It’s needless to say the leadership of the Democrat Party is in denial over the issue of Islamic terrorism. As we’ve pointed out countless times, Barack Obama continues to refuse to even say the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism,” and it’s obvious why he won’t: because he denies the true cause is Islam. “ISIL is not Islamic,” Barack has told us — apparently unaware what the terror group’s name stands for.
The problem with Islam isn’t radicalization. Look at a religion like Janism that teaches complete non-violence. As adherents become more “radicalized,” they become more peaceful — because that’s what the religion teaches. When Muslims become radical, they become violent — because that’s what the religion teaches. The problem isn’t radicalization; the problem is Islam. Doesn’t Obama think it’s more than a coincidence there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Muslims willing to kill for their religion — but the amount of Christians willing to do the same is in the single digits?
Let’s consider an act of Christian terrorism, for example. Only eleven people have been killed in anti-abortion related acts of violence in America’s entire history. For ISIS, that’s what they call a bad day. If all religions were the same, we’d expect each to have an equal amount of violent radicals. Obviously, that isn’t the case.
ISIS (or terrorism at all) was mentioned a total of zero times during the first day of the Democrat National Convention’s 61 speeches, and for those paying attention to the rest of the world, that’s a bad move. The Hill reports:
Prominent Democrats are worried their party will be painted as soft in the fight against terror.
Terrorism had hardly been discussed publicly at the Democratic convention – until Wednesday night’s series of national security speeches – but in private settings, fears about Donald Trump‘s use of the issue circulated among the party’s elite.
Noting polls that show Trump has a significant edge with voters on issues of national security and terrorism, Democrats worry he could defeat Hillary Clinton with the argument that she and her party have been too passive in the fight against ISIS.
A major domestic terrorist attack on the homeland, or even the continued steady drumbeat of foreign beheadings and suicide bombings, could be all that Trump needs to win the presidency, many top Democrats fear.
The only language that terrorists speak is violence, so good diplomacy isn’t going to be what defeats them. Who do you think ISIS is going to be more afraid of, the man who says he’s going to “bomb the s—” out of them and “take their oil,” or the candidate whose party thinks ISIS just needs a hug?
[Note: This post was authored by Matt Palumbo. Follow him on Twitter @MattPalumbo12]