THE HEAD TERRORIST WEEPS!

Why Obama Gets Emotional Talking About Islam Posted: 15 Jun 2016  By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media What difference does it make to use the phrase “radical Islam?” It means in the Orlando case that the terrorist is identified through his affiliation with a particular religion that sanctions death for homosexuals. It also means in the Orlando case that law enforcement authorities may get the idea or impression from the President of the United States that the religion of a suspect is NOT to be judged or pursued when questions emerge about Muslims having links to terrorism. As a result of this mindset, the FBI let a faithful follower of Islam, who regularly attended a mosque, murder 49 people at a gay club in Orlando. This is why “radical Islam” matters. The term “head in the sand” doesn’t begin to capture the madness in the White House. This tragic situation can be made much worse if the media follow Obama’s lead and succeed in browbeating Congress into passing more restrictions on the ability of law-abiding American citizens to defend themselves and their loved ones. Obama would rather blame the guns than the religion. Why? It’s interesting that President Obama gets emotional when talking about Islam being blamed for killing Americans. He treats the phrase “radical Islam” as something offensive to him personally. The issue is not, as Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says, whether Obama “loves” the United States that he has worked so hard to transform in his image. The issue is a presidential approach that has cost many lives in Orlando and puts more lives at risk in the nation at large. On one level, Orlando appears to be another major intelligence failure on the part of the Obama administration. But these failures keep piling up, and more lives are being lost. There is a pattern developing of Muslims in the United States carrying out terrorism against Americans. What has not been explained is whether Obama’s pro-Muslim sympathies tainted the FBI’s “preliminary” investigation of the Muslim terrorist killer. Was Omar Mateen given a clean bill of health by the FBI because he was a Muslim? Why were his pro-terrorist comments dismissed as insignificant? What about his trips abroad, supposedly on religious pilgrimages? In retrospect, it’s absolutely clear this killer understood he was one or two steps ahead of law enforcement. Perhaps he thought his religion would protect him. He scouted various soft targets, such as Disney World and the gay night club, and then decided on his own where he could inflict the most carnage. He apparently visited the gay club on numerous occasions to prepare his assault and identify potential victims. Perhaps he had homosexual tendencies. What we do know is that he was a practicing Muslim and had the Koran, a picture of a Mosque, and a book about a Palestinian in his apartment. Most of all, he had confidence he wasn’t being followed because the FBI had closed its case on him. The Southern Poverty Law Center had been telling us for years that conservative Christians were the big threat to gay Americans. Now the nation knows better. And while Obama won’t identify the enemy, his one-time political allies in the homosexual community are beginning to take note. However, as predicted, conservatives are now being blamed for the murders carried out by a crazed Islamic killer who pledged allegiance to ISIS. Incredibly, Florida Catholic Bishop Robert Lynch is blaming his own religion for playing a part in the massacre. He says “sadly it is religion, including our own, that targets, mostly verbally, and often breeds contempt for gays, lesbians and transgender people. Attacks today on LGBT men and women often plant the seed of contempt, then hatred, which can ultimately lead to violence.” Catholic teaching is that homosexuality is unnatural and sinful, but it does not advocate the killing of gays. On the other hand, Islam treats homosexuality as a crime. In fact, homosexuality is illegal and can be punishable by deathunder Islamic Sharia law. Not surprisingly, The Washington Post quickly reprinted this Catholic Bishop’s essay, since it takes the attention away from the Islamic motivation of the terrorist. It also diverts attention from Obama’s inability, or unwillingness, to identify and stop the enemy in America. This Catholic Bishop went on to offer his thoughts on gun control, saying, “Our founding parents had no knowledge of assault rifles which are intended to be weapons of mass destruction. In crafting the second amendment to the Constitution which I affirm, they thought only of the most awkward of pistols and heavy shotguns. I suspect they are turning in their graves if they can but glimpse at what their words now protect. It is long past time to ban the sale of all assault weapons whose use should be available only to the armed forces.” The Bishop has no understanding of the fact that an “assault rifle” is a semi-automatic weapon that must be fired one bullet at a time. It is not a machine gun just because it looks like one. Does the Bishop not realize that the killer also had a semi-automatic pistol and that he used it in the attack? Our “founding parents” depended on their weapons for protection and revolution. They made self-defense into a Second Amendment right. They would be turning in their graves at the idea that Muslim terrorists in the United States could carry out a series of attacks on innocent people, and that the President of the United States would refuse to put the blame on a religion that spawns such violence. Laura  J Alcorn Let's  Invite More to our social network.   Send these post to your email groups and friends. Like us on  Facebook