In a short communiqué following the indiscriminate killing of
Muslims in New Zealand, Hillary Clinton wrote that her heart broke for “the global
Muslim community.” But in her following postings, not a word about Sri Lanka
Christians or the global Christian community. Obama similarly wrote in his
tweet about New Zealand that he was grieving with “the Muslim community” over
the “horrible massacre in the Mosques.” But in his posting about Sri Lanka,
there is no mention of Christians or churches.
Is it
coincidental or is there an underlying reason why neither former President
Obama and former Democrat Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton failed to
mentioned Christians being martyred or churches being destroyed? Based on Obama
and Hillary’s social media posts, there is room for supposition, inference and
implication. The interpretation is that the Left has essentially prohibited
mention of all the anti-Christian murders perpetrated by Muslims in Europe, the
Middle East, and Africa, and of all the Muslim desecration of churches in
Europe, Africa, Middle east and elsewhere.
When all
is said and done, the left’s decree is that nothing negative or evil, no matter
how true, may be said about Muslims or Islam and nothing positive, no matter
how true, may be said of Christians or Christianity.
Clinton’s
post-New Zealand social media post also included these words: “We must continue
to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia and racism in all
its forms. White supremist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere.
Their murderous hatred must be stopped." To
her credit Mrs. Clinton made sure to condemn Islamophobia, but she wrote not a word
about the far more destructive and widespread hatred of Christians in the
Muslim world. She calls on world leaders everywhere to condemn white
supremacist terrorists, one of the smallest hate groups on the surface of the
earth, but never calls on leaders everywhere to condemn Islamist terrorists,
the largest hate group on Terra firma.
Does not
the mentioned communications and social media posts tell us much about former
President Obama and former Democrat Presidential Candidate Clinton? By the
same token, does not the written conveyance of the messages as it
relates to acts of violence perpetrated by radical Islamic fundamentalists and
a race supremacist tell us a lot about the left’s agenda and much more of Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama?
Indeed, one of
the most befuddling aspects of liberalism is its habit of ignoring,
denying, or tolerating atrocities done in the name of Islam,
all the while eagerly pointing the finger at Christians and conservatives
on the rare occasion that mass violence is carried out by an alleged member of
that group. The stark contrast was especially on display when
liberals did not hesitate to blame conservative Christians for a Planned
Parenthood shooting but refused to make similar indictments of Islam
after a terrorist attack in California.
As I have alluded to in past
commentaries, many liberal politicians have become outright apologists for
Islam. Has not Hillary Clinton called for people to stop using the term
"radical Islam" because it is offensive to Muslims? Evidentially
she does not want the word Islam attached to any act of terror. This is a woman
so desperate to make rationalizations for the religion that when a
Muslim kills 14 people, she insists he had nothing to do with
himself killing 14 people. The people were killed not by a
Muslim, but apparently by some ethereal, furtive, brown-skinned apparition. For
his part, President Obama has in the past lectured Americans for their "less
than loving" behavior towards Muslims. Does not Obama’s chastisement of Christians
and Hillary Clinton’s defending Muslims following Islamic terrorist attacks
speak volumes of their peremptory, philosophical, theological and sociopolitical inclinations?
No comments:
Post a Comment