Many Millennials Refuse To Connect Radical Islam To Terrorism

A shock poll that is, quite frankly, not so shocking.

An online Daily Wire/Whatsgoodly survey asked students across the country, “Do you believe radical Islam has connections with terrorism?” The survey was conducted from June 6 to June 12 and included 1,489 students across the political spectrum. The results: 66 percent said “yes,” 15 percent said “no,” and 17 percent stated they were “unsure.”

Before we move forward, let’s make one point very clear. This poll did not ask students if they associated Islam with terrorism. It specifically asks if they associate radical Islam with terrorism. One-third of the students who responded (the survey has a margin of error at +/-3 percent) wouldn’t make a connection between the two.

Has liberal academia really taken us this far?

The breakdown of respondents and how they answered makes a little more sense.

Respondents who identified as “pro-Clinton” refused to associate radical Islam with terror by a tune of almost 40 percent (19 percent said no and 19 percent were unsure). On the other hand, almost 90 percent of “pro-Trump” college students connected the two – with “pro-Gary Johnson” students not far behind at 83 percent. Also, men were more likely to associate radical Islam with terrorism than their female counterparts.

The answers are certainly troubling, and come at a time when extreme liberal activism on college campuses has strangled universities across the country.

The University of Missouri has been forced to close numerous residence halls after the 2015 race protests there scared off prospective applicants – enrollment to the university has plummeted by the thousands. UC Berkeley literally becomes a war zone every time a right-wing speaker attempts to visit their campus. When Evergreen State College professor Brett Weinstein had the audacity to question the propriety of having a “no white people on campus day,” he was was forced to leave for fear of his safety by liberal student activists – kids carrying baseball bats have been spotted on campus “policing” the area.

Liberal activism on college campuses has gone from bad to worse, to absolutely insane. The poll conducted by Daily Wire/Whatsgoodly only confirms what we already know.

‘Difficult’ and ‘Embarrassing’ Conversations: How We Stamp Out Islamic Radicals

British PM Theresa May had some strong words today about dealing with the now-enormous threat posed by radical Islamists in the United Kingdom. We in America have much to glean from her statement.

The prime minister minced no words, saying “things need to change.”

First, while the recent attacks are not connected by common networks, they are connected in one important sense. They are bound together by the single, evil ideology of Islamist extremism that preaches hatred, sows division, and promotes sectarianism.

It is an ideology that claims our Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam. It is an ideology that is a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth.

Defeating this ideology is one of the great challenges of our time. But it cannot be defeated through military intervention alone. It will not be defeated through the maintenance of a permanent, defensive counter-terrorism operation, however skillful its leaders and practitioners.

It will only be defeated when we turn people’s minds away from this violence – and make them understand that our values – pluralistic, British values – are superior to anything offered by the preachers and supporters of hate.

If Muslims wish to live in England, they must assimilate and desegregate.

Since the British have not yet developed a mind-control device, this talk is probably not one about “winning the hearts and minds” of people dedicated to the destruction of Western (“pluralistic, British”) values.

The whole “winning the hearts and minds” thing has been tried, and to date, has failed miserably, every single time.

So May is talking about something else. She mentioned military action to destroy ISIS, but although ISIS claimed responsibility for both the Manchester and the London Bridge attacks, dealing with ISIS is not enough.

While we have made significant progress in recent years, there is – to be frank – far too much tolerance of extremism in our country.

So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out – across the public sector and across society.

That will require some difficult and often embarrassing conversations, but the whole of our country needs to come together to take on this extremism – and we need to live our lives not in a series of separated, segregated communities, but as one truly United Kingdom.

I agree with everything May said, except one paragraph: “It is an ideology that claims our Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam. It is an ideology that is a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth.”

It’s going to be difficult to sell that thought to people who see Sharia law being enforced in areas with a high concentration of Muslims. It’s going to be harder to sell it when the measures to deal with extremism kick in.

According to Fox News, these may include a burka ban, “round ups” of suspected terrorists, and stripping of citizenship.

Given that these measures in general only apply to Muslims (like President Trump’s travel ban, and Obama’s before him), the intention is clear: large populations of Muslims, unassimilated and led by their religious figures, are incompatible with pluralistic British values.

In other words: If Muslims wish to live in England, they must assimilate and desegregate.

Could America do what May suggests?

I have had long discussions with various people here in the U.S. about how this could work in our country. How could Americans deal with a population that refuses to assimilate, refuses to integrate into American society, and rejects pluralistic, American values?

Yes, the U.S. government could set up internment camps for Muslims.

We have a First Amendment that protects religious speech and practice. Christians bristled with outrage and fought Houston Mayor Annise Parker in her bid to subpoena sermons preached by pastors to vet them for “hate speech” against LGBTs. Would we now support similar measures against Muslims?

It’s a slippery slope.

Would we be able to remain friendly with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iraq while rounding up Wahabist and Salafist Muslims as terror suspects and taking action to jail or strip them of their citizenship? Probably not, but it might be in their interests not to burn bridges.

We have the Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment to protect against such things done to American citizens. But we also have Korematsu v. United States, a legal precedent giving the government wide powers to “round up” and intern Americans–even citizens–to protect against espionage or other threats in time of war.

If America could somehow declare war against a stateless, “single, evil ideology of Islamist extremism that preaches hatred, sows division, and promotes sectarianism” (to use May’s words), then would the government have authority to round up adherents to that enemy, just like Roosevelt did with Executive Order 9066?

On its face, it seems likely, although given the toxic environment on liberal federal benches regarding anything Trump does, it would be a long legal battle, punctuated with the worst invective. But if it was an actual time of war, with American civilians perishing?

Yes, the U.S. government could set up internment camps for Muslims.

But no, it probably wouldn’t have the right to close down mosques, or demand the contents of sermons preached by imams. But the FBI does have quite a range of intelligence-gathering methods, as we’ve seen recently.

I don’t suppose it would be difficult, using gumshoe investigation techniques and good old-fashioned surveillance and informants, to keep tabs on America’s relatively small Muslim population. (Actually, there are more Muslims in America than in the U.K., but a far smaller percentage of the population, and they are not as segregated as in the U.K.)

After 9/11, these techniques were used by the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the NYPD to keep tabs on New York area mosques, but the program was shut down after it was exposed. If what’s happening in England happened here, I expect we wouldn’t hear the same complaints we heard just a few years ago.

I also suspect that if not for the secret NYPD program, we might actually be having the same “difficult and often embarrassing conversations” they are having right now in England. It might be time to look at reviving those measures, before we actually need to do something more drastic.

I know that, to liberals and politically correct snowflakes, that’s less palatable than having seven or ten or twenty people die every month or so. In England, however, they’ve had enough of politically correct deadly fantasies.

CIA Gets Political With Muslim Brotherhood

The Trump administration is considering officially designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.  CIA analysts are warning, however, that doing so may drive some supporters into more violent terrorist organizations (such as al-Qaeda) and hurt relationships with certain U.S. allies, such as Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait, and Turkey.

However, looked at within the larger context of events since Trump’s inauguration, this is part of a wider re-alignment of U.S. interests in the Middle East and a divergence from Obama-era policies.

During the Obama administration, the U.S. supported and helped the overthrow of the governments of Libya, Egypt, and Syria (still on-going).  Into the vacuum created by the collapse of the governments of these countries, various various militant Islamic groups moved in, including ISIS, al-Qaeda, and their affiliated groups (Hamas is now partnering with ISIS and training with them in Egypt).

In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood briefly gained power in 2012 after democratic parliamentary elections were held.  However, the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated president (Mohamed Morsi) soon began to implement Islamic practices through fiat.  This led to mass protests and the removal of Morsi and his government by the Egyptian military in 2013.  The military then sought to suppress the Muslim Brotherhood, arresting many within the organization and outlawing it.

So, just what and who is the “Muslim Brotherhood?”

It was founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, but greatly influenced by Egyptian author and writer Sayyid Qutd.  It is transnational, with members throughout the Middle East.  It’s stated ultimate goal is to establish a theocratic government which rules according to Sharia law.  Keep this in mind when people try to characterize the organization as “moderate.”  It is moderate in relation to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda (al-Qaeda, by the way, is moderate in relation to ISIS), but it still seeks a similar end goal as do the other radical Islamic groups.  The motto of the Muslim Brotherhood is “Allah is our objective; the Qur’an is the Constitution; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; death for the sake of Allah is our wish.”  The current leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Badie, has also called for the destruction of Israel and for the death of Jews.

Due to its destabilizing influence, radical rhetoric, and violent actions, the Muslim Brotherhood has already been labeled a terrorist organization by Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates.  The United States, under Trump’s leadership, is now considering doing the same.  This is where the wider context and re-alignment of U.S. interests comes into play.

The first two countries in that list, Russia and Saudi Arabia, are most interesting.  The U.S. and Russia, as has been widely reported and debated, are in the midst of a delicate dance of detente, seeking to work together on matters of mutual concern.  Saudi Arabia has been fighting radical Islamic rebels in Yemen, trying to keep the turmoil there from spreading into its own country.  The U.S. has launched many missile strikes against terrorists in Yemen, in support of Saudi Arabia.  After the recent U.S. special forces raid in Yemen, however, Yemen has said that they will no longer grant permission for U.S. ground raids (allowing, though, unmanned strikes to continue).  In response, the U.S. has indicated that it will proceed with weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain which were blocked by the Obama administration.  These weapons will allow both countries to continue the fight in Yemen as U.S. proxies.

Thus, as I mentioned above, the Trump administration’s willingness to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization is part of a larger picture.  The Obama administration’s actions (including overthrowing governments and pulling most U.S. forces out of Iraq), whether intended or not, had the effect of strengthening radical Islamic groups who poured in to fill the void (granted that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 eventually helped lead to this as well).  The U.S. then tangled with Russia in Syria, stopped weapon sales to Saudi Arabia, and signed a nuclear deal with Iran.  This left the majority of the Arab states fearful for their own security, with terrorists and rebels on their doorsteps, and Iran rising in power and threatening the Gulf states.

Trump seems to want to reverse this trend by aligning the U.S. with Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others with similar interests in order to counter radical Islam in the Middle East and check Iran’s influence.  The issue with the Muslim Brotherhood is therefore just a piece in the larger puzzle of what to do in the Middle East.

Democrats Oblivious to Threat of Radical Islam

A new poll conducted by CBS reveals that the majority (66%) of Democrats do not believe that Islam is more violent than other religions.  Nearly the same percentage (63%) of Republicans believe that Islam is more violent.

This demonstrates either an ignorance or disregard of the facts on the part of Democrats.  Countries dominated by Islam are apt to impose Islamic Sharia law and its oppressive rules and methods of punishment.  Women, in particular, bear the brunt of Islamic oppression; those who have been raped have even been punished for being victims (on the pretext that they had sex outside of marriage).  In addition, as ISIS has spread in Iraq and Syria they have taken women and girls captive as sex slaves.

One irony of all this is that Democrats, who say they value inclusivity and diversity (and support all manner of LGBT causes) view a non-inclusive religion in a positive light.  Thus, at the same time that Middle Eastern countries are executing homosexuals, Democrats are lamenting the fact that people from a subset of those countries are temporarily blocked from entering the United States.

The other irony is that the inclusive nature of the United States grew out of Judeo-Christian values (note that this is different than saying that “America is a Christian nation”).  Certainly, not all Muslims believe in Sharia Law or its oppression, but Islam (“submission”) tends to encourage violence in the name of religion.  Christianity, on the other hand, is a religion of mercy, and those who pursue the faith through violence are considered to be the aberration, not the norm.  Christians have spread grace to those outside the Christian community, even when disagreeing with their practices or beliefs.  As the Left in the United States has drifted from the core Christian values which made the Left even possible, it has forgotten to whom it owes its attitudes of tolerance and inclusivity.

Now the Left’s favored religion is Islam.  However, if Islam were to grab a majority hold in this country it would ultimately destroy the Left’s causes, subduing them under the thumb of Sharia Law.  Democrats would be wise to study the history of the spread of Islam in the Middle East and Europe to see where it leads.  It most certainly does not lead to the Left’s inclusive, diverse utopia.

Is Russia Really Our ‘Forever’ Enemy, Or Is It Radical Islam?

I’ve always been a Russia-watcher. Since I was a teenager, I’ve followed the Soviet Union’s long fall into a cold grave, only to rise as an ascendant greater Russia. So with all the hoopla about President-elect Trump and his Russian connections, I’ve been forced to go back and reconsider some of the first principles driving this whole “Oh no! It’s the Russians!” panic infesting the press and Trump critics. (Aren’t they really the same thing?)

I have to ask myself if Russia is really our forever enemy, to be feared, opposed and defeated at all costs? Similarly, I have to ask if radical Islam is our forever enemy, or can we coexist?

Trump’s moves may make a whole lot more sense in light of the answers.

Is Russia our enemy?

Like a typical Russian, I answer yes, and no. Russian society is fundamentally different than American society. By “fundamentally different” I mean in the same way I get half smiles and laughs from Brits when I talk about how my sister-in-law’s church in New England was founded in 1638. They’ve got socks older than that.

In the steppes of eastern Europe and the vast forests, wastelands and tundra spanning from Moscow to Vladivostok and Mongolia, the Russians have a very long and painful history. None of it particularly involves self-governance, independence, or rugged individualism. Russian ruggedness is the ability to accept serfdom, hardship, cruelty and poverty with alacrity (and alcohol). In many ways, the Russian (and the various ethnic groups including Udmurts, Tartars, and the various “-stans”) citizen has a peasant mentality which befuddles American cultural thinking.

Russians (in the larger national sense) are not America’s enemy. They’re just as likely to listen to western music, watch American movies, buy American stuff, and envy our so-called “decadence” (as the Soviets called it) as any other group in the world. Many Russians also suffer quite a bit of Napoleon syndrome–measuring up to America is important.

Russia won the space race up until Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. This kind of Soviet nostalgia is very hip right now among Russians. Russia currently has 21 official billionaires (some of whom have loaned money to or invested in Donald Trump).

Russians don’t want to go to war with America. They rather look up to us, culturally (with one exception).

The Russian government, on the other hand, is America’s serious rival. And the Russian government is embodied in the person of Vladimir Putin. Putin is no dummy, no wooden apparatchik. He may very well be the richest man on earth.

Russia is ruled by a kleptocracy: A modern equivalent of a feudal system, where fiefdoms are handed out along with cash, property, and ownership of capital. Instead of the all-powerful State owning everything, as the Soviets did, now Russia is owned by a very select group of individuals, with some degree of upward mobility available to those willing to play hard. (Contrary to American stories, upward mobility and opportunity within the old Soviet regimes was quite open–many “regular” people rose to incredible rank, including Putin himself.)

It’s a given that a kleptocracy with nuclear weapons and the second biggest military on the planet is counter to America’s interests and foundations of justice, opportunity, and all the goodness poured into our founding documents and principles. Kleptocracies have as their goal the continuation of their own power, and the increase of that power.

Russian national pride, economic prowess, military power, and cultural cohesion are used by Putin and his cabal to manipulate his people toward the ends that Putin wants, which are necessarily selfish. Having American (western, NATO, coalition, etc.) symbols and projectors of power sitting around near Russian borders might hinder Putin’s pursuits to do as he pleases. Therefore, wherever Putin can outmaneuver the west, he does so.

Having Trump in the White House is decidedly better for Putin than having Hillary Clinton there, so it’s no surprise the Russians did what they did. What is a surprise is the fact that they didn’t attempt to hide it.

I won’t get into the philosophical question of whether it’s America’s role to “liberate” Russians from their peasantry and oppression of living under a kleptocracy. The main question is if America can eliminate Russia as a threat to our way of life, and stop them from interfering with our democratic processes.

Trump wants to eliminate the Russian government (Putin) as our enemy by making it our friend through “deals” where both parties get some of what we want and give up something to get it. Trump always wants to come out on top, and so does Putin, so we are in for some conflict.

But it’s not the kind of conflict we saw with President Obama. This will be more like sparring among two friendly rivals than the kind of jockeying America did with the Soviets during the Cold War, when ideology drove the conflict.

Through deal-making, Trump and his Russia-friendly nominee for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, may find enough common ground to hold the Russians to many of their promises. And Trump will publicly and through the military do what Teddy Roosevelt advocated: “speak softly, and carry a big stick.” Lots of praise for Putin, but always a behind-the-scenes threat if things don’t work out.

This is the polar opposite of Obama’s foreign policy, which relied on public statements and empty threats that were rarely backed up by action. The open question, of course, is whether Trump will pass the inevitable test the Russians will give him.

Is radical Islam our enemy?

President George W. Bush took great care to tell America and the world that we are not at war with Islam. That was carried through in spades by the Obama administration, which for nearly eight years would not even refer to the term “radical Islamic terrorism.”

From Bloomberg:

There is a reason for this: The long war against radical Islamic terrorists requires at least the tacit support of many radical Muslims.

It sounds strange. But as Emile Nakhleh, who was one of the CIA’s top experts on political Islam between 1993 and 2006, told me, there was a recognition following the 9/11 attacks inside the Bush administration that many supporters of the Wahhabi strain of Islam favored by al-Qaeda and its allies were not plotting attacks on the West. In some cases, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the purveyors of Wahhabism were longstanding American allies. “There was the two-ton elephant in the room, and that is Saudi Arabia,” Nakhleh said.

So Bush for the most part opted instead to talk about the enemy as “evildoers” or “extremists,” even though on some occasions he went off message. It’s why Bush’s second secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, condemned as “offensive” the Danish cartoons of Mohammed in 2006 after they sparked riots across the Muslim world.

Obama took this approach even further. In 2009, he delivered two important speeches addressed to the Islamic world, quoting Koranic verse, and sent an envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Bush didn’t want a quarrel with Islam, and in his first term, Obama wanted Islam to be a strategic partner against al-Qaeda.

So to defeat radical Islamic terror, we recruited moderate Muslims along with those who share radical Islamic beliefs but don’t support the specific groups we are targeting.

This is in fact a dangerous path, as we found out after we armed the mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union. Then we got the Taliban, whom we are now fighting.

Islam is a tribal system of government, social structure, economics and religion. It’s very much based on “jungle law” in its application. As Nafisa Haji wrote in “The Sweetness of Tears,”

“There is an old Arab Bedouin saying: I, against my brothers. I and my brothers against my cousins. I and my brothers and my cousins against the world. That is jungle law. It is the way of the world when the world is thrown into chaos. It is our job to avert that chaos, to fight against it, to resist the urge to become savage. Because the problem with such law is that if you follow it, you are always fighting against someone.”

When we (who are “the world” outside Islam) arm one brother against another, or one set of cousins against another, we are only arming them to fight us later. Islamic law and thought always brings us to the point of conflict where the Muslim world must conquer and subdue the infidels.

There’s no removing radical Islam as an enemy by making them our friend. The only way to really do that is to become like them. And if we became like them, we submit to jungle law and end up fighting other cousins and brothers. This is why the bulk of ISIS victims are other Muslims. This is why Sunni and Shi’a and Alawite sects fight each other.

Western thought has little to compare this with. The Catholic/Protestant “troubles” in Ireland pale in comparison to the constant churning and turmoil within the Islamic community. And we don’t see that problem replicated over all of Christendom. In Brazil, for instance, we don’t see the 123 million Catholics murdering the 42 million (and rising) Protestants. But in Syria, were Bashar Assad to be defeated, the nation’s 2.3 million Alawis would be in serious danger from Sunnis (like ISIS), who make up nearly three quarters of the population.

There is every reason to believe that for the foreseeable future, as long as America, our very culture, diversity, and liberal morals is seen by Wahabists, the Shi’a ayatollahs in Iran and other radical elements of Islam as the “Great Satan,” they will be dedicated to our defeat.

This is the opposite problem that we have with Russia. We can negotiate all day long with Arab and Islamic governments, but we cannot stop the non-state actors, terrorists, oil-rich financiers and bored millennial radicals who are looking to be part of something from striking at America wherever they can.

In this way, radical Islam is a much greater, much more intractable enemy to America than Russia. Russia has nuclear weapons, but they don’t really want to use them against us. If ISIS had a nuke, they’d pop it over the closest American city they could find.

A smart, consistent play

Trump’s play toward Russia’s leader and against the grassroots jungle law of radical Islam is therefore a smart, consistent play. We let Obama try his solution for eight years. We know how that worked out. Maybe we should give Trump a chance now.

This Is The Biggest Buried Lede You’ll Ever See

The Associated Press reported Friday that there’s “no evidence Orlando gunman sought gay relationships.”

The FBI began investigating that possibility after media reports last week quoted men as saying that Omar Mateen had reached out to them on gay dating apps and had frequented the gay nightclub where the June 12 massacre took place. One man even claimed to be Mateen’s gay lover in an interview with Univision that aired this week.

But the officials say the FBI, which has recovered Mateen’s phone and conducted 500 interviews, has not found concrete evidence nearly two weeks into the investigation to corroborate such accounts. They also say the investigation is ongoing and that nothing has been formally ruled out.

I would bet a week’s pay that you won’t see this headline on any of the major news outlets, who made sure we all heard about Mateen’s “gay lover.” And CNN has this piece “What it’s like to be gay and Muslim.” (Without any disrespect: Dead? CBS featured this one on being Muslim and gay.)

Attorney General Loretta Lynch has had to chew her arm off to get away from any line of questioning leading to radical Islam. But at every turn, the inconvenient truth keeps getting in her way.

[Lynch] has taken pains not to describe radical extremism as the sole motivation and declined in an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday to rule out any possibility, including that he was secretly gay. She also declined to say what evidence, if any, existed to support alternate theories.

The next thing we’ll hear is that Mateen had mental health issues and believed in aliens who told him to kill gays. His therapist will step forward and violate doctor-patient privilege to disclose this news-busting “fact.” Anything that fits the Obama administration’s narrative must be believed.

The Media Is Spinning A False Narrative

The false narrative emerging from the media seeks to make a few points, all of which are red herrings and straw men designed to take attention from the truth.

  • The shooter, Omar Mateen, was homophobic because he hated gays.
  • Mateen was unstable because he was mean and beat his wife
  • Mateen had too much unfettered access to guns
  • Mateen was not religiously motivated

Story after story references these points, and they quote each other liberally (take the pun as you wish). Fox News and other media outlets reported comments by a coworker at security firm G4S who called him “toxic” and “unhinged.” The Times of London quoted CNN, about his first wife, “He was mentally unstable and mentally ill.” Anti-gun New York Daily News quoted NBC News, who spoke to Mateen’s father Seddique Matteen, who insisted the rampage had nothing to do with religion.

The Washington Post also did a story on Seddique Mateen defending his son.

“He had a child and a wife, and was very dignified, meaning he had respect for his parents,” Seddique Mateen wrote, standing in front of the flag of his apparent birthplace, Afghanistan. “I don’t know what caused him to shoot last night.”

The shooter’s father has close connections with his native Afghanistan, and has traveled back there as recently as 2014, even interviewing Afghan President Ashraf Ghani in Kabul, according to the Washington Post. He made a series of Youtube videos praising the Taliban and railing against the U.S.

The Boston Globe appears to be at a complete loss as to Mateen’s motive for the killings, because there’s no actual proof (besides the killer’s own words pledging allegiance is ISIS) he was tied to any jihadist causes.

While Mateen claimed allegiance to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, no evidence had emerged by late Sunday pointing to actual ties to terrorist groups or a significant association with jihadist causes.

Yes, they actually wrote that. Apparently a confession isn’t evidence to them.

We can either accept the media narrative, that some unknown complex mix of motives drove this mentally ill man to buy readily available assault weapons and kill people he simply hated for no reason, or we can apply Occam’s Razor–the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

  • The Quran teaches that homosexuality is wrong and punishable by death (not just “God himself will punish those involved in homosexuality. This, is not for the servants” of God, which Seddique Mateen said). In some Sharia-law Muslim countries, it actually is punished by death. Certainly ISIS punishes homosexuality by death.
  • Many Muslim men are brought up and taught to beat their wives–that this is the correct way to administer discipline in the home. This kind of behavior is common in the Islamic world, where women are not valued as anything more than property.
  • Mateen had a clean record, worked as a security guard, kept himself in excellent physical condition, and trained for his jihad. This was not a crime of opportunity, or of passion. It was a planned operation. The “mentally ill” narrative offers no hard evidence at this point. He bought weapons because, despite the FBI having investigated him, nothing of concern was noted that would prevent him from doing so. This is a failure of the intelligence and law enforcement system, not our Second Amendment rights.
  • The attack was absolutely religiously motivated. You didn’t see Mateen attacking the Orlando Islamic Center, the mosque he attended, because he didn’t like the people there. You didn’t see the people with whom he worshipped calling the FBI or the local authorities to report Mateen acting weird or talking about killing people.

The simplest explanation is that Mateen was a radicalized Muslim, who moved easily with other radicalized Muslims, some of whom are probably living their lives in Orlando. Only now would the FBI be interviewing those people and find connections.

The press is weaving a false narrative to fashion a complex explanation for a simple problem. We have a cancer of radical Islam growing in America. Political correctness, the inability of our president to accept the problem because of his beliefs about Islam being a religion of peace, and impossible restrictions placed on federal, state and local law enforcement have made this crime possible.

Our government is ignoring the cancer and it will continue to grow, as long as the country keeps buying the media’s spin.

This Is Not A Game

President Obama ties every shooting in America together by the most obvious common denominator–guns. The president has been calling for stricter gun control for the past eight years, while gun violence has spiraled through the ceiling, on his watch.

Seven of the ten deadliest mass shootings in the U.S. have come since Obama took office (source: LA Times).


Most of these shootings involved legally-purchased weapons, by people who passed all background checks. The weapons used were no more “assault weapons” than my .40 S&W pistol is an elephant gun. The only difference between the 10-round magazine limit in states like Connecticut, California, Colorado and five other states with that particular ban, and Florida is that the shooter–if he followed the law–would have to change magazines more often. For someone like Omar Mateen, who prepared for his deadly jihad, it’s nothing but a nuisance.

Liberals and idiots like Piers Morgan continue to call for some kind of total gun ban in the U.S. They paint America as the wild west and the NRA as evil because there are so many guns. But only a tiny fraction of those guns are used to kill people, and a tinier fraction of those are used for mass killings.

What many of those multiple-victim killings, whether by rifle, knife, sword, or bomb, have in common, is in fact more obvious than shootings are related to guns. When the killer shouts “Allahu akbar!” as he’s shooting, or beheading, or planting a backpack bomb, or wearing a suicide vest, it’s because of jihad. And jihad is a central practice of only one religion: Islam.

This is not a game.

For the 50 families of the dead in Orlando, it’s not a game. For the 14 dead in San Bernardino, it’s not a game. For the 6 dead and 280 victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, it’s not a game. For the 137 dead in the Bataclan attack in Paris, it’s not a game. For all the dead, by bullets, knives, bombs, rockets or rocks in Israel, it’s not a game.

Political rhetoric against guns, or violence in general, is about as effective as Marshal Pétain’s protestations to Churchill that he “share the sufferings of our people,” while actively cooperating with the Nazis. President Obama’s speech* is reminiscent of such fantasies of peace and rapprochement in the face of an evil, intractable enemy.

And then there’s the parade of jackasses, led by GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump.

No, the president is not going to mention radical Islamic terror, because he doesn’t think it exists. But the only response I can have, besides horror, at Trump’s tweet about “congrats” is he should delete his account.

Hillary Clinton echoed the president’s call to “keep guns like the ones used last night out of the hands of terrorists or other violent criminals.” Except that Mateen wasn’t a violent criminal, until he killed 50 people. Clinton’s deadly bungling of Benghazi and Libya, which is now a hive of ISIS killers, should disqualify her from ever being believed or trusted again. If Trump is a jackass, Clinton is a viper who would willingly throw American military lives away to cover up her own crimes.

This is not a game, it’s a war. And the best people to fight a war are soldiers, not politicians, not policemen, and not media spokespeople or pundits. Not the FBI either–they don’t exist to prosecute wars, they prosecute crimes. Mateen had been under FBI scrutiny in 2013, but the FBI closed the case.

Trump wants to keep Muslim immigrants out of the U.S. First of all, that’s not effective at all since many radicals are Americans recruited online, and second, it’s nearly impossible to implement. We have laws on our books to deal with traitors in wartime. We can pass laws to ensure that guns don’t find their way into the hands of people who have been investigated by the FBI for radical Islamic connections. I think the NRA would support that**.

Trump said he’d listen to his generals, but his own rhetoric and ego would deny him that wisdom. We need to go to war, and do it with the grim determination of dealing with an enemy who doesn’t respect our borders; or the rules of engagement; or our own Constitutional rights. They are content to incite “lone wolves” and spread terror while politicians play their games.

We cannot elect a president in 2016 who plays games with terror. Unfortunately, both parties’ voters have proffered candidates who are exactly the opposite of what the country needs, either of whom will result in disaster for America.

Now is more reason than ever to put stupid differences, “historic” importance, and cultish loyalty aside, and find someone who will stand in the shoes of Churchill, face the grim enemy, and crush them, here and abroad. We have to stop playing games.

*Watch President Obama’s remarks to the nation below.

**There is a difference between calling for gun purchase restrictions for subjects who were actively investigated by the FBI for links with Islamic terror, and simply adding everyone on the “no-fly list” to a black list. The NRA opposed Dianne Feinstein’s stupidly constructed and Constitution-flaunting attempt to impose the “no-fly” black list, or the “Terrorist Watchlist” which is overgrown and overdue for maintenance. This is actually one problem the government can solve by throwing money at it. Keep the list well-maintained, overseen by a judge (like FISA Court), and allow citizens on the list due process to remove themselves, and it could certainly work.