When a member of Obama’s inner circle speaks his or her mind, the result is a glimpse into the collective mindset of the administration. Press statements, speeches, and social media posts convey carefully developed messages that lack transparency. It’s when people like Secretary of Personality John Kerry step out from behind those things to lecture everyone else that we’re afforded a peek inside. What we find is a White House as untethered from reality as any faculty lounge at a university, or the students protesting selfish grievances out on the campus green.
Kerry compared the recent Paris attacks with the earlier Charlie Hebdo attacks. Fair comparison. Both were acts of terror. A singular ideology served as the philosophical underpinning of both attacks. One would expect an educated person like Kerry to root his comparisons in those facts. Comparison of tactics, types of targets selected by the terrorists, timelines, methods, and the like were what ought to have come from the Secretary of Personality. Instead:
– He said the Hebdo attacks weren’t designed to terrorize. The Friday attacks were, but not Hebdo.
– The Hebdo attacks were responses to “aggrieve” a “sense of wrong”. The wrong being cartoon renderings of Mohammed.
– There was “even a legitimacy, not a legitimacy, but a rationale” that Kerry said allowed one to blame the Hebdo attacks on anger over a grievance.
“A legitimacy, not a legitimacy”, Kerry caught himself using Oval Office language publicly and then diverted to the term “rationale”. Not that the word “rationale” negates the content of the words that followed. Those words say that the Hebdo attacks can be seen as legitimate because an aggrieved minority group was mad about something they found offensive. Somehow, Friday’s attacks weren’t. In Kerry’s view, Friday was a seemingly random, one off episode, with no identifiable dots to connect cause and effect.
Interestingly, no one from the administration has to date discussed the imperiled position of ethnic minorities – predominantly Christians – in Islamic State controlled territory. At least not in terms comparable to the John Kerry explanation for Hebdo. Certainly any sense of empathy hasn’t been articulated as clearly as the Secretary of Personality defended the Hebdo attacks. Imperiled Christians don’t fit in with faculty lounge narratives. It’s as if the pathetic tantrums of college students is informing our foreign policy.
“The ISIS strategy we are putting forth is ultimately the strategy that’s going to work”, Obama declared. Recent experience ought to suggest otherwise. But we are well beyond the point where reality makes a difference. “I think I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director” he once said. It’s been reported that Obama spends hours drafting foreign policy point papers in the White House – a job normally done by junior staffers. The Obama inner circle is made up of people that adore their own sense of genius; nobody is smarter than Obama and themselves. They are the ones they’ve been waiting for.
As such, they are unqualified to address ISIS. The current strategy – whatever it is exactly – hasn’t been the least bit effective. Unless it changes it won’t mature into an effective response to the terror state. Certainly not when Friday’s attacks are seen as random tragedies disconnected from other world events. Kerry’s remarks are a reminder that the administration remains incapable of understanding radicalized Islam as an existential threat. As is so often the case with the left, that which doesn’t reside within the narrative isn’t given any consideration at all.
There is an old story from 1980 in which a prominent progressive is supposed to have said something like “I don’t know how Reagan won, no one I know voted for him”. Back then, the left was well on its way towards walling itself off from competing thoughts. Today those intellectual boundaries have become ever smaller and the ideology within ever more rarefied. It’s impossible for those who occupy Obama’s inner circle to fathom any idea outside their intellectual boundaries. The content of their ideology is well established.
Moral equivalence. Non-judgmental outlook. Various isms. Main Street versus Wall Street. Belief in microaggression. A myopic view of history that finds offense not just with American culture but with anything western. A pass readily granted to non-western nations and culture. There are predetermined outcomes for every possible issue, including the ISIS problem. Blame the west, insist that we must atone for sins of our past, and engage in more understanding and tolerance so that we may all someday learn to coexist. All while ignoring the day to day reality crafted by ISIS.
And pursuing a refugee program devoid of common sense and potentially a violation of federal law. Obama says it’s “shameful” and “not American” to suggest that there be a religious test applied to refugees seeking admission into the U.S. “That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion” he said. Except that Section 1158 of Title 8 U.S. Code states that “religion (among other things) was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant”. In other words, for someone to be granted refugee status the law says that religious persecution against that person in their home country must be taken into account – immigrant and refugee are not synonymous. How capably this religious test is performed is debatable. The Tsarnaev brothers arrived in America as refugees from the Chechnya conflict and went on to bomb the Boston Marathon. Never mind all that. #refugeeswelcome was launched by the White House in order to return the Syrian refugee question to the administration’s very shallow comfort zone. The idea that the refugee population may include anything other than legitimate asylum seekers is beyond their comprehension.
When the Secretary of Personality speaks out as he did, it isn’t just his voice that’s heard. He spoke using the same language that the Obama inner circle uses behind closed doors inside the White House. John Kerry didn’t reach his conclusion regarding Hebdo and the Friday attacks by chance. He spoke from his heart and the far left belief system that flows through this administration. It isn’t far-fetched to imagine Obama, Kerry, Jarrett (she is inseparable from the President), and others discussing Hebdo as “legitimate”, and then poring over Friday to find something other than radicalized Islam to blame.
The knee jerk reaction to all this is to scapegoat Kerry. Call what he said a gaffe. Build distance between Kerry’s comments and the administration. It’s silly to do that. In 2004 John Kerry was the man the left selected to run for President. It’s not that he’s just like Obama. He’s who they wanted before they discovered the allure of an unknown Senator from Illinois. There is no distance between Kerry’s comments and the values of the Obama inner circle. It’s all indicative of a deeply flawed progressive ideology that clouds many spheres of American life – and that advances a suicidal foreign policy.