I truly don't believe it. No matter what happens, president Obama and the Obamacrats in government and the mainstream media just won't admit the truth: the massacre in San Bernardino was a terrorist attack. It has only been a few days since that heinous crime by radical Islamic terrorists. It would be one thing if the president and his allies in the media and government had stayed silent while investigations proceeded; that would have been defensible. Instead, just think back to what we got from them.
1. The initial response was that this was workplace violence, not terror. It showed the need for gun control laws to be strengthened according to Obama himself.
2. Almost immediately the story shifted a bit as the Obamacrats went further on the offensive. At that point, they mocked Republicans and others who said they would pray for those who were killed or wounded and their families. The Obamacrats laughed at the idea that anyone would ask God for help in this situation. Only gun control would stop these attacks was their mantra.
3. When the attackers were killed in a shootout that they started with the police (only a few hours later), the Obamacrats backed off a bit from the workplace violence story, but they only stopped pushing it as aggressively as they had been doing while sticking to the story as a whole.
4. When the identity of the male killer was revealed to be Syed Farook, a Moslem, the Obamacrats took a moment to reconsider their position, but they still kept to it.
5. When police disclosed that all of the guns used by the attackers had been purchased legally in places with strict gun control laws, the Obamacrats also started reducing discussion of that subject.
5. When it was discovered that the attackers had left a bomb at the site of the attack and that their home was a bomb factory filled with more than a dozen pipe bombs ready for use, the workplace violence story started to disappear from the lips of the Obamacrats.
6. When we learned that the female perpetrator was a Pakistani immigrant to the USA and also a Moslem who recently married the other shooter, the Obamacrat talking points started to change again. Now they were telling us that these two may have been planning to be terrorists, but this was still workplace violence because something happened at the conference in San Bernardino that morning that set the couple in action. Get it? It was terrorists engaged in workplace violence.
7. Then we learned that prior to launching the attack that morning, the woman terrorist pledged her loyalty on Facebook to al-Baghdadi the leader of ISIS. We also learned that the day before the attack the couple destroyed their cellphones and deleted their email and social media accounts. In other words, they prepared for the attack long before anything that happened the day of the attack. That pretty much ended the Obamacrats' efforts to blame this as workplace violence.
8. Now, ISIS is claiming credit for the attack. The FBI has found various links between Farook and other people who are on the FBI's radar for potential terrorist activity. The funding of the terrorists has also been established as being clearly beyond the ability of the couple to pay by themselves. In other words, Farook and his wife Malik were terrorists tied to and most likely funded by ISIS or some other terror group. So where have the Obamacrats gone with their talking points now? Today, their new position is that while Farook and Malik may (MAY????) be terrorists, there is no evidence that they were connected in any way with ISIS. They were just "self-radicalized". The AP has this "storyline" out in multiple articles.
Okay, America, you need to answer this question: do you really care if Farook and Malik were radical Islamic terrorists who were self-radicalized by the material ISIS posts on the internet or radical Islamic terrorists with ties to ISIS? I know I sure don't. THEY WERE RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS WHO LAUNCHED AN ATTACK IN THE USA!!!!!!! Why is this so hard for the Obamacrats to understand? Why must they parse through all this evidence and focus on these silly distinctions when the real issue is how do we stop more of these attacks from happening?
Tonight president Obama is going to address the nation on this subject. According to the White House he is going to tell us not to give in to fear. Clearly, Obama still does not know the American people. The USA will never give in to fear if by that Obama means what those words normally mean. We will not cower in our homes afraid to venture out due to the threat of terror attacks. On the other hand, if Obama means that American cannot take reasonable countermeasures to prevent more terror attacks and to destroy ISIS and that Americans cannot demand that our government do the same, then it is Obama who is off course. No speech by Obama about justice and equality (two subjects that the White House says he will address tonight) is going to change the views of rational people that it would be a mistake to admit immigrants or refugees who cannot be vetted and certified free from ISIS influence. No speech will move the American people away from their support for enhanced efforts to stop terror attacks. And, by the way, no speech or executive action is going to move Americans to accept gun control as a good method for reducing the threat of terrorism.
Obama and the Obamacrats have been fighting tooth and nail to keep from admitting the truth. America has once again been attacked by terrorists and we had better step up our game in this fight. We can no longer follow the Obamacrat line that the war on terror is over unless we want that war to end with victory by the terror groups.
1. The initial response was that this was workplace violence, not terror. It showed the need for gun control laws to be strengthened according to Obama himself.
2. Almost immediately the story shifted a bit as the Obamacrats went further on the offensive. At that point, they mocked Republicans and others who said they would pray for those who were killed or wounded and their families. The Obamacrats laughed at the idea that anyone would ask God for help in this situation. Only gun control would stop these attacks was their mantra.
3. When the attackers were killed in a shootout that they started with the police (only a few hours later), the Obamacrats backed off a bit from the workplace violence story, but they only stopped pushing it as aggressively as they had been doing while sticking to the story as a whole.
4. When the identity of the male killer was revealed to be Syed Farook, a Moslem, the Obamacrats took a moment to reconsider their position, but they still kept to it.
5. When police disclosed that all of the guns used by the attackers had been purchased legally in places with strict gun control laws, the Obamacrats also started reducing discussion of that subject.
5. When it was discovered that the attackers had left a bomb at the site of the attack and that their home was a bomb factory filled with more than a dozen pipe bombs ready for use, the workplace violence story started to disappear from the lips of the Obamacrats.
6. When we learned that the female perpetrator was a Pakistani immigrant to the USA and also a Moslem who recently married the other shooter, the Obamacrat talking points started to change again. Now they were telling us that these two may have been planning to be terrorists, but this was still workplace violence because something happened at the conference in San Bernardino that morning that set the couple in action. Get it? It was terrorists engaged in workplace violence.
7. Then we learned that prior to launching the attack that morning, the woman terrorist pledged her loyalty on Facebook to al-Baghdadi the leader of ISIS. We also learned that the day before the attack the couple destroyed their cellphones and deleted their email and social media accounts. In other words, they prepared for the attack long before anything that happened the day of the attack. That pretty much ended the Obamacrats' efforts to blame this as workplace violence.
8. Now, ISIS is claiming credit for the attack. The FBI has found various links between Farook and other people who are on the FBI's radar for potential terrorist activity. The funding of the terrorists has also been established as being clearly beyond the ability of the couple to pay by themselves. In other words, Farook and his wife Malik were terrorists tied to and most likely funded by ISIS or some other terror group. So where have the Obamacrats gone with their talking points now? Today, their new position is that while Farook and Malik may (MAY????) be terrorists, there is no evidence that they were connected in any way with ISIS. They were just "self-radicalized". The AP has this "storyline" out in multiple articles.
Okay, America, you need to answer this question: do you really care if Farook and Malik were radical Islamic terrorists who were self-radicalized by the material ISIS posts on the internet or radical Islamic terrorists with ties to ISIS? I know I sure don't. THEY WERE RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS WHO LAUNCHED AN ATTACK IN THE USA!!!!!!! Why is this so hard for the Obamacrats to understand? Why must they parse through all this evidence and focus on these silly distinctions when the real issue is how do we stop more of these attacks from happening?
Tonight president Obama is going to address the nation on this subject. According to the White House he is going to tell us not to give in to fear. Clearly, Obama still does not know the American people. The USA will never give in to fear if by that Obama means what those words normally mean. We will not cower in our homes afraid to venture out due to the threat of terror attacks. On the other hand, if Obama means that American cannot take reasonable countermeasures to prevent more terror attacks and to destroy ISIS and that Americans cannot demand that our government do the same, then it is Obama who is off course. No speech by Obama about justice and equality (two subjects that the White House says he will address tonight) is going to change the views of rational people that it would be a mistake to admit immigrants or refugees who cannot be vetted and certified free from ISIS influence. No speech will move the American people away from their support for enhanced efforts to stop terror attacks. And, by the way, no speech or executive action is going to move Americans to accept gun control as a good method for reducing the threat of terrorism.
Obama and the Obamacrats have been fighting tooth and nail to keep from admitting the truth. America has once again been attacked by terrorists and we had better step up our game in this fight. We can no longer follow the Obamacrat line that the war on terror is over unless we want that war to end with victory by the terror groups.
No comments:
Post a Comment