Is Obama Working for ISIS?

Now that I have your attention it must be pointed out that, while of course he isn't working for ISIS, at least not in any official capacity, Obama does seem to have a gigantic blind spot--it's so big you could drive a Humvee through it--where jihad is concerned. Here he is collapsing the feat of holy war in California into the much larger category of "gun violence"/"violent extremism" where, he obviously hopes, it can be diluted and quickly disappear:

President Obama edged closer Saturday to declaring the shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., that killed 14 people a terrorist attack, but stuck to his prescription that the answer to preventing such tragedies was gun limits. 

“It is entirely possible that these two attackers were radicalized to commit this act of terror,” Mr. Obama said in his weekly radio address, broadcast a day after the F.B.I. declared that it was treating the massacre as an act of terror. “And if so, it would underscore a threat we’ve been focused on for years — the danger of people succumbing to violent extremist ideologies.”

Problem is the president himself succumbed to an ideology a long time ago. It may not be a violent one, but it is extreme in its determination to ignore/obfuscate what's plain as day and apportion blame to America, the West, colonialism, imperialism and the rest of that razzmatazz.

And, oh yeah, let's not forget anthropogenic global climate change, because for ideologues of Obama's ilk that alone is the apocalyptic threat du jour, the one that dwarfs and explains all others.

Call it Obama's Theory of Everything (or OTE), because that's what it is.



Update: While Obama "edged" e'er closer to declaring the obvious, edgy officials continued to sift through evidence, edging e'er closer to fathoming the pair's all-important and as yet supposedly still opaque "motives":

Law enforcement officials are poring through evidence as they try to uncover the motives of Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik, who allegedly killed 14 people and injured 21 others in Wednesday’s shooting rampage in San Bernardino, California -- a case that is now a federal terrorism investigation.  

FBI Director James Comey said at a news conference Friday that his agency has been spending a lot of time trying to understand the motives of the suspects and every detail about their lives. He added that the "investigation so far has developed indications of radicalization by the killers and of a potential inspiration by foreign terror organizations.”  

However, Comey also said, “we have no indication that these killers are part of an organized larger group or form part of a cell. There’s no indication that they are part of a network.”

Quelle relief, eh? I guess Comey thinks they funded/assembled their bomb factory and all their gadgetry all by themselves. And those strange men who kept coming and going from their house, the ones delivering boxes at all hours, the ones who raised a neighbour's eyebrows (even though he didn't contact authorities, fearing he'd be accused of "racial profiling)--I guess they were just relatives delivering wedding/anniversary/baby gifts, right?

As for the couple's "motives," voila:

San Bernardino Blood Bath Meets All the FBI Criteria for the Definition Terrorism, Even If Obama Doesn't Want to Admit It

We have been hearing that the sticking point in Obama and others identifying the San Bernardino massacre as an act of terrorism is that, in order to be so declared, the incident must satisfy the FBI's definition of terrorism.

Which makes it sound as though the FBI definition must be extra-stringent. But is it? I'm sure you can judge for yourselves.

"Terrorism," according to the official FBI definition,

is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. — Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

In this instance you have a pair of obviously devout Muslims--the wife wore a niqab, for heaven's sake-- armed to the teeth, and cooking up IEDs in their home bomb factory based on instructions from an Al Qaeda magazine. It isn't exactly going out on a limb to say that the "political or social objectives" of their "unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property" was intended to "coerce" government authorities" and instill terror in the hearts of civilians for the sake of furthering the aims of Islam/sharia/the jihad.

It seems to me that there's no doubt that this meets all the criteria--and then some--as set out by the FBI. It is Obama--and not the need to check off all the boxes in the FBI definition--who is the barrier to an official acknowledging of terrorism, all the while blaming the delay/hesitation on the FBI. 

That should come as no surprise when you consider that this is a man for whom everything is about gaining the political advantage, and who has spent his entire presidency trying to put Islam in the best possible light (and claiming that "unexceptional" America is the worst).

That would be his problem, not ours, but for the fact that he happens to the leader of the free (for now) world, and has the power to obfuscate, mislead and misrepresent situations whenever he so desires.

16 Killed In Firebombing at Cairo Nightclub

Gee, I wonder what the motive is (that's me being cheeky and channeling those who can't figure out the motive of two mass murderers in California who were devout Muslims and who had an Inspire-inspired IED bomb factory at home).

eDisharmony?

I have a "what if" for you. What if Al Qaeda or some Al Qaeda-like group is keeping tabs on profiles of lonely Muslim dudes who log onto dating/marriage websites? The San Bernardino shooter is said to have met his wife online. What if she was an Al Qaeda plant who recruited and radicalized the man who became her husband/partner in jihad?

Just a thought.

P.C. At Least Partly to Blame for San Bernardino Savagery

Apart from the carnage, the most disturbing aspect of the San Bernardino story is that a neighbor saw a plethora of strange activity going on at the killer couple's home (which must be vastly understating what she actually saw, since authorities found what amounted to an IED bomb factory in the pair's garage). However, the neighbor feared reporting it to authorities because she didn't want to be accused of--wait for it--"racial profiling."

"See something, say something"? Sure thing. But we can see how, in our hyper-sensitive don't-you-dare-go-and-"stereotype"-anyone era, that strategy is easily foiled.


Update: Somebody saw/said something when Texas teen Ahmed Mohamed brought his bomb-like clock to school--and the squealer was pilloried for his "Islamophobia" (which is supposedly "out of control" in the U.S.) when it turned out to be a real clock (or a real clock hoax) after all. One can perhaps understand the California neighbour's hesitation in light of that.

Hamas Official Kick Starts the Latest Round of an Old Tyme Blood Libel

Stop me if you've heard this before--and I'm sure you have: the Jews murder innocent kids (in this instance, Palestinian ones) and use their blood as the moistening agent in their holiday baked goods.

Call him Hugh or call him Omar, it's same old, same old.

Bill Nye's Crackpot Science

Excess carbon in the atmosphere put there by human beings is responsible the Paris terrorist attacks, says "settled science" guy Nye.

The Couple That Slays Together...

Barack Obama makes fun of Republicans who fear Syrian "widows and orphans" coming to America. Justin Trudeau says there's no problem importing thousands of Syrians because we're excluding single young men (who belong to the most-likely-to-kill-for-Allah demographic) and are only letting in "families"--and/or widows and orphans. (And, BTW, it's not as though they're clamoring to come here. In fact, luring them to cold, cold Canada is turning out to be rather a tough sell.)

Meanwhile, over in sleepy San Bernardino, California, a Muslim man and his Muslim wife, both educated and gainfully employed (she was a pharmacist) and with a six-month-old baby at home, unleashed the bloodiest U.S. massacre since Sandy Hook.

Clearly, the Obama-Trudeau way of looking at things is inherently--even fatally--flawed.

Update: Barack Obama thinks things could be turned around were there better gun regulations. We know, however, that if you are determined to kill infidels, there are other ways to do it.

Update: CNN suggest it may have been "a testy exchange" at a holiday party that provoked the man to act as he did.

Let's think it through, shall we? A man supposedly gets pissed off at a co-worker at the company Christmas do, grabs the missus and the body armor and some AK-47s he just happens to have lying around, and the masked twosome proceed to shoot up the joint, leaving a pile of dead bodies in their wake.

That makes about as much sense as the idea that only young men in the most-likely-to-kill-for-Allah demographic are the ones who kill for Allah.

Anything to downplay the jihad, eh, CNN?

Update: "Some reports said that the shooters were wearing Go-Pro cameras to film the attack": if that's so, who were they filming it for--say, ISIS?

Update: It's obviously a well-planned, highly-coordinated attack, but CNN isn't the only media outlet that's inclined to "play down the Muslim angle."

The Statue of Liberty a Muslim?

That's the latest bit of leftist scuttlebutt. But even if, as it's claimed, the statue was inspired by something over in Egypt, what she represents--freedom, democracy, the pursuit of happiness--is about as un-Islamic as it gets.

What Rhymes With Chennai?

A news story about floods in Chennai, India caught my eye, not the least because I was trying to remember what the name of the city was before it was changed to Chennai.

FYI--and mine--it's Madras.

And that reminded me of one of my favorite limericks (that was not written by me). It goes like this:

There was a young girl from Madras
Who had a magnificent ass.
It was not round and pink
As you may think
But was grey and had ears and ate grass.

Okay, so I was obviously much more immature when that one became a favorite.

Ironically, Donald Trump's Claim Re Rooftop Cheering in Jersey City Leads to a Far More Disturbing Revelation

Donald Trump may have gotten it wrong re the number of Muslims in Jersey City who were celebrating on a rooftop when the Twin Towers came down. (Certain Muslims in that town are whining about it all, saying they were "just as much hurt" by 9/11 as everyone else.) But guess what's just turned up? A grainy video, a screen grab of a story that ran on the Jersey City CBS news station a few days after 9/11. In the video, reporter Pablo Guzman reveals that not only were there Muslims on the roof of an apartment building cheering the destruction of the Twin Towers, but that these cheerers had a scale model of the WTC with them on the roof, and were watching events unfold with binoculars.
 
In other words, it appears that they had foreknowledge that the attack was coming, were up on the roof before the planes hit, and had a bird's eye view of the horror from start to finish.

The cheering, of course, came afterwards.
 
One more thing. Jersey City was home to the mosque of Omar Abdul-Rahman, the blind sheik. He's the jihadi who plotted the first attack on the World Trade Center back in 1993. So Chris Christie's befuddlement and defense of this New Jersey burg notwithstanding, the jihadi rot in Jersey City seems to go waaaay back.

And you know what? But for Donald Trump giving the media conniptions with his "thousands cheered on Jersey City roofs" trope, we would have forgotten all about the blind sheik's connection to Jersey City, and that story about those Jersey City jihadis waiting on a rooftop for the planes to hit on 9/11would have likely remained buried forever.