Why the Administration is so Against Linking the California Attacks to the Islamic State

Share


There’s a stark difference in the way that liberals like Attorney General Loretta Lynch and conservatives think when it comes to stopping terrorism and ending the unholy rise of the Islamic State. For conservatives, it’s a matter of recognizing the enemy and doing something about it. For Lynch, it’s all about being cautious, halting hate-speech, and running marathons.

Yes, this is a marathon. We’re not going to solve this problem overnight. However, to run a race you have to start running and the Obama administration seems bent on making sure that this is a fight against gun-carrying Americans rather than a fight against a group of people who want nothing more than to kill us.

Here’s what Lynch said this morning:

“We do see these encouragements for trouble individuals to pick up a gun and act out of this ideology. Again, not sure which one they picked in this case, despite the media accounts,” Lynch said in an interview on NBC’s “Meet The Press.”

I could almost buy into her caution if we were dealing with an obscure threat such as North Korean rhetoric or Iranian saber-rattling, but with the Islamic State the course has already been set. They have directly killed Americans. They have threatened all Americans. They have encouraged attacks against Americans. This is a no-brainer. To say that we aren’t sure what motivated the San Bernardino terrorists to take 14 lives last week is like saying we weren’t sure what motivated the 9/11 attacks.

They hate us. In this case, “they” is specifically the Islamic State and “us” is Americans. Keep in mind that this isn’t just about Christian Americans or Jewish Americans. This is about all Americans. If there are Muslim casualties among the victims in a terrorist attack against the United States, the terrorists are not going to be chastised. We are not dealing with an organization or a nation that operates within reason. They have no desire to get anything from us. They have no demands. They want us to be either under their control or dead. That’s it.

Keep in mind that we’re not talking about a trial. Lynch doesn’t need to make a case against the Islamic State. She doesn’t need to build a case against the terrorists. While it’s imprudent to jump to conclusions when there is ambiguity of cause, this isn’t one of those situations. It cannot be stressed enough that they have already killed Americans. They have already declared war against us. One way or another, the hateful narrative that the Islamic State espouses was influential in the attacks last week.

Let’s Be Clear

If there is any doubt about whether or not the Obama administration believes that the Islamic State was involved in the attacks, wipe that thought away immediately. They know for certain that the terrorists were influenced at the very least and potentially under orders from the Islamic State. They also know that there are others who can/will emerge with the same basic plans to kill Americans. That is 100% certain. They know.

The reason that they do not want that narrative to be played out in the media or the minds of Americans is because they see an opportunity here to promote their agenda of further gun control. That is all there is to it. President Obama must pass some sort of gun control before his term ends whether it’s through legislation or his famous executive orders. He needs American people to support his agenda.

If there are terrorists lurking about, there will be less sympathy for gun control. If the narrative shifts towards mass shootings and access to weapons rather than the Islamic State, then the administration can keep people focused on the dangers of guns. That’s the reason that they’re all out there right now trying to convince people that this is a gun control issue and not a terrorism issue.

We will see the President tonight go through his proposal and speaking with big promises about his duty to rid the country of guns that kill people. He will talk less about terrorists that we need to defend against and he will turn it into a case that the terrorists are the ones who benefit the most from lax gun laws.

The spin is just beginning, but do not be deceived. The administration isn’t fighting against terrorists. They’re fighting against gun laws. That narrative will be the focus of everything they discuss going forward.

Soshable

Share

Three Words that Do NOT Represent Bigotry or Stereotyping: Radical. Islamic. Terrorists.

Share


The willingness to admit that there is such a thing as radical Islamic terrorists is not a condemnation of Muslims. However, the unwillingness to even utter the words “radical Islamic terrorists” is a betrayal of reality and demonstrates an agenda that is more politically driven than security driven for the Democrats.

There is zero doubt that President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders are aware that the vast majority of terrorists around the world are Muslims who have been radicalized to embrace the most heinous tenets of the Koran. This is factual and must be addressed as what it is. The fear that we will somehow regress to World War II mentalities of putting Japanese Americans in holding camps is ludicrous. In fact, addressing the situation for what it is represents an opportunity for conscientious Muslim Americans to embrace their patriotic duty to the country to report those of their faith who have potentially been radicalized.

As a Christian, I can look at Westboro Baptist Church and declare that they are radical Christian bigots. My shared faith with them does not give them a pass in my books to spread hate or espouse unpatriotic ideas. I wish that the Obama administration would give Muslim Americans the same opportunity to express the outrage that many of them feel over tragedies like the one that happened in San Bernardino.

It is political correctness that the enemy sees as our greatest weakness. They attack through that portal every opportunity they can get. They use it to degrade our values in a way that is much more effective than the President’s plan to degrade the Islamic State on the battle ground.

For the Democrats, they have to continue to bank on the idea that they can win the Muslim vote in November by not attaching their religion to the radical concepts associated with the minority of Muslims who have been radicalized. They are unwilling to confront the enemy as what it is and while that will likely win them some votes, it won’t help the United States win this war.

For those who believe we are not at war, remember that war is present even if only one side declares it. We are at war whether the President admits it or not. We are at war with the Islamic State directly who threatens our allies and assets in the Middle East. We are at war with those who will infiltrate the country through refugees. We are at war with those who are already here and making plans for lone wolf attacks or even coordinated attacks similar to what happened in Paris.

This is not about bigotry or stereotyping. It’s about prudence. Americans in general are not against Muslims in general and using the word “Islamic” in a phrase will not change this. The American people do not need to liberal PC police to try to change our perspectives. Are there bigots who are against all Muslims? Yes. Are there more who view this through the proper lens that there are those out there who have been radicalized and would do us harm? Absolutely. The use of the phrase will not change either group’s mind in one direction or the other.

We are at war, period. Allowing political correctness to prevent us from naming the enemy is unfair to patriotic Muslim Americans and insane as a political stance for the country. We need a wartime President.

Soshable

Share