Monday, January 12, 2015

Barack Obama's Islamophilia

No one should have been surprised to see that Barack Obama failed to show up at the rally against Islamic terrorism in Paris.

They should have known that, suffering from chronic Islamophilia, he was too ill to fly.

And no one should have been surprised to see that the American administration could not even send the vice president or the secretary of state, or even the attorney general.

The administration whose policy toward radical Islam can best be summarized in Obama’s words: “The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” could not rally against terrorists who massacred a group of cartoonists and innocent Jews because they (the terrorists) want to ensure that: “The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

While the leaders of the Western world were standing up to radical Islam, the American attorney general, representing the administration, was on the Sunday talk shows refusing to say that radical Islam was the enemy. His quarrel was only with those who had corrupted Islam.

At the same time the administration decided to convene a conference against "extremism." Anything but calling the thing by its name.

At a time when French leaders, from the president to prime minister have both denounced radical Islam, the Obama administration continues to treat Islam with reverence.

Since Islamic terrorism seeks to extort respect for Islam, the Obama administration has been fueling the fire.

Even Bill Maher has figured out that when there are that many bad apples, something is wrong with the orchard.

Better yet, while millions were marching against radical Islam our attorney general was discussing the possible prosecution of Gen. David Petraeus. As one wag pointed out on Twitter, the administration that lost Iraq was getting ready to prosecute the general who had won (or at least stabilized) it.

Which side are they on?

January 11, 2015 marks the day when Western leaders discovered that America, in the person of its president, had abdicated leadership in the war on Islamist terrorism. If they had been holding out hope that Barack Obama would step up and lead the fight against Islamic terrorism, 1/11/15 was the day they were forced to face the dire reality. In the fight against Islamist terror, Obama was AWOL.

Barack Obama believed that he had solved the world’s terrorism problem by killing Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. Well, al Qaeda is not on the run. It is running wild. And ISIS arose and invaded vast territories in Syria and Iraq on Obama’s watch.

The success of ISIS did not merely attract aspiring jihadis. It did not merely give them the chance to train in the dark arts of mass murder. It gave them confidence in the righteousness of their cause. It convinced them that America and the West were too weak, too cowardly and too decadent to sustain a long struggle.

If anything, the Obama presidency proves that terrorism works. It has convinced aspiring jihadis that great nations, led by weak men will cower under the threat of fierce Muslim fighters. Rather than stand tall and proud beside other Western leaders Barack Obama was relaxing comfortably in front of the television screen, watching a football game.

Better yet, while Western leaders were rallying in Paris against Islamic terrorism, our secretary of state, John Kerry was in India railing against… global climate change.

This week Charlie Hebdo is going to print a million copies, filled with caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.

Of course, it’s exercising its right to free expression. But the newspaper is also striking a blow in the culture wars. The best reaction to those Muslims who believe that ridicule of their religion is a capital offense is not to throw a filmmaker in jail. It’s to double down on the ridicule.

It’s the only way to show that we will not be cowed.

[Addendum: compare the remarks of Democratic political consultant Douglas Schoen:

Sunday, President Obama morally abdicated his place as the leader of the free world.

His decision to stay home instead of standing side by side with French President Hollande as millions marched in Paris in solidarity with the slain journalists of Charlie Hebdo in opposition to radical Islam – an enemy fiercer than we have seen in decades – sent a clear message to the world: Obama just doesn’t care.

His words about the horrendous terrorist attack this week were not enough. They came off as inauthentic at best and offensive at worst.]


Anonymous said...

#1. Westerners marching over this case are hypocrites.

As the article below demonstrates, France has 'hate speech' laws that fine and imprison people for the wrong kind of speech.
And the Charlie magazine itself had called for penalizing certain groups for their views.

#2 As for the real reason why Obama wasn't there, it's because Americans have forces all over the Middle East. US is also working closely with Saudi Arabia to destroy the secular regime of Syria and the Putin regime of Russia.

So, Obama and his advisers(most of them Jewish) don't want to inflame Muslim ire.

Sam L. said...

This may be the first time I've agreed with a Dem adviser.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Eric Holder was in Paris yesterday. Yes -- he was actually there. In Paris. For real.

ObamaCare mandates continue to face moral objections from the Roman Catholic Church. Obama doesn't care. It is fascinating what Obama cares about and does not care about, who he cares about and does not care about. It's actually quite stunning.

His indifference to Canada over Keystone XL is embarrassing.

Obama and his allies believe we can have open dialogue with enemy nations and those that sponsor religious radicals and terror groups. The Iranian response (a nation that wants to be a nuclear player and state sponsor of terrorism) shows otherwise.

President Obama is sensitive to certain groups and causes. He doesn't have to be consistent or thoughtful. He does as he pleases, perpetually campaigns, doesn't negotiate with his fellow countrymen and appeases those who wish our destruction.

I've never particularly cared for Mr. Obama, nor do I align with his politics. But what concerns me is that I find him increasingly strange. I don't find him particularly American in his outlook, bearing, nor choices. I'm not much interested in birth certificates or conspiracies... he was elected anyway, and few care about the Constitution provisions of where someone was born (regardless of the sound reasons these restrictions appear in our Constitution). Okay, so he was born in Hawaii. Whatever. Nevertheless, I don't find Obama to be American, nor do I find him an exotic foreigner. He's just strange. Like an almost perfect humanoid that's really a robot, his choices cause you to do a double-take. His responses to issues are most curious. He doesn't seem to like people. I suspect he doesn't want to be president anymore, and it'll be interesting to see what he does when he leaves the Oval Office. But we've got a ways to go until then...

What scares me the most is that I don't know what he'll do in the event of an attack on the homeland again. I suspect he'll immediately be more worried about preventing a backlash against American Muslims than responding to the immediate threat. The long-term track record offers little encouragement, as shown by continuing financial and medical hardships borne by the military families of those murdered during Major Hassan's "workplace violence" episode. Again, I find it strange. No one is connecting the dots. Or perhaps some at the top don't want to see what's behind the tangled web. It's not all about Islam, but it is all about a specific interpretation of Islam. And we're not addressing this head on, and this kind of reticence is more dangerous for the Umma in the long run.

I fear for my country. Symbols matter. Showing up in solidarity with France is a symbolic gesture. Not showing up is a symbolic gesture. France was firm in standing with us immediately after 9/11. Holder being in Paris and not showing up is a statement of stunning indifference to a matter of existential (not just symbolic) import.

Strange... very strange indeed.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Anonymous @January 12, 2015 at 6:46 AM

Murdering someone is not speech. It's murder. It's not imprisonment or penalties, it's murder. As in "They're not coming down for breakfast anymore."

This isn't the government imposing sanctions based on laws that reflect the values of a nation, this is private citizens (or foreigners) extinguishing life based on foreign customs or religious interpretations. There's no equivalence whatsoever. The French have every right to stand together and defend their nation, society and culture. They held an event to foster solidarity yesterday. And some official from America should've been there standing shoulder to shoulder with them. If Abbas and Netanyahu can stand to be there together, I don't think we need to worry about pissing off the Saudis. It was a peaceful demonstration. They didn't erect guillotines and start lopping off the heads of imams.

We're not hypocrites. I don't have to like Charlie Heddo's editorializing. But murdering someone for "insulting" a religious figure is an existential terrorist assault on Western culture. I didn't like "Piss Christ," but my objection was that I shouldn't have to pay for it through the NEA, a publicly-funded museum, or any other compulsory means. But it doesn't mean I wanted to kill the artist. I might not have wanted to have coffee with him, but I didn't want to kill him.

Let's be very clear: these people were murdered for insulting someone's prophet. Perhaps the cartoons are an unnecessary, unkind thing to do. But creating an equivalence or connection between hate speech laws and murder is beyond the pale.

Ares Olympus said...

They say the pen is more powerful than the sword, and now we can put that to the test. Go Charlie!

I don't know who is left, but if doubling down on being offensive is the way to run a culture war, I guess its saying something about how to win. I'm sure they can top themselves.

The heartless thing for me is when I saw the cartoons "Charlie" drew, my first thought is "Good riddence", no matter who they were mocking.

If only we still had Churchill:
"We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender..."

I'm not sure if the comparison to 9/11 is fair, but I'm with James Howard Kunstler.

I remember that Rushdie guy had to go into hiding to prove his freedom to be offensive, but he's still alive some 26 years later, so it shows with the proper security measures, we can still be free.

Okay, back to Obama bashing? I didn't have anything to add on that, but wait, I did read the White House apologized and will Send SoS Kerry.

So all is well?

Dennis said...

There have been times over the last 6 years that I have wondered. Obama's comments seem way too oriented to the "prophet" in an Islamic sense. The verbal contortions Obama and his administration just strike me as unnecessary in the context with which they do it. If one refuses to name the enemy then one is succumbing to the enemy. It is the first step of giving up freedom of speech to those who care not one bit for freedom of anything.

Color me skeptical od Obama's intentions.

Dennis said...


Sometimes you really leave me laughing. I wonder if one has to have security in order to challenge others what kind of freedom that happens to be? Interesting how any challenge to Obama is "bashing." Challenging those who would lead us is one of the freedoms we enjoy and just may be those who challenge have a point or a well reasoned argumentation about those who would claim to lead us.
Discounting others opinions as "bashing" is the first step to closing one's mind. I may not agree with you. but I would defend your right to say or write those opinions. I do wonder if you would do the same?

Katielee4211 said...

Which side are they on?~~~ And the answer to that, no matter how scary and horrifying (because then where does that leave us?), is probably the truth, and in that light everything else seems to make sense, doesn't it?

Recruiting Animal said...

1. “The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”.

This just means that intolerance is not going to accomplish anything. He would say this about any religion. It's like mom and apple pie but people twist it into pleading a special case for Islam.

2. The Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is known as an anti-jihadist but he didn't go either.

It doesn't mean that he's soft.

I think it would have been good for Obama to go but it's not clear at all what this demonstration will accomplish.

Will populations be more inclined to support their governments when they go to war with ISIS because of this? Maybe.

The demonstration didn't seem to influence the people in the suburbs of Paris. The Daily Beast reported that kids there would not stand for a moment of silence.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

It's not that Obama didn't go. It's that Holder couldn't walk around the block and show up. That's my point. This administration has a hard stop on calling radical Islamic radicalism what it is. It's fanatical murder. Period. And it seems everyone knows it, And leaders the world over can show up, except the high-level officials in the Obama Administration. Does anyone for a moment doubt that Kerry and Biden think it's a GOOD THING to not show up for a rally of this kind? Someone other than our Ambassador de France?

Again, I wonder what Valerie Jarrett thinks.

And thanks, Dennis. I was wondering the same thing. Obama bashing? Really? "Contortions" is a good word.

ISIS must think we're a bunch of.... well...