Contrary to Obama ISIS and ISIL are Islamic


Last week Barack Obama began his ISIS / ISIL / IS / Islamic State speech with the usual “My fellow Americans.” We all know this is a throwaway line and shouldn’t strike a chord. But it did this time, for I don’t believe Obama thinks of you and me as “his” fellow Americans.

He continued: “As commander-in-chief, my highest priority is the security of the American people.”

Now, does anyone anymore truly believe his highest or any priority is the “security” of the American people? If so, why would he just allow a conga line of terrorists and gang members to cross our southern border? We know they are. It’s too easy not to.

Obama then states: “We cannot erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm.” To this I agree, but last time I checked ISIL has amassed a force of over 30,000 by some estimates. That is not a “small-group.” If a much smaller, less trained and financed group like Al Qaeda can wreak as much havoc as they have, what can 30,000 (and growing) bloodthirsty killers do?

“Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not ‘Islamic,’” he exclaimed. “No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.”

Well Mr. President, they’re not calling themselves the “Christian State,” and evidently they do believe that their religion does condone all they do. Frankly, I’m tired of everyone proclaiming that Islam is the religion of peace when their own clerics have defended this type of behavior for centuries.

The first intelligent thing Obama said was several minutes in when he stated, “If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region – including to the United States. Trained and battle hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.”

I agree, although I would change the words “could pose a threat” and “could return home” to will pose a threat and will return home.

Almost a third of the way in his speech Obama says, “Our objective is clear: we will degrade, and ultimately destroy ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy.”

This is lefty code for no military action, no ground troops, and lead from behind.

“This is a core principle of my presidency,” Obama exclaimed. “If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.” I guess he forgot to mention that we had “Bag Daddy,” the ISIL leader and let him go. He found a “Safe Haven” by creating his own state.

Obama then emphatically states, “As I said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission – we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.”

Way to telegraph your intentions. But what about that whole “security of Americans is your highest priority”?

About half his speech goes by when he reveals his grand strategy. “Working with our partners, we will redouble our efforts to cut off its funding, improve our intelligence, strengthen our defenses…”

Now, I’ve checked, and I see no grand coalition of “partners.” I only see who isn’t signing on, and it’s many, because they don’t trust Obama. Would you? He also stated he would meet with the despots at the United Nations Security Council to “mobilize the international community.” Funny – I thought we already had “partners.” I guess we need more – you know – to draft a firmly worded letter to ISIL. That will scare them!

Meanwhile John Kerry will be globe-hopping to beg other countries to take the lead so Obama doesn’t have to.

He continues for several more minutes with the same pabulum we’ve come to expect from him, stating again and again that there will be no boots on the ground.

We cannot and will not “ultimately destroy” this enemy. Not with the Obama plan. We cannot wipe out these terrorists, which is what we must do, with words, diplomacy, containment and leading from behind. And sadly, ultimately we will not be able to depend on others to do this dirty work.

Previous Saudi Arabia Arrests of Christians for Being and Acting Christian
Next Non-Christians are More Superstitious

Comment