Even after Islamic terrorists yelling, “Allahu Akbar” murdered some 140 people in Paris and left another 400 or so wounded in four coordinated attacks, Democrat presidential candidates will not concede that the civilized world is at war with radical Islam.
During Saturday night’s pathetic Democrat “debate,” (if you can even call it that) Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Martin O’Malley all dithered and demurred when asked if America was at war with radical Islam.
“We’re not at war with Islam,” Clinton said in response to CBS moderator John Dickerson’s question. “We’re not at war with Muslims.”
Of course, THAT was not Dickerson’s question. He explicitly and repeatedly asked if we are at war with “Radical Islam.”
However, Sanders, Clinton, and O’Malley wouldn’t acknowledge that salient fact.
French President Francois Hollande had no difficulty in doing that, however. In fact, he said the attacks in Paris that ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham) or ISIL (The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), claimed responsibility for was “an act of war” and that France would be “ruthless” and “merciless” in its response.
If only WE had a president that displayed such resolution and boldness. Instead, Obama insisted in an interview the day of the Paris attacks that we had “contained” ISIL and that the radical Islamic Caliphate is not gaining strength.
“They have not gained ground in Iraq and Syria,” Obama asserted.
Sometimes I wonder what planet our president is living on. Of course, when you have a president who refuses to identify Radical Islam as an enemy, what can you expect?
Here is a fact: Radical Islam IS at war with America and the world and we need a strong president who acknowledges this, not an “Appeaser-in-Chief” who shrinks from our enemies.
Frankly, after listening to the spineless, namby-pamby blather Saturday night it is obvious that not one of the three Democrat candidates fits that description.
After ISIS brought down the Russian airliner with an onboard bomb killing some 220 people, British Prime Minister David Cameron perceptively called the war against Islamic terrorism the “struggle of our generation.”
“If our great-grandfathers were fighting against Prussian domination of Europe; if our grandfathers were fighting fascism; if our fathers were fighting the cold war against communism; I’m afraid to say, this struggle, against Islamist extremist terrorism, this is the struggle of our generation,” he said.
A few months ago Cameron challenged Obama with some blunt talk on Islamist extremism during a gathering of world leaders at the United Nations to develop an international strategy for defeating the Islamic State and other terrorist groups.
Well aware that Obama shuns the terms “Islamist extremists” and Islamic terrorists,” the British prime minister reacted strongly at the meeting when the president advised the assembled foreign leaders to avoid profiling Muslims because “violent extremism is not unique to any one faith.”
“Barack, you said it, and you’re right — every religion has its extremists,” Cameron said. “But we have to be frank that the biggest problem we have today is the Islamist extremist violence that has given birth to ISIL, to al-Shabab, to al-Nusra, al Qaeda, and so many other groups.”
Exactly! How many planes have radical Methodists blown out of the sky? How many innocent people have been beheaded by Buddhists? How many women have been stoned to death by Baptists, Lutherans, or Presbyterian? How often have Shinto priests massacred innocent concert and soccer audiences in Paris?
Do I even need to provide an answer? Just in case there is any doubt the answer is NONE!
But don’t tell Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or Martin O’Malley that.
They still think we can reason with murderous Islamic fanatics who want to strip us of our hard-fought freedoms, turn women into burka-clad chattel, and transform the entire planet into one cruel and colossal Islamic caliphate.
There is only one response to the threat these Islamic thugs represent, and that is their complete and utter obliteration.
The conundrum facing our nation as we head into the meat of the 2016 Presidential election is which of the candidates actually grasps that fact.
Hint: Don’t look for the answer from the three anemic appeasers who debated Saturday night or the one who currently inhabits the People’s House in Washington D.C.