in which a 53-year-old Senegalese immigrant to the United States killed three people and wounded 13 more. He happened to be wearing a sweatshirt that read —wait for it, wait for it — “Property of Allah.” I know, you’re shocked. Over the last weekend, we saw two ISIS-affiliated radical Muslims throw IEDs at a rally outside Gracie Mansion, all of which led the mayor of New York to spend extraordinary efforts condemning — wait for it, wait for it, you’re not going to believe it — Islamophobia. How does this radical ideology spread in America? The answer is twofold. First, we import people who are sympathetic to terrorism, and then addle-pated Americans argue that they ought to be mainstreamed. That’s how you end up with Zohran Mamdani — yes, he is a terrorist supporter — as mayor of New York. It’s how Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar end up in Congress. What should we do about it? First, we can stop future immigration from radical Islamic countries and other third-world areas where we can’t vet our immigrants at the source. You cannot import problems from other parts of the world, require zero assimilation, and then pretend that the big issue is “Islamophobia.” Unfortunately, there are people dedicated to forcing our border wide open. Secondly, we ought to enforce the law to revoke the citizenship of people who associate with terrorist groups or who favor totalitarian forms of government. That is, in fact, the law under title VIII, U.S. code, section 1484. If enforced properly, this would mean revocation of citizenship for a wide variety of radical Islamists living in the United States right now. This law is difficult to enforce; it requires a high degree of evidentiary demonstration. But that degree ought to be met when you affiliate with an actual terrorist group, and if it is not, then the law itself ought to be changed to allow for revocation of such citizenship. It is not our duty to people who seek to destroy America in the name of radical Islam. Until the law is either enforced to the letter or changed, we have an enormous number of people in the United States who are devotees of radical Islam. What’s more, we’ve been told by one entire political party that mentioning this inconvenient fact is tantamount to Islamophobia. Have Americans seen enough?