Take New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, for example.
On Jan 8, 2011, in Tucson, Ariz., Jared Loughner murdered six people and gravely wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. That very day (published the next day), based on nothing, Paul Krugman wrote that the murders were a result of hate-filled rhetoric that saturates conservative and Republican life.
"When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?
"Put me in the latter category.
"It's true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn't mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event ...
"There isn't any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.
"And it's the saturation of our political discourse -- and especially our airwaves -- with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.
"Where's that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let's not make a false pretense of balance: it's coming, overwhelmingly, from the right ...
"So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic? It's really up to G.O.P. leaders. Will they accept the reality of what's happening to America and take a stand against eliminationist rhetoric? Or will they try to dismiss the massacre as the mere act of a deranged individual and go on as before?"
Most of the American left echoed Krugman's libel.
So, then, here's the question: With an American ambassador and three other Americans murdered by Muslim mobs in Libya, and with tens of thousands of Muslims violently demonstrating around the world against a video on the Internet that virtually no one on Earth saw or even heard of, will anyone on the left write the truth about the greatest hate-filled rhetoric in the world -- Islamic rhetoric?
Or, as I suggest, does the left engage in as much deception regarding the Islamic world as it does about conservatives?
The answer can be readily ascertained by taking the Krugman column and simply substituting some of his words with those placed in parentheses. Then the morally upside-down world of Krugman and the left becomes immediately apparent.
"When you heard the terrible news from (Libya, Egypt, and elsewhere in Muslim world), were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?
"There isn't any place for eliminationist rhetoric (emanating from the Muslim world)."
"Where's that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let's not make a false pretense of balance: it's coming, overwhelmingly, from the (the Muslim world).
"So will (the Libya massacre, and the massacres of Christians in Nigeria, Egypt, and Iraq) make our discourse less toxic? It's really up to (Muslim) leaders. Will they accept the reality of what's happening to (the Muslim world) and take a stand against eliminationist rhetoric? Or will they try to dismiss (all these massacres) as the mere act of a (tiny, unrepresentative, radical fringe group of Muslims) and go on as before?"
What I wrote in parentheses is what is true. What Krugman wrote is not true. Krugman deceives about the right, and he and the left deceive concerning the Islamic world.
There is a world replete with hate and with what Krugman calls "eliminationist" talk. It is not the world of American conservatives and Republicans. It is the Islamic world. Of course, not all Muslims, religious or otherwise, are haters. But in the world today, by far the most gratuitous and most lethal hate emanates from the Muslim world.
Why, then, do Paul Krugman and the left identify American conservatives and Republicans with hate and eliminationist rhetoric? And why does the left smear anyone who identifies the real producers of eliminationist rhetoric as bigoted and "Islamophobic"?
The explanation is this: Those who do not hate evil hate those who do hate evil.
This was the record of the left during much the Cold War. Instead of hating the Communists, the left hated the anti-Communists.
To paraphrase the Talmud, those who treat the cruel with kindness will treat the kind with cruelty.
Given their silence regarding Islamic hate and their preoccupation with alleged conservative hate, the Talmudic insight can serve as the working motto of Krugman and his ideological allies.