Once Again Bill Clinton Shows He's Not a Man of Principle

Count on Bill Clinton to reject, once again, principle in favor of appeasement. He did so this week by not standing up to the Islamists in behalf of free speech, instead tossing over this principle in favor of "understanding": the homily and tool of the professional "negotiating" class.

It would have been appropriate for an American to stand behind the Danes and their newspapers’ right to print political cartoons about radical Islam and Mohammed. Instead of defending Western principles, Clinton called the Denmark free speechers "outrageous." I guess the liberals who always accuse President Bush of stifling freedom of the press waive press freedom if the Press is critical of Islam.

Clinton represents that predominant strain of the Democrat Party who are first and foremost not Americans as much as they are internationalists, a negotiating class that sees itself as smarter than the "cowboy" Americans stuck on enshrined principles such as freedom of speech.

It began back in the 1970s with Jimmy Carter who rejected basic principles in favor of his "understanding" of Communists and anti-American dictators, not to mention ayatollahs.

These home-grown internationalists think they are smarter than their fellow countrymen. Let them think so. We know they are simply appeasers. Their so-called "understanding" of other cultures is simply a justification of their ongoing capitulation under the hope that the adversary will appreciate our "understanding" and reward us with peace.

These are simply men with bureaucratic mentalities bereft of the greatness residing in those who stand always for Natural Law and classic liberties.

John Kerry, too, is guided by that same haughtiness. In fact, many political internationalists from the "Getting to Yes" school of thought end up saying " No" to basic American principles. They’re not smart, they’re dupes. It has happened before in history — usually precipitating big time wars. Unfortunately for us, the negotiating class never learns from history.

The danger of this negotiating class is that nothing they do is predicated on predictable American principles and is thus arbitrary, living in the mind of the negotiator only. It is simply a reaction to, instead of a consistent, continuation of. The internationalist-first negotiator will force Americans to forfeit hard-won, long-standing American prerogatives in deference to what he considers a greater calling: rapprochement with other cultures, at almost any cost. This is dangerous.

Heaven help us if the likes of Clinton, Carter, Kerry, et al., run our foreign policy. We will wake up in a short while having given up our freedoms and advantages to an enemy that will thereby become stronger and more emboldened.

The last 15 years have found the liberal negotiating class justifying or "understanding" every one of these Islamic outbursts of mob killing and church torching, and their unbridled destruction of western property and symbols. They extend a respect and veneration of things Islamic that they do not when espoused by fundamentalist Christianity or Orthodox Judaism. And of course not, for they no longer deep down believe in it , nor do they want to "understand" it. Ours is no longer exotic and, besides, no one gets liberal brownie points by defending anything American, western, or true-to-the-word Scripture.

The way these western appeasers talk of the Koran would have one believe they drank from it with their mother’s milk. It is sickening to watch westerners so casual and cavalier, often disrespectful, about our own traditions and Holy Books suddenly become absolutely obsequious toward Islamic habits and views.

These leaders are either secretly afraid of Islam or are reveling in how "tolerant" they have become. So "tolerant" that they tolerate in Islam practices and notions that are intolerant, practices that were condemned in our societies more than five hundred years ago. But what better way to show "tolerance" than by tolerating the un-tolerable and ‘understanding’ the unacceptable.

The upshot of all this "understanding" forced upon us by the multiculturalists and negotiating class is a new world double standard. Namely, Islam can do what westerners are forbidden to do. Laws that must be upheld by westerners can be violated if done in the name of Islam. If Achmed doesn’t like something done by an American and thereafter burns an embassy, well we must "understand" his rage. What about American rage for decades of being bombed, threatened, beheaded and thrown on tarmacs by members of the religion of peace?

Criticism of everything is allowed, but not of Islam. We are falling for this notion that Islamic/Arab honor and sensibilities are more important than our own. Humiliate us, but never them. Restraint is for us, not them. Every facet of Islamic religion — even the most virulent — must be allowed in the West, though we accept Islam’s assertion that in its countries Christianity and Judaism be forbidden and its believers, often, oppressed.

Never once when the Israelis were forced to defend themselves against Arab terrorism did the world which condemned her, suddenly say: " The Israelis must be right, after all ‘Judaism is a religion of peace.’"

If we teach our children to venerate Islamic attitudes and their Koran more than our own culture, then don’t be surprised if in fifty years our children choose Islam as their religion. If we teach our children that our emotions must take second place to those of Moslems, we are teaching them we are second class. If we teach them that we must always forbear when attacked while Islam has a right to be angry if "insulted", we are teaching them that what we have is not as worthy of respect.

People begin to follow that which receives veneration. I think our leaders have venerated Islam enough; it’s time to once again venerate our religions and habits — and our outrage.