Monthly Archives: January 2015

Obama Abets Five Anti-American Empires

Victor Davis Hanson’s brilliant analysis of contemporary geo-politics is a must read at National Review. In less than 1,200 words, Hanson summarizes the alarming rise of five (five!) anti-American empires under Obama’s watch.

Empires

World War I saw the demise of the colonial age of empires, as four empires (Austro-Hungarian, German, Ottoman, and Russian) “abruptly collapsed amid military defeat, rising nationalism, and revolution.”

Everything abhors a vacuum, so, “on the eve of World War II four new empires suddenly grew out of the wreckage of old Europe and Asia.” They were: Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany (Third Reich), the Greater Japanese Empire, and the Soviet Union.

The German, Italian, and Japanese Empires collapsed at the end of the Second World War, with the British Empire sputtering to an end a few decades later. “The Soviet implosion in 1991 was expected by very few.” [Ronald Reagan was the exception.]

Barack Obama, Empire Builder

That geo-political power vacuum is again creating a vortex of competing empire-building forces spanning the globe to create, as Hanson notes, five new (or revived) empires.

The first empire identified by Hanson is an “Iranian theocracy [which] fancies itself the reincarnation of the ancient Persian Empire of Cyrus and Xerxes.” Iran’s nuclear ambitions will soon be realized, and it already “controls portions of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and, soon, Yemen.”

The second emerging empire – a restored Russian Empire – fulfills Putin’s “dreams of updating 19th-century Czarist Russia.” Putin “runs an autocratic nuclear state and has dreams of restoring 19th-century imperial Russia under Orthodoxy and a new czardom.”

“Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan dreams of reviving the Ottoman Empire.” This third empire extends into “both the Arab and the Mediterranean worlds.”

The fourth empire, the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL), “has grandiose schemes of recreating the medieval pan-Arab caliphate.” It is intent upon hollowing out and absorbing the Middle East and seizing “the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.”

The jihadist Islamic State is an empire of our own making, as Hanson notes, “for the price of a cheap 2012 reelection talking point, the U.S. fled from Iraq in 2011, after enormous sacrifices in blood and treasure had achieved, in the words of Barack Obama, a relatively stable and secure Iraq that might have been, in the words of Joe Biden, the administration’s greatest achievement. Supporters of Obama claim the Iraq War created ISIS; in fact, the disintegration of Syria and the abrupt U.S. withdrawal from Iraq did.”

The fifth empire, the awakening giant of Communist China, “has terrified almost all of its Westernized neighbors – Australia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan.” It is attempting “to recreate its own version of” the Japanese Empire.

Our Common Enemy

Hanson notes some disturbing “common denominators to the grandiose visions of these five would-be empires.” In essence, they “are anti-democratic,” “certainly anti-American” “bullies” who cannot be appeased.

As Hanson puts it, “Obama is abetting five new empires that believe their reactionary autocracy, anti-Americanism, and growing military power should earn them greater material rewards and global influence. To paraphrase the Roman historian Tacitus, where Obama has helped to create chaos, he calls it peace.”

Although Obama rails against imperialism, and has – throughout his presidency – sought to diminish America’s geo-political footprint around the globe, Hanson points out that this present-day “turbulent age of rising empires [is] mostly due to a new American indifference and passivity.”

Ironically, as President Barack “I am not a dictator” Obama wields greater dictatorial powers at home and bullies political opponents as if they were the enemy, he appeases our enemies as if that will cause them to cease being tyrants or terrorists.

obama.empire.statement.2011

Obama treats these rising hegemonic threats as if they were legitimate, yet regards America’s presence anywhere as illegitimate, as if America was a usurper on the world stage.

Leading from behind has led to this global crisis in which America continues to hide behind Obama’s phony assurances of “Peace in our time.” Instead of exercising leadership in a world desperate for salvation, Obama rejects the reality of the threats facing us and the world.

Instead of challenging, as Reagan did, existing evil empires, Obama acts as if it is America that is evil.

Update: David French adds clarity to President Obama’s actual accomplishments in the Middle East and northern Africa. He writes:

“While no one should pretend there was an easy or obvious American diplomatic or military response to the Arab Spring, the Obama administration did worse than fail – it kept choosing to back the wrong side. It launched a war on behalf of a ragtag group of jihadist militias in Libya – jihadists who soon enough transformed into violent enemies of the U.S. It backed the revolutionary Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt – even to the point of sending it advanced American weapons – even as it violated the Camp David Accords, persecuted Christians, and supported Hamas. Then, when the Brotherhood was overthrown in one of the world’s largest political protests, the Obama administration incredibly imposed an arms embargo on the new, allied government that took power.”

French continues:

“At perhaps the most strategically critical moment in the Middle East since the Arab-Israeli wars, the Obama administration created a yawning power vacuum — one that has since been filled, with gusto, by ISIS, Iran, and now Russia.”

Advertisements

“I’m having a … fetus”

Funny, but you never hear expectant mothers say, “I’m having a fetus.” Or, “My fetus is kicking.” Nor do pregnant women talk about hoping that the “glob of cells” they’re carrying will be a boy or a girl.

Rather, they understand that they are having a child. Not a pig or a frog or a bird, but a child.

This truth escapes the pro-abortion crowd. Abortion activists will often claim that the object of the pregnancy is a fetus, not a baby. Fetus is a medical term. People simply regard it as an unborn baby.

Fetus

The expression “with child” arose for a reason. The expectant mother is “with” something, and that something is a “child.” (Notice the word “with” – the child is with the mother, not part of the mother.)

People know the truth, yet the abortion industry – abortionists, feminists, many academics, public education, and a compliant media, among others – continues with its propaganda to indoctrinate Americans. But it just does not work because the truth is too obvious.

The Big Lie: the unborn baby is not human and has no human rights. (Unless, that is, the mother wants the unborn baby, then it is human.)

The cognitive dissonance: abortionists can kill the unborn as if it is not human, but someone causing the death of the unborn can be charged with murder.

Other Euphemisms

Having “a bun in the oven” is a euphemism for being pregnant.

Bakers place buns in the oven to bake them. They are called buns when they go in and they are called buns when they come out. They will never be turnips or pumpkin pie or pot roast. They will always be buns. Period.

Likewise, an unborn child will always be human – from conception to birth to death in old age. Human.

An acorn is not an oak tree, but it is a nascent oak tree. You might say that an acorn contains an oak tree within itself. Acorns come from oak trees and become oak trees. Acorns and oak trees share the same genetic material, the same essential DNA.

An acorn will never be a deer or a dolphin or a dog.

No one rationally disputes this. Science and biology prove this. Just as science and biology prove that pregnant women are pregnant with human beings.

Thus, the unborn child will always be born a human and not a rodent or a cow or a pig.

A human being is an organism of the species homo sapiens. Using this definition, a ‘fertilized egg’ (a.k.a. zygote) is indeed a human being. This is basic biology.”

“The zygote/embryo is a whole distinct human organism – that is, a human being, a self-developing member of the species Homo sapiens – at a very early stage of life.”

As noted in National Review: “Science has very good answers as to what is in the womb at conception. The cells in question are living cells, not dead ones. They are human cells, not rutabaga cells or bullfrog cells or Lactobacillus bulgaricus cells. They are genetically distinct from the cells of the mother’s body, as the DNA will confirm. They form an organism of the species Homo sapiens, not a tumor, an organ, an amputated limb, or a fingernail clipping. Science is reasonably clear about what this is: a genetically distinct living human organism at his or her earliest stage of development.”

Pregnant Pause

The English language is replete with words, phrases, colloquialisms, and idiomatic expressions which all point to the realities people regularly experience. For instance,

A pregnant pause “is a technique of comic timing used to accentuate a comedy element, where the comic pauses at the end of a phrase to build up suspense. It’s often used at the end of a comically awkward statement or in the silence after a seemingly non-comic phrase to build up a comeback.”

It is a “pause that gives the impression that it will be followed by something significant.” In the case of humor, that something significant is a punchline. In the case of people, it is a human birth. Pregnancy normally leads to birth. The birth of a human being.

Comedians understand it. Most people get it. The concept itself is far from revolutionary. Yet, abortion proponents either cannot grasp it or they are in denial over a reality which refutes their worldview and ideology.

By the way, the organization, Pregnant Pause, provides a wealth of pro-life information.

March for Life

Today marks the 42nd 1st anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Today is also the 41st annual March for Life, the largest pro-life gathering in the world! For those interested in supporting the pro-life movement, you might consider contacting that organization (or any number of other groups).

Pro-lifers come in all shapes and sizes. They defend the unborn, support those who are pregnant, provide counseling for those who have aborted their children, help with adoption of the newly born, assist those who have babies who have survived an abortion, address the political and legal aspects surrounding pro-life issues, and look to the spiritual well-being of all concerned.

<> on January 22, 2015 in Washington, DC.

Facebook Chat re: “Reproductive Rights”

I recently had a Facebook chat with an abortion advocate. His reasoning and rationale are noteworthy. You will see him reframe the issue (from babies, to women), conflate issues (humans, animals), dehumanize the unborn (developing zygote), rationalized partial-birth abortion, and accused me of having contempt for women and being pro-rapist (for supporting the children of rape).

I initiated the dialogue by questioning the very term “reproductive rights.” [Emphasis added throughout.]

BW: “Reproductive rights?” Don’t you mean “non-reproductive rights?” Abortion kills what is being reproduced.

DS: I think “reproductive rights” refers to women’s rights to control their own reproduction, as opposed to the government or a church or another outside group.

BW: Does the baby have a say in whether or not he or she can be reproduced? Aren’t “reproductive rights” actually a death sentence on the baby?

DS: Babies are not aborted; fetuses are, as though it were an induced miscarriage. If life began at conception, we would all celebrate our conception days, not our birthdays.

BW: Is a fetus human? Or something non-human? If the former, it has a right to life.

DS: Your error, and the error of the right-to-lifers generally, is to think the abortion debate is about babies. It is not, it is about women and how to control their behavior and reduce their autonomy. And by the way, as an animal owner, I question your assumption that they don’t have a right to life as well.

BW: If animals have a right to life, why not fetuses?

DS: Animals have been born; they are not developing zygotes.

BW: Is a fetus less human because it is smaller in size? Does a fetus deserve fewer rights because it can’t speak? A fetus has all the body parts of a baby and is clearly human. Why is it not entitled to human rights?

Do you consider partial-birth abortion a legitimate “reproductive right?”

DS: In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court used “viability” as the standard of when a fetus attains human rights, and therefore set six months as a reasonable standard. There is no such medical term as “partial birth abortion”; this was made up by anti-abortion propagandists.

BW: “Partial-birth abortion” is a DESCRIPTIVE term which accurately describes a “medical” procedure in which the fetus is partially born but then aborted. It is alive as it is being delivered and then killed before delivery is complete.

DS: This is extremely rare in the literature, has accompanying medical issues which you are not mentioning, and serves mainly as a scare tactic by anti-abortion activists.

BW: Medical science has tremendously advanced since 1973. The time frame for viability now would be significantly different. Still, many fetuses are aborted even after the Supreme Court’s arbitrary six-month cut-off.

There are absolutely NO – repeat NO – medical reasons for performing a partial-birth abortion. None whatsoever. In fact, performing one extends the birthing process.

DS: No, not many. One problem is that all pregnancies are different and time-dating them, especially by the woman involved, is an imprecise science. Some women don’t even realize they are pregnant until they are pretty far along.

Partial birth abortions, whatever they may be, are a red herring. Anti-abortionists oppose ALL abortions, at whatever stage, even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, demonstrating that they are anti-women more than pro-life.

BW: Abortionists literally PREVENT the birth from being completed to kill the baby (which is almost completely out at that point). No medical reasons for a partial-birth abortion. None.

DS: Most abortion clinics do not perform the procedure beyond the point of viability. You’re obsessing over a red herring.

BW: So, if the mother doesn’t know until the eighth month, it’s OK. Tough luck, little one, but you gotta die?

Do you approve of partial-birth abortion? Do you consider it a legitimate procedure?

DS: I won’t be drawn into a nonsensical argument over a procedure so rare it is statistically non-existent, if you will not respond to the anti-woman aspect of the anti-abortion movement. Do you make an exception for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, or don’t you?

BW: Only exception – save the life of the mother. Not “health” of the mother, but “life” of the mother.

PBA is not a nonsensical argument because it does happen. Do you or do you not approve?

DS: So a woman has to carry the baby fathered by her rapist or abuser to term. A pro-rapist and pro-molester argument. You should be proud.

BW: You would kill an innocent life? And further victimize the mother?

How is it pro-rapist and pro-molester? What the #### are you talking about? It is pro-LIFE!

DS: And why is health of the mother insufficient to justify a medical procedure; why aren’t women to be allowed to care for their own health as all the rest of us do? Deal with your contempt for women.

BW: Because having a headache would constitute a “health” issue.

What contempt [for women]? Half of the babies aborted are female!

A disproportionate number of babies aborted are black. Are you anti-black? Are you a racist?

I would ask you to stop the ad hominem attacks, but, of course, abortion itself is ad hominem.

DS: Convicted rapists have actually sued women for aborting the babies resultant from their assaults; they think they should have been consulted. Do you? Your contempt results from your unwillingness to concede to women the moral autonomy to make their own decisions about reproduction and plan their own families. I won’t be distracted from the issues of misogyny by more of your canards about race.

If the fetuses are black, then their mothers by implication are black too. Are you racist for denying them the right to make this decision?

BW: Are you racist for defending eugenics?

DS declined to respond to my question.

Left Snipes at American Sniper

Many on the Left abhor one of the most genuine, poignant, and patriotic movies to come out of Hollywood in decades: American Sniper.

(Typically, most movies with the adjective “American” in its title are anti-American.)

Sniper

The problem with American Sniper is that it addresses the reality of the war in which we are engaged and it does so from a patriotic perspective.

Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, with courage and self-less devotion, defended “God, country, and family.” Now, the Left irrationally and emotionally assaults Kyle as a stand-in for the Tea Party and Religious Right, whom it regards as worse than the terrorists with which we are at war.

In this biographical movie, America is not the enemy. Here, the American military is portrayed as a force for good. America – and those defending her freedom and values – should be cherished.

And Americans love it! Why don’t liberals?

Kyle explained his mission: “I had a job to do as a SEAL. I killed the enemy – an enemy I saw day in and day out plotting to kill my fellow Americans.”

American Sniper defends America in a compelling, riveting, and heart-wrenching way.

It’s a pity that the Left won’t do the same.

Rogen and Moore

Leftists in Hollywood, academia, and politics naturally were outraged at American Sniper.

Actor Seth Rogen “smear[ed] the life story of Navy SEAL Chris Kyle,” tweeting: “American Sniper kind of reminds me of the movie that’s showing in the third act of Inglorious Basterds.” But Americans were infuriated over his tweet (and similar tweets by his comrades): “Turns out people think it’s super messed up to compare a story about one of our nation’s greatest heroes to Nazi propaganda.”

Leftist filmmaker Michael Moore tweeted, “My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren’t heroes. And invaders r worse”

Moore compounded his error in extolling the enemy: “But if you’re on the roof of your home defending it from invaders who’ve come 7K miles, you are not a sniper, u are brave, u are a neighbor.”

Americans heroes, in Moore’s eyes, are cowards, and terrorists are courageous. Didn’t Bill Maher call the 9/11 hijackers brave?

Why does the Left exult in true stories which denigrate America, but challenge those that do not? Why is there such rage over views and stories which challenge their false narratives about America? Opposing views threaten their political and cultural hegemony and their ideological relevance.

As Daily Caller observed, “Hollywood is overwhelmingly left-wing, and has released a string of anti-war and anti-military movies that have been box office flops. In that world ‘American Sniper’ is an anomaly. It presents Kyle’s life without making judgment, warts and all. Audiences have been flocking to see the story of a man considered a genuine hero by most.”

Sixties Counterculturalists Are Alive and Well and Living in America

Today’s cultural and political paradigm has its origins in the turbulent Johnson and Nixon administrations. The anti-war counterculturalists of the Sixties remain unrepentant, opposing traditional values, opposing America’s Judeo-Christian heritage, and opposing America’s military.

Why don’t they oppose Islamists (whose adherents are at war with us) or militaries of those nations who would seek to destroy us?

Since the Sixties, the Left has always loved its anti-heroes – those cinematic rebels who “speak truth to power” or poke fingers in the eye of tradition and patriotism. For them, love of country is so passé, so parochial, so wrong. (We are all, after all, “citizens of the world.”)

American exceptionalism” is a term which is anathema to many on the Left, for whom multiculturalism and moral relativism are talismans. (As citizens of the world, the Left hates nationalism. The nationalism that the Left most hates is American nationalism.)

As Ben Shapiro points out, “Rogen’s tweet let the mask slip.” Hollywood disguised its pacifism during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but on the screen, “it wasn’t enough to make films blaming politicians for mistakes over intelligence. Soldiers were routinely portrayed as human rights violators, barbarians with uniforms.”

Shapiro credits the Left with harboring “a deeper moral relativism” which contends that fighting the enemy is synonymous with becoming the enemy.

He writes: “But in the view of the Hollywood left, that’s exactly what American military power represents: evil violence in the name of jingoism. And so Michael Moore tweeted, ‘My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren’t heroes. And invaders r worse.’”

Shapiro points out the absurdity of the Left’s formulation: “All snipers are cowards – even those who take out terrorists who murder children. All invaders are evil – even those who invade Germany during World War II, presumably.”

MSNBC host Ed Schultz typifies this attitude. Schultz decries Kyle’s simplistic us vs. them, “black and white” “version of the Iraq War” because it supposedly dehumanizes the enemy. Further, Schultz asserts “To Kyle, if they weren’t Americans, they were the enemy.”

Unable to even name the enemy (Islamic jihad), Schultz laments that Americans have accepted the “jingoistic” viewpoint of Kyle (and, presumably, the entire Bush administration):

“Unfortunately, some of those feelings have spread into our culture. The public reaction to the movie American Sniper also highlights some of the most disturbing consequences of this war, the normalization of Islamophobia and being one of them [sic].”

“Islamophobia,” as defined by these pacifists, is an irrational fear of Islam. Anyone watching the unfolding of terrorist attacks around the world and here, in America, should necessarily have a rational fear of Islamic jihad. Schultz’s denial of Islamic jihad mirrors that of the Obama administration.

Americans are – Pro-America! Go Figure!

Unlike so many of the intelligentsia, most Americans actually favor America. Most Americans value our Judeo-Christian heritage and the constitutional framework designed by our Founding Fathers. And most Americans respect and admire those members of the military who risk their lives in service to their fellow countrymen.

David French calls this “an important cultural moment. This movie was striking a chord in America beyond any post 9/11 movie – beyond even the best of movies about the War on Terror, including Lone Survivor.” French says “it’s a phenomenal movie” which provides “a war hero on a truly national, cultural scale.”

According to Rich Lowry, “Clint Eastwood’s new movie, American Sniper, marks the return of the American war hero.”

Lowry notes, “American Sniper had the largest opening ever on Martin Luther King Jr. weekend, or any weekend in January. It is producing the kind of numbers – a projected $105 million weekend – usually reserved for mindless comic-book superhero movies. It has played especially well in Middle America, with its top-grossing theaters in places like San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Houston, and Albuquerque.”

Lowry adds, “[Kyle] had no doubt about the righteousness of his mission protecting American troops, or about the evil of our enemies.”

Kyle did not possess the squeamishness of the likes of Rogen, Moore, Schultz, and Obama. Kyle knew the difference between right and wrong (something his detractors do not) and he grasped the existence of evil (something his critics only see as existing in America).

Ian Tuttle paints a bulls-eye on the pacifist Left who eschew war and embrace appeasement, writing: “In his autobiography, Kyle wrote of taking the deadly shot: ‘You do it again. And again. You do it so the enemy won’t kill you or your countrymen. You do it until there’s no one left for you to kill. That’s what war is.’”

As French points out, American Sniper exposes the savagery inflicted by these jihadists:

“American Sniper goes where no movie has gone before in showing how the enemy uses children, kills children, and savagely tortures its enemies (Kyle discovers a torture room in Fallujah, and its portrayal is very close to reality). The movie isn’t excessively grisly (so wide audiences can see it), but one doesn’t need to show the close-up of a terrorist killing a young boy with a power drill to understand what just happened. When Kyle describes the enemy as ‘savages,’ you know exactly why, and you agree with him.”

Instead of confronting the enemy head on, as Kyle did time and again, the Left refuses to identify the motivation of the enemy and its barbaric nature. Rather, the Left prefers to ignore the truth, appease the enemy, and attack those who actually defend America!

King’s Dream Realized (sort of)

Americans are again celebrating Martin Luther King Day in honor of the great civil rights leader, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., yet recent polls show a growing number of Americans believe that race relations are worse now than they were prior to the Obama presidency.

King famously offered a challenge and a prediction, proclaiming, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

King01

King’s dream has, in large measure, been realized. Americans today do not view race as they did fifty years ago. Indeed, people of all races have the freedom to do what they want to do and be what they want to be unhindered by their race. In that sense, race does not matter.

Yet, at the same time, for some people race is all that matters.

Racial Hoaxes

At one time – for a very long time – white racism kept blacks down. But, though small pockets of white racism may still exist, they have been marginalized and emasculated. However, black racism has been elevated, enabled, and empowered by the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, Barack Obama, and one of the current president’s mentors, Jeremiah Wright.

The award-winning movie, The Butler, fabricated racial hoaxes to promote a racial narrative of black victimization. Perhaps the most memorable and heartbreaking scene – Cecil Gaines as a young child witnesses his mother’s rape and father’s murder by a white landowner – never happened! It was fabricated to stir up feelings of horror which would continue throughout the film (which is promoted as a biography).

Race hustlers, like those listed above, divide America by race as they promote a false racial narrative of white supremacy and black victimology. For several decades, these hucksters have exploited the very people they profess to help.

Ironically, the help they offer is ever-greater intrusion of the federal government into the lives of every American when it is in fact the government itself which is the cause of so much of dysfunction which plagues certain (primarily urban) black communities.

Johnson’s Great Society has been a failure. The welfare state has fared poorly among those it “serves.” The consequences of the Nanny State include the decimation of the black nuclear family, dependency on government, and fostering of both a sense of being a victim and a sense of entitlement to redress that alleged victimization.

The Civil Rights Movement of the Sixties was successful in securing legal and cultural reform. American attitudes and mores were radically altered within a generation. But that movement was later hijacked by many of its leaders into something Rev. King would repudiate.

The race hustlers seek their own profit while enabling their constituency to remain shackled to government dependency and cultural poverty. And, as a direct consequence of their of their self-promoting propaganda, their instigate riots, arson, mayhem, and murder.

Rev. King’s Wisdom

Actor Morgan Freeman expressed it well: “Dr. Martin Luther King is not a black hero. He is an American hero.”

Let us hearken to the words of this America hero. As we do, compare his goals and his way of achieving those goals with that of many leaders of the current civil rights movement. King was inspirational and uplifting, bringing out the best in people. His love, courage, optimism, and God-centered purpose elevated people and public discourse.

“Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.”

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

“I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.”

“Forgiveness is not an occasional act, it is a constant attitude.”

“When evil men plot, good men plan. When evil men burn and bomb, good men must build and bind. When evil men shout ugly words of hatred, good men must commit themselves to the glories of love.”

In contrast, Al Sharpton et. al., declare blacks to be continuing victims and not overcomers, and they proffer a path of destruction will leads to dystopia.

In his last speech, Rev. King inspired each of us, saying:

“Like anybody, I would like to live – a long life; longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land. So I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.”

We Are All Parisians!

Last Sunday, most of the world (absent the Obama administration) stood in solidarity against Islamic jihad.

Headline: “Today Paris is the capital of the world.”

Father James Schall observed, “This is the French 9/11.

Millions tweeted “I am Charlie” and hashtagged #jesuischarlie.

Parisians

It remains to be seen whether this Paris rally, with dozens of world leaders and millions of marchers, represents a watershed moment in our generation and a pivotal change in the West’s political and cultural zeitgeist.

Already this week, some Western leaders have backtracked on Islamic terrorism. Surprisingly, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has chosen to side with Islam. (First, it was the Nazis, now, the Jihadists?)

I Am Not Charlie Hebdo

While it is surely good to unify over a good cause (and defeating evil is always good), phony grandstanding and political opportunism can thwart that cause. Are these leaders and those marchers truly committed to vanquish evil? Or was it merely a “moment” to experience?

Just how courageous are legions of celebrities and anonymous Tweeters in spontaneously supporting this surge of condemnation against evil? Will their solidarity continue in the face of real danger?

Maggie Gallagher offered perceptive observations regarding who the real heroes are. She wrote:

“I am not Charlie Hebdo because that is not the right name. That is not a person, it is a magazine, and darn it, the heroes in this case have other names, especially Stephane Charbonnier, the editor in chief, who testified, ‘It perhaps sounds a bit pompous, but I’d rather die standing than live on my knees.’”

“No Stephane Charbonnier, it doesn’t sound at all pompous. Not today.”

“I am not Charlie Hebdo, in other words, because Stephane Charbonnier and his colleagues were heroes and I am not.”

“What have I done to deserve that title, to make that claim?”

“Tweeting ‘I am Charlie!’ does nothing to change the fact that I live in utter safety; Stephane Charbonnier and his colleagues did not die because they wrote ‘I am Charlie Hebdo,’ but because like the others on the al-Qaeda hit list, he and they dared to criticize the Prophet Mohammed.”

Let us apprehend Gallagher’s words and realize that now is a time, not for hollow words, but for bold action. We need to be engaged in combat – in one way or another – or today’s heroes will be tomorrow’s forgotten martyrs and victory will be ceded to an evil enemy.

Will we stand up, criticize and combat Islamic jihadism or will we, like the Obama administration, refuse to even name the evil which is charging through the gates of hell to unleash Armageddon upon the world?

We Are All Parisians

We live indeed in an ever-shrinking world with a burgeoning Islamic caliphate. No-go zones, cities, territories, and nations are held by Islamic jihadists who seek the imminent fulfillment of their Islamic utopia: a global caliphate.

Paris has joined the growing ranks of victims of Islamic jihad.

France, like many other western European nations, has contended with a large influx of Muslim immigrants who self-segregate in isolated enclaves, often establishing no-go zones and enforcing sharia law. Jihadism thrives in these environments. This is the end to which multiculturalism has led the City of Lights.

This is the path America and many other nations are on. We are all in the same boat.

America is becoming France.

Let’s stand in solidarity with the people of Paris and oppose Islamic jihad.

Benghazi-Paris Nexus

The nexus between terrorist attacks in Benghazi and Paris is stark. Both expose the flawed ideology, non-existent strategy, anti-Western sentiments, and self-absorbed leadership of the Obama administration.

Obama and his comrades have denied that these terrorist attacks were committed by Islamic terrorists. In the case of Benghazi, Obama created a false narrative of an amateur YouTube video inciting a demonstration which led to the attack. (Many of his comrades are now rushing to blame cartoons – and not Islam – for the motivating force behind the Paris attack.)

Benghazi-Paris

Both Benghazi and Paris disprove Obama’s narrative that al-Qaeda (and, by implication, every terrorist organization) is decimated and that the war on terror is over. He further claims that America is stronger than ever and the world has never been more tranquil.

Clearly, the war on terror is not over. Obama cannot create peace by fiat.

Nevertheless, Obama continues to promote his false narrative, which he intends to be his foreign policy legacy: the hero who ended two wars, unilaterally ended the war on terror, and brought peace to the world. (He is a Noble Peace Prize winner, after all.)

Hence his decision to boycott the historic anti-Islamic terrorism rally in Paris last weekend. To attend would have been to validate the purpose of that rally. To attend would have been an admission that Islamic jihadism is the enemy. To attend would have corroborated that his much-vaunted victory over terrorism was a sham.

Now, the Obama administration is engaged in a diplomatic cover-up for its foolish boycott. The snub seen around the world.

What that gaffe of biblical proportions reveals is the very same mindset which permeated the Situation Room during the Benghazi attack and which drove the false YouTube narrative during the presidential campaign.

A mindset which is focused more on ideology than reality. Which is willing to go to any extreme to promote its fanciful vision of the world. Which will allow brave men to die in Benghazi – providing no help whatsoever – to advance a narrative of peace and safety. Which will allow the world to converge in solidarity against the Islamist threat – providing no symbolic support whatsoever – to again advance that same narrative.

Leadership was absent during and after the Benghazi attack, just as it was absent when Paris became the capital of the world. Obama prefers to attend fundraisers, play golf, or watch football than do what a leader does: lead.

Benghazi and Paris are also emblematic of Obama’s pacifism. He does not have the cojones to fight. Benghazi proves that. Obama would not even defend marines under attack. And Obama would not even pretend to be interested in the war on terror. Remember, his false narrative – and his legacy – depend upon that war being over. Peace in our times.

This president and his administration are in denial. Their strategy of appeasement is an abysmal failure. And the world is going up in flames.

“Right-Wing Islamic Terrorists”

In the wake of the Paris massacre, Bob Beckel expounded on “right-wing Islamic terrorists” – an illogical tautology which reflects and epitomizes the Left’s passionate promotion of and belief in its own propaganda.

Right-wing Islamic terrorists? Impossible!

Paris02

Non-establishment conservatives (Tea Party) – those the Left likes to call far Right – seek limited government and greater freedom. Islamists seek a global caliphate – a theocracy enforcing sharia law.

Islamists are all about government. They seek to implement sharia worldwide. Their all-consuming goal is an global, Islamic, one-world government. No dissent. Under threat of the sword (literally)!

In contrast, conservatives believe in nationalism, not transnationalism. Conservatives believe in federalism and individualism, preserving the freedom of individuals and communities to live their lives as they desire.

It is the Left who loves to tax, spend, and regulate. It is the Left which created political correctness and speech codes. It is the Left who sees government as the solution, not the problem. It is the Left which abuses the coercive power of government, intruding into every area and aspect of our lives.

Beckel’s claim is merely a continuation of decades of such propaganda and a prelude to what we can expect from the upcoming Conference on Violent Extremism, which, I predict, will focus more on the Tea Party and other right-wing organizations – and on Christians – while whitewashing Islamic jihadism.

The Left initially blamed the Tea Party for the Boston marathon massacre. More ominously, they wanted it to be a member of the Tea Party.

This propagandistic meme, comparing conservatives to terrorists, has been fraudulent from the beginning. When have conservatives ever behaved like barbarians? Beheading?

Instead of besmirching American patriots for partisan political purposes, we should be zeroing in on the real enemy: Islamic jihad.