UI – Part 393 – As for Islam, Words do Matter

How does President Obama actually believe references to Islam when voiced by a terrorist Islamist in action don’t matter?  He called the application of the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ a ‘distraction.’  He continues to refuse to use ‘radical Islam’ or ‘Islamic, Islamist, Terrorism.’   Yet he uses his pulpit to proclaim words are not significant.  He ignores the terrorist referring to his source of inspiration being Islam and ISIS for the acts they commit.  He blames guns.  Much of the liberal media goes along with Obama, the New York Times especially.  The NYT suggested the Orlando Islamic terrorist actions were “a vicious homophobia,” a failure to properly identify a person prone to domestic violence, a “radical strain” of Islam (not Islam itself), and, of course, guns.  Hillary Clinton is a clone of Obama’s logic.

The Appeaser-in-Chief

More one to appease than to call a spade a spade Obama continues to believe, some feel a matter of self-denial, his choice of words matter when dealing with Muslim nations. He believes he is more welcomed since he appears sympathetic to Islam when not using words he considers they might believe are offensive.  He may believe they do not reflect accurately upon Islam.  Then the issue of guns, and his personal campaign to modify gun control and elements of the 2nd amendment loom over his own rhetoric.  He also has this logic that as a religion Islam is not violent and any language used calling the heinous and barbaric acts by self-proclaimed Islamists ‘Islamic’ coupled with ‘terrorism,’ are offending a religion.  I think he simply does not understand Islam. Or he has succumbed to the ‘fear’ they instill as a matter of practice. Obama is afraid of Islam but is also afraid to admit it. To the recent graduating (2016) Air Force Academy graduates Obama proudly took credit that he “put aside 50 years of failed policies,” instead using “diplomacy, not war.”  This is appeasement.

Appeasement

Britain’s prime minister Neville Chamberlain preferred diplomacy, negotiations and appeasement with Hitler hoping Europe would not have another war. WWI was a tragic event in history. He sought by agreement “fair treatment” to populations threatened by Hitler. He emphasized in a speech, “I am myself a man of peace to the depths of my soul.” He also said. “If I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted.  Under such a domination life for people who believe in liberty would not be worth living….”  And we know how that worked out.  In his book Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement and the British Road to War, the author Frank McDonough wrote, “Chamberlain’s worst error was to believe that he could march Hitler on the yellow brick road to peace when in reality Hitler was marching very firmly on the road to war.”

As defined “Appeasement” in a political context is a diplomatic policy of making political or material concessions to any enemy power in order to avoid conflict.

Winston Churchill is quoted as saying, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

Whitewashing the Presence of Islam

It was announced on June 20, 2016 by the DOJ that the Obama administration will delete ISIS references from Orlando 911 calls. A question asked of Loretta Lynch, “What was to be left out of the transcript?” received this response, “What we are not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges (the Islamist Terrorist) of allegiance to terrorist groups and further his propaganda.”  After the Paris (November 2015) incident killing over 130 (another 389 injured), Islamic terrorists responsible, the Obama Administration edited a video of French President Hollande using the words, “Islamic terrorism,” blaming this action as a technical problem when complaints arose.

America’s deadliest shooting took the lives of 49, 50 if you include the self-acclaimed Islamist terrorist shooter, on June 13, 2016. It happened in a nightclub in Orlando, FL.  The shooter claimed he was inspired and had an allegiance to ISIS. Responding to a subsequent call by Trump that we (our Government) must be tougher on Islamic terrorism and Islam coming to America, Obama responded, irritated feeling the charge was aimed at him, that it was ‘silly’ to identify Islamic terrorism for what it is.  It would not help him to negotiate with those capable of mitigating the threat. He said, on June 14, 2016, “What exactly would using the label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIS less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies?  Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is, none of the above.  Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.  This is a political distraction.”  Then he went on to talk about gun control, his personal political distraction.

Obama’s Use of Verbal Distractions

We have been faced with the verbal distractions from the seat of the White House when ISIS was referred to as the JV team, (January 2014), when he said Al Qaeda was on the path to defeat (May 2013).  His counter-terrorism strategy is to ignore the facts. That is the only possible conclusion.  Hillary will do the same. There is a reality to the motives of Islam and the terrorists are the front line in carrying out the directives of the Quran.  ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and others all operate from the same playbook – the Quran. The verses 8.39, 9.5, and 9.29 are their call to act to accomplish Allah’s goal, Muhammad the example.  Any previous verses in the Quran that suggested Islam is peaceful was erased (abrogated).

Mollie Hemingway on June 20, 2016 wrote in an article for The Federalist, “Failure to identify radial Islamist terrorism as radical Islamist terrorism – or to acknowledge Islamist terror attacks – gives the term (the words) far more power than it needs to have, and it gives Islamist terrorists an almost magical power over foreign policy discussions in the Obama White House.”  She is saying that Obama’s practice does the opposite of what he wants.

A Religion of Violence

Islam is a religion of violence. Referencing Islam a ‘religion of peace’ are words that need to be scrubbed.

Weak on Terror

Islam is a cancer.  Our national security was in the hands of Obama and Hillary Clinton (when she was Secretary of State).  They were the surgeons assigned with the task of cancer removal.  But they missed, ignored, or refused to see the many tumors, the spread, the metastasizing of this cancer worldwide, even its migration into Europe and America. John Kerry has done little that is any different.  Can Americans expect Democrats to protect them when it comes to this concern?  So far the answer is a clear – NO! The Democrats are weak, yes, weak on terror.  They have endangered us all. And somehow the liberal press, the Democratic lemmings, have all consumed the kool-aide of Obama and Hillary Clinton and think they are ‘safe’.

We must wake up to the facts.  Democrats are ‘soft’ on terrorism.  If that is what America wants they can vote accordingly.

After 911 the Patriot Act was designed as the fabric to protect our Nation from terrorism.  Under the current leadership, Obama, his cronies and Democrats, have whittled away at this fabric making America less safe. Some say the modifications were politically motivated as an anti-Bush effort.  The Democrats do not have a taste for the reality that is Islam. They are political to an extreme. They have made our armor of protection thinner, and less effective.

Out of Control

Trying to appear as the cooler heads, the Democrats sit and just watch, along with the rest of America, as Obama and Hillary Clinton have allowed our responses to Islamism spin out of control.

Obama and Hillary are America’s Neville Chamberlain.  Chamberlain’s Hitler is today, Islam. Enough is enough.  The many examples of the threat of Islam to those of the West, the free world, should have been sufficient to awake their Democratic cohorts from the stupor of their own doing. They continue to use words of their choosing to mitigate the obvious threat and lead people to believe we are safe and there is little to worry about.  The collateral damage from a few rogue terrorists is to be expected, they say.  This is dangerous rhetoric and thinking.  Obama’s worst error may be believing he can march the Islamists, the many heads of the Islamic Nations, on the yellow brick road to peace when in reality Islam is marching very firmly, surreptitiously, on the road to war.  He and the Democrats are abetting their movement.

Home grown radicalized Islamists have family roots, often 1st generation immigrants, in Islamic cultures.  Improperly vetted immigrants can find in their ranks hardened trained Islamist terrorists that can lead, train others and act on their own. Understanding Islam is critical, as the hatred inherent in their scripture, their Sharia, the teaching from the Imam’s and the apocalyptic nature of this ideology is as oil to water. America is the water and we must do everything to keep it clean.  Obama and Hillary and the Democrats are allowing our water to be polluted with their acts of appeasement and the words of their choosing, not the words that reflect reality.

Grace and Peace