That is in essence what Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post wrote in a recent article about how the USA is dealing – or not – with radical Islamism.
Considering President Obama’s comments from the Oval Office post-terror attack on our soil, her piece is most poignant. But first, let’s just take a little look-see at what Obama had to say about terrorism in our country. From the Daily Caller:
[…] President Barack Obama called gun control “a matter of national security” in his Sunday address in the wake of the San Bernardino terrorist attack.
Obama said he wants Congress to “make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino.”
Speaking in only the third Oval Office address of his presidency, Obama insisted, “no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun.”
“What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? This is a matter of national security,” Obama claimed. […] (Click here to read the rest.)
Yep – stricter gun control is exactly what will keep radical Islamic terrorists from attacking us here.
This failure of logic is just staggering, as is Obama’s insistence to basically keep doing what he is doing, which is clearly not doing enough. Yep – that is Obama’s big plan. Make it harder for US Citizens to arm ourselves, continue the same-o, same-o, and don’t blame Muslims. There ya have it.
Hence the importance of articles like Caroline Glick’s. From the Jerusalem Post:
How much lower will America sink before it regains its senses? Wednesday, two Muslims walked into a Christmas party at a community service center in San Bernardino, California where one worked. They were wearing body armor and video cameras and carrying automatic rifles, pipe bombs and pistols. They opened fire, killed 14, and wounded 17.
The murderers, Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik were killed by police.
Speaking to the Daily News, Farook’s father said his son, “was very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim.”
Farook’s neighbor told the paper that over the past two years, Farook exchanged his Western dress for Islamic gowns and grew a beard.
These data points lead naturally to the conclusion that Farook and his wife were jihadists who killed in order to kill in the name of Islam.
But in America of December 2015, natural conclusions are considered irresponsible, at best.
In an interview with CNN following the shooting, US President Barack Obama said the massacre demonstrates that the US needs stricter gun laws. As for the motives of the shooters, Obama shrugged. “We don’t yet know the motives of the shooters,” he insisted.
In other words, while ignoring what in all likelihood drove Farooq and his wife to murder innocent people, Obama laid responsibility for the carnage at the feet of his political opponents who reject his demands for stricter limitations on gun ownership.
Here is the place to note that California has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the US.
According to the victims, Farook and his partners were able to reload their weapons and shoot without interruption for several minutes until the police arrived because there was no one to stop them.
Precisely. These people were radicalized, no doubt about it. They were becoming more and more so. If the change in dress and behavior didn’t indicate it, the PIPE BOMBS and intent to slaughter sure should have.
Glick highlights another major problem with our leaders’ resistance in naming this what it is, radical Islamic terrorism, one I have highlighted before, too. That would be the place of CAIR in this country, their quick response, and just who it was who gave that response. I can’t include all of his terrorist connections here, but this should give you an idea. From the Jerusalem Post:
[…] Two other speakers at the event were Hussam Auyloush, CAIR’s regional executive director and Muzammil Siddiqi, the director of the Islamic Society of Orange County.
Siddiqi is a known jihadist sympathizer. His close ties to jihadists have been a matter of public record since 2000.
In October 2000, Siddiqi spoke at an anti-Israel rally in Lafayette Park in Washington, DC. There he warned the American people that they must abandon their support for Israel lest “the wrath of God” be unleashed against them.
According to a profile of Siddiqi compiled by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, (IPT) in the late 1990s Siddiqi gave a speech extolling jihad and foreseeing Israel’s replacement with an Islamic state.
Among other things, Siddiqi said, “In order to gain the honor, jihad is the path, jihad is the way to receive the honor.”
Siddiqi converted Osama bin Laden’s senior aide, American jihadist Adam Gadahn. Gadahn converted to Islam at the Islamic Center of Orange County in 1995. According to a 2007 New Yorker profile, Siddiqi employed Gadahn at the Center in the years following his conversion. It was during this period that Gadahn was radicalized. He then went to Pakistan and joined al Qaida.
During the 1990s, Siddiqi served as the president of the Islamic Society of North America, a known Muslim Brotherhood front group. In 2007, ISNA was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holyland terror financing trial.
Despite all of his connections to jihadists, US authorities insist that Siddiqi is a legitimate voice. In 2007 Stephen Tidwell, then assistant director of the FBI division in Los Angeles upheld Siddiqi as a moderate.
Speaking to the IPT, Tidwell said, “We have a very strong relationship with Dr. Siddiqi.” […] (Click here to read the rest.)
That encapsulates the problem right there: those tasked with protecting us see no problem with a man like Siddiqi who has vast, numerous, connections to terrorism and who has spoken out in support of waging jihad.
No doubt, that mindset is coming down from the top given Obama’s refusal to call radical Islam radical Islam. That failure was repeated again in Obama’s Oval Office speech Sunday night. Once again, it is the fault of the USA that we got attacked, not the fault of those terrorists attacking us.
That is some mindset, is it not? And it is dangerous for this country, no doubt about it. It will continue to leave us vulnerable to those who wish to destroy us.
And speaking of those who have wanted to destroy us, it is important to remember that this is the day we were attacked at Pearl Harbor:
May we never forget…
This is an Open Thread.