A strong sense of personal responsibility is a central part of the conservative mindset. As for the liberal mindset – not so much.
How many times have we seen liberals rush to judgement during mass shootings in hopes of indicting conservatives but performing mental gymnastics to explain away stories that don’t fit their narrative?
There are too many cases to count, but we’re pretty sure we’ve narrowed down the top five:
In 2009, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl abandoned his post at his base in Afghanistan. After being traded for five Taliban leaders, he was brought home and now, according to a senior Defense official, Bergdahl is claiming that he left his post in order to find another post to complain about “order and discipline” in his unit. A second official claims that Bergdahl had “concerns about leadership issues at his base.”
This information is part of the report presented to General Mark Milley who this week decided to charge Bergdahl with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. This information outlines what could be a key part of Bergdahl’s defense, which the army is already aware of.
President Obama took heat in September for admitting he didn’t yet have a “complete strategy” in hand for training Iraqis to fight the Islamic State — months into the coordinated campaign to defeat the deadly terrorist network.
“When a finalized plan is presented to me by the Pentagon, then I will share it with the American people,” Obama said, adding, “We don’t yet have a complete strategy.”
Struggling to offer an alternative explanation for the obvious conclusion of terrorism, CNN’s Erin Burnett on Thursday wondered if one of the killers from Wednesday’s rampage snapped as a result of “postpartum psychosis.” This was after two former FBI agents explained to Burnett just how Tashfeen Malik was radicalized.
Despite this, the CNN anchor wondered, “I just have to ask you, could there be something else, anything else, that could have explained her involvement? Something like a postpartum psychosis?” Former FBI profiler Jim Clemente calmly told Burnett that “postpartum psychosis… is typically internal.”
In the wake of the Islamist terror attacks in France against cartoonists and Jews, former President Jimmy Carter’s first reaction was to pin the motivation for such terrorism on Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. Appearing on “The Daily Show,” Carter was asked by host Jon Stewart whether the violence the world saw on the streets of Paris was actually fueled by something else other than Islamic extremism.
“Well, one of the origins for it is the Palestinian problem,” Carter replied. “And this aggravates people who are affiliated in any way with the Arab people who live in the West Bank and Gaza, what they are doing now — what’s being done to them. So I think that’s part of it.”
Carter didn’t explain how solving the Israeli-Palestinian issue would in any way resolve the violent conflicts currently engulfing the Arab world, including the Syrian civil war, the Islamic State’s takeover of part of Iraq and its brutal implementation of Islamic law, and the conflict between the Egyptian government and the Muslim Brotherhood.
In an interview with The New York Times’s Thomas Friedman, Obama voiced grave concern over how global warming can be a national security issue for the United States.
Instability brought on by climate change, Obama said, is what creates an environment for terrorism.
“They don’t have a lot of margin for error, and that has national security implications. When people are hungry, when people are displaced, when there are a lot of young people, particularly young men, who are drifting without prospects for the future, the fertility of the soil for terrorism ends up being significant,” Obama said, “and it can have an impact on us.”
He also said that climate change can lead to wars by fostering conflict over resources.
Who knew – when Obama spoke at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris in early December he was doing so for our national security.
His statement is obvious nonsense regardless, as we live in the most peaceful time in human history. A human alive today is 100 times less likely to die a violent death than one 500 years ago.
What ingenious explanations will liberals come up with next year to explain away reality? I can’t wait to find out.
[Note: This article was authored by The Analytical Economist]