Will We Learn From History?

Unwillingness to confront Islamic terrorism and call it what it is hit new depths yesterday as both the White House and the State Department put on a comedy performance unequaled since . . . well, since the last time our president said something about it.

Faced with the absolute fact that the Paris attacks were Islamic terrorism and that one of the targets, a Jewish deli, was hit precisely because it was Jewish, the spokespeople for this administration adamantly refused to say the motive was to kill Jews. If you get the chance to listen to the verbal twistings of Josh Earnest, in particular, you will come away amazed and rather sickened by the obfuscation.

Then, to make the comedy routine complete, they later tweeted that of course this was anti-Semitism, and that’s what they have been saying all along. Really? What about the press conferences you just completed, where you refused to say it? They’re still relying on the meme that you can fool some of the people all of the time. Unfortunately, they are right.

Incidentally, in case there is any question at all, the attacker at the deli stated, for the record and prior to being killed himself, that his aim had been to kill some Jews.

Only someone who is ideologically blind can fail to understand what’s really happening. That explains a lot.


Even though he can’t bring himself to identify this terrorism with Islam, he does attempt to make distinctions, nonsensical though they may be:


But he does pride himself on his deep knowledge of religious matters.

Theologican in Chief

He’s not alone, of course. He has a staunch ally:

Radical Christians

How can this absurdity continue? Well, there are a number of factors in play, and they say a lot about our society at this time:

Three Parent Baby

Last week, the administration came up with its “strategy” to tackle world problems. Obama sent out Susan Rice once again to play the fool (remember all her appearances to explain how a video caused Benghazi?). She said that we don’t face “existential” threats like we did back in WWII or the Cold War. The “strategy” then went on to focus on climate change as one of the biggest security threats we must deal with. ISIS? Don’t worry about that.

Well, Hitler wasn’t an “existential” threat to the United States in the 1930s, but he was allowed to strengthen to the point where he became one. Are we going to allow that to happen again?

Back Then

For those who don’t see the resemblance, here’s an illustration that might make it more clear:


Teaching history is what I do. One of the reasons I do it is the hope that we actually will learn from the past and not repeat policies that are foolish, unworkable, and downright dangerous.


Is anyone paying attention?

Never Say Never

I said most of what I wanted to say about our president’s willful blindness on Islamic terrorism in yesterday’s post. I was going to move on to another subject, but sometimes the political cartoons are just too good to allow that. Can’t leave these out.

First, the amazing doubletalk that continues to dazzle:


And if you need a guide to understand just how this administration thinks about terrorists, I can help you:

ID Chart

The Islamic radicals, which includes the state of Iran, really are no different than another radical from an earlier time who also wished to wipe out the Jewish people:

Never Again

You don’t think this can’t happen again? Time to wake up.

If You Don’t Feel Safe . . .

The most important and vital duty of the United States government, and the main one sanctioned by the Constitution, is to protect and defend its citizens. For that to be operative, those who are temporarily placed at the head of the government must be able to recognize the threats and deal with them effectively. It is crucial that we have a president who can clearly identify the real threats, and not actually sympathize with the enemy.

We are in a bad place with our current chief executive:


A few days ago, President Obama had a joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron. It was painful to watch, as Cameron bluntly called Islamic terrorism what it was, while the president of the United States repeatedly avoided the term and would only say “extremist violence.” His refusal to identify the main threat to this country as Islamic has become almost comical, if not for the dire consequences of his willful blindness:

Just Say It

As I’ve noted before, all this stems from his own worldview in which he personally identifies with the Islamic world—and all whom he considers to have been oppressed by Western civilization. I believe he really does see the problem, but he stubbornly wants the problem to be something else. But pretending it isn’t the problem only leads to more problems:

Rose Garden

He’s also busy releasing terrorists from Gitmo—twenty-seven since the November elections—and seems to be increasing the pace. The problem with that? It’s called high recidivism: they go back to their terrorist activities, thereby making the job of overcoming the enemy even more difficult. Again, this is based on a pattern of willful blindness about who we’re dealing with:

Vegan Now

If the terrorists had their own satire magazine, it would probably read like this:


But would Obama recognize it as satire? Will he ever face reality or continue to rationalize?

On the Run

If you don’t feel safe, you’re not alone.


Of all the missteps in the Obama administration, none has so roundly raised the ire of people representing both sides of the political spectrum as his absence from the Paris unity march. As I said in a previous post, I’m not much for marches that are more symbol than substance, but sometimes symbolism is important enough to warrant participation.

The outrage over our president’s seeming lack of concern over Islamic terrorism may be one of the best developments of the Obama era. It may awaken even the most ignorant of our fellow citizens.

The cartoonists are certainly drawing attention to this faux pas. Using the now-famous unity march picture, one cartoonist added his own touch:


And this is not a cartoonist who ordinarily finds Obama a prime target for his artistry.

Others also invoked the image of the march, with their own twists:

Where's Obama

Waldo Obama

Perhaps the cartoonist who pictured the incident this way was closest to the true nature of the problem:

Je Suis Clueless

Since “offensive” cartoons were what ostensibly led to the terror attack, let me end with this:

Offensive Cartoon

America’s Disappearing Act

The big news this weekend was the major march in Paris to show solidarity against terrorism. More than one million people showed up. Included in that assemblage were forty heads of state, even those who have issues with one another, such as Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

One nation’s leader was noticeably absent. More on that in a minute.

Paris March

While I don’t want to downplay the significance of that many people showing up—and so many leaders of nations represented—we should keep in mind that a march is not a policy. It may look good, and may even inspire some better policy—we can only hope—but, by itself, it accomplishes nothing.

Even the French president, François Hollande, has refused to put the proper adjective alongside the terrorist activities in his own country: Islamic.

France, meanwhile, is a nation reaping what it has allowed. Massive Muslim immigration has changed the demographics so much that there are more than 700 “no-go” zones. What does that mean? There are that many areas in France where Sharia law dominates, and French authorities can’t even go into those areas without permission from the local Islamic leaders.

That’s the image of a nation drowning in its own folly.

Now, back to the absent leader. Forty leaders of nations present, but not the president of the United States. He sent an ambassador. On one level, I don’t care. President Obama has already revealed his views. He doesn’t see Islamic terrorism, specifically, as a threat. He never calls Islamic terrorist acts by their proper name. His worldview exudes sympathy for the culture that spawns the terrorists.

So his presence would have been nothing more than symbolic. Yet, on a deeper level, I do care. Why? This only furthers the alienation of America from its roots. It’s another plank in the Obama platform for remaking America in his image.

No longer is the United States the real leader of the Free World. It is now a bystander at best, and a nation that that gives aid and comfort to the enemy in its worst moments. We are no longer what we were, thanks to Barack Obama.

But don’t worry. We are doing something. The administration announced on Sunday that it will host a Summit on Countering Violent Extremism next month. More words . . . more talk that goes nowhere. It will be interesting, though, to see if this so-called summit clearly identifies the terror threat. It will also be interesting to see if an Obama summit decides to include Tea Parties and other “extremists” as part of the agenda.

Let’s just say I wouldn’t be at all surprised.

Our Executioner Awaits

As I continued to follow the news yesterday of the search for the Islamic terrorists in France, I wish I could say I was stunned by revelations of Western cluelessness. Unfortunately, I was not.

Imitating President Obama, we now have a multitude of voices saying that Islamic terrorists are not really Islamic. And a chorus is arising—the same chorus we’ve heard on and off since 9/11—fearful that Americans will now persecute peace-loving Muslims in our midst.

That “boy-cried-wolf” scenario, if it had any validity at all, would have occurred in those days following 9/11, but it never has.

Our mainstream media, fearful of being attacked themselves, pull back from associating this latest atrocity with Islam. They still think there can be peaceful co-existence, if only we play nice.

Whittaker ChambersListening to all this vacuous thinking reminded me of a quote from Whittaker Chambers in his book Witness. Reflecting on his world in 1925—a world unaware of the Communist threat it faced—he penned these words that could equally apply today in our time of peril:

The dying world of 1925 was without faith, hope, character, understanding of its malady or will to overcome it. It was dying but it laughed. And this laughter was not the defiance of a vigor that refuses to know when it is whipped. It was the loss, by the mind of a whole civilization, of the power to distinguish between reality and unreality, because, ultimately, though I did not know it, it had lost the power to distinguish between good and evil.… The dying world had no answer at all to the crisis of the 20th century, and, when it was mentioned, and every moral voice in the Western world was shrilling crisis, it cocked an ear of complacent deafness and smiled a smile of blank senility—throughout history, the smile of those for whom the executioner waits.

Scary words to me. Scary because they ring so true in the 21st century also. What has happened to Western culture? It has lost its Christian underpinnings. Keen analysis is rare due to our rejection of truth. We are dying, but we laugh. We have lost the power to distinguish reality from unreality because we have lost clear concepts of good and evil that come from the Biblical worldview.

Our elites, whether in government, the media, or academia, have no answers. We are in a crisis that they refuse to acknowledge. The few—the Christian few, and others who retain the Christian framework in their thinking—point to the crisis, but complacent deafness and the smile of blank senility is the only response. Our executioner awaits, if we don’t return to our roots.

A political cartoon yesterday sums up our plight:

None So Blind

Obama’s Islamic Terrorist Problem

Islamic terrorism in France has dominated the news the past 24 hours. Twelve people at a magazine that refused to bow to threats for satirizing Mohammed were murdered. The two terrorists are still on the loose. The Old Testament concept of an eye for an eye was simply a statement of equal justice, and was never intended to be carried out in this way.

Radical Islam

The French president immediately called it for what it was: terrorism. It took a while longer for our president to do the same. He had opted for “an act of violence” as a first response. Remember “workplace violence” at Ft. Hood? Even when he did come around to labeling it as terrorism, he steadfastly refused to put the proper adjective with it: Islamic.

For President Obama, there is no Islamic terrorism. Anyone doing it in the name of Islam isn’t really Islamic, you see. And those “lone wolf” actions, well, certainly they aren’t inspired by a worldwide terrorist network.

Completely Coincidental

And in his haste to fulfill one of his pledges before his administration expires, he is quietly releasing more prisoners from Gitmo:

Travel Club

For most of them, their time at Gitmo hasn’t exactly been torture—free Korans and prayer rugs, outside exercise, and special meals to accommodate their beliefs. Our soldiers there don’t eat as well as the prisoners.

As he lets them go, Obama seems to think that all will be well. They will be so gratified that he has released them that their love for America will soar:

Free to Go

His view of the world is woefully inadequate to the terrors of our age. I’ve stated this before and will do so again today: I don’t believe Obama is a Muslim. However, he was raised early on in a Muslim atmosphere and maintains sympathy for Islam as a result. When you couple that with his Marxist intellectual training, which sees Muslims as a group oppressed by the evil capitalists, and his strident anti-colonialism, you have the recipe for his current worldview.

His worldview problem, though, is our worldview problem. When a Paris episode like yesterday’s crops up here at home in the near future, how will he respond? His worldview only increases the danger to the nation he supposedly leads.