In the wake of President Obama's pathetic disengagement over the Islamic jihadist attacks on Paris, people are once again decrying his lack of leadership, but the problem is something more fundamental than leadership.
Even if Obama were a gifted leader, when it comes to many issues, especially confronting radical Islam, he wouldn't know where to lead us. If you misapprehend a problem, you can't possibly navigate, much less lead, toward a solution.
From the beginning of his term in office, Obama has evidenced a deep moral confusion, a distorted worldview perhaps based on a bizarre upbringing. It's not that he doesn't distinguish between good and evil; it's that he often doesn't clearly recognize which is which.
He professes to be a Christian, yet his behavior screams otherwise. Even if he actually is a Christian, he undeniably has a nostalgic attraction and sympathy for Islam, which, among other things, obscures his grasp of the enormity of the threat the world faces from Islamists.
His approach to combating Islamic terrorism is first to downplay its existence and pervasiveness. Beyond that, it is obvious he rejects the idea that there is anything inherent to Islam that leads to radicalism and violence.
Like many of his fellow leftists, he believes Islamic radicalism is a result of historical abuses of Muslims, poverty caused by an inequitable distribution of the world's resources, and some kind of mutual irrational distrust between Islam and the Western world.
From the very beginning of his term, with his speech in Cairo and otherwise, he has shown he believes that Westerners are perhaps the main problem. He has lectured us for what he thinks is our distorted perception of Islam and has labored to rehabilitate the image of this religion. Do you remember him doing likewise for the Christian religion or for Christians? Or instead, do you remember his bitter-clingers slander?
He has carried his attitude on this well beyond rhetoric and into governance. At the highest levels of his executive infrastructure, he has directed that we change the way we think and speak about jihad, radical Islam and Islamic terrorism. He has encouraged the federal vernacular to be changed to sanitize references to Islam from our description of acts of terrorism — even those that are unquestionably committed by Islamic terrorists.
This political-correctness lunacy has had real consequences, such as handcuffing the federal government and preventing it from thoroughly investigating and monitoring the suspicious contacts and actions of Nidal Hasan, a U.S. army major and psychiatrist who fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others in the Fort Hood shootings of 2009.
This attitude has continued right into the present, as Attorney General Eric Holder — curiously designated to be Obama's representative on the Paris attacks — stubbornly refuses to call out these attackers for who they are and what they represent.
French Prime Minister Manuel Valls pulled no punches in identifying the culprits and declaring, unambiguously, that France is at war against radical Islam. "It is a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam, against everything that is aimed at breaking fraternity, freedom, solidarity," said Valls. "Our indignation must be clear, total and last longer than three days. It must be permanent."
When pressed by NBC's Chuck Todd and ABC's George Stephanopoulos to embrace Valls' declaration, Holder conspicuously, fecklessly and disgracefully demurred. Holder said: "I would say that we are at war with terrorists who commit these heinous acts and who use Islam. They use a corrupted version of Islam to justify their actions." But he wouldn't say we are at war with radical Islam. He and Obama prefer to call radical jihadis "extremists," wholly omitting any reference to Islam or Islamism. Obama, as distinguished from every other Western leader, will not say Islamic terrorists made these attacks.
Even Democratic commentator Doug Schoen has had enough. He wrote: "To speak about the most serious terrorist attack on Western soil since 9/11, London and Madrid, in between speeches about his free community college plan demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding for the gravity of the situation in Paris and, indeed, the world. ... (Obama's) words ... came off as inauthentic at best and offensive at worst. ... We are at war with radical Islam. And President Obama needs to say it."
Lest you think this is merely a semantic quibble, please explain why President Obama refused to attend the Sunday march of world leaders in Paris, in which more than 40 European leaders and almost every French official joined in solidarity for a massive unity rally against the attacks and against radical Islam. Explain why he didn't at least send in his place Vice President Joe Biden or Secretary of State John Kerry. Moreover, explain why Holder was an outright no-show for the event.
Obama spends more time downplaying and denying Islamic terrorism and releasing dangerous terrorists from Guantanamo Bay than he does leading this nation in a war against it. That's because he is not committed to a war against it — and for another two years, he will be our commander in chief. God help us all.