The Liberal Mind

Written November 15, 2009

1. The Fort Hood Murders. Not unexpectedly, the liberal media and commentators were doing their best to explain the behavior of the murdering, radical muslim Major Hasan.

A. From Newsweek's Evan Thomas: "I cringe that he's a muslim. I mean, because it inflames all the fears. I think he's probably just a nut case. But with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going..." What analysis! Those of us who live in the Judeo-Christian world (and presumably a good number of muslims) do think that flying planes into buildings or shooting unarmed people is "nuts." But that does not mean people who do such things are actually "crazy." They are motivated by an ideology that justifies the killing of "infidels." But the left has difficulty acknowledging that evil exists. It is much easier to write him off as a nut case, than accept the reality of a world-wide effort by islamofascists to dominate the planet and establish sharia law everywhere. As for getting the right wing going...please. After 3000 people were murdered on 9/11, was the right wing out en masse killing muslims in the streets? Even worse, the implication is that we should not pay attention to the fact of yet another muslim terrorist attack. Just how far can this guy Thomas stick his head in the sand? (Quote from Thomas in Investor's Business Daily column by L. Brent Bozell, 11/12/09.)

B. Bob Schieffer of CBS: "...Islam doesn't have a majority - or the Christian religion has its full, you know, full helping of nuts, too." Wow! And these guys actually get paid for their insightful analysis! Again, dismissing Hasan as a "nut" and completely ignoring the motivating factor of radical islam. And yes, everywhere around the world over the last couple of decades, the headlines have been about Christians flying planes into buildings, acting as homicide bombers, and otherwise attacking and killing non-Christian "infidels." Everyone remembers all those headlines, right? (Quote of Schieffer from same article noted above.)

C. And one to never let us down, Chris Matthews of MSNBC: "Apparently, he (Hasan) tried to contact Al-Qaida. Is that the point at which you say, "This guy is dangerous?" That's not a crime to call up Al-Qaida, is it?" Really, Chris. You're not sure if contacting Al-Qaida suggests someone might be dangerous? Are you a total moron? And who would even think to ask that question, as if there can be any issue. (Quote from same article above.)

D. And saddest of all, the head of the Army, General Casey, expressed concern that this incident not negatively impact the "diversity" in the Army. Really? Why would that even be the case? And why was that the concern at the time, instead of your murdered troops and their families?

2. The execution of the D.C. sniper John Mohammad.

A. From a letter to the editor in the 11/13/09 USA Today, an opponent of the death penalty: "I know it's hard to lose people, especially for senseless reasons, but to be responsible for any death would haunt me more than bullets ever could." Really? What if one of those bullets killed one of your family members? What if your entire family was killed? So the writer would not defend themselves and their family against deadly attack because they might have to kill the perpetrator? And just why does a criminal intent on doing fatal harm have a greater right to life than innocent victims? The liberal mind.

B. And another writer (I do not recall the paper) who pointed out that Hasan was obviously against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and having muslims (in the US military) kill muslims. Therefore, the writer concluded that we simply needed to withdraw our troops from those countries. Really? Is that how we should determine US foreign policy? If it's offensive to any individual we should not do it?

3. The decision to try the 9/11 terrorists in U.S. civil courts.

A. From the LA Times 11/14/09 lead editorial: "What matters is that they will be afforded the panoply of rights enjoyed by defendants in U.S. courts, including a prohibition on the use of illegally obtained evidence." Except, these sons of bitches are not U.S. citizens; nor do they meet the qualifications for protection under the Geneva convention. They are enemy combatants. Congress, in fact, established military tribunals for this exact purpose. Those accused of attacking the U.S. Cole will be tried by those military tribunals. So, almost all admissions/comments made by 9/11 defendants while in custody will probably not be admissable in court. Obviously, no "Miranda" warnings were given. The purpose was to capture and interrogate and get information about possible future attacks. And why even risk an acquittal? And why give them a stage for their disgusting ideology? All the world's media will be there. But the LA Times is still worried about our "image" in the world.

As pointed out in the 11/16/09 Investor's Business Daily, this approach reflects a return to the Bill Clinton approach of treating all terror attacks as criminal matters. But 9/11 was an act of war - the most significant attack on U.S. soil in our history. And how well did Clinton's approach work? Yes, there was a conviction after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. But did that stop further islamoterrorist attacks? No. Did it aid our "image" in the muslim world? No. After the 1993 attack, we had the Cole, the 2 embassies in Africa, and numerous other attacks. But at least it gets some more terrorists out of Guantanamo, so Obama can keep his promise to close it.

4. Obama's attempts to reach out to Iran and talk and appease. Has this worked well? Iran has refused to send most of its uranium to Europe to be enriched to levels fit for civilian use only. Ayatollah Khamenei said any talks with the U.S. would be "naive and perverted." And now, three American hikers who crossed over from Iraq into Iran are going to be tried for spying. If convicted, the punishment is death. So just how well is this appeasement of dictators working out? When will Obama's liberal mind understand that all efforts at appeasement are taken as signs of weakness by our enemies?

5. Conclusions. Because liberals do not live in the real world, their approach to dealing with problems often has the opposite effect of what they intend. Appeasement does not result in better relations; it simply encourages the enemy to be more bold. The effort by the mainstream media to explain away Major Hasan's radical islamic ties in hopes of preventing future discrimination against other muslims will have the opposite effect. As Ann Coulter points out, the giving of "victim" status to muslims will not prevent others from being suspicious of them. If the Army had done it's job and gotten rid of Hasan, that would have given confidence to our soldiers that other muslims could be trusted. Now, they have to wonder if other muslims might be the next Hasan, because they have seen the military will not screen out those who are likely to be terrorists. And why wasn't Hasan screened out? Because he is muslim, and after 9/11 the muslims are the victims. Victims of what? You'd have to ask a liberal.