We must remember:

Last week the part of the world that was paying attention was shaken by the murder of Stéphane Charbonnier – a.k.a., “Charb,” and eleven of his coworkers in their Paris offices of the Charlie Hebdo magazine. This is essentially is radical Islamist terror unless anyone buys into the Newspeak of the Obama Administration.

Not only did the White House refuse to identify the attack as evidence of radical Islamist terrorism, it took a pass on sending anyone of high ranking significance to the Paris rally to demonstrate sympathy with the victims of the terrorist attack in Paris, and to demonstrate support of freedom of the press.

Not long after the attacks, Press Secretary Josh Earnest defended President Obama and other assorted Administration officials for not referring to the terrorist attacks as deeds of Islamist terror. Earnest attempted to explain to reporters during a press briefing that defining the attacks in such a way was      a question of “accuracy.” Obama probably prefers to view it as “workplace violence.”

Alert Americans should realize that the current response is a similar spin on what happened after the Benghazi attacks on September 11, 2012. The Obama Administration refused to acknowledge the attacks on the Benghazi consulate as Islamist terror and pinned the blame on a scapegoat who had posted an offensive video on Islam up on YouTube.

While in the midst of his re-election campaign, the initial response from Obama came in a Rose Garden statement on September 12, 2012, in which he referred to the Benghazi tragedy as an “attack” and to the terrorists as “killers.” Then he expressed the sentiment that “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” but it actually seemed more to be a reference to the YouTube video. This may explain why Obama is showing up “absent” on the response to the attacks in Paris.

On September 14, 2012, another White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, was trotted out to state that the Mideast violence, including the Benghazi assault, was “in response to a video that Muslims find offensive.” Carney carefully avoided identifying those who attacked the Benghazi consulate terrorists. He simply referred to them as “assailants” and “attackers.” In a weekly address on September 15th, Obama spoke much about the denigration of Islam and angry mobs but said nothing of terrorism.

With the litany of lies being perpetrated by the White House in 2012, the current reactions to the Paris terrorism should not be surprising. What is surprising is that more Americans have not raised their voices in disgust over the “leader” of the Free World portraying his “tolerance” of the religious beliefs of Muslims, but the lack of genuine expression of concern over the lives that were lost in either incident.

Current Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, attempting to justify the more recent White House position, explained that they did not want to be in the position of “legitimizing” an “illegitimate justification” for violent actions, calling the ideology of the terrorists a “distorted deviant view of Islam.” He attempted to further perpetuate White House Newspeak as he stated: “We want to describe exactly what happened. These are individuals who carried out an act of terrorism, and they later tried to justify that act of terrorism by invoking the religion of Islam in their own deviant view of it.”

Accepting that radical extremists were using Islam as a cloak for protection should not tie one’s tongue in speaking the truth about what happened. Sadly, truth seems to be a major victim along with the French journalists, or those beheaded in the Middle East.

What seems to escape the droids who continue to spew the Newspeak is that by labeling such violence as Islamist extremism, one does describe exactly what happened. For Obama, or the “brain trust” in the White House, to authorize such a flimsy spin on Islamist terrorism, or to say nothing, mainly reveals the view of reality of those currently in charge of the Democrat Party. Seemingly, with few potential votes involved, it matters little.

This past Sunday, it was reported that at least 40 world leaders from Africa, Europe, and the Middle East attended a rally in the Republique Square in Paris along with more than a million protestors expressing concern over such violence. The White House only dispatched to the rally the current American ambassador to France, Jane Hartley.

The “leader” of the Free world was reportedly watching the NFL playoffs. Ironically, Attorney General Eric Holder was reported to be in Paris for a terrorism summit. Yet, he did not attend the rally, and apparently only made appearances on Sunday morning talk shows. Maybe he had more important things to do than to publically be seen showing indignation against Islamist terrorism.

Reactions emanating from the halls of the White House these days speaks volumes with regard to their hypocrisy toward injustice. Americans should be able to recollect how outspoken Obama was on the Trayvon Martin shooting, as well as the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri this past summer. Additionally, while Eric Holder took great pains to travel to Ferguson to bring the full force of the Justice Department down upon ‘genuine injustice.’ Where were they really regarding the injustice to those murdered at Charlie Hebdo?

Generally in 2008, many Americans, especially many who participated in the Civil Rights movement, could be proud that finally the first black president was elected. However, in beginning his seventh year as president, Barack Hussein Obama shows up as an embarrassment to what the Civil Rights movement represented.

The birthday of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. will be remembered next Monday. Obama’s people did not let Americans forget it in the 2103 inauguration, as they tried to link Obama to the legacy of the Civil Rights movement. Nevertheless, in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, King stated strongly:  “I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”