What to do after the next Islamic terror attack: a RedStateVT Primer

Inevitably there will be another jihadist-inspired attack on American soil. Our mailbox here at the RedStateVT command post has been flooded with questions from worried readers wondering how they should respond in the aftermath. One reader summarizes the concerns as follows: "I am worried that I will come to fear Muslims and be labeled a hater." Our editors have prepared the following guide to aid in just these circumstances.

After the incident:

1) Loudly proclaim that it was probably a case of work-place violence and demand tougher gun control laws. If this is subsequently disproved, blame right-wing militias and demand tougher gun control laws. If it is neither work-place violence nor a right-wing militia, demand tougher gun control laws.

2) Immediately call for increased immigration from Muslim countries.

3) Remind everyone that Islam is "the religion of peace."

4) Publicly state your concerns that this will lead to a backlash against Muslims.

5) Visit a mosque (recommended). 

Readers who follow these simple steps are likely to survive the aftermath of the next attack and, importantly, avoid being labeled anti-Muslim.


Your Tax Dollars at Work
How Kricket Nimmons Seized the Transgender Moment: Kricket Nimmons became one of the first New Yorkers to undergo gender reassignment surgery paid for by Medicaid. (New York Times headline, 12/12/2015)

A moment of silence, please, as we contemplate this historic moment. There is now NOTHING that Liberals can conjure up that society will not be forced to pay for. Abortion, endless intergenerational welfare and food stamps, free meals and day care for kids, birth control, weight loss surgery, you name it. And no opt out for you haters!

Here is one minor concern, though. Suppose that Kricket realizes at some point down the road that he/she made a mistake. Are we on the hook for paying for the reversal surgery as well? Just wondering....


Devil in the Details
But as details of the plan emerged, some developing nations expressed consternation. Poorer countries had pushed for a legally binding provision requiring that rich countries appropriate a minimum of $100 billion a year to help them mitigate and adapt to the ravages of climate change. (New York Times, 12/12/2015)

And therein we have the essence of what the climate warming/cooling/chaos argument is all about. Wealth transfer to poor countries. That and nothing more.


Notional
Echoes of that notion reverberated on the campaign trail and at the events of candidates who condemned Mr. Trump’s harsh language. (New York Times, 12/12/2015)

The New York Times and Liberal media do not even wait anymore to rewrite history. They rewrite events as they happen. "Mr. Trump's harsh language?" Trump called for 'a temporary halt to Muslim immigration until we can figure out what is going on.' This is harsh language according to thin-skinned Liberals. Perhaps Trump should have said instead: 'We should still allow Muslims to flood America, but temporarily reduce the publicly funded benefits that we give them.'