Noticing and mentioning terrorist attackers is now considered – by the left and Hillary Clinton – giving comfort to the enemy.  Where in the history of the world has this ever been true?

Hillary and the left are pouncing on the alleged impact of Donald Trump mentioning radical Islam in discussions surrounding the recent bombings and attacks on our citizenry.  The suggestion is that Trump’s choice of words recruits more terrorists.

Playing nice with your enemies and guarding their feelings now takes its place next to microaggressions, safe zones, and multisex bathroom usage.

File this idiocy with the rhetoric surrounding the closing of Gitmo, that Gitmo is a “recruiting tool” for ISIS.  The skewed logic concludes that by closing the facility, the acrimony will abate, that recruitment for ISIS will decline, and that the placation will have the desired effect.

Lost on the left is the cold, hard fact that as the population of Gitmo declined, the recruitment and the terrorists attacks of ISIS have ramped up significantly.  To spell it out for the left, their ideas have had precisely the opposite effect from what they claim.  It will also be so with any “gentle and politically correct” labeling of terrorists.  No impact.

What is missing is a dividing line, a delineation between “good” Muslims and Islamic terrorists.  That line must be drawn, and the difference must be emphasized by the peaceful Muslims who are appalled by the actions of the radicals.  The silence is deafening; the lack of effort in this is glaring.

The left, Obama, and Hillary make the accusations that mentioning radical Islam is to paint Muslims with a broad brush.  But it is they who might be “painted” that fail to distinguish themselves from the radicals.  The palette is blurred.