Hunting Down Islamophobia While The World Burns

Scott Greer Contributor
Font Size:

In the wake of the deadliest terror attack on American soil since 9/11, the Obama administration is promising swift action to allay the fears of a panicking nation.

But the swift action the White House is swearing it will deliver isn’t against terrorist strongholds or the extremist ideology that inspired last week’s senseless slaughter. Instead, Obama and his allies are planning on going after guns and Islamophobia.

The official at the forefront of this restrictive effort is U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. On Thursday, Lynch gave a speech to a Muslim advocacy group that will hopefully go down in history as the nadir of anti-Islamophobia.

The attorney general stated that her “fear” of the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric… is my greatest fear.”

That’s why she vowed to use the full extent of the law to go after “violent talk” against Islam and told the approving crowd that “we stand with you in this.”

Additionally, she told Muslim parents to report any bullying their children might deal with to the federal government so that bureaucrats can file lawsuits against the offenders, if necessary. (RELATED: Loretta Lynch Urges Muslim Parents To Contact Feds If Their Children Are Bullied)

As one of the administration’s earliest responses to the terror attacks, Lynch’s speech made it appear that the White House was more concerned with feelings of Muslims than the security of our country. The attorney general’s greatest fear wasn’t under the radar homegrown jihadis, but law-abiding citizens expressing opinions she found deplorable.

As responses to terror attacks go, it’s up there with General George Casey saying in the aftermath of the 2009 Fort Hood shooting that the military losing its diversity would be worse than the actual attack.

Lynch’s speech is in keeping with the overall message that Obama is conveying in the wake of the attacks. Asked during an interview in the immediate hours after the violence occurred, the president — without knowing many details — immediately pointed his finger at guns.

In his Sunday address to the nation on the terror, Obama warned about the dangers of “abandoning our values,” urged that Americans “reject discrimination” and demanded new gun restrictions. In contrast with the rhetoric on Islamophobia, very few blistering words were said about how he’ll destroy ISIS.

How the White House is handling the situation seems remarkably insane. While more than a few outlets are shamelessly airing the theory that the San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook was provoked by anti-Muslim comments, Islamophobia is not a driving force behind terror. Radical Islamic ideology is.

No terrorist is going to be dissuaded from blowing up innocent civilians because he knows the Department of Justice has Clock Kid’s back. Neither will he be deterred by strict gun laws.

France has some of the most stringent restrictions on firearms in the world and legally punishes speech it deems hateful towards Muslims. It has also had two major terror attacks this year, both of which involved the use of assault rifles and were not stopped by tolerant hashtags. When there’s a will for jihad (and a porous border to let otherwise illegal weapons in), there’s a way for jihad.

Unfortunately, our government right is defined by tendencies that can only be summarized as “anarcho-tyranny.” A term that has long circulated in paleoconservative circles, anarcho-tyranny describes a state that fails to enforce laws designed to punish real criminals, while enacting measures to infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens. Thus, a sordid mix of anarchy and tyranny coinciding at the same time.

This discrepancy is typically the result of ideological considerations and the political elite’s desire to shore up more power.

The Obama administration’s willingness to trample on free speech and gun rights in response to their own failure to prevent terror in the homeland encapsulates this concept.

How many of our leaders treat the issue of illegal immigration in comparison with gun control is also indicative of this tawdry mindset. Pundits and politicians plead that we can’t secure the border or deport those who broke the law to come here. Meanwhile, these same people dream of taking away millions of guns from Americans whose only crime is owning something liberals despise.

It’s funny that Obama and his deputies have been adamant that we must not sacrifice American values in the fight against mystery extremism when they’re so willing to destroy the First and Second Amendment in the process.

However, we shouldn’t be surprised.

This is a White House that’s more than willing to take the opportunity to exploit a tragedy to push an unrelated domestic agenda. They have one standard response to shootings, and they’re rolling it with it again in San Bernardino.

The call to prosecute free speech and restrain gun purchases is driven entirely by liberal ideology, not for any concerns about safety. Most Democrats support punitive measures for so-called hate speech. A majority of them also want stricter gun laws.

Why not try pushing both and hope the measures stop the next “radicalized” terrorist?

The brutal truth of the matter is that a large number of our political class is unable and unwilling to keep Americans safe from Islamic terror. They, like the mayor of Dallas and many others, buy into the myth that the greatest threat to American security is scary white men with guns.

We cannot hope to remain the same strong nation if we continue down this crazy path. The fundamental values of America include the right to speak your mind without the fear of legal retribution and the ability to own a gun for self-defense.

Overturning those rights on behalf of liberal dogma and the misguided hope that it prevents future terror is not just naive — it shows weakness in the face of the enemy.

Follow Scott on Twitter