One of the most common arguments made by those who promote obtuse domestic spying and reduced individual privacy for American citizens is that if we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to worry about. There are plenty of people in Washington DC who espouse these concepts, who believe that the NSA and law enforcement should be given free rein on their activities in order to keep us safe.
Things aren’t usually very black and white when it comes to politics. Then again, we’re not in a time when conventional wisdom offers the right answers. The Islamic State is at war with the United States and by the time the next President comes into office, we’ll need that person to be a wartime President. Ted Cruz is best suited for that job.
There’s a stark difference in the way that liberals like Attorney General Loretta Lynch and conservatives think when it comes to stopping terrorism and ending the unholy rise of the Islamic State. For conservatives, it’s a matter of recognizing the enemy and doing something about it. For Lynch, it’s all about being cautious, halting hate-speech, and running marathons.
According to the Obama administration and mainstream media with their strings by the same puppet masters, the biggest problem we face is not radical Islamic terrorists but rather weak gun laws. Let’s put aside that California has the toughest gun laws in the country or that the threat of radicalization from the Islamic State’s propaganda and recruitment machine is more powerful than anyone is willing to admit. Instead, let’s focus on why all of this happens.
When we think of radical Islamic terrorists, we often picture people in desperate situations who succumb to the pulls of an ideology that empowers them in some way. This western mentality is completely inaccurate and the San Bernardino shooters are most likely examples of the true attributes of radicalization that threatens the world more than anything else. They were living the American dream by most accounts. They had a baby to raise and prospects were good for their future. These facts didn’t chance their allegiance to the Islamic State.
The willingness to admit that there is such a thing as radical Islamic terrorists is not a condemnation of Muslims. However, the unwillingness to even utter the words “radical Islamic terrorists” is a betrayal of reality and demonstrates an agenda that is more politically driven than security driven for the Democrats.
The liberal media, the White House, and the Democratic candidates can ignore reality all they want, but American’s cannot allow the facts to be obscured. Guns nor gun laws are to blame for the massacre in San Bernardino, CA. A political atmosphere that betrays our Judeo-Christian value system is demonstrably the root cause.
In the coming days we will hear about the need for gun control, questions of radicalization, the need for metal detectors and frisking stations everywhere, and other forms of political agendas at play in the wake of the horrific shootings in San Bernardino. One thing that will not get nearly enough attention is the possibility that political correctness prevented a neighbor from reporting suspicious activity in the days leading up to the shooting because she didn’t want to “profile these people because she believed they were of Middle Eastern descent.”
Presidential candidate Ted Cruz has a reputation as being a staunch conservative, one who always votes to the right in his role as a Senator and who believes in conservative principles like small government, limiting taxes, and strong national defense. That’s the perception. The reality is that he’s conservative in all the right places, leaving room for pragmatic doctrine in situations when right versus left is really a question of right versus wrong.
There’s nothing wrong with being a political hawk when it comes to fighting our enemies as long as it’s warranted. When the need to be hawkish for political expediency supersedes common sense and proper alignment with the geopolitical needs of the United States, I take offense.