"Surrealism at its most annoying"

S.E. Cupp pegs Obama's dhimmi fear with this piece, starting with the title Islamic extremist terrorism: The scourge that Obama dare not name. I like how she begins, comparing the administrations unrealism to French surrealism. Here's the gist:

To the average person, it's pretty clear we're at war with Islamic extremists. Yet, to hear President Obama tell it, we are not technically at war, and even if we are, he wants you to believe religion has little to do with it.

He and his surrogates have repeatedly refused to say the words "Islamic extremism" or "radical Islam" when describing our enemies in groups like Al Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra, ISIS and Boko Haram, just to name a few.

His administration was caught flatfooted last week when White House spokesman Eric Schultz painfully strained to justify negotiating with Taliban, insisting it was not a terrorist group but "an armed insurgency."

Surreal indeed.

Whether linguistic subterfuge or merely semantic nitpicking, it's a curious use of caution from an administration that has repeatedly gotten out over its skis on issues of foreign policy.

The list is long: Al Qaeda's been decimated. ISIS is Al Qaeda's "jayvee" team. Yemen is a success. Benghazi was about a video.

Obama is constantly speaking in brash declaratives about terrorism, and is often subsequently proven wrong. But uttering the words "Islamic extremism" is too reckless?

Here's why I don't hesitate to call Obama a dhimmi.

[T]he White House is not Islam's PR shop. It's up to moderate Muslims to denounce radical Islam. The job of the President is to clearly name our enemies, not play word tricks on the public.

The Obama White House isn't supposed to be Islam's PR shop. But it has been playing that role since his inauguration in this refusal to name the enemy properly and by properly, I mean with the proper noun Islam and its derivatives.