Replies

Is it the case that the entity who was elected POTUS cannot bring itself to refer to these victims as Christians, nor those slaughtered in the Paris deli as Jews, BUT he is all out there condemning the killing of three Muslims in NC? Do I have my facts straight?

Rush Limbaugh tackled this on his program today. In case you missed it:

And I think this is also an additional reason why this administration will not call terrorism terrorism. And it's not just that Obama has vanquished it, it's not just that Obama said with bin Laden's death we got rid of Al-Qaeda. He did say that, and so Obama has to stick with the idea that Al-Qaeda's been vanquished. They can't have come back to life; he took care of 'em. Okay, that's an explanation for it, too.
But Obama also said that he had these people on the run, that terrorism's on the run, and this really isn't terrorism. It's just random this, and random that, it's like street crime. So Obama's invested in calling this thing other than what it is. But in addition to all these reasons, what is another? It always comes down, whether you accept this or not, particularly in a period of time where Obama's not seeking election again, it still comes down to his base, the lunatic base, the people in this country that vote Democrat who've been driven insane with rage and hatred by all the lies they were told during the Iraq war.
snip
So now we got Obama can't call it terrorism because the people of this country are told there wasn't any and Obama defeated it. And there is no ISIS, ISIL. It's not serious 'cause there wasn't any of this stuff. They would have to acknowledge that they lied, not Bush, if Obama and his gang were to man up and deal with this head on. In order to do that, they would have to acknowledge that they were lying all these years about what was going on in the Middle East.

I would encourage you to read the entire commentary, here