Where does Bobby Jindal go to get his reputation back? The Louisiana governor and former presidential candidate took some heat following last January’s Charlie Hebdo attack when he spoke about Muslim no-go zones in Europe. No-go zones are Muslim enclaves, completely separate from civil law and authority, run according to street justice and Muslim tradition.
Jindal was quickly rebuked by political commentators, and even by the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who insisted that “no-go zones” are fictional. “Jindal condemns imaginary no-go zones” wrote Steve Benen on Rachel Maddow’s MaddowBlog. A Washington Post headline mused, “Bobby Jindal Won’t Back Down on no-go Zones. Why?”
Geez, I don’t know—because he was right? Not according to Post reporter Chris Cillizza, who concluded that it was all politically calculated. “Here’s what Jindal is up to,” wrote Cillizza. “He is struggling for political oxygen in a Republican field that includes (or might include) the likes of Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush. So, how do you solve that problem? Throw red meat to the Republican base while simultaneously trolling the left.”
Ten months later, after an even more horrific terror attack in Paris, we learned that in fact some of the perpetrators had emerged from exactly the no-go zones whose existence Jindal’s detractors had denied in January. When investigators followed the terrorists’ trail to Brussels, they raided homes in the Molenbeek neighborhood, which the New York Times describes as “working class.” That’s Times-speak for non-working class and, of course, Muslim. The Times tweeted: “Belgian Minister Says Government Lacks Control Over Neighborhood Linked to Terror Plots.” That’s as good a definition as any for a “no-go zone.” Days later, French police laid siege to an apartment in Saint Denis, a heavily Muslim suburb of Paris known for its high crime and wide availability of guns. Saint Denis is by all accounts a no-go zone
But don’t worry—there’s no such thing as a no-go zone. Never has been, never will be.
This habit of denying the existence of very real threats seems to be a distinguishing characteristic of the Left. Even more enigmatic is the fact that they simultaneously believe in a lot of things that happen to be pure fiction. Until recently I considered liberals’ primary malfeasance to be in stirring up hysteria through the fabrication of incidents that never happened. Rape hoaxes are a favorite. These are the people who brought us the Rolling Stone rape hoax—not to mention the Lena Dunham rape hoax, the Duke lacrosse team rape hoax, the mattress girl rape hoax, and the Tawana Brawley rape hoax. Liberals recently experienced a mass hallucination at the University of Missouri, claiming that the KKK was roaming the campus. Some went so far as to claim that the Klansmen were receiving police protection as they tossed bricks through dormitory windows. None of this actually happened. Liberals stage hate crimes, invent appalling statistics, and plant racist signs at Tea Party rallies. They subscribe to all sorts of unproven and unprovable theories such as the “gay” gene. They inhabit a world of utter fakeness—and that’s just the way they like it.
This delusional coin of theirs has two sides. On the one hand liberals embrace lies as truth, while on the other they reject truth as lies. Nor is it enough to simply deny the existence of very real things; they have to defame others, like Bobby Jindal, who refuse to play along. It didn’t suffice to say that he was wrong about no-go zones in Europe—on which he wasn’t wrong, by the way—they had to accuse him of far worse. The Washington Post, via Chris Cillizza, all but accused him of lying and racist demagoguery. MSNBC guest and Muslim “human rights” lawyer Arsalan Iftikhar said that Jindal “might be trying to scrub some of the brown off his skin.” So Jindal’s a race traitor too.
Based on my vast experience observing liberals in their natural habitat, I have concluded that nothing really exists unless they say it does. They have to allow things to exist, and if permission is not granted then the thing is not a thing. It’s a non-entity. I have compiled a list of a few things that liberals refuse to allow to exist.
False rape accusers
Implicit in feminist rape ideology is the assumption that “women don’t lie.” This is the line liberals stick to whenever the accused rapist is not named Bill Clinton. That’s why no one is allowed to doubt the accuser’s story until it’s proven false, which of course requires a skeptical review, which is what we’re not allowed to do. Wendy Murphy, professor at the New England School of Law, even remarked, in regard to the Duke lacrosse case: “I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth.” No, Professor Murphy, your own statistics mean nothing. They’re not even statistics—it’s all just your uninformed worldview.
Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
Some eleven years after the invasion of Iraq, the New York Times finally got around to publishing a story about the five thousand chemical munitions discovered since 2003. Yet the myth of “no WMD” persists to the present day. Even the author of the Times article, CJ Chivers, tried to perpetuate the falsehood that the weapons don’t count because they were left over from the 1980s and were thus not the weapons used to justify the war. He must have been expecting his readers not to read UN Resolution 1441, which laid out in explicit detail a key point in Congress’s rationale for the war. It essentially demanded that Saddam account for all WMD known to be in his possession at the time of his 1991 surrender, which would of course include 1980s weapons. In 2002, after years of blocking and deceiving weapons inspectors, Saddam had one final chance to account for those pre-Desert Storm era weapons. He did not. And we’re supposed to believe that he had nothing to hide? We now know that he had at least five thousand chemical munitions, probably many more. Last time I checked, five thousand is a quantity greater than zero.
“There’s no such thing as ‘black-on-black’ crime,” wrote the Daily Beast’s Jamelle Bouie in 2013. Sure, he admits that “from 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders” but he warns us not to jump to conclusions. Blacks, you see, only kill other blacks because of proximity. He points out that 86% of white murder victims were killed by other whites. His bizarre conclusion is that the mere existence of white-on-white crime disproves black-on-black crime. What about the fact that there seems to be a lot more of the black-on-black variety, especially in proportion to their 13% share of the population? He deflects that argument by pointing out that violent crime rates are falling among blacks—just as they are among the general population. That’s true, though it only means that today’s blacks are less violent than yesterday’s blacks, not that violence isn’t a disproportionate problem among blacks as compared to other races.
Hillary Clinton’s expressed the boilerplate liberal explanation for Islamic terrorism in a recent speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism,” she said. Her reasoning is pretty standard—Islam is a religion of peace so anyone who does violence in the name of Islam is by definition not a true Muslim. That’s a convenient rhetorical device—Muslims can’t be terrorists because terrorists can’t be Muslims. Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, her definition of a Muslim excludes even Mohammad himself who was a seventh-century desert warlord and therefore not very peaceful. Not surprisingly, Islam calls for apostates to be put to death. A recent opinion poll found that large majorities of Muslims from Egypt to Afghanistan believe that the death penalty is appropriate for people who leave the faith. Maybe Hillary can Koran-splain to the imposters that they’ve got Islam all wrong.
Liberals are like Ben Kenobi employing Jedi mind tricks to convince the rest of us that, “These are not the drones you’re looking for.” With a wave of the hand they can make people disbelieve their very eyes. How a person can believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Matthew Shepard was killed for his sexuality is truly astounding, though not nearly as astounding as the idea that these people deny the very existence of ex-gays! They’ve invented this thing called the War on Women™, but vehemently deny that there’s any such thing as a war on Christmas. They deny the existence of voter fraud, non-citizens on the welfare rolls, and disease-carrying illegal aliens. How on earth could one group of people be so out of touch with reality? That’s liberals for you.