Many excuses have been made for no high ranking American presence at the Paris march protesting Islamofacist jihadism. Among those were security concerns and the quickness that the march was organized leaving little notice for those who might want to attend. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made it on short notice and nobody is a bigger target than he. Surely Vice President Joe Biden could have gone. Isn’t this exactly what Vice Presidents do?
A review of the President’s and Vice President’s schedule reveals that they had nothing on there agenda. And Secretary of State John Kerry was in India for a major speech on Global Warming. He couldn’t be pulled away from that? For what is more important, saving the planet or ginning up solidarity against terrorists? As a matter of fact the United Nations, President Obama and his entire Administration and Pope Francis are so busy trying to save the planet from the junk science of Global Warming to have any time left over for combating world-wide terrorism and promoting world peace.
The real reason that the American presence in Paris was zero can be seen when we discover that DA Eric Holder was there, perhaps in a coffee shop watching the march go by while sipping on his expresso and enjoying a croissant. It looks like he had strict orders from the White House to shun the Paris march. But why?
And the simple reason is that the French prime minister said that the Paris attacks mean that France is now at “war” with Islamofacism. And Obama doesn’t even allow the words Islam to be associated with terror. He doesn’t acknowledge that Muslims have a problem. He refuses to admit that there is any overriding connection with all the terrorist attacks that have occurred world wide. They are all random acts of violence, Obama says. They are all lone wolves acting independently. There is no world jihadist movement according to the President. Thus we have seen the President mandate the terms “overseas contingency operation” instead of “war on terror” and “workplace violence” instead of an act of terrorism.
So our President will not ally himself and our nation with anybody that claims that world terrorism has any connection to Muslims or Islam. Holder was there in Paris. But this refusal to admit reality, to use the military tribunals, to treat the coordinated terrorism now existing in the world as an act of war rather than a criminal offense is symptomatic of the Far Left and the world Socialist movement that Obama subscribes to.
The great historian Victor Davis Hanson Chronicles this mindset two years ago:
In Star Trek lore, the Borg was a collective of servile drone operatives that sought to assimilate other species into its “hive mind.”
Something akin to that creepy groupthink arose when the Obama administration took power and sought to reformulate the so-called war on terror. Almost immediately, Obama operatives suggested that radical Islamists were no more likely than any other group to commit acts of terrorism. In fact, the very idea of terrorism — not to mention a war against it — was supposedly a Bush-administration construct unfairly aimed at Muslims.
Obama apparently sincerely believed that there was no intrinsic connection between Islamism and terror; or, if there was, Islamic radicalism was no more dangerous than right-wing or supposedly Christian-inspired terror. Or if Islamic radicalism did arise, it might be mitigated by multicultural sympathy and outreach, mostly by contextualizing the violence as an inevitable result of prior Western culpability.
Precisely because the Bush-Cheney protocols had thwarted over 40 post-9/11 Islamist plots, Senator Obama had the latitude, in 2008, to campaign for the presidency on the premise that these measures were both unlawful and superfluous. After he became president and learned of their utility — and assumed the political responsibility for the consequences of abandoning his effective anti-terrorism inheritance — Obama squared the circle of embracing or expanding all the elements of the war against terror by politically correct euphemism.
The result has been that ever since 2009, various members of the administration collective have sought, each according to his station, to bring us into the network of not associating Islamism with terror. And the Borg have certainly been diverse, as all sorts of political appointees, opportunists, and career officers plugged themselves into the hive. Obama may have killed ten times as many suspected Muslim terrorists by drone as did Bush, but we were to assume that the fact that there were no Christian, Jewish, or Buddhist victims of Hellfire missiles was irrelevant.
Shortly after assuming office as the head of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano associated the prior “war on terror” with a “politics of fear”: “In my speech, although I did not use the word ‘terrorism,’ I referred to ‘man-caused’ disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.” Again, one wishes to ask her how many Christians have been targeted by Obama-administration Predator drones.
Various members of the Defense Department soon were plugged into the new narrative of “this administration” and, as good automatons, were eager to spread the Borg directives. A memo sent by the Defense Department’s security office to Pentagon staff members read, “This administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror.’ Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’”
After the Fort Hood shootings, the Defense Department characterized the murders as “workplace violence,” despite the known fact that Major Hasan had been interviewed by the FBI because of his correspondence with the radical imamAnwar al-Awlaki, and even though he yelled “Allahu Akbar!” as he killed twelve soldiers and one civilian and wounded more than 30 others. The military was absorbed into the non-Islamic groupthink to such a degree that Army Chief of Staff George Casey editorialized of the mass murder of his soldiers: “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.” Dismantling the “diversity program” would be worse than the slaughter at Fort Hood? These days our martyrs are to die not on the altar of freedom, but on the altar of diversity?
These examples of the Borg could be vastly expanded, from Homeland Security’s warning of future violence not from Muslim males but rather from “right-wing extremism” — emanating from returning war veterans and anti-abortion activists — to the mandatory substitution of “militant extremism” and “violent extremism” for “Islamic extremism.”
And today Clark Judge on the Hugh Hewitt website tells us how it is right now:
Sometimes history changes with a bang, sometimes with a whimper. A change in the course of American history may have occurred yesterday to the sound of silence.
Yesterday the American president declined to act as leader of the free world – choosing to remain at home focused on a minor, non-starter legislative proposal while 40 national heads of government marched arm-in-arm through Paris as part of a a transformative global statement against the obscenity of Islamofacist jihadism.
This morning the question in many quarters, even including the American media, is, by his absence at that moment did Mr. Obama simply take himself out of the unique place in global leadership that American presidents have for so long occupied or did he remove future American president’s as well?
Look at who marched in that line of linked arms. In addition to French president Francois Hollande, the list includes Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Mali’s President (for Pete’s sake, Mali!) Ibrahim Boubacar, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, even Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud President Abbas.
But not U.S. President Barack Obama.
Not even U.S. Vice President Joe Biden. Or U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.
The crowd’s size – estimates vary from 1.6 to 3 million — is said to have exceeded that of Paris’ Liberation Day celebration in World War II. And the demonstration was ecumenical. The Islamofacist attacks on a satirical magazine called Charlie Hebdo and on a Jewish supermarket prompted Paris Muslims to join the crowd in rallying around not just the ubiquitous signs “Je suis Charlie” but also signs of “I am a Jew”.
Meanwhile, the French prime minister said that the Paris attacks mean that France is now at “war” with Islamofacism. The Egyptian president – holder of an office that contends for leadership of the Islamic world – called for a “religious revolution” in Islam, a rejection of hatred and violence. And rallies against neo-Nazism in religious garb have come together spontaneously all over the world.
And yet the United States and its president had nearly nothing to say.
Symbols matter. Part of leadership is rallying people to a cause. Yesterday the world as well as Paris rallied. But the American president – whose nation has carried the heaviest burden of the battle that so many around the globe are now uniting behind — could not even vote present.
So now we wonder, can any president of the United States ever again be said to rank as leader of the free world?