Bitter Jihadists Cling to Guns and Religion

Meeting privately with a group of donors in San Francisco on April 6, 2008, presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama told them of “small towns in Pennsylvania” and in the Midwest beset by job losses in a changing economy. He told of how “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment” to vent their frustrations.

In San Bernardino, California, bitter people clinging to their guns and their religion, full of antipathy towards people not like them, shot up a Christmas gathering, killing 14 Americans. They were radical Islamic terrorists, a phrase which has not and is not likely to fall from President Obama’s lips as he still considers the possibly it might be “workplace violence” as the administration dubbed the massacre at Ft. Hood. And don’t forget that terrorist inducing number one threat to national security and American lives -- climate change.

Islamists shooting up a Christmas gathering is not “workplace violence”. It is radicalized, “less than loving” Muslims participating in a global jihad against Christianity and our Western Judeo-Christian culture. When Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik they were bitter clingers indeed, filled with the same animus towards Christianity and Western culture as Maj. Nidal Hassan was when he shot up Ft. Hood while yelling “Allahu Akhbar” (God is great November 5, 2009, killing 13 and wounding 30.

How did the pair, on Fraook’s limited salary, amass thousands of rounds of high-powered ammo, wire their home with sophisticated booby troops, assemble a bomb-making factory in their garage, and acquire semi-automatic weapons with foreign help?

It has been reported by CNN that Tashfeen Malik had pledged allegiance online to the Islamic State:

Investigators think that as the San Bernardino, California, attack was happening, female shooter Tashfeen Malik posted a pledge of allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Facebook, three U.S. officials familiar with the investigation told CNN. Malik's post was made on an account with a different name, one U.S. official said.

It was exactly the kind of attack by “lone wolves” that the Islamic State has been encouraging and exactly the kind of attack that President Obama said a “contained” ISIS could not mount here. It is part of a curious pattern of denial of radical Islamic terror by a President Obama who pointedly refused to march with world leaders in Paris after the attack on the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. As Investor’s Business Daily has pointed out, President Obama has exhibited a curious double standard:

Speaking of the Chapel Hill, N.C., murder of three Muslims, President Obama, as his FBI began an investigation into whether it was a "hate crime," issued a statement saying that "no one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like or how they worship."

Indeed not. Yet, we could find no such sentiment or statement by Obama condemning as a religiously motivated hate crime in the September 2014 beheading of an Oklahoma Christian woman by a former co-worker for not heeding his demand to convert to Islam or die.

Dare we say it depends on whose ox is being gored? Obama -- who apologized to the United Nations after the Benghazi terrorist attack, saying a video offensive to Muslims prompted it -- also said, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

That declaration would seem to include the staff of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, who were accused of doing just that before a terrorist attack killed twelve journalists. The massacre at Fort Hood was "workplace violence, "not a jihad terrorist attack by Maj. Nidal Hasan against Western "crusaders."

The lives of the four Jews killed in a kosher market in Paris were dismissed by Obama as "a bunch of folks in a deli" shot "randomly" as they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Detect a pattern here?

Indeed, we should, a pattern of denial and obfuscation by a president who is either delusional or incompetent or both. This is not a problem with guns that will be solved by background checks or cross checking gun buyers with no-fly lists. CBS has reported that Tashfeen Malik, who came here on a visa to marry American citizen Syed Farook, actually passed vetting by our vaunted Department of Homeland Security.

So what should we be looking for after San Bernardino? Attorney General Loretta Lynch has an idea -- look for those spouting hate speech against Muslims. Speaking to a group of Muslim advocates, Lynch said:

The day after a horrific shooting spree by a "radicalized" Muslim man and his partner in San Bernardino, California, Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged to a group of Muslim activists that she would take aggressive action against anyone who used "anti-Muslim rhetoric" that "edges toward violence."

Speaking to the audience at the Muslim Advocate's 10th anniversary dinner Thursday, Lynch said her "greatest fear" is the "incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric" in America and vowed to prosecute any guilty of what she deemed violence-inspiring speech.

What? The president has said words have consequences but we don’t have an epidemic of Christians shooting up or burning down mosques. We do have an epidemic of radical Islamic terrorists killing Christians and Jews. The president decried Republicans for their reluctance to blindly admit Syrian refugees, accusing them of being afraid of “widows and orphans.” What they are afraid of, Mr. President, is your policies here and overseas of allowing the Islamic State and their sympathizers to create more widows and orphans there and here while you whistle past their graveyards.   

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.              

If you experience technical problems, please write to