In Garland, Texas last week, two followers of Islam—an ideology that demands complete submission in mind and body by its followers, and murder of everyone else—tried to murder hundreds of attendees of a contest to draw cartoons of Muhammad, the false prophet—as all prophets are false—whose characterization by Islam is itself a cartoon.

The two Islamic savages shot a security guard in the foot; but, because this event occurred in Texas and not France, a police officer shot and killed the two radical Muslims before they could murder. Former Navy SEAL Rob O’Neill, the man who shot Osama bin Laden, eloquently summarized this confrontation of good vs. evil;

This is a prime example of the difference between a gun-free zone and Texas. They showed up at Charlie Hebdo, it was a massacre. If these two guys would have gotten into that building, it would have been Charlie Hebdo times ten. But fortunately, these guys showed up because they were offended by something protected by the First Amendment, and they were quickly introduced to the Second Amendment.

The winner of the ‘Draw Muhammad’ contest was Bosch Fawstin, who displays his principled and courageous stand for freedom in this interview. If only we had a President with this intellectual clarity and courage. Such a President would draw a cartoon of Muhammad in the White House on national television, to stand with every American who asserts his right to free speech.

Here is the very admirable winning cartoon by Fawstin:

Many websites & TV shows aren't showing my prize-winning Mohammad cartoon in their reports. Help fix that by sharing. pic.twitter.com/ghegMe8i2h

— Bosch Fawstin (@BoschFawstin) May 6, 2015

Now we come to the story about the story: Most of the commentary by mainstream, Leftist press has been to criticize Pamela Geller, the organizer of the contest! That is, most of the mainstream Leftist press has defended the ideology of Islam and condemned the pro-freedom, pro-judgment ideology that condemns Islam. In a column worth reading in full, Mark Steyn observed,

The Washington Post offered the celebrated headline “Event Organizer Offers No Apology After Thwarted Attack In Texas“, while the Associated Press went with “Pamela Geller says she has no regrets about Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest that ended in 2 deaths“. The media “narrative” of the last week is that some Zionist temptress was walking down the street in Garland in a too short skirt and hoisted it to reveal her Mohammed thong – oops, my apologies, her Prophet Mohammed thong (PBUH [peace be upon him]) – and thereby inflamed two otherwise law-abiding ISIS supporters peacefully minding their own business.

See also this interview of Pamela Geller, who defends freedom, by a CNN anchor who defends Islam.

Even commentators on Fox News, such as the populist Bill O’Reilly, criticized the victims of the attack. But Fox News’s Megyn Kelly, along with her interview guest Eugene Volokh, took a stand for freedom after showing clips of mainstream journalists who did not.

This matter of the Draw Muhammad contest is another recent instance of the mainstream political Left siding with evil over good, with the enemies of civilization over civilization itself. Last summer, the Left sided with Hamas over Israel. Recently, as this example illustrates, the Left sided with the rioters in Baltimore over civilized Americans.

The stand by the Left in this new case is, in one important respect, not as bad as in the previous cases. The Left is not siding with the would-be murderers in Garland. Instead, the Left is drawing a distinction between the would-be murderers and most Muslims. Then the Left is siding with Muslims over pro-Americans who condemn Islam as such. Indeed, the Left condemns and ridicules the pro-Americans for being blind to such an obvious distinction.

Observe this very distinction in the following passage by the Editorial Board of The New York Times:

Those two men were would-be murderers. But their thwarted attack, or the murderous rampage of the Charlie Hebdo killers, or even the greater threat posed by the barbaric killers of the Islamic State or Al Qaeda, cannot justify blatantly Islamophobic provocations like the Garland event. These can serve only to exacerbate tensions and to give extremists more fuel.

Some of those who draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad may earnestly believe that they are striking a blow for freedom of expression, though it is hard to see how that goal is advanced by inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.

Before addressing this distinction between would-be murderers and “millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism,” I must address an issue in the first paragraph quoted above by unpacking the argument presented. The Times is claiming that Pamela Geller gives “extremists,” that is, more would-be killers, “more fuel.” The Times is also claiming that Pamela Geller is provoking some people. Which people is Geller provoking, and what is she provoking these people to do? Is she provoking, merely through non-violent drawings, “devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism” to commit acts of terrorism? If so, then The Times is claiming a contradiction, because such “devout Muslims” are not “devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism.” Alternatively, is The Times claiming that Pamela Geller is provoking Muslims who are already would-be murderers? But such Muslims believe that Islam calls on them to murder those who do not submit to the rules made by Islam. That is, such Muslims believe precisely what Pamela Geller says they believe. Condemning Pamela Geller for provoking such Muslims, and giving them “more fuel,” would be condemning her merely for defying evil. It would be like saying, “Pamela Geller is bad for drawing cartoons of Hitler, because Hitler does not want her to do that.”

Thus The Times is making an absurd argument against Pamela Geller by failing to understand the very distinction it is making between would-be murderers and rights-respecting Muslims. The Times is in effect claiming that by implying that all Muslims are as ‘good’ as the murderous Muslims, in the eyes of the murderous Muslims, Pamela Geller is causing the murderous Muslims to commit murder.

But there is indeed a difference between murderous Muslims and rights-respecting Muslims. Let us understand that difference more clearly than The Times and other Leftists do.

The difference is that the rights-respecting Muslims are not as consistent in their commitment to Islam.

The ideology of Islam, as set down in the Koran and other ‘sacred’ texts, is pure evil. Anyone who doubts that should just read the texts, or as much as he can stomach. These texts call for total and absolute renunciation of all human values including life itself, to be replaced by total submission to and blind belief in absurdity including the willingness to kill anyone who does not submit and believe.

The would-be murderers—the radicals, that is, the ones who understand Islam to the root—are fully on board with this agenda. Other Muslims are on board to varying degrees. Some Muslims might not go around murdering people, but they might tolerate murder committed by others. Or they might tolerate murder only in cases of a husband murdering his own wife and children, or they might believe that they own their wife; or they might be committed to following the orders of their imam, whatever he orders; and so on. The more Muslim they are, the less they respect rights. The more Muslim they are, the more evil they are.

Therefore, it is right to condemn Islam as such. By condemning those who condemn Islam as such, the Left is again on the side of evil.

Leftists see some Muslims who commit murder, and other Muslims who seems to be civilized, and conclude that it must not be Islam that makes the murderers commit murder. The better Leftists merely fail to grasp that belief in a doctrine, such as Islam, can exist in varying degrees. The more radical Leftists deny that ideology—if such a thing as ideology even exists—can have anything at all to do with human action.

To a radical Leftist, ideas—such as a belief in Islam—could never be the cause of action; to a radical Leftist, ideas are at most a mere rationalization after the fact for acts whose cause lies elsewhere. To a radical Leftist, the cause of human action is economic, or social, or anything but ideas formed volitionally by the individual who takes the action.

Leftism, like belief in Islam, comes in degrees. Pure Leftism—pure denial of individual ideas and reason, and pure sacrifice of the individual to the group—is pure evil.

If a Leftist were to acknowledge that murderers in the name of Islam are the most consistent Muslims, he would be taking a giant step toward acknowledging that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were the most consistent Leftists.

But no Leftist can be fully consistent. From Hegel to Marx to Alinsky, the Left prides itself on brags about being self-contradictory. Though they deny the causal role or even the very existence of ideology, Leftists nevertheless sometimes admit to having an ideology, as everyone has an ideology. Leftist ideology is much more aligned with Islam than with the ideology underlying America. Both Leftism and Islam call for the submission of individual thought and the sacrifice of individual life to a greater authority and greater purpose; both Leftism and Islam condemn the selfish individualism of America. Indeed, the United States of America is the least Leftist and least Muslim nation in the history of mankind. So long as Leftists choose to stick with Leftism, they will have to side with adherents to the Koran over adherents to the Constitution of the United States; they will have to work for “Death to America.”

The Left always takes the side of evil because the Left is the side of evil.