Radio host Michael Savage once called liberalism a "mental disorder". He was correct, as far as that goes. But as we're seeing this week, Obamunism is more than that; it's an active death wish.
Mr. Gibbs posed some devastatingly salient questions yesterday:
Could you imagine if during the march westward by the hordes of Genghis Khan the people falling victim to the onslaught said, "Be careful not to call them Mongols, that would just be unfair and inaccurate."
How about after Pearl Harbor if we, after the bombing was all finished, proclaimed, "We will not go to war with Japan because of a few pilots that perverted [Shinto ancestor-worship]."
How about in Europe during World War II? "We are not at war with Nazis, just a perverted version of Nazism that is not consistent with the teachings of Adolf Hitler."
Hard to imagine any American leader burbling any such idiocy, isn't it? Back in the proverbial day, common sense actually was, and Westerners confidently believed in their own culture, in who and what they were, and it never occurred to them not to robustly defend it.
Oh, then-British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain came close to the antithesis when he persisted in believing, against all evidence, that Adolph Hitler was "a reasonable man" with whom the Western powers could "do business". Even the invasion of Poland only partially phased him, as Britain, along with France, did declare war on Nazi Germany, but then sat passively and waited for the German attack the following spring rather than smashing into the Ruhr and Rhineland in the fall of 1939 while the Wermacht was occupied in the east. When that attack came in May of 1940, Chamberlain's government fell, he admitted his grievous error, and fell grimly into line behind the "warmonger" Winston Churchill.
In the America of the time, there was a deep-seeded, vehement, broad-based isolationism that would have made the Paul family beam with pride and joy. It was thought that nothing, but nothing could bring the U.S. into the Second World War. And had the Japanese carried out every attack on that early December weekend in 1941 except the one against Oahu, we probably still would have stubbornly and suicidally clung to our neutrality. But Pearl Harbor changed that overnight. It was seen as the ultimate underhanded sneak attack (even though the Japanese didn't intend it to come off that way, but were the victims of bad timing, as the attack began before their delayed envoys in Washington could reach the State Department to announce it) - or, in terms no "American" leader would even recognize, much less comprehend today, a matter of honor. Like flipping a switch, isolationism disappeared, America was "all in," and there sure as hell wasn't any self-questioning or shielding the enemy from ideological scrutiny or challenge, but rather, as FDR said to a standing ovation from Congress the day after Pearl Harbor, "No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory."
So there was pacifist resistance to war with the Axis Powers on both sides of the Atlantic. But none of it was driven by cultural self-loathing or enemies within. Prime Minister Chamberlain and his French counterpart, Eduard Daladier, were transfixed by the horrors of World War I, in which virtually an entire generation of young Brits and Frenchmen was fed through a slaughterhouse of industrialized death. "Never again" was their mindset, so much so that they willfully blinded themselves to the reality that enemies who start such wars can only be deterred, not persuaded, from doing so. And American isolationism had nothing to do with any sympathy for Japan, against whom there was widespread racial prejudice (which was heartily reciprocated), but rather traditional American sentiment against "entangling alliances" going all the way back to George Washington's warnings and the dawn of the Republic, plus a commonly held belief that the "progressive" Woodrow Wilson had conspired with the British and French to bilk us into their "Great War" and use American boys as cannon fodder out of which they had run with their own youth. And, similarly to Messrs. Chamberlain and Daladier, Americans refused to realize that the world had shrunk, and their country had grown into a world power whether they liked it or not, and could not stay out of the conflagration that was spreading across the globe.
But when the enemy identified itself in no uncertain terms by the expedient of attacking us, there was no reluctance, no hesitation to recognize that enemy, or to resist it until it was utterly defeated.
Over three-quarters of a century has passed since the aforementioned events, and in all that time, while the names of our enemies have changed, their characters, and the practical realities of the geopolitical "law of the jungle," have not. In point of fact, they've gotten even worse, with genocidal brutality as heinous as anything the Nazis ever dreamed up, and twenty-first century weapons technology that has functionally erased the two oceans that once protected us. And today's enemy proudly, bellowingly announces who they are, what they believe, that we are their enemy, and their intention to quite literally kill us all.
And what do we get from our "leader" of today? Do we get, "As Commander-in-Chief....I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense, that always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us"? Do we get, "No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory"? Do we get any robust and inspiring defense of America, American culture, Western culture, Judeo-Christianity, and corresponding recognition that yes, we are at war, and not with a "perversion of Islam," but with Islamic Fundamentalism and the Global Jihad itself?
Are you kidding?:
Barack Obama used his speech on the second day of a three-day White House summit on extremism....
Extreme WHAT? Isn't anybody ever going to ask him that question?
....to warn against profiling people or conducting surveillance simply because of their religious beliefs.
Which are the animating motivation driving the enemy's actions. Hence, my "death wish" reference above.
The White House Summit on [Aiding and Abetting Jihadism] came under fire from critics for failing to state that the focus is on radical Islamic terrorists, including groups such as the Islamic State (ISIS) and al-Qaida, who are targeting the West in what they describe as a holy war.
Obama admitted that such groups are the reason behind the summit, but he reiterated that his administration will not label the groups "Muslim" or "Islamic" because he said they are misusing passages of the Koran to justify their violence.
Passages that preach violence, religious intolerance, and conquering the world for Allah "by the sword." Which is why I prefer the term "Islamic Fundamentalism" over "radical Islam". If ISIS, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Iranian theocracy, et al were "misusing" these passages, they would be...well, "dropping their guns, sticking flowers in their hair, and demanding a job at a fast-food joint for $15 an hour." They would be Islamic apostates, not fundamentalists. Instead, they keep grinding their way through the "infidel" population in our direction, just as their false prophet commanded.
Obama said it is important not to stigmatize entire communities.
It's also important to identify your enemy.
"Nobody should be profiled or put under a cloud of suspicion simply because of their faith," he said.
Given that that "faith" has an ocean of blood on its hands already, I'd say the burden of proof is on the Muslim "community" to prove its apostasy and "peaceful" intentions. Again, "profiling" is simply identifying and knowing your enemy.
Obama pointed toward more cooperation with Muslim communities in finding people early in the radicalization process, but, he said, "Engagement with communities can't be a cover for surveillance."
The only useful purpose for "engagement with [enemy] communities". But then decrying surveillance is rich coming from as domestic spying-happy a POTUS as this one, one who makes no pretense of targeting his enemies and compiling national databases full of personal dossiers on every American citizen. I didn't coin the term "Obamastapo" for nothing, after all.
Some in the Muslim community and on the left have been critical of efforts to infiltrate mosques to find imams preaching radicalism or to find members who have a radical ideology.
Because why would we ever want to prevent the enemy from shedding more American blood? Besides, are not mosques the enemy's principle means of infiltrating our society? Doesn't the "predator/prey" distinction have any relevance to these people?
In the United States, he said, local and federal authorities must make sure that Muslims aren’t isolated and that they are welcomed and integrated into society.
The better to infiltrate us and kill us en masse. I'll say it again: It's not difficult to discern which side O is on.
"Muslim Americans feel they have been unfairly targeted," he said. "We have to be sure that abuses stop, are not repeated, that we don’t profile entire communities."
Speaking for myself and many others, I don't give a camel's ass about "Muslim-American" feelings. "Muslim-Americans" need to recognize what their "co-religionists" are doing, and why, and strenuously oppose it in word and deed to prove their harmlessness, not bleat to bleeding heart quislings and tacitly aid the jihadist cause of disarming its greatest target in the process.
Obama said the terror groups are trying to expand their reach by portraying the U.S. and other Western nations as being at war with Islam.
They're expanding their reach because the West has created an utter ideological vacuum into which that reach can expand at will, slaughtering "unbelievers" willy-nilly every step of the way. They're expanding their reach because we will not only not defend ourselves, but are doing much of their fighting against us for them by dhimmizing ourselves. We're ramming our necks against their swords. We're lighting ourselves on fire. We're nailing ourselves to their crosses. We're at war with ourselves as much or even more than Islam is most definitely at war with us.
"We must never accept the premise they put forward, because it is a lie," Obama said Wednesday. "They are not religious leaders, they’re terrorists."
That is the lie, my fellow infidels. Because they are both. And they are coming for us, over there and over here, in our cities, in our towns, in our homes before it's all said and done. They will rape our mothers, our wives, our daughters, they will massacre us en masse in the most painful, excruciating, humiliating ways demonically imaginable - if we let them. And Barack Hussein Obama, the man who as a child was raised a Muslim, and as an adolescent was raised as a communist, is, with his national suicide-pact foreign policy, bound and determined to throw open the doors, roll out the red carpet, and allow them to do it. All of it.
And I'm not the only one to notice:
Former U.S. spokesman at the U.N. Ric Grenell told Fox News the speech was meandering and unfocused.
"He merely talked about isolating terrorists," Grenell told Fox News Channel's Your World with Neil Cavuto" immediately after the speech. "You can't isolate terrorists. He won't even send them to Gitmo."
"I'd like to know, over this last week, if he's had his intel briefing, because that is a man who doesn't understand what we are up against," Grenell said. "People are being burned in cages, and he's talking about more investments, empowering youth for greater service, entrepreneurship, not profiling. This is ridiculous."
Retired Lieutenant Colonel Tony Shaffer told Cavuto that Obama's words that the United States should reject "certain premises" are "dangerous."
"That is code for ignore," Shaffer said. "There's no war against the Muslims. He is setting up a premise that is completely false."
That is no accident, folks. And not even fanatical political correctness and leftwing dogma can entirely account for it. These are the words of a sympathizer. Or even....a co-religionist.
It's up to The One to prove otherwise. And it sure as shinola looks like he's of no mind to do so.
Exit question: Does anybody believe that after the next 9/11 or worse - likely MUCH worse, and very soon - Obama will change his tune one jot or tittle? And does that not suggest the fiery path down which We, The People, are being hurtled?
No comments:
Post a Comment