ISIS assaulted the capital of France today. The terrorists’ Paris attacks, unprecedented in modern times in their audacity and method of execution, occurred mere hours after ABC News aired an interview with President Obama asserting that we have contained ISIS, also interrupting an Al Gore hosted all-star 24-hour climate change event being held at the Eiffel Tower. Oh, the irony!
We Replaced The Global War on Terror with a Global War on Weather
And this is what we got.
“Si vis pacem para bellum” is the famous Latin phrase oft repeated in various forms by many military commanders down through the ages. It translates literally to, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” In essence, it means that weakness invites aggression by those seeking to conquer and plunder. Unfortunately, we in the West have been getting the double-whammy for the better part of the past decade which flips this ancient maxim on its head – if you don’t want war, just declare peace and pretend everything is hunky-dory. If you don’t want war, just prepare for peace by dismantling and undermining your military and the economic means which waging an effective war depends upon.
First and foremost, rabid environmentalists and the demagogic Left have been undermining energy production, manufacturing, and consumption – inarguably the backbone of any modern economy – and trying to brow-beat us all into guilty acquiescence to their power grabs and wealth redistribution disguised as saving the planet. That SUV you drive? It’s a flippant act of unthinking terrorism against the planet. That oil and coal your country harvests from its own lands? That’s raping the Earth. So stop driving, stop working, stop buying and selling and consuming, and stop producing. Stop hurting the Earth.
As if that weren’t enough, undermining our economic wherewithal when we’re fighting still in the midst of a global war with the violent jihadists, the same Left has been deliberately and systematically taking their eye off the ball when it comes to combatting Islamist aggression, to the point that they show more fight in a squabble over whether we should really call it “violent extremism” or some other inane, non-descript thing than they do in actually fighting the Islamists. Come to think of it, I fully expect this article here would be greeted with as much or more scorn as the more than 100 Parisians murdered in their own city, and all for my displaying what are now considered “Islamophobic” attitudes when pointing out Islamists as the real menace deserving our aggressive, stalwart opposition.
Disastrous results are guaranteed in the long-term for this two-pronged attack on our war efforts, and the Paris attacks are just a foreshadowing of what’s coming if we don’t change course. But don’t hold your breath in expectation that the Left will do an about-face anytime soon. It’s more likely that former Vice President Al Gore or Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel will come out in the wake of these Paris attacks to blame them on “Global Climate Disruption.” As laughable as that would be if it weren’t so dangerously naïve and dishonest, we need to greet such talk the same way we would that of an inept police chief scapegoating a spike in criminal activity on full moons rather than accepting responsibility for his ineffective law enforcement strategies.
Hollande is suddenly for border control when immigrants hurt citizens.
Maybe… Kinda sorta…
Reports from survivors of today’s Paris attacks claim that the gunmen seasoned their violence with cries of “Allahu Ackbar!” and “For Syria!” Social media accounts linked to ISIS immediately came out in celebration of the attacks, leading many to believe with good reason that ISIS is at least indirectly responsible for the carnage, if not planning it directly. At least as reasonable a suspicion is that these murderous thugs who assaulted Paris were amongst the throng of “refugees” Europe welcomed with open arms over the past several months, despite many calls for caution and many admissions that ISIS fighters would be slipping in as well among the refugees.
A state of emergency has been declared and “the border is closed” but the planes and trains are still coming and going to and from France. Obviously there is a dilemma here and some misgivings about going all the way on the commitment to secure France’s borders. Do the terrorists win if Hollande overreacts and rewards them with the major disruption of French life and economic activity that restricting travel would inevitably cause? Or do the French possibly risk greater loss of life if there is no effective filter to keep more terrorists from seeping into the homeland?
What a novel concept, nations controlling their borders! Hungary, Austria, Slovenia – one after another, European countries have had to walk back their overly-optimistic, naïve, reckless commitments to welcoming “refugees” from the Syrian Civil War, many of those nations erecting border fences that sound eerily similar to what Republicans and Conservatives in the U.S. have demanded for years.
France should rethink its commitment to accepting 24,000 refugees over the next two years. Though that number seems small relative to France’s overall population of more than 66 million, there are two important points which deserve mentioning.
First, approving only 24,000 asylum requests does not mean that only 24,000 refugees will come to France. According to the U.N.’s July figures, only 3,545 applications for asylum were received in Greece, compared with over 250,000 migrants arriving on its shores just this year. That’s a ratio of 70:1 on applications received to people coming. With that same proportion, France accepting only 24,000 refugees could mean as many as 1.68 million Syrians barging in unannounced.
Second, the argument that we have an obligation to welcome these masses regardless whether a small minority of them are actually ISIS fighters bent on sowing death and destruction is all well and good until you or your loved ones are trapped in a theater or stadium with gunmen opening fire and lobbing grenades at their helpless crowds of victims. The headline from The Guardian just 10-minutes old now tells me, “Eight terrorists dead after Paris attacks kill more than 150 people – seven of them via suicide bombings,” and that about 200 people have also been injured, 80 of them seriously injured. What percentage of the refugees are ISIS sympathizers is impossible to know with any certainty, but the Paris attacks are just the latest proof among many, many others that the majority need not be “radical” in order for massive carnage and loss of life to take place.
Historical illiteracy has us welcoming another Trojan horse with open arms.
The Syrian refugee crisis has involved masses of predominantly unruly Muslim young men bruising for a fight “fleeing” the Syrian Civil War. Oddly, a number of other prominent, predominantly Muslim countries have been reluctant to accept these Syrians, citing security concerns. Perhaps that should’ve been a clue to the West, where there is arguably a greater concern of provoking the ire of transplants who consider the greater part of our people offensive infidels.
Before it had even begun, the announcement that masses of Syrians would be making their way through Europe raised concerns about the safety of women and the limited capacity of infrastructure being overtaxed, and time and again since the migration began those concerns have turned out to be well-founded, with a spike in gang-rapes and general harassment of and violence against women, rioting accompanied by aggressive chants of “Allahu Ackbar,” destabilization of communities, and vandalization of private property seeming to follow the throngs of Syrians wherever in Europe they go.
Compassionate as I want to be toward a people displaced, fleeing their war-torn native country, that narrative hasn’t matched reality. Soon after European nations began welcoming Syrians by the thousands, I began to see my first suspicions proven true – that this “refugee crisis” is really just a Trojan horse meant to play upon the good intentions and naïve assumptions of the liberal West, paving the way for a non-linear warfare strategy in which the Western nations jihadists have railed against vehemently for generations would welcome the invasion of a conquering hoard within their borders, and realize only too late that a grave mistake had been made.
Oliver Prince Smith, commander of the 1st Marine Division during the Battle of Chosin Reservoir in the Korean War once famously quipped “We’re not retreating, we’re just advancing in a different direction.” And that’s what many within the ranks of the Syrian refugees are most certainly doing with their migration. They may even be taking a cue from Rahm Emanuel, whose Rahm’s Rule states “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.”
