The Democrat Party likes to bash conservatives for being too tough on national security, national defense and law enforcement. And that desire to coddle criminals and terrorists naturally results in more risk and danger to the law-abiding taxpayers who pay Democrat salaries.
Investors Business Daily explains:
FBI Special Agent in Charge Ronald Hopper told ABC News that the FBI had twice looked into Mateen: In 2013, after he made what Hopper called “inflammatory” comments to co-workers, and again in 2014, after he was linked to Moner Mohammad Abu-Salha, another American who became a radicalized Muslim, who became a suicide bomber in Syria.
Given that Mateen worked for G4S, a Department of Homeland Security contractor, shouldn’t this have raised significant questions?
One of Mateen’s co-workers at G4S, Daniel Gilroy, told the Tampa Bay Times: “He talked about killing people all the time.”
Yes, but Americans can’t say anything about potential Muslim terrorists, or Democrat Attorney General will persecute them for anti-Muslim discrimination. She says that is her top priority, in fact. Not law enforcement. Not investigating the IRS persecution of conservative groups in an election year. No – her top priority is prosecuting those who raise the alarm about potential Islamic terrorists for “hate speech”. This is the Democrat Party.
Mateen was interviewed by investigators three times in relation to those probes, but the FBI determined Mateen was no threat, Hopper said.
Finally, on Monday, FBI Director James Comey said Mateen showed “strong indications of radicalization” and was likely inspired by foreign terrorist organizations.
In short, he was a “known wolf,” not a “lone wolf.” This is a disturbing pattern with terrorist mass murders, whether in Boston, San Bernardino or Ft. Hood, Texas. A pattern of behavior emerges, and is ignored. Ties to extremists are viewed as harmless. Then people are slaughtered.
This problem will not go away. Indeed, the world has been repeatedly drenched with the blood of radical Islam’s victims since 9/11 and before. As the observant Roger L. Simon noted, “Total deadly terror attacks in the name of Allah since 9/11 stand at 28,576 with who-knows-how-many corpses.”
Recall that the FBI was infiltrated by secular leftist groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center. The secular leftist FBI “partners” teach the FBI that the real threats to America are conservatives, Christians, pro-lifers, law-abiding gun owners, veterans, and those who believe in traditional marriage. That’s where the FBI’s attention has been for the last 8 years. Not on radical Islam, which they take to be as peaceful as the Boy Scouts. Obama told them so, and they believe it. All of our national security, national defense and law enforcement organizations believe it.
Is the Democrat President Obama serious about protecting taxpayers from terrorist threats?
Of course not:
[…]President Obama’s response after the attacks was not only disappointing in its failure to recognize the ongoing threat from radical Islam, but likely endangered future American lives with its obtuseness. He couldn’t even bring himself to use the most obvious words of all to describe what happened: “Radical Islamic terrorism.”
“I think we don’t yet know the motivations” of the murder, Obama said. Except, as Britain’s Daily Mail points out, the terrorist “pledged his loyalty to ISIS in a 911 call as he carried out the attack.” The loyalty wasn’t one way: Islamic State radio called the terrorist, Omar Mateen, a “soldier of the Caliphate.”
Maybe the attack was “workplace violence” again? Obama likes to call attacks that are clearly Islamic terrorism “workplace violence”.
There was another attack at Fort Hood a while back, and it was proven that the attacker was in contact with Al Qaeda. Obama called that one “workplace violence”.
And then there was beheading by a radical Islamist in Oklahoma, and Obama called that one “workplace violence” as well.
And the attack on the recruiting station in Chattanooga, TN was never labeled as terrorism by the Obama administration, either. Maybe it was “workplace violence”?
And of course, long after the San Bernadino terrorist attack occurred, Obama couldn’t figure out what the motive of the attack was. Probably it was “workplace violence”.
You can be sure that the Obama administration will spare no expense in trying to link the Orlando attack to Tea Party groups, or, failing that, to evangelical Christians. We hired people who sympathize more with our enemies than us to protect us.