All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 16, 2015 - The Ben Shapiro Show
30:26
Ep. 26 - Why Obama Wants More Muslim Refugees

Obama says it’s unamerican to stop Muslim immigration after Paris, Bernie Sanders blames global warming. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And here we are.
It is Monday, and it's been a very, very busy weekend.
Tons to get to here on The Ben Shapiro Show.
We'll be talking about the Paris attacks.
We'll talk about President Obama's response.
Plus, apparently, a major movie star has AIDS.
Or at least HIV.
We'll tell you who that is.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Tend to demonize people who don't care about your feelings.
So on Friday, for those who are under a rock, 129 people were killed in Paris by Islamic terrorists.
And I say that advisedly, Islamic, because they are Muslims.
They are Muslims because they say they are Muslims.
I do find it supremely ironic that the same group of people who say we can never ever question President Obama's Christianity, because after all he says he's a Christian, say that these Muslims who call themselves Muslims are not in fact Muslims, because we know Islam better than they do.
Even though we've never read the Quran, we don't know a Muslim, we don't know anything about Islam.
Clearly, the terrorists are not Muslims because it would be inconvenient for them to be Muslims.
There is all sorts of commentary over what happened.
Starting last week, President Obama talked about the Paris attacks and he said they were an attack on all humanity.
Here's what the President had to say, really as the attacks were still underway.
This is last Friday.
Once again, we've seen an outrageous attempt to terrorize innocent civilians.
This is an attack not just on Paris, it's an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.
Oh, all of humanity.
All of them.
I mean, except for Muslims, of course, and of course, except for the universal values of Islam that we don't all share, because the fact is that you've seen tremendously increasing rates of crime in Europe because of the Muslim onslaught.
You've seen incredibly increasing rates of societal polarization in Europe because of increased Muslim refugee problems and the increasing population of Muslims in Europe.
It is amazing how the left will craft this little fantasy world for themselves.
Where a terrorist attack by Muslims on non-Muslims is thus a terrorist attack targeting all of humanity against universal values.
And there is something to this idea.
The left does, and it's really troubling.
It's the othering of evil.
And that is saying that the people who attack innocent civilians, they're totally crazy.
They're not normal people with bad ideologies.
They're not normal people with bad ideas or bad motivations.
They're just nuts.
They're just completely out of the realm of humanity.
They're sociopaths or they're crazy people.
They came out of a mental institution.
We can't attribute anything to their ideology or their perspective.
This is a way of assuming that evil can't arise anywhere except for a few crazies, right?
Evil doesn't really exist.
What we really have here is a law enforcement problem or a problem of terrorism or of extremism.
And all of this kind of happy talk about Islam and ideology, it does have real ramifications.
It has very significant ramifications.
It has ramifications in terms of what we do, for example, about the problem of millions of Muslim refugees now trying to invade the West.
And it is an invasion, it's a cultural invasion, whether or not these folks are terrorists, if they are coming and bringing along with them an ideology that is completely at odds with Western civilization.
That is an ideological invasion.
You don't have to be a terrorist to participate in it, but let's say that you had a society that entirely believes in honor killing, for example.
And they came into the West, not to commit acts of terror, but just because they liked the living standard in the West.
And then they insist that the West, okay, they're honor killing.
That is a cultural invasion.
That's what's happening in Europe.
That's what's happening in the West.
Yet President Obama today, Fast forward a couple of days, the same president who says that this is an attack on all humanity and universal values, now the president of the United States says that it would be un-American, un-American, not to accept more Syrian refugees.
We don't know them.
They're unvetted.
We don't know anything about them.
It would be irresponsible and actually un-American not to accept more Syrian Muslim refugees.
Ted Cruz had suggested over the weekend, Jeb Bush had suggested over the weekend that Christian refugees from Syria should get in, Muslim refugees should not, because we don't know anything about these refugees.
And if you don't know anything about them other than their religion, pretty safe guess that the Christians who are now being wiped out in Syria will not be terrorists.
And pretty safe bet that if there are terrorists, they will come from the Muslim population, which doesn't mean all the Muslims coming from Syria are terrorists or want to be.
What it does mean is that if you are of even mild intelligence, if you even have a basic rational brain, you know that if you're trying to get the risk level to zero, you don't accept Muslim refugees that you haven't vetted.
Right?
I mean, this is very simple.
It's called a description of suspect.
It's not a racial profile because it's not race.
It's not even religious profiling because the fact is that it's not a profile.
It's a description of the suspect.
The description of the suspect is Islamic.
We now know that one of the terrorists responsible for the Paris attacks was a Syrian Muslim refugee who was picked up in a boat off the coast of Greece and made his way all the way to Paris before launching this shooting attack.
We also know that the seven other people who participated were not Buddhists.
And we also know That the explosive vest that they were wearing came from a professional.
ISIS, by the way, has claimed that they have used the Syrian refugee problem to smuggle over 4,000 terrorists into Europe.
Even if they're exaggerating by a factor of 100, you're still talking about 40 terrorists who are wandering around in Europe and it took only 7 or 8 to kill 130 people in the middle of Paris.
which is one of the most heavily policed cities in the world.
This is an amazing thing.
But President Obama says it would be un-American, it would be un-Western of us, uncharitable of us, evil of us, actually, not to allow more Muslim refugees into the West.
Here's President Obama getting very hot and heavy and passionate about why the West needs to allow millions, presumably, hundreds of thousands more Muslim refugees unvetted from the Middle East.
We do not close our hearts to... victims of such violence and somehow start equating the issue of refugees with the issue of terrorism.
President Obama: Thank you.
You know, in Europe, I think people like Chancellor Merkel have taken a very courageous stance in saying it is our moral obligation As fellow human beings to help people who are in such vulnerable situations.
And I know that it is putting enormous strains on the resources of the people of Europe.
Nobody's been carrying a bigger burden than the people here in Turkey, with two and a half million refugees.
And the people of Jordan and Lebanon who are also admitting refugees.
The fact that they've kept their borders open to these refugees is a signal of their belief in a common humanity.
And so we have to, each of us, do our part.
And the United States has to.
The President of the United States, what he's saying by equating Turkey and Jordan and Lebanon, these are all countries that neighbor Syria, understand?
They share a border with Syria.
Right?
They have one border, and they share a border with Syria.
And the fact is that if they didn't keep those borders open, they'd be mowing people down as they tried to cross that border because they are literally coming from Syria directly into Turkey.
It is also worth noting that the vast majority of Muslim refugees who are coming into Europe, if you look at the Muslim refugees going into Turkey and Lebanon and Jordan, all these surrounding countries, they are 50% men and 50% women.
The percentage of men in the Muslim refugee population coming to Europe?
75% men.
75% men.
In some cases, by some studies, over 80% men, virtually all of them young.
Okay, that means that either terrorists are getting in, or men are leaving their wives behind.
They're not leaving their wives behind in Syria.
What's happening mostly is that people are coming from Turkey, and they're now coming to Europe.
Now, I want to point something out here.
Now, President Obama says, well, good for Turkey.
If they're taking in Muslim refugees, we have to too.
No, we don't.
We don't.
You hear very often about the Muslim ummah, right?
You remember you used to hear this about the Arab street, the Muslim street.
We can't tick people off because of the Arab street, the Muslim street.
There's the ummah, the nation, right?
And they all keep together.
They hang together.
They take care of each other.
It's the Muslim ummah.
There are 50 Muslim-majority countries on planet Earth.
50 of them.
There are a billion Muslims on planet Earth.
You're telling me that Saudi Arabia doesn't have room for any of these folks?
You're telling me Indonesia doesn't have room for any of these folks?
You're telling me that Pakistan doesn't have room for any of these folks, or Yemen, or various other countries around the region?
None of these places have room for any of these folks?
Only the West has room for these folks?
Now let's point something else out.
The Arab countries, the Muslim countries in this particular region, have a long and inglorious history of actually keeping their own members, their own co-religionists, in refugee camps literally for decades.
When Israel was created, there were several hundred Palestinian refugees created by Arabs telling other Arabs, get out, get out of the way, because we're about to go in and kill all the Jews.
They were made refugees.
They are still in refugee camps 70 years after the creation of Israel.
There are 13 refugee camps still in Jordan, 70 years later.
Refugee camps.
And 70% of the Palestinian population is Jordanian.
70% of the Jordanian population, rather, is Palestinian.
There are still 10 refugee camps for Palestinians in Syria.
There are dozens of refugee camps for Palestinians in the West Bank, which is governed right now by the Palestinian Authority.
They're refugee camps in Lebanon.
In other words, Muslims don't take in other Muslims.
They expel them.
And those Muslims that are expelled, a lot of them end up in the West.
By contrast, by the way, every Jewish refugee who has ever been created has had a home in the state of Israel.
There's a big Russian refugee wave, they ended up in Israel.
There's a big Ethiopian refugee wave, they ended up in Israel.
After the year, after World War II, obviously there's a major wave from Europe.
They ended up in Israel.
Israel took in all of them.
As Israel was created, hundreds of thousands of Jews, hundreds of thousands of Jews were expelled from Arab lands.
Places like Morocco, places like Jordan, places like Saudi Arabia, places like Syria.
They were expelled and they ended up in Israel, all of them.
Why is it that Muslims can't take in other Muslims, but Westerners are supposed to take in other Muslims?
I mean, that's a question that's worth asking, but Obama won't ask it.
And he says, in fact, that it's racist and terrible of us to prefer Christian refugees from Syria to Muslim refugees from Syria, which is asinine not only for reasons of terror, but for reasons of culture.
Christians are going to have a much easier time integrating into Christian societies in Europe and the United States than Muslims are, especially Muslims from areas that are backwards, like places like Syria or Iraq or Libya.
And the idea that folks are going to come here and they're magically going to integrate is just not true.
The Somali population that has been inundating Minnesota, there have been a lot of terror problems from Somali populations in Minnesota.
They've gone back to Somalia, many of them, and participated in war against American troops.
But President Obama says it's un-American for us to do this.
It's un-American for us to prefer Christian refugees over Muslim refugees.
And the question is, of course, why?
Why President Obama feels this necessity?
And there's something more to it than just, he's so big-hearted, he's so good-hearted.
Part of it is that the President of the United States actually doesn't care particularly if there's a terrorist attack on American soil.
In 2010, President Obama was quoted by Bob Woodward saying, That we could absorb a terrorist attack.
That's a direct quote.
We could absorb a terrorist attack.
He said we absorbed 9-11 and we even got stronger from it.
So, if there's a terrorist attack or two, but it doesn't violate our humanity with regard to Islamophobia or whatever nonsense word Obama decides to create today, then of course we'll all be better off.
He's willing to absorb that risk.
Because the question when it comes to these refugees is how many Westerners are you willing to let die in order to accept a given number of refugees you can't vet?
What level of cultural dissension, what level of cultural dissolution, more specifically, are you going to allow in order to extend a hand to people who are fleeing from an area and hold none of your common values?
Virtually none of your common values are held by the Syrian refugees who are coming over from the Middle East.
Just because you're victimized by someone bad doesn't mean that you are also going to get along well with Western civilization.
It depends who's victimizing you and it depends what you're running away from.
Not every victim of one group must be somebody who is taken care of by the West, in the sense that we take them in and we try to make them American citizens or European citizens.
It just doesn't work that way.
This is a pie-in-the-sky view.
And what's kind of amazing is that Obama, the same guy who ripped Bush for suggesting that Iraq was going to magically transform into a wonderful democracy, right?
That was pie in the sky, because after all, their culture doesn't allow that.
He says we should allow Iraq to basically invade Europe.
Right?
The idea is that we can't make Iraqis into Americans, but apparently we can just make Iraqis into Americans.
Right?
So long as they come here.
We can make Syrians into Americans, so long as we come here.
Kind of a bizarre notion.
Which means there's something else going on for President Obama.
And it isn't just, oh, I'm so big-hearted.
Oh, I truly want to help.
Right?
The truth is that there's something else going on.
What is that other thing that's going on?
President Obama He's either a coward, or he is somebody who wants to fundamentally destroy America's role in the world.
And it's pretty clear it's the latter.
President Obama, I thought his most telling statement was not that right there about the Syrian refugees.
I thought his most telling statement is when he said, he was asked about ISIS, and he said in Turkey today, that he could, we could destroy ISIS, we could if we wanted to.
But then again, that would entail serious resource effort.
Here's President Obama today in Turkey.
There have been a few who suggested that we should put large numbers of U.S.
troops on the ground.
And keep in mind that we have the finest military in the world, and we have the finest military minds in the world.
And I've been meeting with them intensively for years now, discussing these various options, and It is not just my view, but the view of my closest military and civilian advisors, that that would be a mistake.
The president went on to say, quote, not because our military couldn't march into Mosul or Raqqa or Ahmadi and temporarily clear out ISIL, but because we would see a repetition of what we've seen before.
If you do not have local populations that are committed to inclusive governance and who are pushing back against ideological extremists, that they resurface unless you're prepared to have a permanent occupation of these countries.
In other words, if you have a terrorist group and they occupy a given area, we could push them out, we could kill a lot of them, but unless we're willing to station our troops there forever, then what's the point?
Okay.
This is a fundamental rejection of the notion that American power makes any difference in the world.
That's really what this is.
Because the same logic applies to World War II, for example.
We could have said, what happens if we go into Berlin and we topple Hitler?
And there's no real democracy ready to spring up there if we get rid of Hitler.
I mean, it's just all of his followers who are still there, right?
There's no multicultural governance that's going to happen there.
So why bother?
Just leave it alone.
Or Tokyo.
Why not leave Imperial Japan in power?
I mean, if we have to occupy them for 70, 80 years, I mean, God, that's gonna be a lot of work.
The president of the United— I mean, if you applied that same logic to South Korea, South Korea would now be a Chinese protectorate.
It's an amazing argument, what he's saying.
It's what we in law school used to call an argument that proves too much, meaning that it's such a broad argument that it encompasses all sorts of really terrible things.
So basically what he's saying is, leave ISIL in place.
Well, okay, first of all, let's start with this.
He says, our military could march into Mosul or Raqqa or Ramadi and temporarily clear out ISIS.
What's wrong with temporary?
Seriously, what's wrong with temporary?
What's wrong with going in there?
And let's say it takes them five years to recoup, 10 years to recover.
What's wrong with going in there, killing as many of them as possible, and then five years later we go in there and we kill more of them, and every five years we just send in some bombers, and every five years we send in some troops and we kill a crapload of them, and then we leave.
What's so terrible about all of that?
But President Obama has the Colin Powell, you-break-it-you-bought-it idea in mind, which is, if you go in, and if you bomb people, then now you have to run the country.
And he's averse to running countries, as we've seen from Iraq, where he lost a war that was won.
And he said, oh, the Iraqi people, they can't take care of this themselves, then we're out.
Okay, well, the fact is that giving them about five years of security, maybe, right?
I mean, the surge starts in 2006.
We withdraw in 2011.
And the surge doesn't really even finish succeeding until 2008.
So three years of security, and Obama expects there's going to be a full transitional democracy in place in Iraq, capable of taking care of itself.
We still have troops in Japan.
We still have troops in Germany.
We still have troops in South Korea.
But the fact is that the President of the United States doesn't want American troops in these places for two reasons.
One, he thinks that the Muslim world has a right to be upset with us if we have American troops in these regions.
He agrees with terrorists on the other side who say that America's presence in the world is what drives terrorism against the West.
And second, President Obama wants to minimize American military power.
It's part of his crusade.
And if we have to occupy places like northern Syria to make sure that ISIS doesn't take it over, if we have to set up puppet dictatorships, or if we have to find allies, that means we actually have to grow our military, and he wants to shrink our military.
That's a bigger priority for him.
Domestic opponents are a bigger priority for him.
When you see him talking in Turkey, it is absolutely clear that President Obama has less ire toward radical Islamists, toward radical Islam, than he does toward Republicans.
I mean, at least he believes Republicans exist.
He won't even admit that radical Muslims exist.
They don't even exist to President Obama.
He said in this same speech that ISIS is not Islamic, again.
Which is odd, considering that their group is not called the Buddhist state in Syria.
It is called the Islamic state in Syria.
Unfortunately, so I will say this.
There's a half good reason for not saying radical Islam, and then there's President Obama's reason, and these are two different reasons.
Jeb Bush was asked over the weekend about his brother's statements, because George W. had also done this routine, Islam means peace, and there's no such thing as, there is such a thing as radical Islam, but it's a perversion of the religion, said Imam Bush, who knew so much about the Quran.
And Jeb was asked about it by Jake Tapper, and here's what Jeb Bush had to say.
Is Islam peace, Governor?
You know what?
I know what Islamic terrorism is, and that's what we're fighting with ISIS, Al Qaeda, all of the other groups, and that's what our focus should be on.
This is not a question of religion.
This is a political ideology that has co-opted a religion.
And I think it's more than acceptable to call it for what it is and then organize an effort to destroy it.
Okay, so the reason that George W. used to say things like Islam means peace and all the rest of this is because we were working with the Saudi government and he didn't want to tick off the Saudi government by saying that Islam was a problem or that radical Islam was a problem because the truth is that the Wahhabi ideology was pushed by the Saudi government.
The Wahhabi ideology stands behind groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS and Al Qaeda and all the rest of these fundamentalist terrorist groups.
It was a bad reason because the truth is it acts like the West is weak.
It acts like Islamic civilization is strong and the West is weak.
The truth is, we are strong and Islamic civilization is tremendously weak.
And if we wanted the Saudis to do something, the Saudis damn well better do it.
Because we could wipe them off the face of the earth in about two days.
I mean, the idea that we've never thrown our weight around really in the Middle East is the truth.
But if we really wanted to throw our weight around, remember, the Iraqi military was the fourth largest military on the planet.
It took us three weeks to conquer the entire country.
Three weeks.
Okay, the total number of dead in Iraq was somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,000 to 4,000 troops.
Okay, to conquer an entire country with the fourth largest military on planet Earth.
There were more people lost in single hours during the Civil War than were lost during the entirety of the Iraq War.
So that was unnecessary at the time, but at least you can maybe mildly defend it.
But that's not why Obama's not saying radical Islam, and neither is Hillary, and neither is Bernie Sanders.
None of these people will say radical Islam.
The reason they won't say radical Islam is because they don't believe there is such a thing as radical Islam.
They're Marxists.
Marxists don't believe that radical ideology makes a difference.
They believe radical Muslims are ticked off not because they're Islamic, not because they believe in radical Muslim ideology.
Radical Muslims believe all this stuff, supposedly, because they're poor.
Right?
This is why Obama once said that ISIS needs jobs.
And he continues to maintain this idea.
And this is why President Obama continues to say, we need to take in these refugees.
After all, if we take in all these refugees, they'll be rich.
They'll live in the West.
Acting as though they give up their ideology the minute they get here, which of course is nonsense.
How many Muslims have we seen who have been integrated into American life?
The Boston Bombers were living here for a decade.
It didn't matter.
They went ahead and did what they needed to do.
And the fact is that when you're talking about radical Muslims, radical Muslims do what they do because they believe in radical Islam.
It's very simple.
And this is why Marco Rubio is exactly right.
He said the other day, the senator from Florida, we can't avoid saying radical Islam.
It would be foolish to do so.
Here is Senator Marco Rubio.
I think that's... I don't understand it.
That would be like saying we weren't at war with Nazis because we were afraid to offend some Germans who may have been members of the Nazi party but weren't violent themselves.
We are at war with radical Islam, with an interpretation of Islam by a significant number of people around the world who they believe now justifies them in killing those who don't agree with their ideology.
This is a clash of civilizations.
And as I said at the debate earlier this week, there is no middle ground on this.
Either they win or we win.
And we need to begin to take this seriously.
These are individuals motivated by their faith.
Of course all Muslims are not members of violent jihadist groups.
But there is a global jihadist movement in the world motivated by their interpretation of Islam.
In this case Sunni Islam.
In the case of ISIS.
And it needs to be confronted for what it is.
This is not a geopolitical movement.
This is a religiously oriented movement.
Okay, and the fact that Rubio says this is, of course, exactly right.
But the other side doesn't believe this.
The other side doesn't believe this.
And I think that the person who best stated the case here is, of course, that genius Bernie Sanders.
Genius Bernie Sanders is in the Democrat debate.
Now, a moment to—just a brief digression about the Democratic debate.
It is so clear that Democrats do not want anyone to hear what they have to say to their own people.
They hold the debate on a Saturday night.
It's a Saturday night in Iowa.
I mean, they might as well have held it just on, like, a moving subway, and in the middle of the night, you know, on Christmas Eve.
Which, by the way, they're basically doing that.
You know when the next Democratic debate is?
The next Democratic debate is the night that Star Wars is released.
They're actually releasing—the next Democratic debate happens the night that everyone in the world will be at the movies.
They don't want anyone to see what they say in their primary debates, because this is what they say to their own people.
This is one of the things about the left.
They will lie to your face.
They will.
I know this.
I've done this.
When I did my book on Hollywood, for example, when I did my Hollywood book, I knew that they would lie to me if I just went in as a right winger and said, do you discriminate against conservatives?
But if I went in wearing my Harvard Law baseball cap and I said, in the name of social justice, would you prevent a conservative from getting a job?
They would absolutely say yes, because when talking with their own people, They'll tell you the truth.
Okay?
Well, the Democratic debates are the Democrats telling the truth to their own constituents, what they actually think about things.
Here is Bernie Sanders, loon bag from Vermont, talking about what he thinks is the greatest threat to national security.
Previous debate, you said the greatest threat to national security was climate change.
Do you still believe that?
Absolutely.
In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism.
And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you're going to see countries all over the world.
This is what the CIA says.
They're going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops, and you're going to see all kinds of international conflict.
Okay, this is insane.
This is purely insane.
Hillary Clinton agreed with this.
I mean, she went on to actually agree with all of this.
It's amazing.
Bernie Sanders, when he says that climate change is the greatest threat, that's because the Marxist agenda cannot be stopped.
And if there are radical Muslims out there who want to kill people?
We can't change what we're doing just because there are radical Muslims out there.
After all, they're victims of a non-Marxist world too.
If it were a Marxist world, then they wouldn't be suffering.
If it were a Marxist world, then they would be just as rich as anyone else.
We'd have redistributed our resources by now.
Everything would be hunky-dory.
Their ideology wouldn't matter.
It would collapse away.
God would die.
Allah would die as well.
Everything, religion would pass away.
It would be John Lennon's imagine, right?
If we all just had enough resources.
Well, what Bernie Sanders says here is, of course, absolute tripe.
I mean, the fact is that—sorry to break it to Democrats, but the folks who are now trying to kill Westerners, they live in the desert.
It's hot in the desert.
Really hot in the desert.
It's been hot in the desert for, like, several hundred thousand years.
And the idea that the climate changed a certain percentage of a degree Celsius over the last hundred years, and this is what is driving, all of a sudden, a movement of terror.
So what exactly drove Muslim terrorists to murder Jews in 1929 in Hebron?
What exactly drove Muslims to side with Nazis during World War II?
Was that also climate change?
Or maybe this has more... Why is it that climate change, right?
It's global climate change.
We live on one planet, after all.
Why is it that farmers in Iowa aren't breaking out the pitchforks on each other, thanks to climate change?
This idea that you have diminishing resources and therefore violent people fight each other or people get violent that weren't violent before, it's such absolute nonsense.
It's just not true.
Syria has been a violent place for a very long time.
But this is what the Democrats believe because anything human nature can never be blamed.
Human nature, because the truth is that human nature, people need something to believe in.
People want something to believe in.
And if they are living in a poor area of the world or a rich area of the world, it doesn't matter.
A lot of the recruits from ISIS are coming from rich places in the world.
Osama bin Laden was a very wealthy guy.
He was worth millions and millions and millions of dollars, worth a lot more than I am.
But that didn't stop him from going and living in a cave and trying to blow up Americans.
Because the fact is, ideology matters.
For the left, ideology doesn't matter.
Economics matters.
And not real economics.
Redistributionist economics.
So when you see President Obama redistributing through refugees or through failure to go in and wipe out the bad guys, this is all part of a broader agenda.
And the broader agenda is that the West is the great victimizer because we're rich, and anybody who hates us is the victimized because they're poor, and therefore we have to, number one, not bomb them in the Middle East.
We can't take all the measures we're supposed to take, because after all, that would mean occupation, and long-term occupation is imperialism, and imperialism is bad because it's us imposing our will on them, and it would just make us richer and them poorer, right?
All of this is tied into a basic fundamental philosophy, and so if you see Obama's statements, Just in their own context.
If you just see them in isolation, right?
I don't want to bomb ISIS because we wouldn't want to occupy them too much.
I want more Muslim refugees because it's part of America's principles that we accept anybody who wants to come in.
If you just see these statements in isolation, they look like the ravings of a lunatic.
I mean, they really do.
They're all over the place.
They invariably redound to America's harm.
But when you start to see it as part of a global overall picture, part of a worldview, Part of a Welton Chang, part of a generalized idea of what the universe is, then it all begins to make a lot of sense.
When you see that President Obama is, in essence, a Marxist, and that his Marxism drives all of this, that he believes religion doesn't make any difference, ideology doesn't make any difference, just your poverty level makes a difference, once you realize this, this all begins to make sense.
Paris deserved to be taken down a peg.
They're rich, after all.
I mean, honestly, I'm just surprised President Obama didn't say that Paris was another random attack.
It was extremism.
It was violence.
It was an attack on all humanity.
Of course, it wasn't an attack on all humanity.
It was an attack on part of humanity that is not ideologically aligned with radical Islam.
And President Obama won't say that because anyone that he doesn't like is just outside the theory.
It's just outside the theory.
In science, they say bad scientists are the people who take the evidence that contradicts what they're saying and throw it out for the purpose of keeping their hypothesis correct.
President Obama is a bad scientist, and he's a bad politician, and he's a bad thinker.
Because when President Obama thinks, anything that doesn't fit into his worldview, such as radical ideologies killing other members of Western civilization, that doesn't fit into his worldview, so he just writes it out.
It just doesn't exist.
It doesn't exist.
Or, conversely, it's our fault.
If only we were nicer in the first place.
So long as we think this, we are going to lose.
Sally Cohn, who's a very fascinating lesbian commentator for CNN—I only say she's a lesbian commentator because this is basically what she's famous for over at CNN—and she tweeted out today, ISIS—what ISIS wants is war.
They want war, so we shouldn't give it to them.
This is how the left thinks.
Because if ISIS wants war, they must be crazy.
As opposed to, well, they don't want war.
They want to defeat us.
And we should want equally to defeat them.
The fact is, if we're not doing everything in our power to bomb these people forward into the Stone Age, they're not even Stone Age in their mentality, so we'd have to bomb them forward to get to the Stone Age.
If we want to do anything, bomb them into the Stone Age.
That's what we need to do.
But this whole idea that we're going to pretend that this is the West's fault, or if we just opened our hearts more.
Madonna said we have to love them.
This is what Madonna said today.
She said we have to love ISIS.
First of all, she's welcome to fly into Syria and try it personally.
It wouldn't go well for her.
We're not gonna love ISIS to death.
Unless we send Charlie Sheen, who is the star that we talked about earlier, who may or may not have AIDS, according to the National Enquirer.
It may be possible for Charlie Sheen to love everybody to death, but that would be a sort of different thing.
So, until that point, how about this?
How about, Western civilization is something that is worth fighting for and is something that is worthwhile, and the left's failure to acknowledge that is what is driving our defeat.
If we don't have pride in our own civilization, how in the world can we hope to defeat a separate, powerful but primitive civilization?
I'm Ben Shapiro.
▲
Export Selection