An Open Letter

Subsequent to the tragedy of an Islamic terrorist murdering almost 50 people in Orlando, FL on 12 June 2016, Obama, a day or so later, gave a speech. Note: He also gave a speech on the day of the shooting which is referenced below

His speech was NOT to offer condolences to those who lost lives; it was to offer criticism of those who cite his failure to name "Radical Islam".

I watched Obama's speech; and, if you want to watch it, Click Here.

I, and for those who know me will not be surprised, have a comment or many on this speech.

Before offering my comments let me define what I call a "leader". It will put the below in perspective Click Here:

My Comments:

Obama's speech, as noted above, was most ardently about criticizing those who cite his failure to name "Radical Islamic Terrorism". His offering was very reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's defense during testimony on the Benghazi "incident". As an aside re: Benghazi, Check This Out.

Obama stated, "What exactly would using this label (i.e., Radical Islamists) accomplish?" Actually, identifying those who threaten us and actually do us harm could accomplish much - both here at home and abroad.

The continued failure to actually name your enemy could, some say, gives solace and encouragement to the enemy. The more unanswered atrocities, the more emboldened for the next event. As in, "if the president of the USA doesn't care who we really are, he must be on our side - or at least not against us." kind of thing. Worse, to the millions of Muslims who are NOT terrorists, it says that our president isn't serious about terrorism making their lives a living hell.

Of course there's another aspect of this. This article poses a very valid and interesting point. That is, if what we call an entity matters not, then why succumb to political pressure from an organization promising to destroy us by removing references to Radical Islamics from governmental use? Read the article carefully. Consider, if you will, the possible implications of what it offers - especially the words of Sun Tzu.

A point that should be emphasized is that those who kill in the name of Allah are best described as "dumb as rocks". "Oh, wait!", you say. "Many of these terrorists are well educated."

Being "educated" does not make one smart. Being "educated" only means that one was presented with information. How well and how quickly one absorbs the information is a measure of intelligence. BUT, what one does with the information is what makes one smart - or not. No, the "smart" terror instigators are the ones who send others to die for Allah. Those who follow such orders are truly "dumb as rocks".

These "dumb as rocks" Islamics are easily swayed into believing and following what others tell them. The more Obama deflects terror acts away from their Islamic roots, the more easily swayed are the more ignorant - hence, Islamic Terrorist Acts.

Obama insinuates that his opposition's message is that "We can't beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists."

There are a couple of points on this one.

First, no one that I can think of has ever offered the above as THE solution to Islamic Terrorism.

Second, the president, his administration, and his swooning media are the only ones to use the term "ISIL". The actual enemy uses ISIS or The Islamic State (IS). The "L" in ISIL means "The Levant", an area that includes Israel. A subtle difference, one might offer. Perhaps, but let's not encourage our enemy any more than is necessary.

Obama then offers us this: "Since before I was president I've been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism."

In fact, no one has "perverted Islam"; the terrorists are strictly following Islam.

Strictly following any religion can lead to irrational behavior and thinking.

Take some in the far right politically here at home. These people would argue against "gay marriage" because of what is written in the Bible. However, no one on the far right advocates the killing of gays - or actually kills them. Only Radical Muslims Do That!

The Radical Islamics' prime mission is to have Islam dominate the world. And, unless you are willing to convert to Islam, they will endeavor to kill every one of us, our children, and our entire way of life. Let's never forget that.

In a Christian family children are often presented with the following poem/song:

"Jesus loves me, this I know,

For the Bible tells me so."

In radical Islamic families it perhaps goes a little differently:

"I must kill the infidels, this I know,

For the Qur'an tells me so."

As a slight aside here: If the above, with all the reference links, isn't convincing enough, perhaps Paul Weston, a Brit, offering an opinion to his government may be a bit more convincing.

Obama asked, "is there a military strategy in this?" - i.e., in naming the enemy. The answer is YES!

Naming our sworn enemy offers a few options that are not in effect now.

It would send the message to our various armed services branches that the president was serious about the threat to our Nation. This same message would be felt across our Intelligence agencies as well as law enforcement entities across the land.

Perhaps if the president's loyalties weren't so deeply rooted in Islam:

1. The rules of engagement employed today for our brave service personnel would allow them to more easily succeed and enhance their safety.

2. Many fine military officers would not have been removed from service due to disagreeing with the president. Obama's views on Islam have weakened our military significantly. The best strategy people are no longer in the military. It's not just "naming the enemy", it's what not naming the enemy entails.

Even George Bush, in declaring the "War on Terror", decided against naming Radical Islamics as he did not want to hurt the feelings of Muslims. HURT THEIR FEELINGS? How naive.

I would love to have heard the comments on this whole thing from Gen. G. Patton and I would to hear the same from Gen. Mattis. I have the strongest feeling that I would side with the Generals on this one.

3. Obama asks, "Would it (i.e., naming the enemy Radical Islam, etc.) bring in more allies?" Most likely, YES!

If our allies truly believed that the president of the US was actually serious about defeating ISIS, et. al., they, I believe, would join in. But, who will believe the president is serious when he can't even bring himself to "name the enemy"? Add to this Obama's continued insults to Israel - our only ally in the Arabic region. "If Obama won't even back his only ally in the region, who could trust him to back allies with not as much at stake?", any ally could feasibly ponder.

4. Obama offered: "So, somebody seriously thinks we don't know who we're fighting?"

Oh, we know who "we're" fighting. That's not the issue or the right question. The real question that has people concerned, very concerned, is why don't you, Mr. President, not appear to want to defeat this enemy? Do you honestly think that a few drone strikes is truly fighting? If you were serious you would set the rules of engagement for our service men and women so that they could WIN - not be concerned with political correctness a la the possibly of hurting someone's feelings.

5. Obama offers that using the words "Radical Islam" is but a political talking point. Perhaps. But, so is NOT using the words "Radical Islam". But, God forbid someone accuse the US of not being "politically correct". That would be the real harm, eh, Mr. President?

6. Obama seems to think, or at least this is what he offers, that not naming the enemy will tell the millions of Muslims who do not support terror acts, that we are not indicting them. Horse pucky!

When the word "radical" is placed in front of any group, by definition, it limits any negative connotation to ONLY those who are radical - it does NOT indict the majority who are innocent. Obama is just playing word games here. I hope the American people are not really stupid enough to believe his rationale here.

7. Obama repeatedly talks about Islam as a "religion". Yes, it has religious aspects. But, Islam is a geo-political ideology with a religious content. He seems not to want to either understand that or not to admit that. Doing so would greatly diminish his arguments.

8. Obama offered this gem: "We now have proposals from the presumptive Republican nominee for president of the United States to bar all Muslims from emigrating to America."

Well, hold on just a moment. Obama, of course, is referencing Donald Trump. Yes, Trump actually said what the president accuses him of saying. However, the president selectively edited out the last part of Trump's sentence. That is, "..until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."

Selective editing seems to be a favored manner of making it seem as though someone said what they didn't say or mean. And, the progressives are the primary culprits in this.

re: Trump's pronouncement, let's see if what he says has any reasonableness to it.

Obama and Hillary Clinton both are advocating a large increase in the number of so-called "refugees" from the Middle East be let into our country. The FBI has admitted they have no way of vetting these people.

Since we know that Radical Islamic Terrorists largely originate from that part of the world and we can't verify the benefit, history, or likelihood of NOT committing a terrorist act related to these "refugees", is it not reasonable to not let them into our country until we can?

9. Obama, further, offered this: "We hear language that singles out immigrants and suggests entire religious communities are complicit in violence."

By "entire religious communities" he, of course, means Muslims in America. Well, is there any evidence, any at all, that would suggest that these communities may, indeed, need a look-see? Unfortunately, the answer is YES!

First, one of the most prominent Islamic in American seems to favor Sharia Law here. Sharia Law is the very antithesis of the American culture and way of life.

The fact that some Mosques in our country foster and harbor terrorists and their activities may, just may, point to the need for closer watching.

Further, the fact that Islamic terror cells and organizations exist here in the US (see picture below) offer an issue to be addressed. Can such wide spread structures exist without "communities" supporting such - or, even be in agreement with such? Seems a fairly simple answer to me.

And, let's not forget this.

10. Obama points out that the Orlando shooter, one of the San Bernardino shooters, and the Ft. Hood shooter were all American citizens. Yes, they were. They were also Radical Islamics - which he failed to mention. People have become afraid to raise an alert to authorities, even if they see something suspicious, due to fear of being called racist or otherwise ridiculed and/or threatened.

11. Obama, toward the end of his speech offered us this: "Our Founders, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights are clear about that (i.e., "this is a country founded on basic freedoms"). And, if we ever abandon those values we would not only make it a lot easier to radicalize people here and around the world but we would have betrayed the very things we are trying to protect."

I'm certainly glad he brought up the Bill of Rights within our Constitution. Why? Well, one of those "rights" is defined by the 2nd Amendment - you know, the right that the government may NOT infringe upon.

On June 12, the day of the Orlando shooting, Obama gave a speech at the White House on the shooting. At about 3 minutes, 48 seconds into his speech he launched into a "gun control" narrative - again, you know the type - the type that argues against the 2nd Amendment; one of the rights he so profusely said was important to our way of life but a day or so later.

As an aside, if you would like to hear a true leader address the horrible incident in Orlando, Click Here.

To add insult to injury the president's administration "doubles down" on the "what to call the enemy" thing. Now, just not calling Radical Islamic Terrorism by it's name is insufficient. Homeland Security has added more words that may not be used as such use may also hurt Muslim's feelings.

What's possibly even worse, the Justice Department, under Obama, reacts to the terrible shooting incident in Orlando by editing and redacting the transcipt of the shooter's call to 911 braging about what he was about to do.

Why edit the shooter's message? So as to hide the shooter's ties, real or desired by him, to Islam and ISIS - ties to Islam & ISIS would not conform to Obama's narrative.

AND, the Attorney General even made public that she was doing it and why.

How was the transcription edited? Well, among other things, they replaced "Allah" with "God". Now, was anyone "fooled" by this? Not a chance. So, later the Justice Department had to offer what they called the full transcript". Of course, there are still some 20 minutes missing.

Is this the first time this administration has purposely hidden the truth from the American people? Apparently not!

What did Forrest Gump say? "Stupid is as stupid does!" Yeah, that's it. And the "stupid" would be us if any of us believes anything coming from this administration.

At this point I will offer a quote from the movie 'Patton" - Gen. G. Patton: "That's all!"