Four Marines were killed yesterday by 24 year-old Muslim-American Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez at two naval operations sites in Chattanooga, Tenn. Abdulazeez was shot and killed by police after he allegedly attacked the Marines at the Navy Operational Support Center and Marine Corps Reserve Center at around 11 a.m. yesterday. Before attacking the military center, police say Abdulazeez sprayed an Armed Forces recruiting center seven miles away with bullets, leaving a police officer with a non-life threatening ankle wound.
A notice on the door of the recruiting center declared that the office was a “Gun-Free Zone.”
The stupidity of the gun-free zone signs is that it’s an open invitation to killers. The sign might as well have read: ‘Notice: This is a perfect place to attack because there are no armed guards (or citizens) to stop you. Maximum carnage is assured.”
In the wake of the attack, Obama offered his condolences to the families of the Marines killed and others who were injured. Later, he and Michelle offered Muslims a Happy Ramadan. To its credit, the Chattanooga Islamic Society cancelled today’s celebration of Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan.
The Gun-Free military zones was an order authorized by Pres. George H.W. Bush (I accidentally typed “Mush” instead of “Bush” just now – Freudian typo). The order, however, stipulated that if intelligence agencies had valid information that members of the armed forces were in immediate danger, they were permitted to disregard the order and carry weapons for self-dense.
When aren’t our military in danger? There is a PDF of the actual Department of Defense regulation, but it’s difficult to access the file at the moment. The website states that there are earlier regulations dating back to as early as 1985. Liberals are quick to note that Bush initiated the order. However, Bill Clinton signed it, as an Executive Order, three months into his first term. Some say it was an Army order. Clearly, though, the regulation applied to all the Armed Forces.
Perhaps those Republican administration officials were concerned about Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Clinton wasn’t; his disdain for the military was well-known and established – Obama’s even more so.
Why would Commanders-in-Chief leave their military members so exposed and vulnerable to attack, when Islamic terrorists have publicly threatened to attack them?
One reason might be to discourage enlistment in the military. Maybe they wanted to “advertise” to potential recruits that their lives would be in constant danger and that the government would do nothing to “protect” them, not even to allow them to protect themselves.
The Rules of Engagement have been changed to make certain that military members cannot carry out their mission. What more dangerous occupation could there be than an infantryman, sailor, fighter pilot – or Marine? Individuals enter the military with the full awareness of this danger. They will be fighting an armed enemy and they may lose their lives. They get that. What they don’t get is a government that doesn’t support them and goes out of their way to increase the peril for the military with onerous regulations and penalties for doing their duty.
Obama characterized the killer as a “lone gunman.” Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez was not Lee Harvey Oswald or Charles Joseph Whitman, the University of Texas-Austin tower shooter who shot 14 people from the university tower in 1966. Ironically, Whitman was a former U.S. Marine. Depressed over his father’s abuse, he joined the Marines right after high school. He was sent to school. His grades weren’t high enough to continue his scholarship and he was returned to active duty. Subsequent bad behavior earned him a demotion and finally, he was given an honorable discharge.
Whitman had been involved in numerous car accidents, leaving him with headaches and confusion about his own behavior. The night before the massacre at the university, he murdered his mother and his wife, which brought the total number of deaths to 16. He left a suicide note, but was actually shot by Austin, Tex., police officer.
Lee Harvey Oswald was also a former U.S. Marine who defected to the Soviet Union. He, of course, earned historical infamy by assassination Pres. John F. Kennedy in a motorcade in Dallas, Tex. Controversy continues to this day over whether he acted alone or not. From that incident arose the notion of the “Lone Gunman.”
So, the first “Lone Gunman” (Oswald – if he was alone; the bullet hole between Kennedy’s eyes suggests otherwise); the second suffered from psychological and physiological impairments. No excuse for either of them for the murders which they committed. Nor should the Marines be tainted for what happened.
As for Abdulazeez, his motivations apparently were a combination of theological and ideological. Investigators claim his communications indicate no link to ISIS, although they make clear that he was quickly becoming “radicalized.” His father had been on the terrorist watch list but for some reason was removed.
There is the matter of his Facebook profile photo, however. He is clad in ISIS fashion, which has copied the fashion of earlier Islamic terrorist groups, including al Qaeda. The influence seems obvious. He is pictured pointing a knife at the camera.
Why do we allow Obama to continually expose our military – and ourselves – to this threat? He refuses to even use the words “Islamic” and “terrorist” in the same sentence. We’re to believe that Abdulazeez was a crazed “lone gunman” who is not representative of the violent religion he embraced. We’re to believe he was traumatized, as Oswald was, by Imperialistic American policies. Oswald did a crazy thing, but he was not insane; he knew what he was doing, where Whitman did not.
Unless investigators can produce the smoking e-mail that links Abdulazeez directly to ISIS, or some other official terrorist group, he will remain classified as a “long gunman.” Never mind that he is in the warped company of Nidal Malik Hasan (the Fort Hood Shooter); Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, born Carlos Leon Bledsoe, the Little Rock, Ark., military recruiting office shooter in 2009 (he killed one, and possibly a second, soldier standing outside the office); the unknown bomber of the Times Square military recruitment office (no one was killed or injured); and the six Radical Islamists who had plotted to attack the Fort Dix Army Base in New Jersey in 2007 (the plot was foiled; Fort Dix is constantly on alert – they had also considered Lakehurst Naval Air Station, the defunct Fort Monmouth, and Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.
Of course, there was also the Boston Marathon bombing, which resulted in the deaths of three innocent civilians and the injury of at least 263 others. The Islamic terrorists have been attacking U.S. military installations and targets since the 1980s. Suicide bombers, ironically enough, are not referred to by the Media as “lone gunman”, or more accurately, “lone bombers.” Although the phrase “suicide bomber” singles them out and neglects the many people these “lone bombers” murder.
The American people are not blind. Obama is certainly not blind. Nor is he as naïve as some would have us believe. He is a chess master who knows exactly what he’s doing. His minions, whether they be useful college idiots or Muslims placed high within his administration, know what they’re doing, as well. His chief advisor, Valerie Jarrett, was born in a Muslim country.
Obama was not; he was born in Hawaii (Birthers, get over it). But he was born to a Muslim father (and an atheist mother) and according to Islamic laws, the child takes the father’s religion. He was raised, for a time in Muslim Indonesia, and mentored back in Hawaii by radical Communist Frank Marshall Davis.
Obama is not a proper commander-in-chief. He would argue that he swore to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution, not the U.S, military. He has done neither, and in fact, flouted those very duties with arrogance and contempt. There are not enough votes in the Senate to ensure his impeachment. We need to do something about that, although by the time we do, he’ll be long go, his real mission – to destroy the United States of America – will have been played out.
Pundits have been asking what we can do to better protect those who protect us.
The first thing we can do is repeal the regulation that deprives them of their side-arms. Whoever heard of soldiers who can’t defend themselves? If they can’t defend themselves, how can they protect us?
Secondly, we need to put a moratorium on Muslim immigrants. Like the illegal Mexicans, too many of them are here already. Most are peaceful sheep whose numbers hide the wolves within their fold. At the very least, we need to do better background checks of Muslims already here, and deport those with terrorist backgrounds or links even if they haven’t yet committed a crime. Those who are trying to enter the country should be denied that privilege.
Next, we need to reaffirm our commitment to Israel and our real allies. We need to send a message to the Islamists that we are not afraid of a fight.
We need to support those who are advocating for an Islamic Reformation. Muslims need to drop The Hadith and The Sura from their religious canon. Like the Talmud, these are words written by a man, not God. In this case, a violent and often disgusting man who took it upon himself to translate the Holy Book which he wrote and proscribe behavior and rituals to remain in Allah’s good graces. They also need to denounce the more violent version of their holy book, the Medina Qu’ran, in which Mohammed exhorted his followers to coerce others to convert via the sword. The Meccan Qu’ran is said to preach peaceful conversion.
We also need to re-embrace our own, Christian God (those who are Christians, that is). Too many have fallen away from that faith, especially among the young, because they find its teachings “inconvenient” and harsh, its rules too difficult to follow. The Ten Commandments are being removed from public places and school prayers were banned over 50 years ago.
It’s so hard, is it, to obey such commands as “Thou Shalt Not Murder” or “Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor’s Wife or Property?” “Thou shalt not take the Lord’s name in vain [swear]”? “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor?” “Thou Shalt Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother?” “Thou shalt observe the Sabbath (rather than shop at the mall)?”
Wow. Tough stuff, huh? Talk about tough love. Yeah, that last one is a bit hard in our energetic, perpetual motion society. Still, would it hurt to at least take an hour to observe the Sabbath. Since the advent of Progressivism and our abandonment of these basic values, we look, verily, to the Muslims like the Great Satan. Next time you’re at the beach and you oogle those young girls in their bikinis or the dudes with the rippled muscles, ask yourself what you’re doing? Yeah, you’re being human (and probably young) and not really hurting anyone. You’re just looking, afterall. Right?
If you’re wearing the bikini or the European trunks, ask yourself what you’re doing (aside from opening yourself up to a future case of melanoma). No one wants to see girls dressed up in hajibs or burkas on the beach. But there must be some middle ground where modesty and fun can come to an agreement. In the insurance industry, it’s called being an “attractive nuisance.”
Also, Congress absolutely must negate the recent Iran nuclear treaty. It’s done so before when it repealed the Treaty of Tripoli. The U.S. Marines’ most famous action of the 19th Century occurred in the First Barbary War (1801–1805) against the Barbary pirates.
The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States and Tripolitania, signed at Tripoli on Nov. 4, 1796, and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on Jan. 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by Pres. John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.
The treaty was a routine diplomatic agreement and was later replaced. It has attracted attention in recent decades because of a clause stating that “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries..”
Before anyone in the United States saw the Treaty, however, its required payments, in the form of goods and money, had already been made in part. It was not until these final goods were delivered that the cunning Pasha of Tripoli recognized the Treaty as official.
A prominent member of Adams’ cabinet, Secretary of War James McHenry (for whom Fort McHenry is named), protested the language of article 11, before its ratification. He wrote to Secretary of the Treasury Oliver Wolcott, Jr., on Sept. 26, 1800: “The Senate, my good friend, and I said so at the time, ought never to have ratified the treaty alluded to, with the declaration that ‘the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.’ What else is it founded on? This act always appeared to me like trampling upon the cross. I do not recollect that Barlow was even reprimanded for this outrage upon the government and religion.”
A second treaty, the Treaty of Peace and Amity signed on July 4, 1805, superseded the 1796 treaty. The 1805 treaty did not contain the phrase “not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
Still, the Muslims have declared war upon us. They’ve stated it many times, through Osama Bin Laden, through the Ayatollah Khomeini and the siege of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979, through the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1982, in the bombing of our Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies in 1998; in the first and second attacks on the World Trade Center, and in the latter case, including the Pentagon; the killing of employees at the CIA’s headquarters in Langley, Va.; in the numerous attacks on military bases here in the United States, including yesterday’s shootings.
Finally, our intelligence officials should pay more attention to dates in history. Yes, American holidays are important because that’s when we tend to gather in crowds. But Islamists consider their own historic dates of more significance.
Take yesterday, July 16: two years stand out in history.
July 16, 622 – The origin of the Islamic Era. This was the date of Mohammed’s Hijra – flight from Mecca to Medina. 622 was the first year of the Islamic calendar, and July 16, its first date.
July 16, 1945 – The first atomic bomb detonated, Trinity Site, Alamagordo, N.M.
For Muslims this year, the Islamic New Year coincided with the end of Ramadan. What a day for a devout Islamic terrorist to make a statement.
Fox News reported: “The Daily Beast reported that Abdulazeez kept a blog that contained just two posts, both published on Monday and both concerning Islam. The first refers to a hypothetical test, designed to, as the writer puts it, ‘separate the inhabitants of Paradise from the inhabitants of Hellfire.’
“In the second post Abdulazeez says his fellow Muslims have a ‘certain understanding of Islam and keep a tunnel vision of what we think Islam is.’
“’We ask Allah … to give us a complete understanding of the message of Islam, and the strength the [sic]live by this knowledge, and to know what role we need to play to establish Islam in the world,” he wrote.”
The U.S. has been on alert since before Independence Day, having been alerted to increasing Internet chatter by ISIS, indicating the group already had established groups within the U.S., ready to strike. Yet, military recruitment centers did nothing to increase their security.
Had U.S. assumed that since the targeted date – July 4th – had long since passed, that the threat had subsided? If they had, they need to re-read the history of the September 11, 2001 attacks and the previous attack in 1993.
The other date, July 16, 1945 is significant for its proximity to the sealing of the Iranian nuclear deal. Was that what the Iranians were stalling for – to–be able to sign the deal on that date? No wonder John Kerry was so nervous and anxious to have the deal signed, sealed and delivered. Even the cheerleader press could not have missed the significance and the irony.
Dead Marines, deadly bombs in the head of a deadly enemy, and a dead Constitution: such will be the legacy of the soon-to-be former Pres. Obama.
Our prayers and sympathy to the family and friends of the dead U.S. Marines: Semper fi.