In a recent interview secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, the former Democrat governor of Arizona, had this exchange with a reporter:
Reporter: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word “terrorism.” Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?
Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.
“Man-caused” disaster? This is akin to calling a janitor a “sanitation engineer” so as not to offend him.
So now not only are we releasing terror suspects from Guantanamo, and possibly granting civil trials in US courts to known terrorists, giving them Constitutional rights and even perhaps releasing them onto the streets of America, but the Homeland Security secretary now does not even feel inclined to use the word “terrorism”…
Does she recall 9/11?
Probably not. Many Democrats have blocked it from their minds.
And are we heading for another 9/11?
Could be. When Dick Cheney said in a CNN interview recently that Obama policies “in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack” we continued to see the lines being drawn over the future of national security. And as the Clinton administration policies on terrorists – that terrorists do not really exist but are just criminals, or are figments of our imaginations – are reborn in the Obama administration, we should brace ourselves. Because although the terrorists have vowed a thousand-year war against the West, they’ll attack tomorrow if the opportunity presents itself.
Obama made it clear in his campaign that he was going to turn the page on tough Bush administration policies. Obama also has struggled not to use the words “war on terror”. His DHS secretary is singing from the same pacifist hymn book. And this is just the beginning.
Man-caused disaster? Could that be referring to the tidal wave of crime that liberals have allowed to happen in America over the last 50 years, defending evil people and impugning tough judges and crime victims? And now belittling our military?
On a recent trip to Mexico, secretary of state Hillary Clinton elevated the PC rhetoric to new heights, blaming the United States for Mexico’s drug wars. This is another attack on the US by a high-level American in a foreign venue, a technique perfected by Bill Clinton. She said “…(America‘s) insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. (America‘s) inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the death of police officers, soldiers and civilians. I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility.”
Clinton, of course, failed to mention the role that 1960s hippie/liberalism played in making drugs an everyday fact of life in America, a culture that she and Bill emerged from with their far-left ideology all polished up. Remember what the leftists said in the 1960s – “Sex, drugs and rock n’ roll!” and “If it feels good, do it!”
Are those really durable ways of thinking? Of course not. They lead to destruction. And this is the happy-pill culture that allowed our nation to fall into escapist drugs and caused us to slide into economic disarray.
So there you have it, from all corners of the Democrat party: Evil terrorism is not to be named, but America is to be blamed for this, that and everything else.
If you dare, look again at how Napolitano couched her response to the reporter: “I presume there is always a threat from terrorism.”
Presume?! Does she “presume” that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by Middle Eastern males, or does that need more study? Does she “presume” that terrorists today are plotting another attack, or is that just a fantasy of paranoid right wingers?
Does her political soulmate Hillary “presume” that drugs are being transported illegally into America from Mexico by bad people? Or are they just misunderstood peasants who somehow have been wronged by America? After all, according to leftist mythology, we “stole” California and Texas and Arizona and New Mexico from Mexico, did we not?
(Answer: Sure. And if those states had remained part of Mexico, they would be destitute, and millions would be leaving them today for the 46 United States.)
Hillary went on to warn about the well-armed criminals in the drug cartels in Mexico. “It’s not only guns. It’s night vision goggles. It’s body armor. These criminals are outgunning the law enforcement officials,” she said. “When you go into a gun fight, where you are trying to round up bad guys and they have … military style equipment that is much better than yours, you start out at a disadvantage.”
Yes, the good guys certainly are at a disadvantage, just as they have been at a disadvantage when Democrats defend criminals; or when Bill Clinton ignored terrorism during his eight years in office, leading to 9/11; or when the secretary of Homeland Security refuses to see evil for what it is.
This verbal jihad against the United States from within is unacceptable and conservatives warned that it would reach the White House with Obama. It is the socialist war on American values, blaming us first and then refusing to ask hard questions – or even to accept the truth – after the smoke has cleared.
Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more. You can print out for free my book, Right Is Right, which explains why only conservatism can maintain our freedom and prosperity.