The liberal response to tragedy never ceases to amaze, even if it is no longer surprising.
In the wake of Brussels, the New York Times rushed to issue a stern warning to readers, not about the real and present danger of terrorism splattering itself all over the globe, but rather about “fearmongering of the sort promptly voiced by politicians like Donald Trump.”
Meanwhile, MSNBC blamed guns for the tragedy in Brussels, carried out via bombs.
Not to be outdone, the Washington Post is now weighing in with its own astute assessment:
The Post goes on to cite Obama’s — along with Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, along with Democrat thinly disguised as a Republican, John Kasich — empty platitudes as evidence of a “response” to this expanding — and yes, existential — threat.
THE TERRORIST assault on Brussels Tuesday, just four days after the arrest of an architect of last year’s attacks in Paris, underlined the resilience and continued menace of the Islamic State — to Europe, to the United States and to vital Western interests. It also revealed a crucial divide among U.S. presidential candidates about what this country must do to protect itself.
One one side are those who support the internationalist response of President Obama, who said the United States “will do whatever is necessary to support our friend and ally Belgium,” and who asserted that “we must be together, regardless of nationality or race or faith, in fighting against the scourge of terrorism.” That view was broadly shared by Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and Republican John Kasich.
By “internationalist,” does WaPo mean the open borders practice that has worked so well for Europe — and giving up our own sovereignty to welcome the terrorists on in? Does that encompass President Obama’s continuing on his international, taxpayer-funded spring break tour with his family of Latin America, including chumming it up with a dictator at a baseball game while Belgium burns — or tearing up the dance floor in Argentina? Is that what he means by doing “whatever is necessary”? And can anyone name what action, exactly, is behind President Obama’s — and other Dems’ — platitudes? Surely he doesn’t mean sending John Kerry and James Taylor over to Brussels to sing “You’ve got a friend.”
Meanwhile, WaPo characterizes the “radical” views of GOP frontrunner Donald Trump and criticized the calls from he and GOP rival Ted Cruz to secure the borders:
Against them is the radical isolationism of Donald Trump, from whom the Brussels bloodshed prompted another call to “close up our borders,” and who on Monday questioned the value of U.S. support for NATO allies such as Belgium. Though GOP rival Ted Cruz rejected Mr. Trump’s position on NATO, his answer to Brussels was similar: He, too, stressed “secur[ing] the southern border” and curtailing refugee flows, along with patrols of “Muslim neighborhoods.”
While many of us may not agree with Trump on NATO, since when is securing a sovereign nation’s borders “radical isolationism”? And, gosh, patrolling neighborhoods known to be hotbeds of radicalism — yes, radical Islam — how is that more extreme or crazy than simply letting these groups continue to organize and plot our destruction, unchecked, as they basically did in Brussels’ Molenbeek neighborhood?
This is, at best, weapons-grade naivety — and, at worst, a willful death wish for Western civilization as we once knew it. With the liberals and their media working overtime and going to new lengths to indoctrinate the masses, the rest of us have our work cut out for us to keep beating the drum of reason to save this republic before it’s too late. We currently seem to have the good fortune to be somewhat behind Europe in this mess. Will we learn from Europe’s mistakes before it’s too late, or keep rehashing the politically correct nonsense as we pave the way for our own cultural suicide?
[Note: This article was written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor]