They can’t be this dumb, can they? They just can’t be.
Our progressives Democratic friends aren’t that stupid, right? But they are counting on the American people being stupid when it comes to world affairs. And there’s very little to suggest they won’t be successful in that endeavor.
Be it the president saying ISIS is “contained” hours before the group unleashed evil on the streets of Paris, or the secretary of state saying the Paris attacks were crazy, unlike the attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, where there was “legitimacy” and a “rationale” to them, nothing they say can be taken as serious thought.
The media did show some irritation with the president this week, but he pushed right back. Barack Obama showed an anger and frustration toward the press daring to question his wisdom in Turkey he normally reserves for Republicans. Repeatedly chastising reporters for asking him what he deemed similar questions, the president committed to staying on the same path that brought us to the point where dozens were dead in France and the West is on high alert.
There’s something to be said for commitment, I guess. It’d be better in other aspects of his life, but at least the concept isn’t completely foreign to him.
After damning the torpedoes and ordering the engines ahead full steam, the president then set about working on his main concern – climate change. Yes, what computer models that can’t accurately predict the past say will happen in 100 years is the major focus of this government in a time of mass slaughter.
Legacy, it would seem, is every bit as addictive as heroin.
But the administration can make that pivot because it can count on the media, no matter how poorly they’re treated, to be the Ginger Rogers to its Fred Astaire – they go where they’re led, happily.
As Hillary Clinton said in the debate no one watched (seriously, is the next “protect Hillary from anyone seeing her be a crazy leftist” debate on the Friday Star Wars opens? Might as well be), we are at war with “violent extremists.”
Recommended
No one questioned what type of extremists she was talking about because everyone knew it. She’s not talking about violent Black Lives Matters extremists or campus crybaby extremists, she’s talking about Islamic extremists. She just won’t say it. Is there any reason to believe she’d actually fight it?
We’ll never know because she’ll never be asked in any way that will require a serious answer.
While Democrats implode, the media plays guard dog.
Just one example is the Huffington Post. It’s an ultra-leftwing blog with media credentials, but many people actually believe what they read there.
In a piece by someone they bill as a “reporter,” the Huffington Post declares “The West Is Giving ISIS Exactly What It Wants.” The sub-headlines are equally as journalistic, “Unfortunately, conservatives in the U.S. and Europe seem to want to do all the wrong things.”
Again, this is a “news” piece written by a “reporter,” not a column on the opinion pages.
The argument, if you can call it that, is threefold and is described as being embraced by “policymakers,” though each section cites only one liberal of dubious credentials.
First, keeping refugees in the Middle East increases the prospect that they’ll be radicalized. “Josh Hampson argues in The Hill that keeping Syrian refugees in the Middle Eastern countries where they are currently concentrated increases the probability that they will grow susceptible to radicalization.” Hampson, according to his byline, is “a research associate at the Niskanen Center where he focuses on defense reform and foreign policy.” Well, if there’s a greater authority on the issue I’ve never heard of him.
Hampson’s theory is that these people are so fragile that proximity to terrorists increases the likelihood they’ll decide to join a death cult. Are those who we really want in this country? People who are essentially a coin flip away from terrorism? They’re not exactly walking into a thriving economy where jobs await them.
Second, reacting to terrorism negatively runs the risk of creating more terrorists, particularly American Muslims. Yes, it’s that stupid. “One of the goals of attacks like the one in Paris is to provoke an overreaction that will make some Muslims in the West feel that Islam is inherently irreconcilable with the culture of the countries they live in.” In short, be careful to how you react after being punched in the face because more people will want to punch you in the face.
By “overreaction” the implication is clear – take your medicine, pretend it didn’t happen or else it will happen again. It’s battered woman syndrome on a national scale and it’s presented as fact in a “news” story.
Third, by refusing refugees, the West is aiding ISIS because they don’t want Muslims to leave the region as it makes them look bad. But ISIS knows who is leaving and from where and could stop some if not most of them if it desired. But they’re not.
The expert cited in this section, who is irrelevant here, “goes on to cite a dozen statements from Islamic State leaders warning refugees against heading to Europe or other ‘infidel’ lands.” A dozen statements from a terrorist organization not exactly known as a paragon of truth and virtue, that’s “proof.”
This “news” piece, which is just one of many, concludes, almost miraculously, exactly how the Democratic Party wants it to – “if Europe and the United States were to shut out Syrian refugees, they would be foregoing an advantage they have over the Islamic State group.”
Weird how that just so happens to dovetail perfectly with what the president is demanding, isn’t it?
Other arguments from other “journalists” are just as flimsy, but because they’re reported by news outlets they will find legs with the uninformed.
What’s difficult to understand is why any of these people care so deeply that they’d make fools of themselves to advance the agenda of a lame-duck president who’s never shown them particular favor or loyalty. They couldn’t possibly believe what they say, could they?
Do they really believe otherwise well-adjusted people decided to commit their lives to murder because they heard about a small prison on a tropical island? That they were normal people interested in hanging out with their friends until Gitmo was explained to them?
Might I suggest that if someone was turned to murder by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed having water poured up his nose they were going to murder no matter what.
Still, this makes sense to our liberal friends. They have sympathy for the unstable person out there. They’d rather those people bring their instability to this country for reasons that make sense only if you know how Democrats work.
People are their race, their gender, their sexual preference, anything but individuals to Democrats. Not since the defeat of the Axis Powers has the world seen more earnest and insistent propagandists. It’s a family tradition, if you will, on the left.
The real question is why our progressives friends want to bring ethnic and religious minorities to a country with racism in its DNA, were its campuses are overrun with racists keeping minority students oppressed, where the very system is stacked against them because of who they are. Why bring them here?
The answer is they either hate them or they know everything they stand for and claim as justification for it is a lie. Since they view individuals as disposable, logically it could be both. But there’s nothing logical about liberals. The simplest answer is always the right answer, and the worst, when it comes to our opponents: It’s “Agenda Über Alles.”
Join the conversation as a VIP Member