Yet when a group of white militiamen in Burns, Oregon commandeered a building in protest of government overreach, they quickly changed the sound of their tune.
CNN National Security Analyst labeled the militiamen “domestic terrorists,” while New York magazine political commentator Jonathan Chait tweeted that he would like to see the militiamen gunned down.
Why though is there such a difference in response?
The reason has everything to do with how we conservatives respond to radical Islamic terrorism. We typically react by making fair and legitimate arguments in favor of surveying mosques and temporarily closing the border, among other things.
Canada Free Press contributor Dan Calabrese explained that we do this because we tire of these “random bloody attacks” that “keep happening on the international scene” over and over again.
Liberals, however, who as we know are obsessed with identity politics, assume our sensible solutions are driven by our alleged bigotry toward “people with olive skin, or people who are not Christians.”
The left thinks we’re talking about Islam because we don’t like people with olive skin, or people who are not Christians. So they’re responding in what they think is an in-kind manner by alerting on violence wherever they can find it by white Christian men, because that’s who they don’t like.
This applies with the whole “Black Lives Matter” movement as well. We conservatives rightfully oppose it because we know for a fact that its core thesis — that Mike Brown held up his hands and yelled “don’t shoot” — is a complete and utter fabrication. But again, liberals assume our opposition is based on racism.
The immense irony is that the only ones truly acting in a racist way are liberals themselves, who always, always, always choose to respond to crises based not on facts, not on logic and not on reason — but based instead on the race of the perpetrators!
And well, if that ain’t the definition of racism, then I don’t know what is!