In what can be regarded as an attempt to SQUIRREL! deflect from the numerous scandals currently plaguing his administration, on Thursday Mr. Obama asserted during a national security speech that we’ve experienced no “large-scale” terrorist attacks since 9/11 and that “our homeland is more secure” on his watch. Yeah, he really said that. Let’s review:

• Fort Hood, November 5, 2009: Shortly after Mr. Obama took office, the Fort Hood attack, which the administration still labels to this day “work-place violence,” resulted in the deaths of 13 people and injuries to 30 others. The Jihadist, Nidal Hasan, is reported to have yelled “Allahu Akbar” as he was massacring a room full of his fellow soldiers.
• Benghazi, Libya, September 11, 2012: In what has become a major scandal for Mr. Obama, four Americans, including our Ambassador, were murdered by Islamic Jihadists, after multiple pleas for assistance. Many reports have asserted that the administration’s succeeding cover-up is to conceal its covert gun-running operation to the Al Qaeda-linked rebels in Syria.
• Boston, April 15, 2013: Three innocent civilians, including a precious eight-year-old boy, were murdered by two Islamic Jihadists near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. Hundreds more were injured and permanently disfigured, many losing limbs. One of the perpetrators, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, is now implicated in the murders of three others in what appears a drug-related killing. The day of the murders? On or about September 11, 2011. Surely just a coincidence…

So that makes three significant terrorist attacks in the past four years, all on Mr. Obama’s watch. (He also made no mention of The Shoe Bomber from 2001, and the numerous other conspiracies.) He would have us believe, callously, that since thousands weren’t murdered, as on 9/11, that the attacks by Jihadists–and they are Jihadists; he refuses to utter that word–on our civilians is somehow insignificant; and that we are perfectly secure with his open border policy and his Trusted Traveler Program extended to Saudis. So what do you call the slaughter of our fellow Americans at the hands of Islamic Extremists, Mr. Obama? Just a little workplace collateral damage? The attackers are just misunderstood? It only counts if there are massive casualties? In many ways, the “smaller-scale” attacks can be considered more threatening because they’re more difficult to stop. They can occur anytime, anywhere, with little warning. The Boston Bombing, and the beheading of a British soldier in London this week, prove that.

Mr. Obama flat out refuses to accept the notion that Islamic Extremists are operating within our country and they want to kill us; all of us. And now he’s redefining the meaning of “terror” to fit into that narrative. He insists we can cumbaya our way into their hearts. But how’s that worked out for him for the past four years? They continue to threaten us; they continue to burn our flag; they continue to commit “honor killings,” on our soil, in the name of Allah. And now “mysterious youths,” aka Muslims, are rioting in, of all places, Sweden.

Mr. Obama is either the most naive president in the history of presidents, is afraid to criticize Muslim Extremists for fear of insulting them (since we know how their more extremist members tend to react), and thus embraces the (dangerous) Politically Correct Kid Gloves Treatment, or he wants Radical Islam to rise in this country just as he’s assisting its ascention, intentionally or otherwise, in the Middle East. Either scenario is utterly frightening. Islamic Extremism is spreading at a rapid pace. It is staring us right in the face. We had best wise up and address it, lest we become London and Sweden.