President Obama spoke to the nation on December 6, 2015. President Obama spoke for just under 13 minutes. In that time he referenced the San Bernadino, Fort Hood, Chattanooga and Paris terrorist shootings. The result of the speech though, may be less of what the White House was seeking – a consensus on how the Obama international policy is working and support to restrict the 2nd Amendment – and more a series of questions about America’s future.
Immediately, with the very first sentence of the speech, a question rang clear in the minds of millions of Americans. In fact, it was the very first 2 words. The President said, “On Wednesday…” Millions had to ask why it has taken the President 4 days to respond to the San Bernadino shooting. This is especially true as the FBI took over the investigation of the shooting as it was determined this was an act of terror on Thursday. President Obama never answered why there was a delay.
It was that lack of answer that led some to speculate that the answer for the delay is based in politics. They saw the backlash that hit Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as she called for gun restriction legislation even before the number of those affected by the terror attack had been counted. They may also have calculated the response to the mainstream media, as it lashed out against the millions who reached out with love and prayers just weeks after the same reaction to Paris was embraced. The conclusion may have been that further gun restriction legislation – that matched the existing high standards in California – would not pass in Congress under these conditions. Nor would the nation be willing to accept the tens of thousands of Syrian refugees who’s background checks would not be as stringent as those given to the wife of the American terrorist shooter, herself a co-conspirator in the terror act.
President Obama then went on to say that there was “no evidence” of a terrorist organization, domestic or international, connected to the shooting. But that is not exactly correct. There is circumstantial evidence at this time. Both from ISIS directly stating the shooters were supporters, and from the father of one of the shooters stating his son,
“…shared the ideology of al-Baghdadi to create an Islamic State, and he was fixated on Israel.”
While circumstantial evidence is not concrete, it cannot be called no evidence at all. In the context of a terror shooting where the perpetrators actively sought to eliminate all evidence of why and how they enacted this vile event, it may be all the evidence that will be known. It is exactly this kind of parsing of words that causes a problem. The multitude of little questions add up to a lack of confidence in the full message. Add to that the fact that the full message isn’t about American safety, but American politics. Confidence goes out the window.
“As we’ve become better at preventing complex, multifaceted attacks like 9/11, terrorists turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings … It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009; in Chattanooga earlier this year; and now in San Bernardino.”
Here is yet another example. President Obama specifically mentions the Ft. Hood attack. The reference is as a terrorist act. But the Obama Administration went out of its way to define the Ft. Hood attack as “workplace violence.” Just a year ago, the Washington Times noted how the White House would not budge on changing the classification of the attack. The resistance was in part due to the political backlash that would come as President Obama had assured the world Al Queada was diminished.
President Obama then goes on to relate how America is successfully defeating ISIS and will overcome domestic terror attacks. Yet in doing so, the President once again turns towards politics and contradicts his own words. As was done in Paris, President Obama touted the 65 nation coalition that has been attacking ISIS via airstrikes. He conflates the new vigor in attacking ISIS by France as if it were a consistent and long-term reaction, and not in response to the Paris terror attack. He ignores the recent and dramatic actions of Russia, due to an attack on a Russian jet liner. Most of all, President Obama minimizes that fact that the prior efforts of his coalition have not moved the world closer to a time were ISIS is defeated, though the very recent retaliation of France and Russia have.
“The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear.”
President Obama speaks to preserving our national values, and not giving in to fear. But a mere few minutes later in his speech he outlines drastic changes to the rights of gun owners in America. He once again promotes his hyper-partisan views on gun restriction legislation. This cannot be considered anything but “abandoning our values“.
Worse is the fact that the President details a list of gun restriction actions that he implies will make America safer. But this is disingenuous, as millions of Americans have learned. Because California already has all of the restrictions the President, and Democrats of his ilk, are seeking. It is a clear and absolute fact that the banning of specific types of firearms & magazines, the waiting period, the conditional firearm licenses, and background checks all failed in this case. There is nothing to cause anyone to believe that if all of these gun restrictions were in place on a national level that the attack in San Bernadino would have changed in any way.
President Obama addresses the challenge of his obvious fallacy with a sentence in the speech,
“I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures.”
Once again the President purposefully misstates the situation. Gun restriction legislation that he favors does not make any firearm more or less safe. Restricting law-abiding citizens from owning a type of firearm he does not like does not make anyone safer from criminals that do not follow the law. Just as every measure he wants, which already exists in California, failed his argument fails to imbue any but the most ardent and blindly partisan any sense of safety.
President Obama then goes on to de facto accuse the people of the US of acts of prejudice against Islam. One can only infer he assumes that the rejection of accepting Syrian refugees, en masse without proper background checks and procedures that exist for every other refugee America accepts, is proof of prejudice. The eyes of our social justice leader cannot apparently comprehend the public’s call for concern.
To sum up the speech, in the ears of those not adamant in the goals of the far-left, President Obama called for more of the same and fewer guns. It’s been the response he has made in virtually every incident that has occurred since he was elected in 2008. If any American, or ally of America, went away from the speech concerned about the future it may only be because our elected leader has failed to provide any reason for confidence in how that rosy future he sees will become reality.