In the five days since the ISIS terror attack on Paris, Democrats have twisted themselves up like a pretzel responding to the obvious; ISIS is an evil organization and a threat.
A very disturbing Democrat trend…
- Just 24 hours after the attack, DFL-endorsed Dan Kimmel posted "ISIS isn’t necessarily evil. It is made up of people doing what they think is best for their community. Violence is not the answer, though.” In spite of his (sort of) apology, Kimmel clearly implied a bizarre appreciation for ISIS as some kind of ‘community’ effort.
- To-date, Kimmel’s DFL district has not officially un-endorsed him, nor has the Star Tribune or the unions recanted their previous endorsements. Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley and the 2nd congressional district DFL candidates have said nothing to distance themselves from Kimmel either.
- On the very same night as Dan Kimmel’s post, the Democrat presidential candidates refused to name the threat of radical Islamic terrorism in their debate.
- Bernie Sanders said climate change is a bigger threat than ISIS.
- Hillary Clinton said that we need to have empathy for enemies, which she did admit was hard with ISIS.
- On the same day that we learned one of the Paris terrorists had sneaked in as a Syrian migrant, Senator Amy Klobuchar and all of the Democrat presidential candidates renewed their call to bring 60,000 Syrian migrants to our country without offering specific assurances showing we could weed out the ISIS terrorists likely among them.
- President Obama released five terrorist detainees from Guantanamo.
- President Obama doubled down on his original claim to have contained ISIS, then said “What I’m not interested in doing is pursuing some notion of ‘American leadership’ or ‘America winning’”.
- John Kerry said he could see the ‘rationale’ of the ISIS attack on Charlie Hebdo in contrast to the Paris attacks, after first saying ‘legitimacy’ and then correcting himself.
- President Obama snidely attacked the Governors trying to obtain assurances that ISIS terrorists are not sneaking into their states with the Syrian refugees, and our own Governor Mark Dayton called their concerns "ludicrous".
So what’s going on with the Democrats regarding ISIS?
Seriously, where do these things come from?
Perhaps one could argue they just reflect a genuine policy difference, but after five days of very troubling statements and actions like these, they seem to reflect deeper sentiments.
Are they an all-out circling of the wagons to defend President Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy failures? Is it a built-in sympathy on the left for any movement that takes on the west? Is it a knee-jerk reaction on the left to support all forms of community organizing and grievance? Is there some side deal, for example in the Iran deal, or unknown negotiation which would compel a measure of legitimacy to ISIS? Are left wing donors like George Soros or Tom Steyer influencing the Democrat positions?
Regardless of any speculation on these questions, the unambiguous takeaway is that Hillary Clinton and Democrat leaders have a very long road to convince us that they are actually serious about winning against ISIS and protecting our citizens.