It’s both embarrassing and amusing to watch the Obama administration play word games over Islamic terrorism, or workplace violence if you prefer.

As National Review editorialized last week

…there are in practical terms two Islams — a religion, if not of peace, then of peaceful accommodation, and a religion of death.

Western political leaders try to dismiss this second death cult as a perverted or false Islam, or even as nothing to do with Islam at all. That dismissal is false and, worse, completely unpersuasive. The death cult has learned imams and sophisticated theologians among its adherents. They can quote Islamic texts in support of their revolting doctrines — and do so far more convincingly than President Obama, David Cameron, or Tony Blair do in support of their own. Their scholarship strengthens the faith of the suicide bombers and child soldiers. And because they justify murder and issue fatwas mandating it, they exercise some intimidation even over the leaders of the other Islam.

Muslim political leaders are far more aware of this than those in the West, and increasingly prepared to fight the death cult. On the eve of the Paris murders, Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi attended the Coptic Christmas Mass in Cairo — the first Egyptian president to do so — and reached out to these infidels in the clearest terms: “We will build our country together. We will accommodate each other. We will love each other.”

Obama seems to think that if he acknowledges the obvious–that most of the murderous terrorism today is being perpetrated by self-identified Muslims–it will unleash a wave of hate crimes against innocent Muslims.

Such is the bigotry of our president against the American public, who he believes are primitive louts who cannot think.

Chris Stirewalt at Fox adds:

WHAT’S WITH THE WORD GAME ON ISLAMIST MILITANTS?
Since when did White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest become a theologian? Pressed on the administration’s tortured effort to avoid the I-word when talking about attacks by Islamist militants, Earnest offered a long disquisition as to why. But the core reason seemed to be that since the Islamists’ conduct did not comport with Islamic values, the militants did not qualify for membership: As Earnest put it, it stems for a desire for “accuracy.” This hearkens to President Obama’s claim this summer that the Islamic State is not Islamic because its conduct doesn’t reflect the values of the faith and not really a state, either. Okay. Or, reaching back to the beginning of what was then known as the Arab Spring, when a top administration official claimed the Muslim Brotherhood was “a largely secular” organization. Or the claim this week from a State Department spokeswoman who said that talking about Islamist extremism might improperly minimize the threat from other forms of violent ideological extremism. Like which ones? Well…

The president and his team seem to have lashed themselves to the idea that somehow non-Muslim politicians in the West have some say in defining the Pillars of Islam. Facing increasing press criticism for tortured and obfuscatory language, however, the armchair theologians of the White House are spending a lot of time explaining their view of the faith. This stubbornness is interfering with the effort to explain the administration’s policy to a skeptical public and rally support for the president’s plan (whatever that may be).