Many times I ponder if the uber-hypocrisy of progressive politicians and pundits starting from Obama downwards is a result of ignorance, blind ideology, or simply an icy way to manipulate the voters/listeners.

The refugee issue which, following the Paris atrocity, has taken front and center is ripe with hypocrisy on so many levels:

  1. When discussing the actual murders in Paris all these liberal/progressive speakers (again, starting from the president on down) are full of politically correct speech. It is terrible; we are all French; etc. etc. However, the president, as an example, is completely flat toned when talking about it; cool, collected, no passion . . . nothing. Indeed, it is as if it is an irritant to him. It is very noticeable and even the supplicant media had to comment on his intonation. But when it comes to attacking Republicans on their put-a-hold-on-refugees stance, he is full of passion. It is un-American, he declares with rising voice, full of anger and passion. The same goes to many liberal media pundits who bemoan the fate of the poor women and children etc. etc. Why are their fates more deserving of passion than those of the hundreds who died over the last two weeks in ISIS-spurred terror attacks?
  2. There are 10,000,000—I repeat, TEN million—displaced people in Syria. About 3-4,000,000 of those have found refuge in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. How, pray tell, would the fate of 10,000—or even 50,000—refugees coming in to the US change the situation? How can these US politicians thump on their chests and say we are humane, we are compassionate, we are generous, we are doing our part by taking 10,000 out of 4,000,000? Really? The US GDP is about 25% of the world’s GDP. How about allowing 15% of the refugees entry? How about taking 1,000,000 in? Are you willing to do that? If not, then shut the…up. Taking in 10,000, or even 50,000, refugees does not give you the right to start behaving as if you are holier than thou.
  3. To all those pundits that rue the day for these poor women and children who are being bombed all the time and are running for their lives: stop. That is simply not the case. The vast, vast majority of the people streaming now into Europe, and all of those who will come to the US, are coming from the refugee camps in Turkey and Lebanon—NOT directly from the atrocities in Syria. So do not try to create the urgency that is not there. There is NOTHING wrong in saying, “Let’s stop that migration for now. Let’s spend 10 times more money to help them settle down in reasonable conditions in the refugee camps.”
  4. But the most jarring of all is, of course, Obama. He who led the US to abdicate its role in the world by allowing this crisis to occur. Do not give me crocodile tears now about the fate of 10,000 people when you could have—and should have—prevented the horrific fate of 10,000,000 people from occurring in the first place. No absolution here.

The real solution is to sort out the situation in Syria—that is moral; that is compassionate. It also happens to be good politics and in the US interest.

But that is too much to ask of hypocritical politicians and ignorant media.

And, of course, too much to expect from the “Hypocrite in Chief.”