ShareThis Page
‘Homegrown’ nonsense: Words matter, Mr. President |

‘Homegrown’ nonsense: Words matter, Mr. President

Radical Islamic lunatics, whether affiliated with known terrorist cells or acting alone, have killed 91 people and have wounded at least 370 in the United States since Barack Obama swore his first oath of office. Yet in the aftermath of the latest and worst mass shooting in U.S. history, Mr. Obama sidesteps the radical Islam connection and dismisses the shooter as a “homegrown” extremist.

Unless the commander in chief drops the political correctness and focuses on the more difficult, disturbing instigation of recurring tragedy, as evident in previous Islamofascist attacks on U.S. soil during his presidency, nothing is going to change.

“This is certainly an example of the kind of homegrown extremism that all of us have been so concerned about for a very long time,” Obama said. Later, on his hesitancy to call it “radical Islam,” he said, “Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”

Excuse us, Mr. President, but your own FBI made plain that the shooter, Omar Mateen, exhibited “strong indications of radicalization” inspired by — dare we say it — Islamic terrorists. Yet the administration takes pains to avoid that nexus.

And after last year’s San Bernardino attacks, the president ordered Homeland Security and the FBI to delete “jihad” from counterterrorism manuals, Investor’s Business Daily reports. What was the Orlando massacre — if not a murderous jihad?

What provoked this terror is deliberate and focused. Obama’s approach to it is neither.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.