Paris Under Siege 

In the wake of this morning's terrorist attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, Paris looks like a city under siege. Soldiers armed with assault rifles are patrolling streets, subway stations, houses of worship and major tourist attractions like the Eiffel Tower. And with good reason: At the time of this writing, the gunmen still remain at large.

French authorities reportedly know who the attackers are. They are looking for three individuals between the ages of 34 and 18. Two are believed to be brothers who returned from Syria last year.

The jihadists who carried out this attack clearly had training and knew what they were doing. According to one report, "The attack took place during the publication's weekly editorial meeting, meaning all the journalists would have been present," and they moved with "military-style techniques." The attackers reportedly said they were from Al Qaeda. It has also been reported that they spoke perfect unaccented French. 

France's socialist President Francois Hollande denounced the shootings as a "barbaric attack against France and against journalists." It is that and much more. These terrorists were there to fight, to wage jihad in the heart of France. As I noted yesterday, radical Islam is at war with the West. How will the West respond? 

It's unlikely Hollande will take up the cause of preserving French culture as Nicolas Sarkozy did. In fact, Hollande likely owes his election to France's Muslim population. Various polls showed that French Muslims voted overwhelmingly -- as much as 93% -- for the left-wing Hollande.

Time and again we've seen this truly bizarre alliance between the radical left and radical Islam. Little unites them -- except their disdain for Judeo-Christian civilization.

A Message To The Media 

We've written at length about how the left and our politically correct media often suffer crises of moral courage. When it comes to radical Islam, the left and its media allies frequently avoid saying who the enemy is and why it does what it does. 

There is video of the gunmen saying, "We avenged the Prophet Muhammad! We killed Charlie Hebdo!" Yet Howard Dean refuses to call them Muslims. 

Media commentator Howard Kurtz raises a real concern today, writing that the attack will undoubtedly do what it was partially intended to do -- even further intimidate the media from speaking the truth about radical Islam. That would be terrible if it actually happens. 

My initial reaction was to hope that today's atrocity would wake up the media. But as Kurtz suggests it will likely subdue their journalistic impulses even more. In fact, it appears to be happening already.

In their coverage today, several media outlets have surrendered to the Islamists by blurring the very images that cost 10 French journalists their lives. 

Will The GOP Fold Or Fight? 

With Republicans now in control of Congress, we are hearing a lot of rhetoric from the media about what Republicans must do to earn the trust of the American people. Even some Republicans are falling for this. 

The meaning of the 2014 election, as Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) claimed, is that voters really want Republicans to cooperate with President Obama. If that's the case, we're off to a really bad start. (See next item.) 

Others like Jeb Bush and defeated former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor say the party should ignore the small, but vocal minority of conservatives who just want to fight about everything. Usually that means they should fold and stop fighting on issues like Obamacare, traditional marriage, the sanctity of life and illegal immigration. 

On the issue of illegal immigration, which House Republicans may address next week, there is evidence that the "small, angry crowd" might in fact be a lot bigger than the establishment chooses to admit. Consider these finding from a recent poll of registered Republicans: 
 

• 82% of Republicans oppose President Obama's executive amnesty for illegal immigrants. Just 14% of Republicans support it. 
• 71% of Republicans want Congress to pass laws stopping Obama's amnesty, including cutting off funding for it.
• Here's the kicker: 84% of Republicans would be less likely to support the reelection of their representative if he or she voted to allow the use of taxpayer money to implement Obama's amnesty. 

  Obama Issues Veto Threats 

  Remember how conciliatory Obama was the day after the November election, a second shellacking for the president and his party? Don't you recall how he pledged to work with congressional Republicans and look for common ground? Of course not -- because he didn't do that. He talked about the Americans who didn't vote and then doubled down on his unpopular amnesty plans.

  Well, he did it again yesterday. Far from reaching out, Obama issued two veto threats just as the new Republican majorities in the House and Senate were sworn into office. 

  A bi-partisan coalition of senators introduced legislation yesterday to approve the construction of the Keystone pipeline. With six Democrat co-sponsors, the bill has a filibuster-proof majority of support in the Senate. Obama vowed to veto it. 

  By the way, the president also warned during an interview with The Detroit News that cheap gas prices won't last long. He may well be right. But that is argument for doing more -- not less -- to develop our own resources and those of our friendly neighbor to the north. So sign the darn bill! 

  Republicans also want to correct one of the biggest contradictions and job-killing aspects of Obamacare -- its 30-hour definition of a full-time employee. That definition has caused hundreds of private and public sector employers to slash hours. That translates into lost wages, less consumer spending and lost revenues for state and local governments. 

  But Obama won't budge, and he vowed to veto that bill too. It seems like efforts to compromise and find common ground are getting off to a bad start. 

  Thank You 

  Thank you, my friends, for the hundreds and hundreds of messages expressing your condolences and offers of prayers on the passing of Carol's mom, Jean Hoke. We can't possible respond to each one, but we are deeply touched by the outpouring of sympathy. Thank you.