Tag Archives: anti-American

Left Topsy-Turvy on American Revolution and Brexit

As America celebrates another birthday and the British people celebrated their Brexit vote for freedom from tyranny to a supranational bureaucracy, the heart and soul of the American Left again exposed itself as statist and globalist.

American Revolution & Brexit

Exhibit A: Steve Pincus. His recent Washington Post article attempts to paint Brexit supporters and the Republican Party as racist, anti-American xenophobes. In his introductory and subsequent paragraphs, Pincus inextricably links pro-Brexit forces with the agenda and sentiments of American conservatives and Pincus finds them wanting.

His headline asserts, “No, Brexit was not Britain’s ‘Declaration of Independence.’ It was the exact opposite.” Pincus couldn’t be more wrong.

His subheading: “The American founders would revile the pro-‘leave’ camp.” Again, his conclusion is contrary to everything we know about the Founding Fathers.

Nevertheless, Pincus contends, “But they’ve got America’s founding document exactly backward. The original American patriots would be horrified to hear their opus invoked in the service of Brexit.”

Pincus makes two striking, and strikingly wrong, claims.

Open vs. Controlled Borders

Pincus’ first strikingly wrong claim is that our Founders and the Framers of our Constitution, favored open borders. Pincus claims, “The founders called for a government that would allow for free movement of goods and peoples.”

Actually, American colonists sought control over their own borders. They vehemently opposed a power across the Atlantic Ocean determining their fate and enacting laws without their consent and contrary to their wishes.

Pincus cites the Declaration: “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.”

No “open borders” here. What did the Founders actually seek? How do we interpret that portion of the Declaration? By what the Founders did. As noted by Heritage Foundation (emphasis added):

“Congress passed the first ‘uniform Rule of Naturalization’ under the new Constitution in March 1790. It allowed ‘any alien, being a free white person’ and ‘of good character’ who had resided in the United States for two years to become a ‘citizen of the United States’ by taking an oath in court ‘to support the constitution of the United States.’”

The very first Congress actually limited and circumscribed immigration by a clear set of criteria, looking for emigres from the Northwestern European nations which had settled America.

Heritage continues (emphasis added): “Key criteria for citizenship of the Naturalization Act of 1795 remain part of American law. These include (1) five years of (lawful) residence within the United States; (2) a ‘good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States’; (3) the taking of a formal oath to support the Constitution and to renounce any foreign allegiance; and (4) the renunciation of any hereditary titles.”

In contrast to the Founders’ wishes and the law of the land, today illegal aliens celebrate their Mexican holidays while burning the American flag and promoting the overthrow of the American government. Our Founders would have put a stop to this.

Activist vs. Limited Government

Pincus’ second strikingly wrong claim is that our Founders and the Framers of our Constitution favored an activist government. (Hence the subtitle of his new book.[1])

According to Pincus, “America’s founders celebrated the creative potential of the state to promote the general welfare and happiness of the people; they wanted an activist government – one that would intervene in the economy to promote growth.”

To buttress his claim, Pincus cites the Second Continental Congress: “Government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end.”

But what did the crafters of our Republic actually mean by “welfare?” The Founders sought to promote the “general welfare and happiness of the people” by securing liberty! They understood that a free people – being secured in their liberty and able to use their God-given gifts as they deemed best – could, in today’s parlance, “maximize their potential,” strengthen their local communities, and improve the general welfare of the nation.

Our Founding Fathers fought for freedom and limited government to preserve that freedom.

Pincus clearly regards FDR’s “Second Bill of Rights” as superior to, and countermanding, our Founders’ original Bill of Rights. FDR’s progressive economic bill of rights seeks equality of outcome through government force while the Framers of our Constitution, with their political bill of rights, sought to maximize freedom and, thus, equality of opportunity.

Progressives like Pincus agree with President Obama’s assessment that America is fundamentally flawed[2] and, therefore, needs to be fundamentally transformed.[3] The Founders, Framers, and generations of Americans heartily disagree.[4] Middle America seeks to reclaim its heritage,[5] one built upon a Judeo-Christian ethos[6] which cherished liberty.

Similarly, progressives like Pincus, the Obamas, and the Clintons seek to eviscerate nationalism and elevate supranational and global institutions. In doing so, they willfully dismiss, like willing dupes,[7] the nexus between the immigration and terrorism crises.[8]

Progressives follow Hillary Clinton’s It Takes a Village (i.e., big government) when our great nation was founded on the premise that the primary duty of government is the protection of the People at home (law enforcement) and abroad (national defense) – and from government itself (Constitution).

Nationalism vs. Supra-nationalism

At heart, America as a Nation and a People matters little to these progressives who prefer to use American power and ideals against her in pursuit of their own globalist utopian goals.

Pincus equates “English First” pro-Brexit voters with the resurgence of contemporary America Firsters inspired by Donald Trump. To some degree he is correct, yet he regards that as a bad thing.

The heart and core of the Brexit Vote was to liberate the British people from the bureaucratic behemoth of the European Union’s usurpation of national sovereignty[9] and abrogation of the will of the People. Similarly, Middle America seeks its own independence from a draconian federal government[10] which serves its own needs and purposes while thwarting those whom they purportedly serve.

But Pincus again twists the historical record, asserting that late 18th-century Britons wanted the American colonists (legal settlers all) to pay their “fair share,” likening them to illegal aliens in America, today.

In reality, the American colonists – who were all self-supporting and obviously did not rely on a non-existent welfare state for survival – disagreed with the Mother Country and insisted upon, “No taxation without representation.” Our forefathers, like us, preferred a free market system without undue taxation and regulation, the very things Pincus and his lot pursue.

In his tract (and presumably in his forthcoming book as well), Pincus skirts this crucial reality: the majority of the colonists came from Britain and shared legal, linguistic, political, social, cultural, and spiritual similarities with the British realm.

Those brave men and women who gave birth to this great nation were brothers and sisters by blood who forged a new nation by creed. That creed – “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” – is central to our identity as Americans.

Individual rights, not collective rights; equality of opportunity, not of outcome; reverence for God, not for the State.

As Americans, we should celebrate the greatness of America as achieved by the Providence of God through the wisdom of the Founders and we should strive to return to our roots, to restore that vision of “government of the People, by the People, and for the People,” eschewing the liberty-denying statism of the Progressive vision.

Let us reinvigorate the American experiment that it may not perish from the earth.

God bless America!

Endnotes:

[1]              Pincus’ historical revisionism is apparent in the title to his forthcoming book, Heart of the Declaration: The Founders’ Case for an Activist Government.

[2]              See “Obama’s America – Fundamentally Flawed” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-1h.

[3]              See “Flags Depict Obama’s Fundamental Transformation of America and the World” at http://t.co/xjupplSWD1.

[4]              See “American Exceptionalism is in the Eye of the Beholder” at http://t.co/UDFIbFm5hr.

[5]              See “Reclaiming America!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-9V.

[6]              See “CPAC: America’s Christian Heritage Denied” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8E.

[7]              See “Willful Blindness to Reality” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-c9.

[8]              See “Member of European Parliament Links Terrorism with Immigration Crisis” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-e8.

[9]              See “CPAC: Brits Seek Independence (and so should we)” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eT.

[10]            See “CPAC: Death by a 1,000 Pens” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eV.

Advertisements

CVE: How to Submit to Jihad

Obama’s Countering Violent Extremism Summit is a blueprint for America’s subjugation to Islamic jihadists.

CVESummit

The summit’s very name is a denial of the existential threat posed by Islamic radicals, a global threat to civilization itself. The agenda dismissed the nature of the terrorist threat engulfing the world, misdiagnosed the source and root causes of that threat, and offered pabulum as a cure.

10978624_432700326906599_614278454421327414_n

Lies Propagated by the Obama Administration

  • The enemy is not Islamic.

Obama claims, “No religion is responsible for terrorism – people are responsible for violence and terrorism. … [ISIS] are not religious leaders, they are terrorists.”

Obama insists, beyond reason, “We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.” (Who made Obama an expert on Islam?)

10959463_978489232211206_2418756950450771123_n

11015933_440598849423996_4975674928875539348_n

  • Poverty is the root cause of terrorism.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf offered a brand new strategy to defeat ISIS: a jobs program. Harf claimed, “We need … to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs.”

If poverty was the root cause of genocidal violence, the world population would have been decimated during the Great Depression. Moreover, the religiously-based targeting of victims and the terrorists’ very declarations while committing these atrocities disproves Harf’s (and Obama’s) thesis.

Osama bin Laden was the son of a billionaire. The 9/11 hijackers were also upper class. Ideology (a Muslim theocracy in the form of a worldwide caliphate) spurs them on.

11001783_937928479561523_5382494432711075549_n

11014631_10204022337422745_1300470224201605080_n

11006386_462936253858799_3782544428711246821_n

11006399_432737603569538_3309895307512681858_n

Author and talk show host Dana Loesch mocked Harf with her own “Jihadi job fair.”

  • We must beware Christian terrorists.

Again, Marie Harf: “We have over 60 countries from around the world who are facing a number of different kinds of extremist threats. … If you at the Lord Resistance Army and Kony – Joseph Kony – I don’t remember people talking about that as much anymore, but that’s a Christian militant group. So there are a lot of different extremist threats we face and a lot of tools to go after each one of them.”

Except, as National Review points out, “Kony [is] a practitioner of Ancholi mystical traditions with 88 wives, a flair for Biblical apocalypticism, and, if we take him at his word, 13 spirits (one of them Chinese) dwelling within him.” So much for Harf’s best example of “Christian militant” terrorism.

Vice President Biden also targeted Christians.

cve-twitter

Isn’t it astonishing how eagerly the Left hurls hatred and vitriol toward conservatives and Christians, yet placates actual terrorists of the beheading-kind?

  • Every religion poses a threat.

This is the natural tendency of the secular mind, with its moral equivalency and fear of faith.

At the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama asserted, “…lest we get on our high horse…(we need recognize that Christians too hijacked religion) for their own murderous ends…this is not unique to one group or one religion.  There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.”

10981818_455841344567791_7361204167721845896_n

10988482_339191562951025_2383553460063691136_n

  • We must address Islamic grievances.

Obama asserts that terrorists terrorize due to poverty and a sense “that injustice and corruption leave them with no chance of improving their lives.” His solution: “Efforts to counter violent extremism will only succeed if citizens can address legitimate grievances through the democratic process and express themselves through strong civil societies.”

11002699_809464039141194_6504362425234025652_o 

DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson argues, “We in the administration and the government should give voice to the plight of Muslims living in this country and the discrimination that they face. And so I personally have committed to speak out about the situation that very often people in the Muslim community in this country face.”

Funny, I though his job was to keep America safe!

Do you remember when Obama tasked NASA with its number one mission: “reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering.”

Feelings. Nothing more than feelings.

This is right out of the playbook for so-called White Privilege conferences, sensitivity training, and campus speech codes. Micro-aggressions matter more than beheading. Psychological gobbledygook.

10978530_10204401966143821_8948709941607148507_n

  •  The world is safer now under Obama’s watch.

Obama continues to de-emphasize the unprecedented violence and savagery we witness every day, in keeping with his continual assertions that the world is a better place under his watch. Rather, his policies have created a very dangerous world.

static1.squarespace.com

May 2014: [Obama] “In fact, by most measures, America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world.”

June 2014: [Obama] “… if you had to choose any moment to be born in human history, not knowing what your position was going to be, who you were going to be, you’d choose this time. The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed then it’s ever been. It is more educated than it’s ever been.”

July 2014: [White House spokesman Josh Earnest] “I think that there have been a number of situations in which you’ve seen this administration intervene in a meaningful way, that has substantially furthered American interests and substantially improved the, uh, you know, the – the tranquility of the global community.”

August 2014: [Obama] “If you watch the nightly news, it feels like the world is falling apart. I promise you, things are much less dangerous now than they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago, or 30 years ago. This is not something that is comparable to the challenges we faced during the Cold War.”

Identifying The Enemy

The Obama administration consistently and continuously misidentifies the enemy.

10924812_10153115779944459_6107585723074241645_n

1653455_10204409003360240_4572488650762822078_n

Author and columnist Charles Krauthammer bluntly expressed what is becoming increasingly obvious to everyone: “[The Obama administration is] pathological in its inability to state what is going on.”[1] Author and columnist George Will descries this White House’s “semantic somersaults.”[2]

10987416_808402259247372_1162429063950887241_o

Krauthammer called ISIS “is a genocidal movement.”[3] Others have echoed his analysis. Gen. Jack Keane described the metastasizing nature of the terrorist threat which is currently gobbling up huge swaths of the planet: “Al-Qaeda has grown four-fold in five years. ISIS, which began when we pulled out politically and militarily from Iraq, grew from an organization of less than 3,0000 to an organization of more than 30,000 in three years.”[4]

  • The enemy is Islamic jihadists.
  • They are genocidal zealots.
  • They rape women, behead children, and burn people alive.

savages

  • They faithfully interpret the Koran.

10931105_861872793856703_4555758650753563367_n

  •  They are evil.

The Worldview of Participants

  • Some participants were affiliated with terrorist groups.
  • In large measure, they held an anti-Western, anti-American worldview.
  • In large measure, they held a Socialist worldview.
  • The thrust of the summit was pacifistic in nature.

Path to Victory

Obama’s Countering Violent Extremism Summit offered no substantive solutions because it refuses to acknowledge the problem and rejects the very solutions needed to achieve victory.

Victory? How can America be victorious without even acknowledging we are at war? Obama’s strategy of appeasement is worse than useless, it is dangerous.

Obama and his State Department pursue diplomacy at all costs, believing they will prevail through force of persuasion. For evil regimes, one needs persuasion of force.

Winston Churchill understood at the outset of the Nazi movement that appeasement never works. Ronald Reagan’s doctrine of “peace through strength” won the Cold War.

Instead of projecting power, for over six years Obama has been projecting weakness, emboldening our enemies to pursue their evil intentions.

Screenshot-2015-02-19-at-7.46.11-AM

Endnotes:

[1]               Charles Krauthammer, Special Report, FNC, 2/16/15.

[2]               George Will, Special Report, FNC, 2/17/15.

[3]               Charles Krauthammer, Special Report, FNC, 2/16/15.

[4]               Gen. Jack Keane, Fox News Sunday, FNC, 2/1/15.

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.”

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!