It was a familiar September scene for most Americans. Too familiar. Thirteen years ago, George W. Bush spoke to the nation from the same Oval Office as President Obama did Wednesday night, both determined to hunt down the terrorists who threaten our country. While the circumstances surrounding the speeches were different, the enemy is not; Muslim militants who demand the world submit to their form of Islam or be killed. For people watching Obama’s speech on ISIS, just one day shy of the 9/11 anniversary, it was an eerie and solemn reminder that the evil that robbed our nation of 2,977 bright lives still lurks.

After the deaths of tens of thousands innocent men, women, and children, and two American journalists, the flippant remarks of ISIS being a jayvee team were not uttered. But obviously, the administration still lacks a basic understanding of these extremists. In all 1,996 words of his address, none were more shocking than these: “ISIL is not Islamic.” Exactly what part of “Islamic State” does the President not understand? If these terrorists aren’t Muslim, then someone ought to tell them that.

The reality is, our military is about to put their lives on the line, and they need a strategy driven by national security – not political correctness. U.S. troops can’t win a war armed with liberal “tolerance.” If the President can’t even identify the enemy, how can he destroy it? One of the most crucial pieces of this ISIS puzzle is acknowledging the theological motivations of radical Islam. Anything less is a death sentence.

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, thinks the administration needs a reality check. “I believe that many of the elements (Obama) advocated are important, and I support them. However,” he said, “they are not enough to achieve his own stated goal of defeating ISIS.”

And he wasn’t alone. Plenty of leaders are concerned the President’s approach is not enough – a fear shared by the region’s Iraqi Christians. “Only Americans can fix it,” said one man on the ground in the region. “They should just send their soldiers into Iraq and Syria, not just fight from the air.” Another one of the hundreds of thousands of Christians driven from his home was disappointed by the Obama strategy. “When the Americans were in Mosul, we had no problems. When they left, the troubles started.”

It’s not enough to manage the problem – we need to eliminate it. The President continues to tie our hands by limiting the actions he’ll take to destroy the threat from ISIS by saying he will not “put boots on the ground” rather we will depend on “partners.” Now is not the time to rely on unnamed partners, it’s time for America to act decisively against ISIS.

“Diplomacy and coalition-building are hard work, and not easy for any President. But Obama has mostly been seen fundraising, vacationing, speaking about climate change, and playing golf…” Richard Grenell wrote bluntly. “The only people who feel reassured thus far by Obama’s analysis of ISIS is ISIS itself.”

Bloggers Take a Shot at Duck’s Right-Wing

Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame appeared on my radio show “Washington Watch” on Tuesday to talk about his latest book UnPHILtered: The Way I See It. Feathers flew in the blogosphere after Phil shared with my radio audience his biblical belief that God wants a man and woman to keep sex within the confines of marriage. Not exactly groundbreaking news that a Christian would uphold what the Bible teaches about sexual immorality – but more than enough to stir outrage and distortions from the Left.

Predictably, Phil’s critics pounced on his comments about what the Bible says on the consequences of sin. “God says, ‘One woman, one man,’ and everyone says, ‘Oh, that’s old hat, that’s that old Bible stuff,’” Phil told Washington Watch listeners. “I’m thinking, let’s see now; a clean guy – a disease-free guy and a disease-free woman – they marry and they keep their sex between the two of them. They’re not going to get Chlamydia, and gonorrhea, and syphilis, and AIDS. It’s safe. Now to me, either it’s the wildest coincidence ever that horrible diseases follow immoral conduct, or, it’s God saying, ‘There’s a penalty for that kind of conduct.’ I’m leaning towards there’s a penalty toward it.”

Phil is right and the social science confirms that God’s plan is the best. God is not a cosmic kill joy. God shows us through his Word the way to enjoy life. But Phil didn’t always have it right. He lived a life of sin for 28 years before his life dramatically changed after he came to know Christ. “I have run with the wicked for 28 years and run with the Godly for 40 years. The contrast is astounding.” I commend Phil and the Robertson family for standing firm against the forces of political correctness. Their voice for values continues to encourage millions of Christians to be bold in their faith. If you missed my interview with Phil, you can listen to it here.

‘Show Me State’ Shows the Governor Its Resolve

A majority of states require that a woman seeking an abortion wait a specified amount of time before she can have the abortion. Typically the state mandated waiting period is for 24 hours. Missouri, however, took additional steps Wednesday to lengthen their mandatory abortion waiting period to 72 hours, overriding Governor Nixon’s veto with a 2/3rds majority vote in both Chambers of the legislature.

Mandatory waiting periods are important for a variety of reasons, but they provide women with time to learn their options, research alternatives to abortion and save lives of unborn children. The action taken by the courageous lawmakers in Missouri to override Governor Nixon’s veto will undoubtedly save countless lives. Missouri now ranks second in the nation in terms of the length of mandatory waiting periods before a woman can have an abortion. South Dakota ranks first in the nation with a 72 hour-waiting period, which includes weekends or holidays. A Missouri woman who regrets her abortion and supports the Missouri law recently said, “A 72-hour timeframe is compassionate for women.”

Pro-abortion advocates categorize measures such as mandatory waiting periods as “extreme,” unnecessary, and anti-woman. However, these desperate claims ignore the growing pro-life consensus in this country and the fact that states have been passing measures such as mandatory waiting periods at record rates. States that do not have laws requiring mandatory waiting periods for women seeking abortions should follow the example of Missouri. Mandatory waiting periods are a reasonable common-sense approach to ensuring true informed consent, which helps women and ultimately will save lives.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.