When the American President testily asks what
difference using the term “radical Islam” would make, he is either showing
ignorance or inability to address the problem This lends credence to Donald
Trump’s assertion that he is either inept or complicit, and Hillary Clinton has
no place to be incensed about it. Failure to define the enemy is expressing an
unwillingness to conduct the war, and Obama is certainly unwilling to conduct
war, which is tantamount to saying he is willing to accept the continued loss
of American civilians on domestic soil. That is treason and dereliction of
duty. He is clearly not defending America from threats foreign and domestic.
Instead of declaring with presidential vigor that
radical Islam must be eradicated at home and abroad, he preaches his tired
sermon on gun control ignoring the imbalance of deaths caused by weapons other
than guns. In the same breath, he and others assert that an immigration ban
would not have prevented the massacre at Orlando because Mateen was born in the
United States. Only a supremely myopic creature could fail to see that if the
ban included Omar Mateen’s parents, the crisis would have been handily averted.
I hear sceptics saying that the elder Mateens arrived before the issue of
radical Islam became critical. Au
contraire, the first World Trade Center attack was in 1993. I am unable to
find the date of Saddique Mateen’s arrival in the U.S., however, since he has
said that he supports the Taliban, it was never too late to deport him. If by
chance Omar Mateen was born after his father’s ideology became known, let me
remind that the theory of the anchor baby is custom, not law, and as usual, our
dithering Congress is unable to address it.
“The Orlando killer, one of the San Bernardino killers,
the Fort Hood killer, they were all U.S. citizens,” Obama said. “Are we going
to start treating all Muslim Americans differently? Are we going to start
subjecting them to special surveillance? Are we going to start discriminating [against]
them because of their faith?” This is the ultimate “well, duh,” question. When
we last fought a war with the determination to win, we interned American
citizens of Japanese descent and we surveilled citizens of German decent. Not
only did we win the war, but also we suffered few acts of sabotage, and as far
as I can determine, no loss of civilian life within the territory of the
continental United States.
Columnist, Charles Krauthammer said in response to the
proposed ban on Muslims, “We don’t have an immigration problem.” I usually
support the learned Mr. Krauthammer, but I insist that we definitely have an
immigration problem, and have for a very long time. Aside from the boldfaced
fact that we have too many people in the first place, the FBI maintains that
they failed to prevent the Orlando attack because they don’t have enough resources—this
despite the fact that Mateen caught their attention twice. To my
unsophisticated thinking, being acquainted with a suicide bomber is grounds to
make the ‘no-fly list’ and get blacklisted by the Department of Justice from
buying firearms. We don’t need more laws, we need to enforce them.
In the face of that admitted, or is it feigned lack of
resources, only a politician could find the wisdom in opposing the immigration
ban. Note that I did not qualify the type of immigration ban. At this time in
our country’s history, we no longer need immigration. Whether the lack of
resources is real or disingenuous, decrying a ban on Muslims is irresponsible,
because clearly, we aren’t willing to deal with the Islamic problem. Paul Ryan
claims the idea un-American. The man doesn’t see that every ill-advised remark
of this sort is a vote for Hillary Clinton who, Bernie Sanders aside, may be
the only person on earth less qualified to be president than Barack Obama.
Image credit: Google Street View
Finding Billy Battles by Ronald Yates
