Recently, Canada went to the polls and elected a very pro-Muslim substitute teacher named Justin Trudeau to be their Prime Minister.
Canada’s Global News reports:
U.S. commentators reporting on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s personal welcome of Syrian refugees are drawing comparisons with the angry anti-refugee politics in their own country.
The story of Trudeau greeting refugees at the airport in Toronto Thursday night was the top story for awhile yesterday on the New York Times website.
A video and similar items appeared on Newsweek, the BBC, NBC, Paris Match, and the UK Guardian, Independent and Daily Mail.
[…]The headline on the G-Q website was, “Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Just Gave U-S Politicians a Refreshing Lesson in Compassion.”
He welcomed in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, as the leftist New York Times reported:
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau greeted a planeload of weary Syrian refugees landing in Toronto early Friday, telling the first to disembark that “you’re safe at home now” as he handed them winter coats.
“Tonight they step off the plane as refugees, but they walk out of this terminal as permanent residents of Canada,” Mr. Trudeau told government employees gathered at the airport.
Trudeau gave them full benefits as permanent residents – included access to the single payer health care system and retirement benefits.
And he also said this before the recent election:
The Liberal Party has always favored importing massive numbers of unskilled immigrants from foreign countries. They want them collecting welfare benefits right away, and to start voting right away, too. I wonder who these new immigrants vote for? The party of smaller government, or the party of a socialist welfare state?
A shooting in Calgary
Yesterday, this happened in Calgary, Alberta:
Here’s the story from Breitbart News:
Two men have been charged with attempted murder in the Canadian city of Calgary after a nightclub shooting early Sunday morning. Mohamed Elmi, 31, and Mohamed Salad, 29, also face a host of other charges, including unauthorised possession of a firearm, aggravated assault and possession of a firearm with an altered or defaced serial number.
A 38-year-old man was sent to hospital immediately after the attack with serious soft tissue injuries to his torso.
[…]Canadian media has been careful not to make any link between the suspects named and their religion. The word ‘jihad’ is conspicuously absent in media coverage, something that is irritating social media users who are openly speculating whether or not they have been banned from making any connection with radical Islam.
Canada does not allow non-criminals to carry weapons – only criminals are allowed to carry them. Canadian politicians don’t want to offend criminals by allowing their victims to shoot back at them when they’re shot at.
Police office shot in Philadelphia
Last week, there was news about a shooting in Philadelphia:
Look at how the Democrat mayor responded to it:
On January 8, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney (D) rejected ties to Islam in the ambush shooting of Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett and suggested the big lesson is that we need more gun control.
Hartnett was shot with a gun that was stolen from a police officer’s house. And the suspected gunman, Edward Archer, “allegedly told authorities he targeted an officer because police defend laws that are contrary to the Quran.”
6 ABC reports that Archer “confessed” to having carried out that attack “in the name of Islam” and that Archer “pledged his allegiance to ISIS.”
However, during Mayor Kenney’s speech, while flanked by city and law enforcement officials, he said, “In no way, shape, or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam, or the teaching of Islam, has anything to do with [the shooting of Officer Hartnett].”
Fox News reports that Kenney said the shooting shows the need for more gun control: “There are too many guns on our streets and I think our national government needs to do something about that.”
The weapon was stolen from a police officer. And in the past we have seen how political correctness created new lower hiring requirements on police officers have resulted in criminals being able to overpower them and take their weapons, as in this case of a criminal overpowering a woman police officer and taking her weapon. The Obama administration is doing the same thing to integrate women into combat units, as well, which will reduce the combat effectiveness of our military forces. And the same thing is being done by fire departments. Political correctness is more important than effectiveness for the taxpayers who pay the bills.
The Obama administration
Now the Obama administration tends to describe attacks like this Philadelphia attack as “senseless violence”, “workplace violence”, and “random violence”.
Here is how Obama responded to the recent San Bernadino terrorist attack:
The Obama administration did, however, announce a plan to respond to these attacks.
Here it is from the Daily Wire:
Speaking to the audience at the Muslim Advocates’ 10th anniversary dinner Thursday, Lynch said her “greatest fear” is the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric” in America and vowed to prosecute any guilty of what she deemed violence-inspiring speech.
“The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence,” she said.
[…]After touting the numbers of “investigations into acts of anti-Muslim hatred” and “bigoted actions” against Muslims launched by her DOJ, Lynch suggested the Constitution does not protect “actions predicated on violent talk” and pledged to prosecute those responsible for such actions.
This is the same woman who declined to charge Lois Lerner for using the IRS as a weapon to persecute conservative groups in an election year.
Here is a recent story about a Muslim ACLU leader, who said that she did not like being asked to condemn terrorist attacks by radical Muslims:
The deputy director of the ACLU of Michigan said in an op-ed Monday that she refuses to condemn radical Islamic terrorism in order to prove her allegiance to the United States.
Rana Elmir wrote that she’s “consistently and aggressively asked” to condemn Islamic terrorism, and is tired of having her religious views linked to atrocities like the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and in Paris and San Bernardino this year.
“I emphatically refuse,” she wrote in an opinion piece in The Washington Post.
The op-ed was titled: “Stop asking me to condemn terrorists just because I’m Muslim.”
I just want to say two things at the end of this post. First, half my relatives are Muslim, but they’re the peaceful kind. Second, I’m all for welcoming in skilled immigrants who can work, follow the law, and avoid collecting government benefits.