In the aftermath of the horrendous, 9/11-style, coordinated terrorist attack on Paris by Islamic jihadists, the Left, by and large, has demonstrated its capacity to rationalize evil, ignore reality, and dismiss the truth.
While many mourned the loss of life and were roused to defeat the enemy that has become our implacable foe, others either denied or dismissed this existential threat, blamed America (Bush, conservatives) for the attack, or refused to call ISIS either Islamic or evil.
Some continued to assert that ISIS is on the run, or that climate change is a greater threat than terrorism, or that gun control is the answer – all various attempts to escape the reality of life and the world as it is, not the world as liberals think it should be.
But first, kudos to Saturday Night Live for exhibiting class “with a brief, moving tribute to the city of Paris delivered by cast member Cecily Strong, clad in a black dress.” Strong declared: “Paris is the city of lights and here in New York City, we know that light will never go out. Our love and support is with everyone there tonight. We stand with you.”
Vive la France!
Now, on to the rest.
Paris Attacked – So What?
Black Lives Matter proved, once again, that the only lives that matter to it are those exceptionally few black lives killed by white cops. Its response to massive death in Paris was despicable, as noted in statements and tweets from its members.
Prepare for a shock as you read this set of expletive-laden tweets expressing hatred toward Parisians for taking the spotlight away from BLM, which is nothing more than a racial grievance organization promoting victimhood and espousing violence.
Blame Bush, Conservatives, and America
Even in the seventh year of the Obama administration, the Left blames George W. Bush for everything – even events and situations created by Obama’s own policies and actions.
All three Democrat presidential contenders, in one way or another, blamed the former President (former by two elections) for the Paris terrorist attack. Salon blamed both Bush and America. It’s headline spoke volumes: “Our terrorism double standard: After Paris, let’s stop blaming Muslims and take a hard look at ourselves.” Ourselves? Salon fails to discern the evil hearts of terrorists and, instead, attacks fellow Americans.
Salon took to task those nasty conservatives who leapt to the conclusion that Islamic terrorists were to blame, “even though there was no evidence and practically nothing was known about the attackers,” claiming their motivation was to seize this “violence” (note: not “terrorism”) “as an opportunity to demonize Muslims and refugees from Muslim-majority countries.”
No evidence? How about the modus operandi? The nature of the attacks themselves. Witnesses who heard what the terrorists said?
The liberal media blamed conservatives for the fact that terrorists attacked Paris. Salon tweeted: “Real terror unfolds in Paris. Perhaps this will convince the right to done down their incessant violent rhetoric.”
In their contorted logic, what we said caused innocent Muslims to viciously attack someone else.
Salon also posted a lengthy, rambling, incoherent essay blaming violent, elimination rhetoric on the Right for this – and other – terrorist attacks. According to Salon, “Real terrorists have killed people in the streets of Paris. The right-wing media needs to take note of that fact and moderate their rhetoric and abusive language accordingly.”
They continue: “Given the American right-wing’s casual habit of using violent language to describe their foes, and to gin up fear and anxiety among the movement conservative base, the Fox News’ right-wing echo chamber and its elites should be ashamed given the death and destruction that terrorism actually reaps in practice.”
(Salon should read those Black Lives Matter tweets noted above.)
For quite a few years, the Left has redefined terrorism to actually exclude terrorist actors and activities, and instead to demonize conservatives, the Tea Party, and Christians (who are actually the targets of Islamic jihadists).
Blame Climate Change Myth, Not Fact of ISIS Terror
Yet again, the far Left is using yet another tragedy to promote its phony climate change agenda. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the openly Socialist Democrat presidential candidate claimed, “In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism.”
This is in keeping with the Obama administration’s viewpoint, which has, on at least 23 occasions, claimed that climate change poses a greater national security threat than Islamic terrorism (which it doesn’t call by that name).
Make Love, Not War
The pacifist War Is Not The Answer contingent greeted this latest destructive attack on Western Civilization with its Sixties-style “make love, not war” mantra. Pop icon Madonna argued, “Yes, there are people who have no respect for human life and there are people that do atrocious, degrading and unforgivable things to other human beings, but we will never ever, ever change this world that we live in if we do not change ourselves, if we do not change the way that we treat one another on a daily basis.”
In other words, we need to change before the terrorists stop committing terror. Applying the same logic, we should not arrest criminals but, rather, change ourselves until they stop their criminal activities.
Madonna, continued, “Only love will change the world, but it’s very hard to love unconditionally and it’s very hard to love that which we do not understand, or that which is different than we are. But we have to or this will go on and on forever.”
Again, it is our fault for not understanding them, and until we understand them, terrorism will not end. Most rational people do understand that these are evil people committing evil acts.
Nevertheless, “fired MSNBC personality Krystal Ball” insisted: “Most powerful response to radical hate is radical love. Open your hearts wider and love harder.”
This is the Barack Obama Model for World Peace, a model proven wrong time and again.
Release Terrorists; Take in Refugees; Spurn Persecuted Christians
So, we can’t call the terrorists what they are – terrorists – and we aren’t supposed to fight back against those self-same terrorists who want to destroy us – because it wouldn’t be, according to our Commander-in-Chief, in keeping with our American values.
(Mr. President, you don’t adhere to “American values.”)
Now, we find ourselves in a panorama from Hell. At one and the same time, the Obama administration is releasing more Gitmo detainees (i.e. terrorists), even as it brings into America even more Syrian refugees (many of whom are undoubtedly terrorists), while utterly ignoring the plight of Christians who are persecuted by the terrorists it refuses to fight.
Some would call that crazy!
President Obama has just released five more Yemeni terrorists from Gitmo, while continuing its efforts to “accept 10,000 Syrian refugees,” with a goal of absorbing 100,000 refugees annually. Presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton actually wants to increase the number of refugees brought into America.
Clinton’s senatorial successor in New York, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, concurs, saying, “I think what we could be doing more of is dealing with the humanitarian crisis. I wish we were focused on how we could create relief for millions of families that are streaming out of Syria. I’ve seen our European partners really pick up the pace and take significant responsibility for these families. What Germany has done is outstanding. I think America should be doing more.”
In the meantime, Obama’s State Department (once run by Hillary), has denied visas for Christians being persecuted in Iraq. This falls on Obama’s shoulders.
At the G20 Summit in Turkey, Obama said, “We have to, each of us, do our part, and the United States has to step up and do its part. When I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims. When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted. When some of those folks themselves come from families who benefitted from protection when they were fleeing political persecution – that’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”
(Mr. President, you don’t know “who we are.”)
ISIS is Neither Islamic Nor Evil
The Obama administration continues to claim that Islamic terrorists are not Islamic and it refuses to recognize that what they engage in is terrorism. Last Saturday (the day after the Paris attacks) all three Democrat presidential candidates avoided the stark reality of global Islamic jihad.
(The Left will soon discover that ISIS is more dangerous that campus radicals.)
“Dan Kimmel, a [Democrat] candidate for a Minnesota state representative seat” tweeted: “ISIS isn’t necessarily evil. It is made up of people doing what they think is best for their community. Violence is not the answer, though.”
That logic would justify every serial killer and terrorist throughout human history.”
But ISIS is Islamic and ISIS is evil. The evil of ISIS derives from a defect in the human heart, not a product of economic deprivation. Obama’s ideas of putting ISIS on welfare are ludicrous.
Gun Control Will Stop Jihadists
Other proposed solutions to end the jihadist threat include the liberal favorite: gun control. Hint: gun control never works to achieve its stated goals. Gun control only serves to aid tyrants and dictators, terrorists and criminals. If any of those victims in Paris had been armed, they might not have become victims. Weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens are a game changer for good.
Nonetheless, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America tweeted: “Our hearts are with the victims and survivors of the horrific mass shooting and violent attacks in Paris today.” The attached photo bore the words: “We are united in mourning all lives lost to gun violence.”
Those lives weren’t lost due to gun violence, but due to terrorists intent upon doing evil.
Appeasement Is the Answer
Like gun control, appeasement never works. Still, Obama is intent upon continuing his disastrous foreign policy. In light of the Paris attack, Obama said, “The strategy we are pursuing … that’s the strategy we are going to have to pursue. And we are going to continue to generate more partners for that strategy.”
The strategy that created ISIS and mushroomed it into a world-threatening terrorist state is the strategy that Obama intends to continue?
Appeasement encourages aggression and leads to defeat and subjugation.
ISIS is on the Run
Obama’s false claims that Al-Qaeda is on the run, that the war on terror is over, that ISIS is JV, that ISIS is contained, ad infinitum, were amplified by yet another claim, this one from a Muslim apologist who argues that the Paris attack is a sign of weakness and not strength on the part of ISIS. (Just as Obama claimed Putin’s many acts of aggression are really signs of weakness.)
This apologist reasons thus: “There is a reason ISIL still want to appear so powerful, why they don’t want to acknowledge that the land they control has been taken from weak enemies, that they are pinned down by airstrikes, or that just last weekend they lost a significant part of their territory.”
“ISIL don’t want you to know they would quickly be crushed if they ever faced a proper army on a battlefield.”
“They want you to fear them. They want you to get angry. They want all of us to become hostile, and here is why – ISIL’s strategy is to split the world into two camps. It is that black and white. Again, we know this because they told us.”
Except, of course, they haven’t. This phony propaganda is designed to dismiss and discount the danger posed by ISIS, to thwart the sense of urgency the West sees in combating that terrorist threat, and to enable the status quo to continue until the West has been defeated.
I’m sure the current President of the United States would rally behind this apologist’s opinion, just as he has heralded all of the many unprecedented accomplishments of his tenure in the Oval Office. After all, according to Obama, America has never been stronger and the world has never been safer.
But for those who live in the real world, neither of those claims is true.