The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Friday, November 20, 2015


Listening to Hillary Clinton address Islamic terror yesterday, I was struck by the banality of her words. She tried to sound tough to appease the growing sentiment that Democrats in general and Barack Obama in particular are ambivalent about the Islamist threats we face. It apears that in word and deed, the Dems become more exercised about the "threat of climate change"—a threat that is 100 years off if it exists at all. In what can only be called comic idiocy, Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders tried to establish a causation between radical Islam and climate change.

Both Hillary and Bernie would prefer not to discuss the subject of radical Islam, and flatly refuse to use the adjective "Islamic" when they are forced into the discussion. They continue to argue that we should avoid a "clash of civilizations" with Islam, even though no one is suggesting that approach. They are, to put it bluntly, uncomfortable. That may be because the rise of ISIS came about on Obama's and Hillary's watch, where both ignored the problem early.

None other than Nicolo Machiavelli said:
“And what physicians say about disease is applicable here: that at the beginning a disease is easy to cure but difficult to diagnose; but as time passes, not having been treated or recognized at the outset, it becomes easy to diagnose but difficult to cure. The same thing occurs in affairs of state; for by recognizing from afar the diseases that are spreading in the state (which is a gift given only to a prudent ruler), they can be cured quickly; but when they are not recognized and are left to grow to the extent that everyone recognizes them, there is no longer any cure.”
Nicolo said that in the year 1513, but its wisdom has escaped Obama and Clinton. They refuse to address this disease early (think: "the JV team") and let it fester and grow. Now, they still struggle to diagnose the problem, so any cure they propose is ineffective.

The public senses this. Hence, the reticence to believe that a Democratic administration (under either Obama or Clinton) can prosecute an effective war on radical Islam, or for that matter, properly vet the trickle of Syrian refugees entering our country. When Obama's Team of 2s tells us they can accurately vet all of the refugees, they're lying. But that's nothing new for this administration. The public realizes it and discounts their words.

Peggy Noonan comments on the leadership dilemma:
Madrid and London took place during the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and could be taken as responses to Western actions. The Charlie Hebdo massacre was in its way a story about radical Islamic antipathy to the rough Western culture of free speech. But last week’s Paris attack was different. It was about radical, violent Islam’s hatred of the West and desire to kill and terrorize its people. They will not be appeased; we won’t talk them out of it at a negotiating table or by pulling out of Iraq or staying out of Syria. They will have their caliphate, and they will hit Europe again, as they will surely hit us again, to get it.

So again, the only question: What to do?

On this issue the American president is, amazingly, barely relevant. The leaders and people of Europe and America will not be looking to him for wisdom, will, insight or resolve. No commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces can be wholly irrelevant, but to the extent one can be, Mr. Obama is. He has misjudged ISIS from the beginning—they were not, actually, the junior varsity—to the end. He claimed last week, to George Stephanopoulos, that ISIS has been “contained.” “I don’t think they’re gaining strength,” he said just before Paris blew.

After the attacks Mr. Obama went on TV, apparently to comfort us and remind us it’s OK, he’s in charge. He prattled on about violence being at odds with “universal values.” He proceeded as if unaware that there are no actually universal values, that right now the values of the West and radical Islam are clashing, violently, and we have to face it. The mainstream press saw right through him. At the news conference, CNN’s Jim Acosta referred to the “frustration” of “a lot of Americans,” who wonder: “Why can’t we take out these bastards?” The president sighed and talked down to him—to us. He has a strategy and it’s the right one and it’s sad you can’t see it.

Let him prattle on about climate change as the great threat of our time.

All he can do at this point is troll the GOP with the mischief of his refugee program. If he can’t work up a passion about radical Islamic violence, at least he can tie the Republicans in knots over whether they’re heartless bigots who want to prevent widows and children from taking refuge from the Syrian civil war.
It's long past the time when Americans—including Democrats who recognize the threat and are willing to heed Machiavelli's words) should push back against this feckless president. That may have begun yesterday when the House voted overwhelmingly to hit "pause" on the Syrian refugees. Senate Democrats have promised to be "obstructionists" (hmmm, where have I head that word before) and block the bill from passage.

But back to Machiavlli:
“And that prince who bases his power entirely on ... words, finding himself completely without other preparations, comes to ruin ... ”
The Democrats and their leadership rely on words when actions are all that matters. Sadly, the ruin that is a direct result is visited not on them, but on our country.