Democrats' Dogged Defense of Islam

The Democrats have spent the past 48 hours with their hair on fire because Rep. Randy Fine said he'd choose dogs over Muslims. Out of context, that statement likely raises questions. Those were questions the Democrats didn't care to answer, and they didn't bother to look at the broader context. Gavin Newsom and others jumped right to "it's racist" to point out the fact that Muslims a) don't like dogs and b) seek to impose their cultural preferences on the West.

If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.
— Congressman Randy Fine (@RepFine) February 15, 2026

Here's the context on which Fine based his post:

For context, this is the leader of one of the key mainstream Muslim groups that supported Mamdani. pic.twitter.com/zcIs4tVyly
— Congressman Randy Fine (@RepFine) February 15, 2026

Two weeks ago, Leftists in the U.K. were not only lamenting a lack of diversity in the nation's countryside, but they said out loud that dogs were problematic because "Muslims don't like dogs," and the environmentalist Left has been waging war on Fido for a while now, lamenting the "carbon footprint" of our beloved four-legged family members.

For all the Democrats' hysteria, however, there was one thing none of them did say: "No, we won't let Muslims ban dogs." I'm sure that's just a coincidence, right? For those of us who are paying attention, the creep of Islam is undeniable. There are calls to prayer in Dearborn, Islamists in Texas demanding an end to the sale of pork and alcohol, and now Nerdeen Kiswani saying New York City is "coming to Islam."

We've had years of Leftists telling us we have to "tolerate" Islam, and that it's "Islamophobic" to criticize the socio-political movement that subjugates women, kills gays, engages in child marriage, and abuses animals.

For better or worse, they won't do so because they earnestly believe it's so preposterous a proposition that only anti-Muslim bigots and hysterical xenophobes would believe such a thing, and they feel making such a statement would be validating bad actors and credulous idiots…
— Conor Friedersdorf (@conor64) February 17, 2026

Simply incredible framing, isn't it? This tells us all we need to know: Democrats will absolutely support an Islamic-based dog ban, and they'll call us bigots for noticing and objecting to it. Just as they have countless times in the past.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...

What does Conor, what do Democrats, think "New York City is coming to Islam" means? It's not some platitude. It's not a sentiment one slaps on wall art like "Live, Laugh, Love." It's an ideological movement that has one goal: to subjugate the rest of the world to its will and Sharia law.

It's an interesting play for the Democrats to make in a midterm election year: coming out in favor of banning dogs lest we be seen as "racist" by Muslims who hold values that directly contradict our own. Some 65 million American households own at least one dog, and there are between 87 and 90 million dogs in the U.S. While I don't doubt there are some diehard Leftists who, in their eagerness to virtue signal, would euthanize Fluffy to show "solidarity" with their Muslim neighbors, most Americans won't. In fact, quite the opposite. I said after my beloved Bubba died in December that I had no plans to get another dog. If I had to choose between Islam and dogs, I'd get half a dozen dogs.

And if it makes me an "anti-Muslim bigot" and "xenophobic" to oppose a religion that doesn't believe I am entitled to basic human freedoms like getting an education, holding a job, seeing a doctor, not being sexually assaulted, and one that also hates man's best friend, I'll gladly wear that title like a badge of honor. I'm guessing I'm not alone in that, either, judging by the comments on X.

So good luck with that, Democrats. Have fun in the midterms.