The thin skinned, petulant POTUS!. m/r
It makes a difference between life and death.
June 15, 2016
Reprinted from Breitbart.com.
Obama is angry. Not at the terrorists,
mind you, but at Donald Trump and those who criticize him for calling
our enemies “extremists” (like the Sandy Hook and Aurora shooters)
instead of “radical Islamic terrorists,” which is what they are.
“Radical Islamic terrorist” is not a strategy, says the president. But
it is the necessary step in creating one. Obama wants to treat our
enemies as individual criminals, lone wolves and nut jobs. Since he is
the commander-in-chief he defines the policy parameters under which our
military and intelligence agencies operate. The Orlando murderer was
interviewed by the FBI, which discovered his associations with radical
Islamic terrorists, and jihadist sympathies, but dropped him off the
radar, because the FBI was looking for crimes which he hadn’t (yet)
committed. If, on the other hand, the FBI had been looking for soldiers
in a war conducted by radical Islamic terrorists, they would have kept
him on the radar and extended their investigation until maybe they would
have saved 50 innocent lives.
The Achilles heel of democratic
societies is also their foundation – the principle of tolerance we
extend even to those who want to destroy us.
[1]
It is therefore also a central strategy of the Islamists to take
advantage of this vulnerability. Using defamatory expressions like
“bigotry” and “Islamophobia,” they and what Lenin called the “useful
idiots” on our side stigmatize those who attempt to draw attention to
the political nature of their movement, its imperialistic ambitions, its
terroristic methods, its oppression of women, its hostility to other
creeds, and its virulent Jew-hatred. To point out these elements of
Islamism is to persecute Muslims. By casting themselves as victims, the
Islamists have succeeded to a remarkable extent in censoring and
marginalizing their critics. Until Donald Trump came along.
But until now, the Islamists’ success has been impressive. It is most
striking in the self-censorship that agencies of the American government
have imposed on themselves, and on the institutional guides for
America’s first responders to the threat they pose. The
9/11 Commission Report
on the Islamic attacks on New York and Washington in September 2001
referred to “Islam” 322 times, used the word “Muslim” 145 times, and “
jihad”
(holy war) 126 times. But even after those attacks, and even though
Osama bin Laden had declared his mission to be a religious war against
“the Jews and Crusaders,” the Bush administration designated its
response merely as a “War on Terror” without any reference to Islam.
This omission was designed to avoid offending Muslims who did not
support the
jihad or giving ammunition to Democrats who
insisted on treating acts of Islamic terror as crimes by individual
“extremists.” By using the neutered term “terror” to describe the
Islamist threat, the administration obscured not only the religious
nature of the war that had been declared on us, but the fact that the
Islamists did not confine their tactics to military strikes and also
pursued their goals through sophisticated political movements
specifically designed to infiltrate societies they regarded as
“infidel,” and subvert them.
[2]
--go to links-
