Not As Legitimate As Hebdo

John Kerry’s Freudian slip | Power Line:

There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo [and what happened in last week’s Paris attacks], and I think everybody would feel that. [In the Hebdo case] [t]here was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.

When Republicans say something off the cuff that can be taken out of context and misconstrued, it is a done deal that the slip was the "real truth", and no apology or explanation can recover the situation. The recent Kevin McCarthy "everyone thought Hillary was unbeatable" or the classic of Trent Lott making an offhand unscripted remark at a birthday party for an old man about "the country being better off if Thurmond had been elected president" come to mind. The comparison to the national firestorm when Todd Akin talked about "legitimate rape" is just a bit too close to "even a legitimacy" from Kerry, but let's be realistic -- nobody in national party controlled media is interested in taking down John Kerry. He is one of their own ...

I'm sure that if it was a written speech, Kerry would have worded it differently, but when BO said "the future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam", it WAS in a prepared speech! I think the situation is a bit worse than the analogy given in the linked piece; "rape of a woman in a short skirt is understandable, but not a pants suit". "Infidels" are an abomination to strict Islam -- as are non-theocratic governments, voting or even RECOGNIZING governments that are not the Caliphate. If you are not one of them, you are better off dead -- you don't have to be a cartoonist, just not in support of the Caliphate to be a "legitimate" target for them!

As Golda Meir put it -- "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us."

One doesn't need to listen to BO, Hillary, Kerry or a whole lot of Democrat elite to realize that they see Republicans as their real enemies and Muslims as their friends. They believe that by controlling speech -- labeling it "hate speech" --  putting the guy who made a movie that want to use as cover for their Islamist friends killing the US Ambassador to Libya in jail, having NY State prosecute Exxon for not agreeing with Global Warming, harassing people in WI that had the gall to contribute to Scott Walker ... the list is already very long ... they and their Islamist friends can have centralized power states that will work out just fine. At least they think that ... but then as Reagan said : “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

The left tends not to think very much about "unintended consequences", "collateral damage" in destroying the existing western culture, nor in embracing other cultures that they find "stylish". So it causes them some confusion ... and often lots of deaths. Like WWII, China, Pol Pot, etc ... Paris and 9-11 are just tiny things compared to Iranians with nukes and ICBMs. They are sure that Islamists are "reasonable people" -- Islamists like to run tightly controlled totalitarian governments, so they have a lot in common with "liberals".

Good luck to Lurch Kerry in figuring out how to appease Iran so they don't get "really angry" with us when they have the bomb. If you have a little time, Rubio puts it pretty succinctly without notes or a teleprompter.

'via Blog this'