Syria is a terror state. It didn’t become that way overnight because of the Arab Spring or the Iraq War.

Its people are not the victims of American foreign policy, Islamic militancy or any of the other fashionable excuses. They supported Islamic terrorism. Millions of them still do.

They are not the Jews fleeing a Nazi Holocaust. They are the Nazis trying to relocate from a bombed out Berlin.

These are the cold hard facts.

ISIS took over parts of Syria because its government willingly allied with it to help its terrorists kill Americans in Iraq. That support for Al Qaeda helped lead to the civil war tearing the country apart.

The Syrians were not helpless, apathetic pawns in this fight. They supported Islamic terrorism.

A 2007 poll showed that 77% of Syrians supported financing Islamic terrorists including Hamas and the Iraqi fighters who evolved into ISIS. Less than 10% of Syrians opposed their terrorism.

Why did Syrians support Islamic terrorism? Because they hated America.

Sixty-three percent wanted to refuse medical and humanitarian assistance from the United States. An equal number didn’t want any American help caring for Iraqi refugees in Syria.

The vast majority of Syrians turned down any form of assistance from the United States because they hated us. They still do. Just because they’re willing to accept it now, doesn’t mean they like us.

If we bring Syrian Muslims to America, we will be importing a population that hates us.

The terrorism poll numbers are still ugly. A poll this summer found that 1 in 5 Syrians supports ISIS.  A third of Syrians support the Al Nusra Front, which is affiliated with Al Qaeda. Since Sunnis are 3/4rs of the population and Shiites and Christians aren’t likely to support either group, this really means that Sunni Muslim support for both terror groups is even higher than these numbers make it seem.

And even though Christians and Yazidis are the ones who actually face ISIS genocide, Obama has chosen to take in few Christians and Yazidis. Instead 98.6% of Obama’s Syrian refugees are Sunni Muslims.

This is also the population most likely to support ISIS and Al Qaeda.

But these numbers are even worse than they look. Syrian men are more likely to view ISIS positively than women. This isn’t surprising as the Islamic State not only practices sex slavery, but has some ruthless restrictions for women that exceed even those of Saudi Arabia.  (Al Qaeda’s Al Nusra Front, however, mostly closes the gender gap getting equal support from Syrian men and women.)

ISIS, however, gets its highest level of support from young men. This is the Syrian refugee demographic.

In the places where the Syrian refugees come from, support for Al Qaeda groups climbs as high as 70% in Idlib, 66% in Quneitra, 66% in Raqqa, 47% in Derzor, 47% in Hasakeh, 41% in Daraa and 41% in Aleppo.

Seventy percent support for ISIS in Raqqa has been dismissed as the result of fear. But if Syrians in the ISIS capital were just afraid of the Islamic State, why would the Al Nusra Front, which ISIS is fighting, get nearly as high a score from the people in Raqqa? The answer is that their support for Al Qaeda is real.

Apologists will claim that these numbers don’t apply to the Syrian refugees. It’s hard to say how true that is. Only 13% of Syrian refugees will admit to supporting ISIS, though that number still means that of Obama’s first 10,000 refugees, 1,300 will support ISIS. But the poll doesn’t delve into their views of other Al Qaeda groups, such as the Al Nusra Front, which usually gets more Sunni Muslim support.

And there’s no sign that they have learned to reject Islamic terrorism and their hatred for America.

When Syrian refugees were asked to list the greatest threat, 29 percent picked Iran, 22 percent picked Israel and 19 percent picked America. Only 10 percent viewed Islamic terrorism as a great threat.

By way of comparison, twice as many Iraqis see Islamic terrorism as a threat than Syrians do and slightly more Palestinian Arabs view Islamic terrorism as a threat than Syrians do. These are terrible numbers.

Thirty-seven percent of Syrian refugees oppose US airstrikes on ISIS. 33% oppose the objective of destroying ISIS.

And these are the people whom our politicians would have us believe are “fleeing an ISIS Holocaust.”

Seventy-three percent of Syrian refugees view US foreign policy negatively. That’s a higher number than Iraqis. It’s about equal to that of Palestinian Arabs.

They don’t like us. They really don’t like us.

Obama’s first shipment of Syrians will include 1,300 ISIS supporters and most of the rest will hate this country. But unless they’re stupid enough to announce that during their interviews, the multi-layered vetting that Obama and other politicians boast about will be useless.

It only took 2 Muslim refugees to carry out the Boston Marathon massacre. It only took 19 Muslim terrorists to carry out 9/11.

If only 1 percent of those 1,300 Syrian ISIS supporters put their beliefs into practice, they can still kill thousands of Americans.

And that’s a best case scenario. Because it doesn’t account for how many thousands of them support Al Qaeda. It doesn’t account for how many of them back other Islamic terrorist groups such as Hamas that had widespread support in Syria.

While the media has shamelessly attempted to exploit the Holocaust to rally support for Syrian migrants, the majority of Syrians supported Hamas whose mandate is finishing Hitler’s work. The Hamas charter describes a “struggle against the Jews” that culminates in another Holocaust. Bringing Hamas supporters to America will lead to more Muslim Supremacist violence against Jews in this country.

But all of this can be avoided by taking in genuine Syrian refugees.

While Obama insists on taking in fake Syrian refugees, mainly Sunni Muslims from UN camps who support terrorism and are not endangered in Jordan or Turkey, both Sunni countries, he is neglecting the real refugees, Christians and Yazidis, who are stateless and persecuted in the Muslim world.

Instead of taking in fake refugees who hate us, we should be taking in real refugees who need us.

Obama and Paul Ryan have claimed that a “religious test” for refugees is wrong, but religious tests are how we determine whether a refugee is really fleeing persecution or is just an economic migrant.

The Sunni Muslims that Obama is taking in do not face persecution. They are the majority. They are the persecutors. It’s the Yazidis and the Christians who need our help. And these real refugees, unlike the fake Sunni Muslim refugees, are not coming here to kill us. They truly have nowhere else to go.

Syria is a disaster because its rival Muslim religious groups are unable to get along with each other. Bringing them to this country will only spread the violence from their land to ours. Instead of taking in the religious majority that caused this mess through its intolerance, we should take in their victims; the Christians and Yazidis who are being slaughtered and enslaved by ISIS.

During the entire Syrian Civil War, Obama has only taken in 1 Syrian Yazidi and 53 Christians.

It’s time that we had a refugee policy that protected the persecuted, instead of their Muslim persecutors. It’s time that we listened to Syrian Christians in this country who oppose bringing tens of thousands of Syrian Muslims to terrorize their neighborhoods the way that they are already terrorizing Syrian Christians in Germany.

Syrian Muslims are a nation of terrorist supporters. They destroyed their own country. Let’s not let them destroy ours.

It’s time that we kept our nation safe by doing the right thing. Let’s take in the real Christian and Yazidi refugees and let the fake Sunni Muslim refugees and terrorist supporters stay in their own countries.

When we celebrate Thanksgiving, after being thankful for family and friends, for health and comfort, for food and shelter; we shouldn't forget to be thankful for the left.

There is no light without darkness and without evil, the good often fails to find their own voice. It is in the presence of slavery that we remember the worth of freedom. Men and nations are forged in war; not only the war of shell and shot, but the war of ideas. War teaches us to fight for what we have. Wars of ideas teach us to stand up for what we believe.

It is because conservatives are basically hopeful and confident that we are also prone to extremes of despair. Too many us were shocked at the decline of our society because of our great confidence in it. The faith that conservatives have in America makes them vulnerable to being crushed by the latest victory of the left.

I have seen far too much despair and defeatism, too many comments that suggest there is no hope for America and the only thing left to do is pour a glass of wine and watch the sun go down. But those comments testify to how sheltered Americans are from the struggles against tyranny around the world.

Eight years of Obama is bad, but try sixty-nine years of Communism on for size. That's what generations of Russians had to live through. Ask some of the conservative activists in Europe who have never had any of the freedoms that we still take for granted whether they've given up hope. Ask people from countries where criticism of Islam can mean death, whether they've given up hope.

There are countless tales of courage over the last century of men and women who did not stop fighting, who did not stop teaching their children so that they would not stop resisting. And those stories have not ended. They continue today in Europe, Asia and South America. And those people would envy the conditions under which we fight, where we can protest without being shot or sent to prison, where we can have a shot at winning elections if we try hard enough.

Where we are, compared to 100 percent of the rest of the world, still free.

We face a hard fight, not only for our freedom, but the freedom of the world. The international left has made America its special project. It knows that if it can extinguish the hope of liberty in this land then it will drive the rest of those who hope for freedom across the ocean deeper into despair. And it wants your despair. It wants you to give up so that the rest of the world gives up too and bows under its chains.

And yet this fight is a glorious one. This fight is our birthright. And we should be thankful for the fight.

It would be more pleasant if there were no Obama or Hillary. If Alinsky had never been born and Marx had never been whelped. It would be nice if we lived in a world where red was just a color and the Democratic Party was a rural movement suspicious of the Federal government and dreaming of an agrarian utopia. But then so would never having to work for a living or getting up out of bed.

Life is challenge and we face all kinds of different challenges. We get up early out of bed in the morning and drive to work. We rise in the middle of the night when the baby cries and we go to the hospital when our loved ones need us there. We do dreary things and terrible things that seem so different from the life we imagined as children. And we do them not only because they are duty, but because these challenges, the daily ones and the once in a lifetime ones, make us who we are.

Besides these prosaic challenges, the daily routines and the occasional tragedies, there are uncommon challenges that we face when the foe comes to our gate and demands that we bow and become slaves. This is the challenge that we face as a society, a nation and a people. It demands more of us and it ennobles us. It makes us a great people and a great nation, rather than only another people who seek to live in comfort with no thought for anything else.

Good emerges in response to evil. We need our enemies to remind us of who we are and what we can do when our backs are against the wall. We need evil to remind us of the good that we are capable of. As a whetstone sharpens a sword, so evil sharpens us into a weapon against it. It makes us morally stronger and teaches us the stark truths that we cannot take refuge from evil; we must confront it.

If there were no left, would there be nearly as much patriotism among true Americans as there is now? And if there were no left, how many of us would really contemplate the core principles of freedom and free enterprise? If there were no left, how many of us would ponder what we truly believe and what compromises we are willing and unwilling to make? If there were no left, would we be the same people that we are today?

For those of us who believe in the Bible, the Lord created both darkness and light. And if it were not for the darkness, would the light be nearly as precious to us? Imagine a world without sunrise or sunset, where the sight of rays of light clearing away the darkness would have no meaning? And then remember that things are treasured to the extent that they can be taken away from us.

Would we value freedom as much if we did not have to defend it? Would we hold it as dear if we did not fear that it would be taken away? Would we even be aware of what freedom is and what a free people must be if not for the dark hand of those who wish to strip us of those freedoms?

It is the left's opposition that has added urgency to a hundred issues, from the national debt to the War on Terror to freedom of speech and of religion. It has made us think about those issues, to take them out of the back of our minds and hold them up to the light as a reminder of how important they are and what must be done about them.

The left's corruptions remind us of the need for purification. As it gathers the worst of all around it, we find ourselves called to be better than we are. As the left works to doom our country, and as we suffer defeat after defeat, these defeats only serve to remind us that we must be better, that we must do more, learn more and become more in order to save our country.

War is the great teacher and this is a political war, short on bodies and heavy on minds, it is a war in which casualties are not taken in the chest or the arm, but in the mind, in reason and emotion, and against these weaknesses, we can and will prevail.

As we fight the left, we become stronger, more dedicated and more purposeful. We become the men and women that we were meant to be.

As you sit around your tables, thinking of all that you have gained and lost this year, remember and be thankful for the left, for though the winter ice gives way to the summer sun and bitter defeat gives way to sweet victory, it is defeat and hardship that teaches better than comfort and ease. We can learn more from our defeats than we ever could from our victories. Our defeats teach us endurance and fortitude, they teach us that defeat can be borne and that its sting can be turned into the weapon that unseats the foe. And our foes make us who we are.

Their evil teaches us to find the good within ourselves. Their strength teaches us to find our own strength. And their plots against what we have teach us how many treasures we have, not least of these being the full value of our freedom and our happiness that they wish to take from us.

Their war on America is teaching us to be better Americans. It may not feel that way right now, but we are privileged to have this opportunity and this fight. 

We should be thankful for the left, its assaults on us are teaching us how to fight and its plots against our freedom are teaching us how to be free.

Last month, French President Francois Hollande ridiculed the idea that the massive numbers of Muslim migrants entering his country were any kind of threat.

“Those who argue that we are being invaded are manipulators and falsifiers, who do this only for political reasons, to scare,” the left-wing politician huffed.

And then the pudgy little Socialist had to be rapidly evacuated from France’s national soccer stadium after one of those refugees blew himself up trying to reach Monsieur le Président, and Merkel’s Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

Minister Steinmeier had urged rejecting “barriers, fences” when it came to the Muslim migrants, but it was a barrier and the security in front of it that kept one of his beloved refugees from reaching him.

The ordinary people who didn’t have and don’t have the security measures that protect Hollande and Steinemeier died in Paris, blown up and gunned down where they sat, lay and stood.

Hollande's rhetoric is familiar. You can hear it from Obama. You can catch it on the news. We have nothing to worry about. At least not until the bombs start going off. There will be a multi-layered vetting process. The same system that let in all the terrorists before won't let us down now.

At least not until it does.

Everything's fine until the bombs go off. Then we're told not to worry about it because there's no way it could possibly happen again. Not with this new hashtag our brightest brains have cooked up. And then we can let 10,000 potential terrorists into the country while ignoring all the "falsifiers" warning of an "invasion."

It worked for France. It'll work for us.

Vetting for Syrian migrants works as well in the real world as it does for left-wing politicians.

In Greece, overburdened local authorities don’t care. New migrants are allowed to fill out their own paperwork and are handed letters of transit that allow them access to Europe. An employee at a local registration center was quoted as saying, “We just have to trust what they write down.”

And then the media insists that we have to trust what they write down about the refugees. Even the lies.

In September, at a joint press conference with Secretary of State John Kerry, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier had called taking in migrants a “moral duty” and urged Americans to “increase the numbers you can take into your country”.

Now Germany is hunting for its own links to the Paris attacks. A few days earlier, Steinemeier had boasted that Germans were bending over backwards for the refugees and proving that, “Germany belongs not to the screamers and hatemongers.” But the terror cells of Hamburg might disagree.

But don’t assume that Hollande or Steinmeier learned any lessons from the latest Muslim massacre.

In September, France’s President Hollande told the French that he had information that attacks against France had been planned from Syria and that planning for future air strikes against ISIS would begin.

In that same speech, he announced that France would be taking in 24,000 migrants.

Hollande knew ahead of time that this disaster was coming. He even prepared the response to it at the same time as he was welcoming some of the potential perpetrators into his country.

It wouldn’t be too surprising if he even had a speech pre-written and ready to go for just such an attack.

Even as Hollande was denouncing “manipulators and falsifiers” for trying to “scare” the French, he had a very good idea of just how much there was to be scared of.

The President of France had looked his nation in the eye and lied to them about the invasion.

Monsieur le Président probably didn’t expect to be this close to the killing when it happened. Neither did Foreign Minister Steinmeier. It’s the Jews and Poles in Marseille or the people in Calais who happen to be a little too close to the New Jungle camp that were meant to be the sacrifices of their compassion.

Unfortunately for Hollande and Steinmeier, the Islamic State didn’t get the memo. Unfortunately for us, their only real response to the crisis they caused will be to try to globalize it even further.

Back then Hollande and Merkel were demanding a “permanent mandatory system” for redistributing Muslim migrants across Europe. Germany and France turned the Muslim migrant crisis into a European problem. Now they want to repeat the butchery in Paris around the world.

G20 named the migrant crisis a global problem and expects the world to solve it.

Greece doesn’t have the money, resources or infrastructure to screen the migrant horde. Frontex is undermanned and its employees, in European fashion, work until 4 PM, at which point the refugees just write whatever they want and get handed letters of transit by Greek officials that want them gone.

The Balkan countries are not any better equipped to manage the invasion than Greece. And the European countries that actually want the migrants aren’t interested in checking their papers, but in signing them up for as many social services as possible.

That’s not just true of Europe. It’s equally true of the United States.

Any talk of vetting is nothing more than plausible deniability. Unless a terrorist is already in our database, vetting him is a lost cause. Our system couldn’t handle the World Trade Center bombers or the 9/11 hijackers and they came from functioning countries that weren’t in the middle of a civil war.

We are not going to be able to vet tens of thousands of people who claim they come from Syria, who have fake passports or who plead that they lost their passports at sea, whose names can be rendered in enough ways to give even a linguist a headache and who will get access to the United States long enough for them to disappear even if we did eventually turn up something on them.

And we’re not supposed to vet them.

Despite the rhetoric, France and Germany are less interested in fighting ISIS than in getting the United States and the rest of the world to take more Muslim migrants. Instead of having ISIS in every city in Europe, they seem determined to make sure that it is in every city in the world instead.

ISIS may have carried out the brutal massacres in Paris, but Hollande, Merkel and the other friends of the refugees helped make it happen. And they want to help make it happen around the world.

The migrant crisis is an invasion. The bodies in Paris could just as easily have been stacked up in any country that was foolish and feckless enough to open the door to ISIS by taking in “refugees”.

If Obama and Kerry succeed in their plan to bring tens of thousands of Syrian migrants to America, the next brutal massacre might not happen in Paris. It might happen in one of our cities instead.

Outside the synagogue a police car waits silently painting the sidewalk red and blue. No matter what the mayor and his pet police commissioner says, the NYPD is bracing for a terrorist attack.

After 9/11, the sight of heavily armed police officers became the new normal in New York. It's the new normal in gun-free Europe where the capital cities of the continent fall are locked down and the people are told to stay away from the windows.

It's just life.

Growing up, just before I was old enough to go to school, there was a terrorist attack. The targets were Jewish children. After that, the school was a fortress. There were two sets of heavy steel doors. One on the inside and the other on the outside. Children came and went in staggered groups.

If a Muslim terrorist did attack, he wouldn't be able to get us all. Not at once.

It was just life. With Islam.

A New York City teacher/arms dealer was just sentenced for trying to sell weapons to terrorists. He knew right away where to point the attackers. To a police station or a Jewish community center.

Since 9/11, Jewish synagogues have been some of the most frequent targets of Muslim terror plots. And each time the professional civil libertarians, the lawyers and the reporters dismiss the attacks.

Four Muslim men wanted to bomb two synagogues in the Bronx. The media came to their defense. HBO even ordered a documentary defending the attackers. It won a Peabody award. Ahmed Ferhani and Mohammad Mamdouh planned to attack a synagogue and maybe a church. Again the media and the activists of the left rushed to their defense. They were entrapped. They never wanted to do it.

The victims were not the Jews they wanted to kill. The victims were the murderers. As the Guardian wrote of the four Muslim terrorists, "Poor, black, and jailed." It's enough to make an HBO exec weep.

The Muslim murderers always have tragic problems to sympathize with.

The Times Square bomber had mortgage issues. As the New York Times empathized, "His anger toward his adopted country seemed to have grown in lockstep with his personal struggles. He had lost his home to foreclosure last year." The Boston Marathon killers also faced "personal struggles" and had "difficulty adapting". To a journalist, every terrorist just seems to be a lonely little boy inside.

And it's all abstract. Just another game of social justice. A little white wine and a little intersectionality. Throw in a dose of noble savage and watch civilization burn.

But then there are police cars outside synagogues, soldiers in Paris and lockdowns in Brussels, then you stand watching the ash fall in Lower Manhattan, then you walk into schools that are more secure than prisons, then you deal with a reality that is more real than Twitter hashtags.

The ADL and the AJC have joined BDS organizations in a push to fill America with Syrian migrants. Even the Orthodox Union has signed on while shamefully invoking the Holocaust. When Netanyahu pointed out that a major Muslim Brotherhood ally had played a key role in the Holocaust, the media howled with rage and accused him of exploiting the Holocaust. But when it comes to promoting the arrival of tens of thousands of Syrian Muslims, from a country that hosted real Nazis, then the media trips all over itself to compare a population which supports ISIS and Al Qaeda to Jews in WW2.

A poll of Syrian refugees found that 13% supported ISIS. Out of Obama's first batch of 10,000 refugees, that's 1,300. How many will they kill? Whom will they kill?

In real life, terrorism is ordinary. It's something horrible that happens. You can see it on videos of Muslim terrorists chasing after Jews on the streets of Jerusalem. You could see it on September 11, a scene that countless blockbusters have tried to recreate with robots and aliens. You saw it again in Paris.

We live in a state of civilization. It's a state as fragile as the human body. It's big, but so are skyscrapers. Anything can be destroyed when you find a weak point.

Sometimes it's a plane flying into a building. Sometimes it's a photo of a dead child.

Courage is a moral force. It makes us who we are. But it isn't always right. The SS were courageous and so were the Bolsheviks. So are the ACLU lawyers who rush to defend Muslim terrorists and their clients who blow themselves up to kill non-Muslims and their infidel civilization.

Warped morals that invert the innocent and the guilty, that turns murderers into victims, make courage into an evil thing. They make it into a crime.

Murder is not a mystery. Its harbinger is the police car, the plane flying low, the smiling man who opens his coat. Evil is not a mystery either. It is moral courage tuned to the destruction of civilization. The murderer can be courageous, but not creative. The ends of evil are power and ruination.

Liberalism is all too often the cult of the poor murderer. The thug who kills over inequality. The terrorist who bombs over bigotry. And it is outrage at the victims of its own Utopian crimes. 

Utopia is another name for power. It is an absolute good that negates the humanity of every person on earth. It doesn't matter whether it's the Islamic Caliphate of ISIS or the Socialist gulag. The destruction of the individual is not only necessary, but celebrated as evidence of the triumph of the ideology. Destroying people shows the absolute power and total importance of the creed.

That is the force that destroys civilizations. It's a moral force, but it's the moral force of evil.

Civilization is the moral force that resists destruction. It is the speech that dares to name murderers, murderers. As civilization dwindles, streets darken and savages and their lawyers hunt the night. Murderers become victims, destroyers become the future and good is invoked in the name of evil.

Sometimes upholding civilization is a difficult thing. It can mean being a soldier on the front lines or a police officer sitting in a car waiting for a terrorist to strike.

Or sometimes it can simply mean speaking the truth. And that is something that any of us can do.

Even at the best of times, civilization is a fragile thing. At the worst of times, it can be held up with a few words, with a few people reminding each other that truth is worth fighting for.

Last year at a NATO summit, Obama explicitly disavowed the idea of containing ISIS. "You can't contain an organization that is running roughshod through that much territory, causing that much havoc, displacing that many people, killing that many innocents, enslaving that many women," he said.

Instead he argued, "The goal has to be to dismantle them."

Just before the Paris massacre, Obama shifted back to containment. “From the start, our goal has been first to contain them, and we have contained them,” he said.

Pay no attention to what he said last year. There’s a new message now. Last year Obama was vowing to destroy ISIS. Now he had settled for containing them. And he couldn’t even manage that.

ISIS has expanded into Libya and Yemen. It struck deep into the heart of Europe as one of its refugee suicide bombers appeared to have targeted the President of France and the Foreign Minister of Germany. That’s the opposite of a terrorist organization that had been successfully contained.

Obama has been playing tactical word games over ISIS all along. He would “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. Or perhaps dismantle the Islamic State. Or maybe just contain it.

Containment is closest to the truth. Obama has no plan for defeating ISIS. Nor is he planning to get one any time soon. There will be talk of multilateral coalitions. Drone strikes will take out key figures. And then when this impressive war theater has died down, ISIS will suddenly pull off another attack.

And everyone will be baffled at how the “defeated” terrorist group is still on the march.

The White House version of reality says that ISIS attacked Paris because it’s losing. Obama also claimed that Putin’s growing strength in Syria is a sign of weakness. Never mind that Putin has all but succeeded in getting countries that were determined to overthrow Assad to agree to let him stay.

Weakness is strength. Strength is weakness.

Obama’s failed wars occupy a space of unreality that most Americans associate with Baghdad Bob bellowing that there are no American soldiers in Iraq. (There are, according to the White House, still no American ground forces in Iraq. Only American forces in firefights on the ground in Iraq.)

There’s nothing new about any of this. Obama doesn’t win wars. He lies about them.

The botched campaign against ISIS is a replay of the disaster in Afghanistan complete with ridiculous rules of engagement, blatant administration lies and no plan for victory. But there can’t be a plan for victory because when Obama gets past the buzzwords, he begins talking about addressing root causes.

And you don’t win wars by addressing root causes. That’s just a euphemism for appeasement.

Addressing root causes means blaming Islamic terrorism on everything from colonialism to global warming. It doesn’t mean defeating it, but finding new ways to blame it on the West.

Obama and his political allies believe that crime can’t be fought with cops and wars can’t be won with soldiers. The only answer lies in addressing the root causes which, after all the prattling about climate change and colonialism, really come down to the Marxist explanation of inequality.

When reporters ask Obama how he plans to win the war, he smirks tiredly at them and launches into another condescending explanation about how the situation is far too complicated for anything as simple as bombs to work. Underneath that explanation is the belief that wars are unwinnable.

Obama knows that Americans won’t accept “war just doesn’t work” as an answer to Islamic terrorism. So he demonstrates to them that wars don’t work by fighting wars that are meant to fail.

In Afghanistan, he bled American soldiers as hard as possible with vicious rules of engagement that favored the Taliban to destroy support for a war that most of the country had formerly backed. By blowing the war, Obama was not only sabotaging the specific implementation of a policy he opposed, but the general idea behind it. His failed wars are meant to teach Americans that war doesn’t work.

The unspoken idea that informs his strategy is that American power is the root cause of the problems in the region. Destroying ISIS would solve nothing. Containing American power is the real answer.

Obama does not have a strategy for defeating ISIS. He has a strategy for defeating America.

Whatever rhetoric he tosses out, his actual strategy is to respond to public pressure by doing the least he can possibly do. He will carry out drone strikes, not because they’re effective, but because they inflict the fewest casualties on the enemy.

He may try to contain the enemy, not because he cares about ISIS, but because he wants to prevent Americans from “overreacting” and demanding harsher measures against the Islamic State. Instead of fighting to win wars, he seeks to deescalate them. If public pressure forces him to go beyond drones, he will authorize the fewest air strikes possible. If he is forced to send in ground troops, he will see to it that they have the least protection and the greatest vulnerability to ISIS attacks.

Just like in Afghanistan.

Obama would like ISIS to go away. Not because they engage in the ethnic cleansing, mass murder and mass rape of non-Muslims, but because they wake the sleeping giant of the United States.

And so his idea of war is fighting an informational conflict against Americans. When Muslim terrorists commit an atrocity so horrifying that public pressure forces him to respond, he lies to Americans. Each time his Baghdad Bob act is shattered by another Islamic terrorist attack, he piles on even more lies.

Any strategy that Obama offers against ISIS will consist of more of the same lies and word games. His apologists will now debate the meaning of “containment” and whether he succeeded in defining it so narrowly on his own terms that he can claim to have accomplished it. But it really doesn’t matter what his meaning of “containment” or “is” is. Failure by any other name smells just as terrible.

Obama responded to ISIS by denying it’s a threat. Once that stopped being a viable strategy, he began to stall for time. And he’s still stalling for time, not to beat ISIS, but to wait until ISIS falls out of the headlines. That has been his approach to all his scandals from ObamaCare to the IRS to the VA.

Lie like crazy and wait for people to forget about it and turn their attention to something else.

This is a containment strategy, but not for ISIS. It’s a containment strategy for America. Obama isn’t trying to bottle up ISIS except as a means of bottling up America. He doesn’t see the Caliph of the Islamic State as the real threat, but the average American who watches the latest beheading on the news and wonders why his government doesn’t do something about it. To the left it isn’t the Caliph of ISIS who starts the wars we ought to worry about, but Joe in Tennessee, Bill in California or Pete in Minnesota.

That is why Obama sounds bored when talking about beating ISIS, but heats up when the conversation turns to fighting Republicans. It’s why Hillary Clinton named Republicans, not ISIS, as her enemy.

The left is not interested in making war on ISIS. It is too busy making war on America.

"He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." Koran 61:9

Islamic violence is a religious problem.

Islam derives meaning from physical supremacy, so war becomes an act of faith. To believe in Islam, is to have faith that it will conquer the entire world. And to be a true Muslim, is to feel called to aid in that global conquest, whether by providing money to the Jihadists or to become a Jihadist.

The fulfillment of Islam depends on the subjugation of non-Muslims so that violence against non-Muslims become the essence of religion.

When Hamas states that, “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah” or the ISIS rapists tell Yazidi girls that rape "draws them closer to Allah", they really do mean it.

They are not perverting a great religion, as our politicians claim, they are living it.

Everything they do is based on the Koran, the body of Islamic law and the greater history of Islam.

What the Ten Commandments are for the Jew, or the resurrection of Jesus is for the Christian--  the physical dominance of Islam is to the Muslim. It is the basis and fulfillment of his faith.

Jihad is the force that gives Islam meaning. It is the deepest expression of faith.

To its followers the validity of Islam is directly connected to its physical supremacy. As followers of the purported "final revelation" to mankind, Muslims not only have the obligation to conquer and subjugate the rest of the world, their religion is meaningful to the extent that they can carry on the work begun by Mohammed. The Jihadis who massacre non-Muslims are missionaries of their faith.

Anything that suggests Islam is not absolutely superior becomes blasphemy. When Muslims explode into outbursts of violent rage over seemingly petty things like a cartoon or a video, it is because to them, any loss of face for Islam is the worst kind of blasphemy because it challenges its supremacy.

Truth and power in Islam are identical. It is not a religion of the oppressed, but of the oppressors.

Mohammed's prophecies are validated by his conquests. The truth of Islam is seen in the expansion of Islam. When Muslims succeed in killing non-Muslims, they prove the truth of their religion.

That is why Muslim terrorists shout, "Allahu Akbar", "Allah is greater." The old Mohammedan taunt aimed at Jews was then directed at Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and all the world's religions. By killing their non-Muslim victims, the Muslims proved that Allah was greater than their gods. 

Islam is not only a tribal and materialistic religion, but it is closely linked to the honor-shame code of its Arab originators. Islam is not primarily an inward spiritual experience, but an outward expression of tribal honor. Its religious expression is the upholding of the honor of Islam and its expansion in the same exact ways as the honor and expansion of the tribe are upheld.

That is why Islam suffers from the classically tribal obsession of protecting "honor" by controlling women so that the blood of the tribe is not polluted by outsiders. That is why it is obsessed with any insult, real or imaginary to Mohammed, its theological tribal founder. And why it must continually expand its territory through conflict so that the tribe grows and so that the surplus sons don't stay behind to fight each other over tribal territory. This is true of Syria on a much larger scale.

Forcing non-Muslims into a submissive position affirms the truth and power of Islam. By causing infidels to "lose face", the Muslim fulfills the Koranic verse which promises that Allah had sent Mohammed to make Islam supreme over all religions. By contrast when Islam "loses face", an act of blasphemy has been committed, which can only be righted religiously by killing the non-Muslims, thereby forcing them to lose face and once again affirming the physical superiority of Islam.

This creates the cycle of violence, which is not the result of Christian or Jewish oppression, but of the need for Muslims to validate the truth of their faith by oppressing non-Muslims. To co-exist with non-Muslims is blasphemous for a Muslim, when his Koran proclaims "Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends" (Koran 5:51). Mohammed's final command was to ethnically cleanse the Jews and Christians of the Arabian Peninsula. ISIS sees itself as completing the work that he began.

Islam does not co-exist, for its followers its truth can only be found in conquering non-Muslims.

Whereas most religions can accept being in the inferior position because their fundamental faith in spiritual, rather than material-- Islam has little to it but the material. Even its paradise exists in the form of the sort of physical pleasures that its followers crave, fancy robes, exquisite banquets, golden couches, and of course that famed appeal to the dedicated Jihadist, "curvaceous virgins... and an overflowing cup" (Koran 78:33-34). Islamic Heaven is a grossly exaggerated version of the kind of loot that Mohammed's followers expected to find by following him in the first place, gold, jewels, silk, spices and young girls.

The gang of throat slitters who accompanied Mohammed on his massacres across the region were given a religious incentive that would transcend death.

Even if they died in battle and would not live to enjoy all the jewels, overflowing cups and girls-- the Koran promised it to them in heaven anyway. The gang of robbers, escaped slaves and ambitious desert rats trailed after Mohammed across sand dunes, their minds filled with the promises of rich loot from the caravans they were raiding. And in the feverish heat, the idea that they would receive even better loot if they were to die in battle, making death preferable to life, would have seemed plausible.

Out of such such petty greed and lust did Islam initially expand. Its code was that of the tribesman, to lose face or engage in vendetta. Except Islam's face and vendetta did not involve a single man or a clan, it came to involve over a billion people, who found meaning in working toward the final conquest of Islam. The global triumph of a desert raider's clumsily hammered together mass of Jewish and Christian beliefs and tribal customs and legends, and his own biography, used as a tool of conquest, forging temporary unities out of quarreling tribes and clans.

And now Islam's vendetta is worldwide. Every insecurity translates into a provocation. Every jealous impulse never satisfied explodes into violent rage. Every conflict for thousands of years breeds a new vendetta. Did Muslims once live somewhere? They must reclaim it, for to fail to do so is blasphemous and a betrayal of Mohammed's mission. Did Muslims never live somewhere? Then they must go there now, and raise up minarets and proclaim the superiority of Islam, for to do otherwise is a failure to expand the borders of the Ummah, which is a betrayal of Allah's will.

The very existence of people living free from Islamic dominion, is blasphemy. Blasphemy that must be remedied by bringing them under the rule of Islamic law.

Meanwhile people who were once under Islamic dominion living free of Islam, is worse than blasphemy, it is an insult and an attack on Islam. That is what is behind the Muslim homicidal obsession with Israel, which had until recently been in Muslim hands under the Ottoman Empire. However even nations such as Spain, which had been lost to the Ummah long ago, still inspire rage. The liberation of the Jews from Islamic dominion is a particularly sore point, but not the only one.

The intersection of Islam and Terrorism is the inevitable result of Islamic theology which is supremacist and materialist, which when combined with the honor-shame code of a tribal culture, drives it compulsively toward war and conquest.

The actions of non-Muslim nations serve only as variables to create a context within which the supremacism of Islam expresses itself. These contexts may vary as often as the justifications used in a ISIS video. But the context itself is irrelevant in the larger history and theology of Islam. Because in the end, the problem of Islamic violence is the problem of Islam.

The left is a victimhood cult. It feeds off pain and fetishizes suffering as a moral commodity to be sold and resold in exchange for political power.

The cult’s credo is that its solutions to human suffering take precedence over freedom or democracy. It exploits suffering when it can and creates it where it can’t. Its social media has ushered in the Warholian era of victimhood where everyone can be a famously oversharing victim for 15 trending minutes.

Forget about meritocracy. This is the victimocracy.

The victimocracy’s foot soldier is the crybully. The crybully is the abuser who pretends to be a victim. His arguments are his feelings. He comes armored in identity politics entitlement and is always yelling about social justice or crying social justice tears.

If you don’t fight back, the crybully bullies you. If you fight back, the crybully cries and demands a safe space because you made him feel unsafe.

Lions form a pride, crows gather into a murder and crybullies cringe into a crymob. The crymob demands a safe space because free speech and dissent makes its crybullies feel very unsafe.

Crymobs will “safebait” by yelling and pushing and then whining that the people they’re shoving make them feel unsafe. One crybully safebaiting tactic is to yell loudly, forcing anyone talking back to them to raise their voice. That’s when other crybullies begin shouting, “Don’t yell at her.”

Crybullies will push into you and cry that you’re making them feel unsafe. They will hit you and when you raise your hands in self-defense, they will scream that you’re putting your hands on them. (All these safebaiting tactics and more can be seen in the Missouri video.)

Crybullies don’t think this behavior is dishonest because their pain privilege entitles them to tone police you, but you can’t tone police them. Their sweet social justice tears give them the right to yell at you, shove you or hit you. Crying over social justice gives them a license to bully everyone else.

If crybullies can’t safebait you, they will manufacture threats by faking hate crimes against themselves or phoning in bomb threats to validate their need for a safe space in which no one is allowed to disagree with them. Surviving their own fake crimes turns crybullies into social justice heroes.

It’s impossible to have a rational conversation with a crybully because it doesn’t walk to talk to you; it wants to loudly broadcast its feelings. As one Yale crybully wrote, “I don’t want to debate. I want to talk about my pain.” My pain. Me. Stop arguing with me and start paying attention to me right now.

A crybully’s pain isn’t caused by poverty, disease or an elephant stepping on its toes. Instead it’s caused by the existence of other people who don’t take its ridiculous claims of suffering seriously.

The crybully is upset because you aren’t as upset as it is upset. And you can’t be as upset as the crybully because who do you think you are anyway? You don’t know pain the way that a privileged 19-year-old identity politics major whose latest tantrum hasn’t been affirmed by authority knows pain. Even claiming that you can relate to the crybully’s pain is offensive. No one else has ever suffered like it.

The crybully isn’t even all that outraged by the thing he’s protesting over, but he’s outraged that you aren’t taking his feelings seriously. His feelings always matter more than the issue.

Administrators at Yale and the University of Missouri were crymobbed not because of what they did, but because they didn’t take the feelings of the crybullies seriously enough, fast enough.

The crymob protests because its feelings are hurt. The original incidents don’t matter. Like a toddler, it quickly forgets whatever made it start crying and instead it cries because it’s crying. Like overgrown babies, the crymob’s political objective is to punish those in power who didn’t immediately pick it up, cradle it and sing it a soothing social justice song. So that next time they’ll jump and then ask how high.

Crybullies want everyone who isn’t a crybully to shut up and never speak again. Once this happens, they settle down to bullying each other over who has the most intersectional pain or privilege.

That’s how the victimocracy is ruled.

The campus crymobs demand that everyone who isn’t a crybully shut up and never speak again on pain of having to undergo privilege training sessions by otherwise unemployable identity politics studies majors.

And that is just the crymob with a permanent university position and a paycheck. The great dream of the crybully is to force every student to submit to daily crybullying. The crybully is just a weak, cowardly government licensed bully who wants a job bullying people for life while talking about his suffering.

Under a victimocracy, where college administrators knuckle under to the Office for Civil Rights and social justice hashtags, the crybullies get their way. At the top of the victimocracy, President Crybully whines that he is the victim of racism while breaking so many laws that Nixon looks like a choirboy.

At the bottom, the crybullies of Yale and Missouri, who one day aspire to be President Crybully, claim that they can’t eat or sleep because someone on campus offended them and no one has been fired for the crime.

The media has become a massive crymob swarming with horrid tales of upset crybullies complete with sad photos of their social justice tears. In Missouri, the campus crymob turned on the national crymob. When crybullies and their crymobs run out of normal people to safebait, they turn on each other.

The real victims of the victimocracy aren’t inside it, but outside it. They’re the ordinary people whose lives are suddenly ruined by the crazed radicals and insane activists who can cry on cue and demand safe spaces while howling like maddened banshees. Maybe they told the wrong joke or wore the wrong costume. They didn’t pander to a crybully fast enough or brushed off his demands as ridiculous.

Or they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. And soon there was a crymob safebaiting its way across another campus, another branch of literature or around the world.

Crybullies are everything they claim to abhor. They are narcissists who complain about selfishness. Completely incapable of human empathy, they whine that no one cares about their feelings. They are prone to cowardly acts of violence, but demand safe spaces. They are bullies who say they’re bullied.

The crybully embodies the left. He is an oppressed oppressor. An abusive victim. A self-righteous hypocrite. A loudmouth censor. A civil rights activist who wants to take everyone’s rights away.

Before the Muslim terror stabbing spree, Netanyahu had made repeated efforts to meet with the leader of the PLO. And for once, Abbas, the PLO leader, had not been averse to a meeting.  

Instead it was Secretary of State John Kerry who told Abbas not to meet with Netanyahu.

Abbas went to the UN and disavowed the Oslo Accords. The first Muslim stabbings of Jews, with the encouragement of the PLO, began a few days later.

It is unlikely that Kerry had directly told Abbas to escalate the violence, but he had sent him the same effective message by coordinating with the PLO boss at the expense of Netanyahu. The top terrorist came away with the understanding that the administration favored him and was hostile to Netanyahu.

And he was right.

So Abbas decided to see what another outburst of violence would net him.

It wasn’t the first time that Obama and Kerry had unleashed Abbas’ worst impulses.

Obama’s splashy trip to Israel didn’t lead to peace, but it did make the PLO’s Palestinian Authority more dictatorial and corrupt. The closest thing to an accomplishment that the Bush administration’s own failed efforts had to show for them was the appointment of Salam Fayyad as Prime Minister of the PA.

While Fayyad had nothing to contribute to the peace process, and the Palestinian Authority remained a corrupt coven of terrorists subsidized by foreign aid, there were some improvements when it came to financial transparency. Most importantly, Fayyad provided a check on Abbas in an organization which had otherwise abandoned elections and made the PLO boss into a dictator for life.

In 2013, Obama finally followed the advice of his Jewish leftist allies to visit Israel and “make the case for peace” to the Israeli people. This he did to a handpicked younger audience, while snubbing the usual Knesset speech in Israel’s parliament that Bush, Clinton and even Carter had delivered.

"I genuinely believe that you do have a true partner in President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. I believe that,” Obama told his Israeli audience.

Earlier, Abbas had told a Russian interviewer, "As far as I am concerned, there is no difference between our policies and those of Hamas. So why are they labeled as terrorists?" It was a good question, but not one that Obama was in the mood to address.

Despite Obama’s vote of confidence in Fayyad, it was his visit with its free pass to Abbas that would finish Fayyad’s career. Fayyad’s rise had been a response to growing skepticism by the Bush administration and Congress of Abbas’ mismanagement of the Palestinian Authority.

When Obama arrived, Abbas had already been trying to force out Fayyad. The visit, with the trappings of one president visiting another, sent the message that Abbas didn’t have to worry about democracy. US diplomats scrambled to persuade Abbas to keep Fayyad on, but the damage had been done. Soon Fayyad was gone, leaving Abbas with the Palestinian Authority as his private fiefdom.

Fayyad’s departure fed Abbas’ hubris. There were no more elections and no independent prime minister to get in his way. So Kerry’s attempt at a peace process was met with a crazy demand by the PLO boss that Israel release hundreds of terrorists as a precondition to any negotiations.

Instead of giving Abbas a reality check that Israel shouldn’t have to release dangerous terrorists just for the privilege of sitting at a table with him, Obama and Kerry once again backed up Abbas.  While Netanyahu’s expectation that Abbas should recognize Israel as a Jewish state, according to Kerry was “not going to happen in the beginning”, the release of murderous Muslim terrorists would.

Most of the terrorists were freed, but Abbas just escalated his demands and then made a big push at the UN. Negotiations collapsed, but instead of blaming Abbas, Kerry blamed Israel.  "Israel didn't release the Palestinian prisoners on the day they were supposed to be freed, and another day passed, and another day," he grumbled to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The worse Abbas behaved, the more Obama and Kerry backed him up.

Even when Jews were being butchered in the streets of Jerusalem, while Abbas’ henchmen and propagandists cheered on the killers, Kerry once again blamed Israel claiming that the violence was caused by Muslim “frustration” due to an imaginary “massive increase in settlements.”

(Settlements being places in Israel where Jews live, as opposed to where Muslims live, which are never damned as settlements even when the land is illegally acquired and when houses are built on land that the Jewish population had been ethnically cleansed from.)

Kerry was once again sending the message that Abbas and the PLO could do no wrong.

The recent roots of this violence can be found in how Obama and Kerry chose to feed Abbas’ hubris.

Abbas has learned that he can do just about anything and his pals in Washington D.C. will blame Israeli settlements or the manic depressive frustration and desperation of terrorists instead of the PLO leader.

Obama’s overhyped visit didn’t set the stage for peace, but for an escalation of the conflict. The meeting of the two men only nourished Abbas’ grandiose delusions and totalitarian itches. The Bush administration made an effort to set some expectations for the PLO. Those expectations weren’t met, but at least they existed. The Obama administration has zero expectations for Abbas.

Those zero expectations have translated into an unapologetic dictatorship subsidized by US taxpayers, an international diplomatic campaign whose only real purpose is the self-glorification of that dictator and a campaign of violence and terror so that the dictator can feel like a player on the world stage.

Not only did Obama and Kerry fail to do the right thing, but at every turn they managed to make things worse. Their determination to blame everything on Israel told Abbas that he could do anything. Even when Abbas might have actually met with Netanyahu, Kerry insisted on sabotaging the meeting.

None of this was an accident. There was a lot more at stake here than another failed peace deal.

Obama views Netanyahu as a political enemy and stirring up violence in Israel is one way of hurting him.

It’s no coincidence that the peace push followed Netanyahu’s Iran speech at the UN and growing worries by Obama’s people that Israel would carry out its own strike against Iran’s nuclear program.

While the PLO peace circus was in town, negotiations with Iran were moving forward and being kept secret from Israel. Forcing Israel to negotiate with the PLO terrorists was meant to distract it from the other negotiations with the Iranian terrorists that the Jewish State wasn’t supposed to know about.

And making those negotiations as difficult and disastrous as possible was one way of diverting a good deal of Israel’s diplomatic and intelligence capabilities to coping with a growing threat at home.

Obama and Kerry may not have understood that their gambit would end in violence, that an arrogant Abbas would escalate the conflict with a new wave of terror that would lead to Jewish men, women and children being murdered by Muslim terrorists emboldened by Abbas’s martyrdom rhetoric.

It’s more likely though that they just didn’t care.

Giving Israel a domestic security crisis to deal with it is one more way of preventing a last ditch effort to take out Iran’s nuclear program. Whether or not Obama and Kerry had that particular outcome in mind, it clearly benefits their agenda and they have shown no sign of cracking down on Abbas’ incitement.

Obama and Kerry want Netanyahu out. They want to see a more pliable government in Israel. Their efforts at influencing an Israeli election failed. But it did incrementally yield a weaker and less conservative government coalition. Abbas’ combination of diplomatic and terrorist attacks also yields incremental results by denying Netanyahu the breathing room to make considered decisions.

The White House may not be directing Abbas’ violence, but it benefits from it and it is unwilling to shut it down because even if it doesn’t bring down Netanyahu, it will weaken him and limit his options.

Obama could quickly send the signal to Abbas that the free ride is over. He could call for Palestinian elections, political reforms and use foreign aid to force an end to the PLO’s promotion of terrorism.

None of that is happening. Nor will it. Instead Kerry is taking great pains to avoid saying anything that could be characterized as singling out Abbas for blame. And that is a covert message of approval.

Abbas’ PLO terror will only escalate as long as he senses that he has the support of the White House. And as long as the White House continues to support him, the blood of his victims is on Obama’s hands.

The Secretary of State of the United States traveled to the Muslim country of Jordan to assure its Foreign Minister that Jews would not be praying any more at the holiest site in Judaism.

As Kerry put it, “It is Muslims who pray on the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif and non-Muslims who visit.”

Israel is often accused of apartheid and segregation, but here was the Secretary of State championing both, as long as it was Muslim segregation aimed at Jews. The Temple Mount “Status Quo” worriedly talked about by Kerry and the media as the answer to the recent Muslim stabbing spree is no different than the Muslim ban on Jews entering the Cave of the Patriarchs, where Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are buried, past the seventh step. It rewards Muslim violence by upholding Muslim segregationist racism.

There’s no word on whether segregated drinking fountains will be put in for Muslims and non-Muslims. Jews visiting the former site of their Temple have been attacked for drinking from an “Islamic” water fountain.

Perhaps the status quo will also say that, “It is Muslims who drink from water fountains on the Temple Mount and non-Muslims who go thirsty.”

And don’t even ask about the bathrooms. PLO leader Abbas, whom Kerry also met with, shrieked that Jews “have no right to defile it with their filthy feet”.

The status quo on the Temple Mount and in the Middle East is the supremacism of Muslim bigotry. The Jews violated this status quo in a very big way by seeking independence. The indigenous Jewish people were no longer willing to be a conquered nation under the boot of Muslim invaders, forced to live in ghettos, wear yellow badges, walk barefoot or wait on the seventh step outside their holy places.

Every act of Muslim terrorism is blamed on this primal Jewish violation of the “Status Quo”. Israel violated the status quo by becoming the first non-Muslim country in the Middle East. If that wasn’t bad enough, Jews violated the status quo even further by becoming the first indigenous people to reclaim land lost in a war from its Muslim conquerors. Then the members of a religion that had been defeated by Islam, its holy places turned into mosques, had the temerity to go and pray at their own holy places.

What could Muslims do in the face of so many violations of the status quo by an inferior conquered race except resort to maddened orgies of violence, setting off bombs and chopping up Rabbis with cleavers?

It’s not only the Jews who get in trouble for violating the Muslim status quo. When Coptic Christians turned out to protest the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt, the supporters of the “moderate” terror group, which Kerry backs, responded by shouting “Death to the Christians” and burning churches.

Jordan’s Foreign Minister warned Kerry, “When you infuriate the emotions of one of our billion Muslims around the world, things become rather thorny and rather difficult to manage.”

The world’s one billion Muslims, whose delicate emotions are always infuriated by something, enforce an Islamic status quo in which no non-Muslim dares to violate the Muslim superiority complex.

A Danish newspaper can’t print cartoons that a few Imams don’t like or the billion Muslims will get angry. Burger King can’t have ice cream that Muslims think resembles the name of their god or a billion Muslims will get angry. America can’t defend itself against Islamic terrorism or a billion Muslims will get angry. Jews in Israel and Christians in Egypt can’t have their civil rights or a billion Muslims will get angry.

Some might say that the billion Muslims are just looking for things to get angry at… but that would just make a billion Muslims angry.

When buildings fall or buses blow up, when people are stabbed, shot or exploded by the unofficial representatives of the bilious billion, we go right past the crime to the anger that motivated it. “Why do they hate us?” becomes the question and Muslim anger becomes the pivot of national security policy.

Since Muslim anger causes violence, we stop terrorism by tiptoeing around anything that might make them angry. Minor things mostly like freedom of speech or freedom of religion. If you’re a Coptic Christian who makes a YouTube video about Mohammed, you can be sent to prison when some of the moderate Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda locals murder four Americans while shouting, “Allahu Akbar.”

After weeks of brutal Muslim murders, Kerry has gotten Israel to reinforce a ban on Jews praying at the holiest site in Judaism because it offends Muslims. Next up, maybe Jews will be restricted to the seventh step of the Cave of the Patriarchs again. Because that was the “Status Quo” under the Muslim conquest.

But the status quo won’t be restored by merely banning Jews from praying at the Temple Mount. It won’t even be restored by giving in to demands from Obama, Kerry and the outraged stabber lobby to keep Jews out of those parts of Jerusalem that Muslims had ethnically cleansed them from in 1948.

A Jewish Israel is a violation of the Islamic status quo. But so are a Christian Spain and an independent Greece. The Ottoman Empire at its peak nearly reached Vienna and extended into the Ukraine. Muslims once held Sicily. The monstrous Mughals ruled over much of India. Creative Muslim geography and revisionist history now claim that Australia’s aborigines were originally Muslim and Turkey’s Islamist ruler, who hopes to revive the Ottoman Empire, insists that Muslims originally discovered America.

These violations of the status quo must all be eliminated or a billion Muslims will be very, very angry.

Pandering to Muslim bigotry only earns more of the same. The Muslims butchering Jews in Jerusalem are not going to be satisfied with any status quo short of the total Sharia subjugation of the Jews with all the attendant ritual humiliations of ghettos, bare feet and legal immunity for Muslim murderers of Jews.

Allowing Muslims to set the tone for every negotiation by invoking one billion fuming faithful who will go on a killing spree if a cartoon is published, a book is printed or a prayer is prayed is a submission to a racist theocracy. Worse still, it treats the anger of the bigoted murderers as if it had moral weight.

Our diplomatic Stockholm syndrome traces back the root cause of Muslim violence not to the Muslim killers, but to anyone who might be guilty of provoking them.

Obama’s people responded to the murder of Americans in Benghazi with a Pakistani video apology and by treating a YouTube video critical of Mohammed as the real crime. Hillary Clinton told the father of a murdered SEAL, “We're going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.”

When Muslims butcher Jews in Jerusalem, the blame settles not on the killers, but on their victims.

Some Jews had to be stabbed because other Jews (and their filthy feet) had prayed at the holiest site in Judaism that the Muslim conquerors claimed for their own because Mohammed once flew there on a magic horse with a woman’s head. Or at least that was this week’s Muslim excuse for killing Jews.

Muslims had been killing Jews for over a thousand years. But there’s always some momentary excuse for how the Jewish victims provoked their Muslim killers this time that utterly fails to explain why this same cycle of Muslim anti-Semitic violence has been going on since the beginning of Islam.

We are often lectured on how oppressed Muslims are. One of the more popular Muslim victimization memes claims that Muslims are “the new Jews”. So far the only thing they have done to prove this claim is trying to kill all the Jews on the theory that when all the Jews are dead, they can be the new Jews.

By accepting Muslim anger as moral we have turned murderers into victims and victims into murderers. The extremes of Muslim outrage are not proof of their suffering, their frustration and desperation, as the media claims, but of their racism, their supremacism and their dehumanization of non-Muslims.

Muslim terrorism is not a cry for help. It’s a cry of hate.

Muslims are not entitled to a supremacist status quo that enshrines their conquests as sacred and forever represses the rights and identities of the peoples under their rule. It is this supremacist sense of entitlement that fuels Muslim terror from ISIS to Hamas.

Upholding such a status quo only breeds further conflicts as Islam seeks to restore its status quo conquests around the world. It’s their belief that they can restore a supremacist status quo that is the cause of Muslim terrorism. Take away this expectation of a status quo and Muslim terror goes away.

Obama has decided to uphold the Muslim status quo. Muslim terrorism is met with backdoor support for a Caliphate through political Islam. Muslim stabbings in Israel are met with calls for upholding a Muslim supremacist status quo that bans Jews from praying at the holiest site in their religion.

Our national security strategy, our diplomacy and the premise of societies that are being transformed by Muslim migration is don’t make the Muslims angry. This vision for the West is an abusive relationship in which the free world plays the beaten wife whose dreams and hopes have narrowed down to not “provoking” another violent tantrum from the psychotic monster who has taken over her life.

“Don’t Make the Muslims Angry” has become our highest law. The free world needs an intervention before we give up our rights, our identities and our future to live in this abusive relationship with Islam.

Culture War 2.0 is as inescapable as it is obnoxious. Its loudest proponents, the Social Justice Warriors, live off a drama that they create, playing enlightened victim-activists fighting micro-struggles against micro-aggressions in areas most people have never even thought about.

The issues are ideological, but they're mainstreamed by focusing on personal narratives. The victim-activists are usually millennials from wealthy families with useless degrees. It's a story as old as radicalism, but in the dawn of the 21st century, it's activism and culture war being replayed as farce.

Culture War 2.0 politicizes narcissism and insecurity. It obsessively masticates culture the way that its political predecessors destroyed people. Its target audience lives and thinks in terms of premium cable shows. They are to it what novels were to its 19th century counterparts.

Even its ideology is more grievance than theory. It only cares about theory to the extent of parsing the Victim Value Index and determining who has more or less privilege, who ought to feel more guilty and who ought to feel more victimized. This is ideology as soap opera. Politics as a means of deciding who gets to play what emotional role in a societal drama.

Its political expressions exist in the space of the personal narrative. In this tawdry post-Orwellian future everyone will get their essay of victimhood on Medium or ThoughtCatalog read for 15 minutes. Their drama will, very temporarily, be a trending topic. For a generation of overindulged children, broadcasting their petty pains is the closest thing their lives have to love and meaning.

1984's world was obsessively serious. Our 2015 social tyranny is absurdly trivial. It's a world whose leaders is always looking for goofy photo ops while he violates the last remaining shreds of the law. Every crime is buried under a thousand shrieking viral headlines that alternate between fake empowerment and fake outrage.

We don't have an adult totalitarian state, because we no longer have adults. Instead we have Lord of the Flies and Mean Girls. Overgrown children advance a totalitarian state out of spite and envy. Identity politics is everything because tribalism is more innate to children than it is to adults. Enemies have to be punished for emotional validation. Freedoms have to be eliminated out of insecurity.

The politicization of insecurity lets everyone be a victim. Anyone can turn their feelings of shame or ostracism into political awareness. Feelings not only displace reason, they warp ideology around themselves, so that ideology becomes a means of emotional venting. Activism becomes catharsis. Hating others becomes therapy. No one is cured, but making things better was never the point.

Our emotionally unstable activist elites veer from narcissism to insecurity. Their politics are manic-depressive efforts at managing their emotions by controlling others. They retreat to political safe spaces, gnaw at each other and then emerge forth to demand that the world be made safe for their feelings.

The left always gets what it wants and is never happy. The purpose of its idiot activism isn't progress, but drama. Each achievement leaves behind a sense of emptiness. It isn't about rights, it's about conflict. It's not about giving to someone. It's about taking from someone else.

Without the conflict and its accompanying self-dramatization, there is only the emptiness.

The social justice warrior seeks to escape insecurity by dramatizing its own victimhood all the way over into narcissism. But such dramas need participants. Politics is its means of manufacturing that drama by finding antagonists. Without antagonists, there is no drama. Without drama, there is no sense of importance and the activists loses what it hoped to gain, a sense of self. 

Our emotionally insecure culture warriors other themselves and then assemble an identity that makes them the victim of some larger primal force, racism, the patriarchy and privilege, when really they are Rachel Dolezals, unstable types who manufacture their victimhood out of a paranoid dislike of people.

Paranoia is the political currency of the emotionally unstable culture warrior who is always certain that someone is looking at them the wrong way, threatening them on social media or committing some other microaggression against them.

There are people who can't hear a "good morning" without seeing a conspiracy against them. In normal life, they're diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenics. In political activism, they're just sensitive to microaggressions.

The left has always valued oversensitivity because neurotics are easy to convince of their own victimhood. And career victims naturally dehumanize those they consider to be their oppressors. As neurosis has become culture, the only way to escape accusations of privilege is to find your own victimhood. And there's nothing like being forced to develop insecurities to make you insecure.

Culture War 2.0 is culturally crazy. Its personal dysfunction so entangled with politics that there is no way to tell where one begins and the other ends. It politicizes insecurity and narcissism for campaigns that are indistinguishable from trolling. It reduces every issue to personal unhappiness and demands the abolition of traditional freedoms and rights as the answer to that unhappiness.

Its demands are unanswerable because they are personal. There is no solution to them except sanity. And in a cultural conflict where insanity is an asset, sanity is no answer. It's an accusation.

The truly paranoid see the world as hostile and are driven to destroy it. Their crusade to find happiness by making everyone else miserable can only success halfway. They can never be happy, but they can always make others miserable.