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