If most of you are like me, you probably did not watch Obama's speech last night. He is, frankly, one of the worst public speakers I've ever heard--he is boring and pretentious, and utterly incapable of making a coherent extemporaneous speech. However, if you did not listen to our "Dear Leader," the text of his speech is available here, courtesy of the Los Angeles Times.
There is actually nothing particularly surprising about his speech, but three things do stand out. First, he is obviously reluctant to call the shooting an act of terrorism, but strongly emphasizes that "[s]o 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." The evidence indicates that the terrorist had contact with someone (otherwise, why destroy their computers), but Obama is afraid of immigration restrictions that will prevent him from replacing the voters of this country with ones more amenable to the social and political policies which he espouses.
Second, Obama continues to refer to the Islamic State as ISIL instead of ISIS. Why? Is he merely being pedantic? Why, yes, he is. You see, ISIS (or Islamic State In Syria) would suggest that ISIS is limited to Syria. However, ISIL (Islamic State In the Levant) would include Israel since Israel is part of the region that makes up the Levant. And Obama supports the Islamization of Israel.
Third, as expected, Obama calls for gun control. Specifically, he states: "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." Notice his dishonest attempts to miscast the argument from one sentence to the next? The first sentence is a call to ban gun sales to anyone on the no-fly list. There are no restrictions there on the type of gun--it is a blanket gun prohibition. But, in the second sentence he misleads listeners into thinking that only semi-automatic weapons would be banned.
Also in the second sentence, he suggests that "terrorist suspect" is the equivalent of being on the no-fly list. However, since no one knows how you get on the list, and it is virtually impossible to be removed from the list in the event of a mistake, there is no guarantee that a person included on the list is a "terrorist suspect." It could include people that donate to conservative causes, or some bureaucrats ex-spouse. Besides, even if that was the law, it wouldn't have made any difference in this case: neither shooter was on the no-fly list that I've seen.
Moreover, he is suggesting that we ban the exercise of basic constitutional right for reasons of national security for mere "suspects." If national security is threatened, then how about restricting immigration--something that is not a guaranteed right under the Constitution.