noname

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. On Wednesday, 14 Americans were killed as they came together to celebrate the holidays. They were taken from family and friends who loved them deeply. They were white and black; Latino and Asian; immigrants and American-born; moms and dads; daughters and sons. Each of them served their fellow citizens and all of them were part of our American family.

Tonight, I want to talk with you about this tragedy, the broader threat of terrorism, and how we can keep our country safe.

The FBI is still gathering the facts about what happened in San Bernardino, but here is what we know. The victims were brutally murdered and injured by one of their coworkers and his wife. So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home. But it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs. So this was an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people.

Our nation has been at war with terrorists since al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In the process, we’ve hardened our defenses — from airports to financial centers, to other critical infrastructure. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots here and overseas, and worked around the clock to keep us safe. Our military and counterterrorism professionals have relentlessly pursued terrorist networks overseas — disrupting safe havens in several different countries, killing Osama bin Laden, and decimating al Qaeda’s leadership.

Over the last few years, however, the terrorist threat has evolved into a new phase. As we’ve become better at preventing complex, multifaceted attacks like 9/11, terrorists turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all too common in our society. It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009; in Chattanooga earlier this year; and now in San Bernardino. And as groups like ISIL grew stronger amidst the chaos of war in Iraq and then Syria, and as the Internet erases the distance between countries, we see growing efforts by terrorists to poison the minds of people like the Boston Marathon bombers and the San Bernardino killers.

For seven years, I’ve confronted this evolving threat each morning in my intelligence briefing. And since the day I took this office, I’ve authorized U.S. forces to take out terrorists abroad precisely because I know how real the danger is. As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than the security of the American people. As a father to two young daughters who are the most precious part of my life, I know that we see ourselves with friends and coworkers at a holiday party like the one in San Bernardino. I know we see our kids in the faces of the young people killed in Paris. And I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.

Well, here’s what I want you to know: The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power.

Here’s how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary. In Iraq and Syria, airstrikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure. And since the attacks in Paris, our closest allies — including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL.

Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens. In both countries, we’re deploying Special Operations Forces who can accelerate that offensive. We’ve stepped up this effort since the attacks in Paris, and we’ll continue to invest more in approaches that are working on the ground.

Third, we’re working with friends and allies to stop ISIL’s operations — to disrupt plots, cut off their financing, and prevent them from recruiting more fighters. Since the attacks in Paris, we’ve surged intelligence-sharing with our European allies. We’re working with Turkey to seal its border with Syria. And we are cooperating with Muslim-majority countries — and with our Muslim communities here at home — to counter the vicious ideology that ISIL promotes online.

Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has begun to establish a process — and timeline — to pursue ceasefires and a political resolution to the Syrian war. Doing so will allow the Syrian people and every country, including our allies, but also countries like Russia, to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL — a group that threatens us all.

This is our strategy to destroy ISIL. It is designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition. And we constantly examine our strategy to determine when additional steps are needed to get the job done. That’s why I’ve ordered the Departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa *Waiver program under which the female terrorist in San Bernardino originally came to this country. And that’s why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice.

Now, here at home, we have to work together to address the challenge. There are several steps that Congress should take right away.

To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies — no matter how effective they are — cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do — and must do — is make it harder for them to kill.

Next, we should put in place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can take a hard look at whether they’ve traveled to warzones. And we’re working with members of both parties in Congress to do exactly that.

Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it’s time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight.

My fellow Americans, these are the steps that we can take together to defeat the terrorist threat. Let me now say a word about what we should not do.

We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria. That’s what groups like ISIL want. They know they can’t defeat us on the battlefield. ISIL fighters were part of the insurgency that we faced in Iraq. But they also know that if we occupy foreign lands, they can maintain insurgencies for years, killing thousands of our troops, draining our resources, and using our presence to draw new recruits.

The strategy that we are using now — airstrikes, Special Forces, and working with local forces who are fighting to regain control of their own country — that is how we’ll achieve a more sustainable victory. And it won’t require us sending a new generation of Americans overseas to fight and die for another decade on foreign soil.

Here’s what else we cannot do. We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world — including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology. Moreover, the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim. If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.

That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda promote; to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.

But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans — of every faith — to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It’s our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes — and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of our country. We have to remember that.

My fellow Americans, I am confident we will succeed in this mission because we are on the right side of history. We were founded upon a belief in human dignity — that no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what religion you practice, you are equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law.

Even in this political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future Presidents must take to keep our country safe, let’s make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional. Let’s not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear; that we have always met challenges — whether war or depression, natural disasters or terrorist attacks — by coming together around our common ideals as one nation, as one people. So long as we stay true to that tradition, I have no doubt America will prevail.

Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

[source]

88 Responses to Full Text: President Obama’s Oval Office Address to the Nation on Terrorism

        • “Twas barely worth the effort it took to completely ignore it.”

          I think I’m gonna disagree on that.

          Look how he phrases this one line in the speech:

          “We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino.”

          Harder than it is now? Harder than the standard NICS check?

          The NYT called for outright confiscation of those weapons.

          He wants some kind of ‘special’ treatment for AR/AK weapons.

          Perhaps he will be kind and not confiscate them.

          Perhaps like re-classifying them to NFA status?

        • “We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino.”

          What “powerful” weapons? None have been disclosed only a couple .22. Were there Q-46 Space Modulator or M41A Pulse Rifle in use?

          A note to the Kenyan eunich/news meda – 2x AR and 2x handguns and a few hundred rounds is NOT “heavily armed” or an “arsenal”.

    • @Nick Leghorn: Think you could put this in there, or in another post?

      $300 NRA Life Memberships:
      https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?campaignid=XM026737

      70% off, ‘Tis the season! I don’t know how long this will last, but it’s a heck of a deal. If it wasn’t for NRA we would have had an AWB after Sandy Hook. They’re the “Gun lobby” that BHO keeps complaining is preventing him from implementing his gun confiscation schemes.

        • Me too. I’ve been waiting for a $300 deal since I joined the NRA late 2013 (I’m young, from an anti-gun NYC family, and didn’t become committed to the cause until the 2013 anti-gun campaign). I’m scrimping by and I’d like to invest in a lifetime membership both to save myself money in the long run and support the NRA now (if I have more money when I’m older, by the time it pays for itself, I’ll donate more), but I simply don’t have a thousand bucks on hand, much less the $1500 they’re going to start asking for next year. I don’t have $500 for it, either, so I’ve had to let those deals slip by. But if I get a chance to make the commitment at $300, as has been offered in years past, I’m in. I could raise $300 for it.

    • ” . . .ISIL does not speak for Islam. . .”

      Actually, they do. And that’s the problem. There has been a reformation in the Muslim world which has caused it to become demonstrably less modern, more reactionary and intolerant than at any time in it’s recent history. The Islam that is increasingly dominant today is not at all the kind of Islam that was prevalent even a single decade ago. Modern Muslims, the very group Western politicians believe are a majority, are now targets for the fundamentalists. They may hold modern opinions but they express them at their peril. They are not in control of Islam. The people who revel in cutting off heads and stoning women for fun and profit are in charge and gaining strength. They are at war with us, not just ISIS.

        • Yeeeah, no.
          The average “Christian” today is a mild-mannered 30-something who’s biggest problem is he’s trying so hard to be a “nice guy” that he can’t bring himself to live by the principles in scripture. Modern Christian culture has become so focused on being relevant, modern, and politically correct that they are (in many cases) mostly useless.

          The modern Christian man is in danger of being a complete milquetoast beta-male, not carrying out violence against people because of his beliefs.

          Christianity’s problem today is that it is becoming a branch of the statist religion, adopting many ideals of state-worship, total pacifism, and a divorce from principle to try and “be less abrasive” to those who don’t share the faith.

          They are neither hot nor cold, mostly just lukewarm.

          If Christians lived closer to Christian principles, there would be far fewer single-parent families, unscrupulous business practices would decrease, communities would be more stable and better protected, and society would greatly benefit.

          ***Yes this is a generalization based my personal experience with a dozen churches and community service organizations in mostly urban and sub-urban areas in Ohio and Alabama.***
          I know many of the courageous men here are Christians, and are far from milquetoast. What I’m referring to is the typical behavior of a “mega-church” Christian: Docile and helpful, with no ability or desire to handle conflict or danger – followers, not leaders; and certainly not a threat to others.

          Understand, I’m a Messianic Jew for whatever that’s worth.

        • David, There are how many hundreds of thousands of Christians currently engaged in ‘Holy War’ to rid the rest of the world of all who are non-believers?

          There are how many radical Christians beheading infidels being filmed and broadcast?

          There are how many cartoonists murdered by radical Christians who are offended by some cartoons?

          There are how many violent street protests because someone put up a picture of something representing a Christian god. or his prophets?

          There were how many stoning of rape victims by Christians last month?

          (List keeps going…)

        • So any time now, you’ll explain to me how Muslims, a minority in Sweden, are responsible for the vast majority of rapes in that country, right?

          And after you’ve cleared up that statistical misunderstanding, you’ll explain Rotherham to us, right?

        • @Dyspeptic

          As long as Mike Tyson is guilty of “raping” someone, who couldn’t figure out he did so until an ambulance chaser realized Tyson could make him rich and famous, “rape” is not a “crime” worth bothering with.

          Swedish men should arm themselves and protect their women anyway. Not saying raping people is a nice thing to do, but if it doesn’t bother the Swedes themselves enough to do something as simple arming themselves, I have a real hard time understanding why it should bother me that The Bikini Team is becoming The Burka Team.

        • Noteworthy for a bunch of reasons…. The President can no longer claim his tenure to be Terror Free. His comments about ISIS/ISIL being contained are now being calling into question by more than his haters. His comments about ISIS being Junior Varsity look silly when we have our own ‘homegrown self-radicalized terrorists.’

          The lame-duck just got more lame. And he just gave the Democrat hopefuls a much bigger hill to climb to try and claim victory.

        • Especially for those who were involved in the event. There are consequences in military benefits and recognition for those killed or injured in an event that is terrorism vs. workplace violence.

    • So basically terroristst are running around with guns shooting people so we law abiding citizens should have less guns or none at all? Sorry I don’t follow the logic there buddy.

      Besides that terrorist watchlist is a joke. Children and members of homeland security often get on it by accident. Also it is unconstitutional to take away people’s rights without a conviction.

      All Obama can do at this point is run his mouth anyway.

      • “So basically terroristst are running around with guns shooting people so we law abiding citizens should have less guns or none at all? Sorry I don’t follow the logic there buddy. ”

        The “logic” is as follows: “Something happened that made it to the news. Therefore, I need to show my stupid face on TV and tell people ‘we’ should ban something.”

        “Though not for me, of course. While you should be banned from procuring guns to protect your daughters, I should not only be able to procure them to protect mine, but indeed also be able to use them to force you to pay for mine.”

        Now, this clown is “democratically elected.” That ought to tell you all you need to know about the desirability of democracy as a form of government.

  1. 14 Americans died in part because they were in a gun free zone. Who created and encourages gun free zones? Who resists at every turn allowing American citizens the right and means of defending themselves?

    The democratic leadership is soaked in the blood of innocent Americans.

  2. “For seven years, I’ve confronted this evolving threat each morning in my intelligence briefing.”

    Liar…we know he doesn’t even attend these…tee time conflict ya know.

    • It’s his only real “accomplishment”. Even that he inheirited. Was in motion months before he went into office but for once he is willing to accept something from the previous administration.

    • And even the killing of Osama he botched; completely destroyed our working relationship with Pakistan permanently & making it impossible to retain our position in Afghanistan, and even turned over some of our most advanced stealth technology to the Chinese, Russians, and anyone else who paid for a ticket to the scene in the days after. And lastly, utterly threw to the wolves the most crucial informant who had assisted in the operation, ensuring no opponent of Al Qaeda/ISIS would ever think about sticking his neck out for America.

      • We have never had a “working relationship” with Pakistan since Musharraf. Pakistan has always done what it perceives to be in its own interest–which is actually hard to discern sometimes since the military has one view, its intelligence service (ISI) another altogether, and the elected government a view with no power to effectuate it. The Pakistani intelligence service has supported the Taliban in Afghanistan from the very beginning, as its interest is in an unstable and ununified Afghani government. It supported Lashgar E Taiba, the (terrorist) group responsible for the Mumbai attack and the continued unrest in Kashmir. And given the circumstances, it appears that the Pakistani military (or ISI) was giving tacit support to Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden. Our successful attack–which would not have occurred had we warned the Pakistani military we were coming– was more of an embarrassment to them than anything else.

        When it comes right down to it, the same could be said for Turkey and Saudi Arabia. None of these countries are out “friends,” only countries whose interests occasionally align with our own.

        • What is your view of Turkey being a part of NATO? Is that just on paper or only in Turkey’s best interest?

        • Turkey before Erdogan was a reliable, and secular, ally. Erdogan sees himself as the natural leader of the entire region, from Egypt to Iraq–i.e., the next true Caliph of a Sunni empire. I think that there can be no doubt that under his leadership, the Turkish intelligence service has been actively supporting ISIS with arms, munitions, and logistical support; he believes that he can control them or destroy them when they have succeeded in ridding him of his hated nemesis Assad. When his plot was exposed (and quite recently) he arrested the editors of the papers that published the story of arms hidden in humanitarian aid, and even arrested the generals who uncovered the hidden munitions at the border. He has been actively crushing dissent, closing opposition newspapers on trumped up “treason” charges, threatening and seizing businesses of political opponents, and assassinating nonviolent Kurdish activists. He happily agreed to our use of Incirlik AFB not because he wanted to bomb ISIS, but because it gave him cover to bomb the PKK rebels in southeast Turkey and in Iraq. In addition, it gave him cover to promote his “No Fly Zone” in north central Syria because such a zone would protect his Turkmen allies and his lucrative relationship with ISIS (who are the only operating forces in that area–he having threatened to attack any PYG forces that threatened to cross the Euphrates west of Kobane to attack ISIS. For reasons no one has explained to me, he is adamantly opposed to the creation of a Kurdish state in northern Syria, despite the fact that the PYG are some of the only forces who are (a) successful, and (b) mostly sectarian, fighting for homeland and freedom, not religion.

          I don’t have an issue with Turkey being in NATO–but I have grave issues with Erdogan.

        • Insightful analysis, Mark N., and it lines up with many ideas I already had about the situation. It’s always nice to see some confirmation.

  3. I actually see some progress here–he admitted that some in the “Muslim communities” are terrorists. he also finally admitted that the Fort Hood shooter was a terrorist and not a disgruntled employee. That’s an improvement for Obama–but then, that’s a damnably low bar for “progress”.

      • Good catch–I think you are on to something there. Also because this last one is undeniably terrorist-and since the cat is out of the bag anyway, he can just lump Hassan in there now.

    • Yeah, I thought the contents of the speech itself were a lot more forthright than he has been in the past. Of course he put in an assault weapons ban in it but he always does. And the no fly list thing is obviously an oversimplification. I think there has been some serious backlash to the way he and his friends in the media have handled this which have been totally agenda driven and spun.

    • I noticed that too. It’s still “workplace violence” on the books I believe. I HOPE this CHANGES since he as aknowlaged it for what it was. The victims families will benefit greatly if it is relabeled a terror attack.

    • More from Mark N. It seems there is a lot of hate for the daily beast around these parts but I came across a pretty thoughtful article on flipboard that speaks to the failings of the response to California by dems and libs in general.

  4. “It’s our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road, we lose.” -Yes, because that is NAZI mentality.

    “Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun.” – But this is OK NAZI Mentality.

    • When our response to terrorism is sacrificing or seriously infringing on the constitutional rights of Americans- we lose, the terrorists get a big win.

      Never pay the Danegeld…

  5. What he will try and do is: put all semi-automatic “assault weapons” under the purview of the NFA. What other avenue can he take without Congressional action? Revoke the “sporting purpose” exemption for those guns?? Thoughts??

    • He has very little ability to do much as almost all firearms-related laws are very carefully articulated in the law. He can change the how, but not the what. So, he can re-define via exec order what a gun dealer is, but cannot redefine what an NFA covered item is – that is specified in the law. All he basically has is his bully pulpit, which he is using routinely lately. The good news is that after so many screw ups from his administration, both domestically and internationally, a very, very large number of people see the emperor has no clothes. Of course, he has demonstrated no respect for the boundary of law, so it’s a true guessing game which way he could go.

      Naturally, he could do something truly outrageous, as in declaring a national state of emergency or nation-wide martial law, possibly in response to some horrendous terror strike, and then all bets are off. Get enough people scared and they could just add millions of people to various lists and move forward, knowing it would take a few years to work through the courts.

      • “Naturally, he could do something truly outrageous, as in declaring a national state of emergency or nation-wide martial law, possibly in response to some [in his opinion] horrendous terror”

        Like Hillary losing the election to Cruz?

  6. Islamic terrorists have been at constant war with the US since the early 90s. But hey, who expects this president to get the facts straight?

    • Dev

      A close examination of history will show that islam has been at war with everyone who is not Moslem for the past 1,400 years.

      This is just the latest iteration.

    • You’re correct. Radical Islam has been conducting a war against us since the Iranian embassy hostage thing happened in ’78 or ’79. Maybe before that. However, America did not declare war against Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism until just after 9/11 in 2001. So what BHO said is also correct.

      • Right, before that, Al Queda was out ally in the fight against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. What we failed to realize then–and continue to fail realize now with respect to our other Middle Eastern allies, that each of these groups have ulterior motives that don not align with American ideals, policies, or goals.

      • Muslims have been at us for 200+ years.

        eg, the opening couplet from the Marines Hymn:

        “From the halls of Montezuma
        to the shores of Tripoli”

        Do a little research why that line is there, why the Marines went to Tripoli, and how the Muslims justified their piracy against US shipping. Hint: They weren’t reading the little slips of paper included inside a box of Cracker Jack.

  7. So, ISIS is suddenly uncontained somehow because California’s gun laws aren’t strict enough. And because of this, let’s get rid of the 5th amendment, then the 2nd, then all the rest of them just to be on the safe side, because freedom is overrated.

  8. My wife was in the car reading news aloud. She knows I’m pro-gun. She says, “oh ok, thats a good idea; the no-fly lost.”

    I said, “wait, how do you think that could go badly?”

    “Well, they could put you on the list.”

    All you have to do is question these people. Its easy. Its the people who dont bother to question that are a problem.

  9. My wife was in the car reading news aloud. She knows I’m pro-gun. She says, “oh ok, thats a good idea; the no-fly list.”

    I said, “wait, how do you think that could go badly?”

    “Well, they could put you on the list.”

    All you have to do is question these people. Its easy. Its the people who dont bother to question that are a problem.

  10. Next thing you know he will want to promote the 75 individuals that work for Homeland Security…that are also on the “NO FLY LIST”!!!!

  11. Sealing Turkey’s border. What about ours?
    Ft hood= finally admits it was terrorism
    Supply weapons to unrepresented Syrians and Iraqis? Why does he insist we can’t have them? Freedom is stronger than fear? why are you so scared of my gun freedoms pres?

    • My opinion? “Sir, we will take in and protect your wife and daughters and young sons. Those of you who are men old enough to fight, here is an M1 Garand we recently got back from South Korea and a big box of 30.06. You get on back to Syria and stop being pussies.”

      • This. We’re under no obligation to give citizenship away for free to foreigners of dubious merit. Let’s agree upon a fair deal where you perform a service to America, and you can earn it and America will welcome you.

  12. The whole speech was nothing but empty phrases, which the American people will accept without questioning any of it. Because they have no idea what those empty phrases actually mean.

    For example:
    What is the no-fly list? How does someone get put on the list?

  13. I cannot read or listen to anything that monster has to say without a few choice words, elevated blood pressure, and much anger, so I don’t. Is this the same old dribble? Is there anything new, or is it the usual aspiring tyrant talking points?

  14. To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

    The no fly list is a fuzzy logic algorithm conceived from arbitrary opionion and crudely implemented with little recourse or oversight for people who are wrongly added to the list. It is oppressive in nature – being a course of action in which the accused is “guilty until proven innocent” on the basis of not evidence – but speculation. Not only is it not indicative of a free state – but it’s a piece of legislation that would have made Heinrich Himmler proud.

    • If the state has evidence of a crime, they should be indicted and tried in court with the opportunity to defend themselves – otherwise left alone!

    • It would have made Joe McCarthy proud as well. McCarthyism should be the response/accusation every time watch lists are mentioned.

  15. translated the bullshit out of Obamas latest oval office address.
    You see, America has these freedoms, and we need to take them away to protect you from terrorists. These terrorists want to install a terrible dictatorship and take away American freedoms, so we need to take your freedoms away so they can’t do this.

    Now onto to ISIL, we armed them, and trained and supported them, now they are the bad guys, so now we’ll train these other guys, who will totally be different this time, I promises.

    Our strategy to defeat ISIL is to do the same thing Bush did, but it’s different cause I’m not him.
    I’m gonna give these overfunded inefficient government agencies more power to comb through your private communications cause it will totally saves you from the terrorists! Even though the California terrorists publicly declared their allegiance to ISIS on social media, and we couldn’t catch that.

    Now, I need Congress to go ahead and suspend the fifth amendment rights of people with absolutely no due process because they are on a list that includes 4 and 8 year olds and the FBI admits 40% of the list is completely wrong. Even though these two terrorists in California weren’t on the list anyway.

    I don’t get how people could argue against my tyrannical methods of suspending your rights under the constitution with absolutely zero oversight. Cue the buzzwords ;powerful’ assault weapons, you know those guns that are banned for hunting anything larger than varmints in some states because they aren’t powerful. Remember the guns in California were already illegal, we need to make them more illegal. Gun safety! I don’t know what it means. We suck at preventing terrorism and because of that you need to give up all your rights to me. We can take the guns away and they’ll just be stuck with the dozen pipe bombs they built.

    Now finally we need to go back to war on the ground in Iraq because it worked really good last time. We will not economically sanction or punish the financiers of terrorism, cause they my buds

  16. The one good thing he said–and he is right–is that there should be no American troops in combat. Obviously we could mop the deck with these fools, but as was the case in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, we could win the war but never win the peace. These people will happily take out weapons and our money, but they don’t want us there. Even the Shi’ia militia have said that if American combat troops come to Iraq they will fight US, even if we come with the goal of defeating a common enemy. [This is of course a reflection of the reason we lost the peace in Iraq–the Shi’ia and the Sunni are spoiling for a “war to end all wars,” needed to rid the country of “infidels,” meaning anyone who does not belong to their sect. To make matters worse, this religious war has enveloped the entire region. All we can do is eliminate the worst actors, leaving the rest to sort through the ashes to find a workable peace]

  17. Regarding Obama’s bloviation about Muslims serving in the military, need we recall the Ft. Hood “workplace violence,” and then the “workplace violence” of Sgt. Hasan Akbar? The US military has had their share of issues with Muslims attacking people as well.

  18. What a crock, California not tied to terrorism?
    What kind of misinformation is this?
    This all smells wrong.
    Is he late to the party? This infidel killing has been going on since the time of Christ.
    This wasn’t simply work related people.
    Seems to me this is just another example of whats coming .
    It is a cancer and its spreading.

  19. There’s going to be a run on AR-15s tomorrow at every gun store across America.

    Instead of the the no-fly list, why not use the terrorist watch list the FBI is working on? It’s equally unfair and unconstitutional. You can be on the no-fly list because you were an obnoxious drunk. San Bernadino killers weren’t on that list, but there’s more evidence coming out that they were under suspicion.

    • Tomorrow? Try tonight, I watched the in stock quantity of a rifle I have been watching diminish from twenty to zero in a matter of hours, same website is now running a notice that because of the new threat of gun control orders will take longer to process.

  20. So ISIS, which consists of roughly 30,000 hooligans, is comfortably withstanding military campaigns from the U.S., France, Germany, the UK, and the Kurds, not to mention Russia and Syria, all after having knocked Iraq on its butt?

    Oh yeah, the Second Amendment is hopelessly antiquated. Tens of millions of American gun owners would have no chance whatsoever, and would be summarily vanquished, against a totalitarian U.S. government.

    • The US military would be no match for millions of gun owners. They may have the advantage of better weaponry, but it is spread all over the country and impossible to defend. Most of their weaponry would be damaged or taken from them in just a few days. For example, it only takes a couple bullets to damage the fan blades in a jet engine, while it is sitting on the ground. They can’t fly it, if the jet engine tears itself apart on startup.

      And I haven’t even considered the numbers of servicemen who will take themselves and their weapons to the other side, or just refuse to fight against their own countrymen.

      • “The US military would be no match for millions of gun owners. They may have the advantage of better weaponry, but it is spread all over the country and impossible to defend.”

        The citizens can *easily* defeat the military in perhaps 60 days.

        The citizens surrounding the bases will stop the semis full of food from getting in the base.

        Citizens with rifles will destroy the high-tension powerlines that power the bases, some miles away from the base.

        The same citizens that will stop the food semis will stop the fuel trucks from getting in the bases.

        I expect their generators will last a few weeks, tops.

        Without once engaging the soldiers in a firefight the citizens will leave them in the dark and starving.

  21. This is why those who consider themselves conservative or republican should always worry about things like ‘no-fly’ lists. Even though they might be started to be ‘tough on terrorists’ they will eventually be used against you.

  22. I am all for a law that says, bad guys may not purchase or possess guns. The only problem is, those guys are already bad guys. They do not care about breaking a few laws. Such a law would have no effect at all.

    My greater fear in all this is that they will pass some law which, on the surface, sounds good. Let’s say that pass the law that “nobody on the no flight list” can have a gun. With that in place, they simply have to put everyone on that list and then nobody can have a gun. Then, they do some other list for no flight status.

    If they pass anything at all, it must contain due process protections for Americans. I simply do not trust our government to not abuse something once it is in place. It is just like “you can keep your plan and your doctor”. Obama flat out lied about that. He knew where he was headed all the time he repeated those lies.

    Finally, we need laws that state that any laws passed apply, first, to our leaders. They have to put up with the crap they pass for everyone else. Those laws should also carry very heavy penalties for any politicians who abuse the power they have been given while in office.

  23. I watched “The American President” once with my wife (she loves the movie at the same level as “Beaches” and “Moonstruck”). She tolerates my interest in all things powder ignited, but when Michael Douglas announces:

    “….You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of assault weapons and handguns. I consider them a threat to national security, and I will go door to door if I have to, but I’m gonna convince Americans that I’m right, and I’m gonna get the guns….”

    I think she glimpsed a little of my concern around an over-reaching nanny state.

    He may try to convince me, but I stand with the wisdom of the Founders.

  24. All he did was “double down” on his anemic ISIS strategy and his obfuscating gun control agenda. It was possibly the most feckless Oval Office speech ever.

  25. President’s speech should have been delivered in French. French language is especially well suited to making abject surrender seem palatable.

    Not a single new measure proposed against radical Islam, only gun owners. Cue the IEDs…..

  26. Until I hear about some real action taking place in Saudi Arabia, with or without their cooperation, which seems to be where all this radicalization takes root going back beyond 911, I take it all as just more window dressing.

  27. It’s rare he says stuff I agree with (none of the stupid gun control stuff obviously…)

    The best defense of freedom is freedom itself. Not more arbitrary and poorly informed laws.

    Let freedom ring!

  28. President Obama: “as the Internet erases the distance between countries, we see growing efforts by terrorists to poison the minds of people like the Boston Marathon bombers and the San Bernardino killers.” The CLEAR culprit is the first amendment, the spread of dangerous IDEAS, and yet no reasonable American would move to attack our freedom of speech. So instead of the ideas, we move against the OBJECTS, and attempt to erode the second amendment instead. And not ONE person has suggested altering the 1A in response to terror, or suggested that the founders could never have envisioned mass communication and the damage it could spawn (as people say the founders could never have envisioned semi-automatic firearms), rendering the intent of the 1A null and void. The gun control talk is a red herring. The real danger is free speech, which allows hateful ideology to spread. And no sane American would try to suppress our freedom of speech. But our freedom to defend ourselves with arms is always on the chopping block, it seems, whether it’s guilty of any wrong or not. We should protect all our first and second with equal fervor.
    LikeCommentShare

  29. Some good and some bad.
    I’m highly disappointed at the rhetoric on guns, but the rest is interesting and fairly good policy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *