There is a direct relationship between American liberals and Islamic fascism. At first glance, someone might say, “This can’t possibly be. Islamic extremists commit all these acts of violence in the name of Islam, and liberals profess peace and secularism. How can the one have any relationship with the other?” Read on.
It’s one thing to realize who has most most aggressively opposed the war on terror, where even the term “terrorist” – along with “war on terror” itself – gets purged in a politically correct manner to be replaced by the more neutral term “insurgents.” In the words of one New York Times writer:
The war over words and definitions is not a new one. The current administration has fought to maintain custody of the Iraqi conflict by defining insurgents as “terrorists” and prisoners of war as “unlawful combatants.” During Vietnam, the administration defined civilian casualties as “collateral damage.”
What Democrats and liberals have done to oppose the “war on terror” is largely a matter of history. They opposed the Patriot Act; they opposed the monitoring of calls to the United States from identified terrorists; they opposed the ability of the United States to detain combatants fighting against United States troops; they tried to force time tables that would have resulted in the United States withdrawing in defeat; they literally proclaimed – in the case of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – that the United States had lost. They voted for the war before they voted against it. In large part, they have claimed that it has been American imperialism, rather than growing Islamic fascism, which caused the upsurge of violence. In short, the view is that they are attacking us because we are killing them. We’re the bad guys. We’re the force for evil in the world.
The following audio quote comes from Democrat Parker Griffith via Redstate.com:
I think America’s greatest enemy is America and its imperialism.
And I think that . . . uh . . . we have nothing to fear from radical Islam. We have nothing to fear from any other religion if we are strong on our own beliefs. I don’t fear radical Islam.
It’s hard to fight and win any kind of conflict when half the country questions whether the war should even be fought in the first place and believes that we are the bad guys.
Hence we have Michael Moore – a hugely popular liberal filmmaker (though I prefer the more accurate label of “propagandist”) saying:
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.
The people Bush and his “neocons” (whatever that means) calls “terrorist murderers” who are killing American soldiers with land mines liberals like Michael Moore and many others compare to our Minutemen who won American freedom in the Revolutionary War.
For this reason alone, there is a direct relationship between the Islamic fascists and American liberals: they both agree that we shouldn’t be fighting them, and that the United States is the greater evil.
But the relationship is actually much deeper than that. The liberal’s opposition to the war on terror, and their de facto support for the “insurgents,” is a result of a common belief system directly linking American liberals to Islamic fascists.
Through a Marxist lens, the world is divided into rich and poor, owner and worker, exploiter and exploited. Therefore, if a person or a nation is poor, it is always due to the oppression of the richer person or the richer nation. This simplistic view of the world is the main reason for leftist support of Palestinian terrorism… Israel is perceived to be Western and rich, while the Arabs are perceived to be poor and downtrodden; therefore the Arabs are right. Never mind that the Palestinian Arab Muslims treat women like property, use intimidation and violence against religious minorities, openly call for the rule of Sharia religious law, severely persecute gays, and generally conduct themselves in a way that liberals would find abhorrent if it were being done in their backyard. The Palestinians are poor, therefore they are justified in anything they do, including murder of “Zionist” children.
Those nasty elements that routinely characterize Islam in so much of the world are conveniently ignored in the name of “multiculturalism,” “pluralism,” and “global harmony.” And since traditional Christianity is the real boogeyman of secular humanist liberalism, anything that is hostile to the Christian world view is regarded positively. Bush is the real terrorist; al Qaeda and the Taliban are “insurgents,” “freedom fighters,” or even “Minutemen”-type heroes. The forces of global jihadism are depicted as forces that we can negotiate with if only Bush were out of the picture.
Liberals, who routinely demonize the rich as evil in a clearly Marxist-inspired version of the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie, use almost the exact same language and the same arguments to attack their “neocon” opposition as the Islamic fascists use to justify their violence. It makes it hard to disagree with their arguments and justifications when you are essentially using the identical arguments yourself.
The only real difference, then, is the use of violence as a political tool. And it is a fact that liberal groups – such as the Weathermen, and such as one William Ayers who bombed the Pentagon and killed policemen – have employed precisely the same sort of violence as the “insurgents” – a.k.a. the Islamic fascists – have used. Liberals who employed violence as a political weapon went too far; but liberals who refuse to make the distinction between force and violence and embrace the weakness and non-action catastrophically championed by Neville Chamberlain go too far as well.
As Robert Heinlein once put it, the sad fact of reality is that:
“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and — thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”
It is vital that we realize that the refusal to fight evil is itself evil.
Democrats initially supported the war on terror and the Iraq War. But they turned against the war the moment that it was in their cynical political interests to do so. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared American defeat; Barack Obama still refuses to support the surge strategy even when it is clear that the surge was the only path to victory.
Many liberals and Democrats claim that the war on terror has only strengthened the terrorists. That claim is tantamount to the argument that Hitler would have preferred a Winston Churchill to a Neville Chamberlain. It is both contemptible and irrational. But that is where we are.
And the fact that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama wasn’t sufficiently troubled by the violent terrorist actions of such a man as to refuse to serve on a board with him – a board that carried out Ayer’s radical educational vision (which is frankly nearly as radical as was his violent political vision) – ought to be more than troubling itself. Similarly he likewise isn’t so troubled with the vile actions of rogue regimes such as Iran and North Korea that he isn’t willing to boos their international profile by directly negotiating with them as President.
There is also a direct relationship between Barack Obama and pro-Muslim sources. Barack Obama doesn’t actively embrace their support because of the political liabilities, but Muslims clearly believe that a Barack Obama presidency will be a pro-Muslim presidency. Further, millions of dollars have poured into the Obama campaign from overseas – and been laundered by breaking it into less-than-$200 increments to avoid detection – and there is no question that a great deal of that money is coming from Islamic sources. This, also, ought to be extremely troubling.
But most troubling of all should be the nuclear weapon-bound Iran. Iran is clearly determined to puruse a full-fledge nuclear capability, and in spite of Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric, it is difficult to imagine how he could possibly be willing to take his pledge of preventing the regime from developing such weapons to the point of forceful confrontation (which is clearly the only way that Iran will blink). Obama couldn’t even bring himself to vote for a bill that labeled Iran as a terrorist organization, and in fact publicly opposed it as “excessively provocative.” Given his grounds for opposing the Iraq War, how can he possibly support an Iran War? We won’t be ever be certain that Iran has developed the bomb until we see the first mushroom cloud.
The only way we will be able to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is to state categorically that we will go to war with them if they continue in their present course. Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003 only because we had invaded Iraq and they thought they would be next. They began it again when they saw the U.S. effort bog down both militarily and politically. They began it again when they saw Democrats treacherously turn against a war they had once supported the moment it was in their political advantage to do so.
If Barack Obama believes he will be able to inspire Europe to unite with America in a war against Iran, he is naive to the point of criminality. Most of Europe depends on Russian and Iranian oil, and Russia and Iran are key allies. And the fact of the matter is that Russia is using its UN veto to block any United Nations measure condemning Iran. If the United States acts, it will basically be on its own – again.
The financial crisis and the massive bailout package will also force the next President to make very tough spending decisions. John McCain promised to build the military and freeze other spending programs; Barack Obama could not identify one of his huge social spending initiatives he would actually cut. We will not be able to confront Iran without building our military to make it even stronger than it is today.
If Iran develops nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile delivery systems that they are likewise working on, they will be immune from any direct attack. A regime that has called the United States “the Great Satan” and Israel “a rotting corpse” will literally be able to mount 9/11 style terrorist attacks (or should I say “insurgent” like the mainstream media?) with impunity. It will be able to launch direct or indirect attacks against Israel with impunity unless we are willing to risk a nuclear war that could easily become global. A nuclear-armed Iran is a looming reality too terrifying to fully contemplate – but contemplate it we must.
Another reason that terrorists regimes would want to see a Barack Obama Presidency is because he has stated that he would reduce the size, sophistication, and power of our military at the very time that we need it the most.
Mark my words: if Barack Obama is elected President, Iran WILL have nuclear weapons during his administration. Obama supports the philosophy that links American liberalism with the justifications of Islamic fascists. He has spoken of American soldiers as “air raiding villages and killing civilians.” His opposition to the war in Iraq – which was based on the identical rationale that any war against Iran would have to be based upon – virtually precludes direct military confrontation. And his belief that he will be able to persuade Western nations to join a “Gulf War”-style coalition (which his running mate Joe Biden still refused to support) is simply naive beyond belief.
A vote for Obama will become a de facto vote for a nuclear Iran. Muslim extremists may want that, but Americans certainly shouldn’t.