If you follow the liberal press� stories, you�ve already learned that the recent riots in France weren�t really the fault of the Muslim rioters. Instead, you�ve heard that they were the responsibility of what many liberal columnists, including AP writer David Crary (does the AP even have any conservative writers?), call �racism and poverty�. 

In his column �Events Force U.S., France to Face Flaws�, Crary even compares the problems surrounding the US� Hurricane Katrina to the Muslim riots in France�because he views them both as �unfairly affecting the poor and downtrodden�.  Huh?  Hurricanes are acts of God.  Riots are man-made.  The fact that the riots were instigated by those rioting seems to be of no real importance to liberals�or is mentioned merely as an afterthought.  This is bizarre and disingenuous at its best and rabble-rousing at its worst.  After all, Crary and others tell us directly or via insinuation, the Islamic marauding hordes aren�t to blame and that they are as much the victims as those they are victimizing.  Note:  This kind of twisted thinking always gives me a headache.   

Then, Crary again brings up the old-and-tired �slavery and segregation� once-within-the-US issues (these also once existed in other countries-I might note-and still do in some) and, to better bolster his points about the relative �futility of the United States way of life�, quotes French Institute of International Relations Dominique Moisi�s rather ludicrous statement (comparing France and the US):  �I'm not sure you can say that one country's system is better or worse than the other - neither works very well.�  In other words, it�s the countries that have been attacked who are at fault and not the actual Islamo-fascist attackers.  To actually name the enemy (or even call the poor darlings enemies at all) is never allowed in �polite societies�!  However, the clear and present danger of having no society left, polite or otherwise, doesn�t seem to resonate within or faze the liberal mindset.

In most liberal media reports, the term Muslim isn�t even used to describe the rioters; although these are the ones rioting.  And the arson and violence isn�t really their fault, anyway.  If you still continue to believe the lib media, the injured parties are truly the ones to blame.  Question for the liberal press:  Does this mean that the disabled French woman, who was doused with gasoline and then set on fire by the �poor rioters�, brought it on herself?  This is the kind of erratic thinking that, if left unchecked, brings peoples and countries to their knees.

Of course, Crary doesn�t touch on the recent Muslim riots in Denmark; riots during which more homegrown revolutionaries proclaimed loudly to the country of Denmark:  �This land belongs to us!�  Nor did he address the fact that the riots in Denmark began virtually simultaneously with the riots in France.  Coincidence?  I doubt it.  And he also didn�t say that, according to the Danish publication Jyllands-Posten, the riots had been planned for three weeks prior to their commencement. 

Note:  The problem, of course, is that these Muslim rioters do not want to assimilate into Western societies.  They want to overthrow and then take them over. 

Not to unfairly disparage Mr. Crary, I�m quite certain he considers himself �mainstream�.  But, as the US public school system and the press in general are liberal, leftist or patently leftist-leaning, most likely he was indoctrinated from the time he was a small child.  Besides, Mr. Crary is merely indicative of all too many who display the same symptoms of a disease that has plagued the Left for many�many years. 

The disease is �political correctness� and its symptoms include blaming the wounded instead of the shooters and denying that the perpetrators really are at fault.  Rather, the fault lies with those who refuse to accept aberrant and violent behaviors from those that the Left says �have no choice but to create chaos and mayhem�.  The Left tells us this is due to their inherent multi-generational poverty.  Translation:  What the Left actually means is:  �Poor souls.  They�re too incompetent to raise themselves out of their own quagmire and not even bright enough to understand the world as well as we.�

Note:  The Left tends to think in terms of paternalistic societies where the �lesser folk� are �cared for� by the government (AKA �Big Daddy��as it were).

However, for those whom their leaders insist on keeping the poor and disadvantaged (so that these �leaders� will continue to garner their votes), I must admit that the �Father knows best� approach has worked remarkably well in the United States�for many generations.  The elected leaders of the so called �under-classes� continue, to this day, to preach the same messages that they have preached for over sixty years:  �You�re poor and it�s the man�s fault!�  As their methods continue to work, these leaders can continue in power, become the �fat-cats� they preach against and their �underprivileged� constituencies remain underprivileged; continuing to vote for them while receiving their own meager welfare checks. 

Question:  Why is it that as these elected politicos become wealthier as their constituencies remain poor, yet the people still vote them into office?  Hmmm.  Doesn�t make sense to me or anyone I know. 

In contrast, as the recent European rioting firmly demonstrated, the Left now does have a new and mounting problem.  The leftist Daddy message does not ring true to the new Muslim mayhem-spreading menace.  These growing groups of Islamo-fascists don�t want your welfare checks.  They don�t want your leftist paternalistic platitudes.  Instead, they want your money, your power and, ultimately, your countries.  These groups are not accommodating to the liberal and leftist politicians perpetual preaching to the disadvantaged.  In their world, you will be the disadvantaged.  That is, if you�re allowed to live at all.  But, all of these truths appear to mean nothing to the still-majority-but-waning liberal media.  These media actually believe that they are aligning themselves with the Islamo-fascists� �new world order� and that, unrealistically, they will be spared from ultimate destruction because they affected placation. 

Question:  Has the liberal press even taken a look at what is happening in Europe?  Yikes!  It certainly doesn�t appear that it has.  What appeasement has brought to Europe is the attempt by those appeased to annihilate their appeasers.  It is what always�not sometimes�happens.  Why?  The answer is that in every society appeasement is viewed as the primary and incontrovertible signal of weakness.  Soft-underbellies are consistently easier to destroy than are Abs of steel.   

But, just as conservatives attempt to strengthen defenses against the enemies of their countries and continue to insist upon judging individuals on only their merits and abilities, liberal leaders work hard to weaken our military and pay-off-for-votes those they deem to be �the lesser unwashed masses�.  Sanity is now fighting 2 aberrant enemies�the Islamic fanatics and the Left.  Ignore them at your own jeopardy. 

Last questions: Have you noticed that only conservatives seem to understand the basic concepts of survival and continuation of life? Interesting, isn�t it?

Copyright by Sher Zieve

Email: [email protected]