Today, Hillary Clinton spoke about what happened in Orlando. I agreed with her when she said that Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries, needed to end their support for radical mosques in the US and around the world. But merely saying it does not make it so. Otherwise, FDR would have told Hitler that he needed to stop invading other countries and stop the Holocaust. And why should I, or anyone, believe that Hillary is serious about taking on the Saudis?
Hannity reported today that the Clinton Foundation has accepted $25 million from the Saudis alone. Saudi Arabia is one of the most oppressive regimes to women and to gays. Recall after 9/11 when a Saudi Prince offered $10 million to Mayor Rudy Giuliani to help rebuild New York City. But the Prince suggested that US policies in the Middle East contributed to the 9/11 attacks. In refusing the money, Giuliani said: "I entirely reject that statement. There is no moral equivalent for this act. There is no justification for it." Rudy has principles, and he stood by them. Who knows how much of the Clinton Foundation money may ultimately benefit the Clintons. And where were their principles?
The Clintons take money from the Saudi regime, but she is the pro-women candidate? Please. Maybe someone can explain to me where all the outrage is from women about this issue. Hillary also wishes to bring to the US tens of thousands more Muslim refugees. Some Muslim countries punish homosexuality with imprisonment or death. Individual Muslims, such as the murderer in Orlando, are offended by the idea of homosexuality. Yet, even after this horrific attack, I would predict that gays will overwhelmingly vote for Hillary. They will vote for a candidate who will bring people to this country, knowing that at least some of those people would like to see them dead. As I said in my January 17, 2016 post, many on the left have lost the natural instinct to survive. That survival instinct has been overcome by political correctness, and left-wing ideology.
President Obama spoke yesterday following the Orlando massacre. He did refer to the terrible atrocity as "an act of terror," as well as "an act of hate." He added: "We've reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer." Except, that early on it was known that the murderer was motivated by radical Islam. He shouted Allahu Akbar during the attack. But at no time during his speech did Obama utter the words "Muslim" or "Islam" or even "radical Islam." At no time during his 7 1/2 years in office has Obama been able to figure out how all these terrorist killings might be connected. Well, he certainly does know; the real question is why he refuses to ever say it.
FoxNews.com published a piece by John Bolton, former ambassador to the UN. Bolton explained that these radical Islamic terror groups are not organized the way a government or corporation is. People are not sitting in offices exchanging memos. They use social media to get their message out. There has already been talk of whether this latest attacker had connections to any terror group, or if he was a "lone wolf." But, as Bolton explains, "...the number of true "lone wolf" terrorists is infinitesimal." From which one might conclude, why would we bring more potential "lone wolf" terrorists to our shores. Why, until ISIS is destroyed, and they are unable to preach their radical jihadist ideology, would we want to do that?
As Bolton went on to say: "...the United States must urgently discard the fiction that we pay no price for not pursuing international terrorists vigorously and relentlessly." After noting the "lackadaisical" way that Obama has targeted terrorist bases, Bolton said this: "Obama manifestly believes that, as bad as terrorists are, American "overreaction" is worse." Obama has consistently shown that he does not believe in the use of American power - in any form. He believes the US needs to step back from the world stage and let others come to the fore.
But, as this blog has frequently noted, the withdrawal of US involvement does not generally result in the rest of the free world leading the way. No, the result is that tyrannical governments, like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, feel empowered by US withdrawal. Even more so does that apply to terrorist groups such as ISIS.
If you do not care about your own survival, then I hope that you will think of your children and grandchildren when you go to vote. If you think radical Islam is the problem, Trump is your candidate. If you think guns are the problem, and that notwithstanding the Clinton's close ties to the Saudis ($25 million tends to create those ties) that Hillary will be tough on them and their funding of radical mosques throughout this country, then Hillary is for you. If, contrary to all evidence, you believe that people are basically good, then Hillary is for you. But if you understand that the world is filled with bad actors, then you side with Trump.
Monday, June 13, 2016
Massacre in Orlando, Part I
It happened yet again. Another Islamist inspired massacre of people just living their lives. This time it was at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Just recently, it was at a cafe in Tel Aviv, Israel. And it seems like yesterday that we were mourning the San Bernardino killings committed by a coworker of the victims; a coworker motivated by radical Islam. The list of killings committed in the name of Islam is long, and I will not repeat them all. Nor will I, as is my policy, name the perpetrator.
The reactions also are all too predictable. One site posted some tweets from the Hollywood crowd. Ariana Grande said: "How how how how can one have so much hate?" Kirstie Alley tweeted: "I can't fathom this kind of hatred and insanity. Paul Feig: "There's enough hate in this world. It's just too much...Enough hate."
I have to admit, I have difficulty understanding such comments about "hate." My first issue with addressing the problem as being one of "hate" is this: is there some ideology called "hate" that has numerous followers throughout the world? What are the main tenets of this "hate" ideology? Who are the leaders of "hate"? Assuming we are correct in referring to what happened as "hate," we need to be clear that this hatred flows from a very specific ideology called radical Islam. (One can question whether this hatred flows from all of Islam, but that topic is not being addressed here.) So, it is simply incorrect to refer to "hate" as any kind of motivating factor in these types of atrocities. But if we must use the term "hate" let's at least use it properly: "hate inspired by radical Islam." There is no separate "hate" ideology.
The second issue I have with the use of the term "hate" is the way it is discussed as if it were some unnatural phenomenon. The left incorrectly assumes that people are inherently good. Conservatives tend to believe that goodness is taught. Anyone who asks how there can be such "hate" in the world is obviously unfamiliar with all of history. Such people have no knowledge of Hitler and the Nazis, Mao and the Red Chinese, Pol Pot and the killing fields of Cambodia, Stalin and Soviet Russia, Rwanda, Sudan and on and on. One hundred million people killed in the Twentieth Century. How can anyone believe that people are basically good? Do not misunderstand; there are many good and fine people in the world. Unfortunately, there are also many bad and evil people.
The other predictable reaction was the overwhelming call for more gun control. Julianne Moore tweeted: "How many people have to be killed before we act as a nation to # End Gun Violence?" The June 13, 2016 LA Times: "While it is essential to understand the motivations of the gunman, that shouldn't distract us from the issue of all-too-ready access to guns." President Obama: "This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school or in a house of worship or a movie theater or in a nightclub."
The first problem with the gun issue is that the left ignores the millions upon millions of guns that are out there that are never used for criminal purposes. The second problem is that the policy usually called for by the left results in only law-abiding citizens not having access to guns. Does anyone truly believe that people with evil intentions will be unable to obtain firearms? That any law will deter those who wish to commit evil deeds? For how many years/decades has heroin been illegal? Somehow, people are still able to obtain it. The third problem with the left's analysis is something that Obama, without realizing it, actually hinted at.
Obama mentioned the locations of various mass shootings - a school, a house of worship, a movie theater and a nightclub. Those places do actually have something in common - no one already there had a firearm. Only the perpetrators were armed. After the attack in Orlando I had the opportunity to speak with an LAPD officer. I asked if he thought there was a consensus among officers about whether private citizens should have the right to carry a concealed weapon. (The Federal Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit just ruled that there is no Constitutional right to concealed carry.) On the record, the officer said he had no comment. Off the record he said he thought it would be a good idea to have armed citizens. For those who disagree, I just have one question: if your loved one was killed in that nightclub, wouldn't you be a whole lot happier if one or more customers was armed and able to take out the perpetrator, before your loved one was killed?
The reactions also are all too predictable. One site posted some tweets from the Hollywood crowd. Ariana Grande said: "How how how how can one have so much hate?" Kirstie Alley tweeted: "I can't fathom this kind of hatred and insanity. Paul Feig: "There's enough hate in this world. It's just too much...Enough hate."
I have to admit, I have difficulty understanding such comments about "hate." My first issue with addressing the problem as being one of "hate" is this: is there some ideology called "hate" that has numerous followers throughout the world? What are the main tenets of this "hate" ideology? Who are the leaders of "hate"? Assuming we are correct in referring to what happened as "hate," we need to be clear that this hatred flows from a very specific ideology called radical Islam. (One can question whether this hatred flows from all of Islam, but that topic is not being addressed here.) So, it is simply incorrect to refer to "hate" as any kind of motivating factor in these types of atrocities. But if we must use the term "hate" let's at least use it properly: "hate inspired by radical Islam." There is no separate "hate" ideology.
The second issue I have with the use of the term "hate" is the way it is discussed as if it were some unnatural phenomenon. The left incorrectly assumes that people are inherently good. Conservatives tend to believe that goodness is taught. Anyone who asks how there can be such "hate" in the world is obviously unfamiliar with all of history. Such people have no knowledge of Hitler and the Nazis, Mao and the Red Chinese, Pol Pot and the killing fields of Cambodia, Stalin and Soviet Russia, Rwanda, Sudan and on and on. One hundred million people killed in the Twentieth Century. How can anyone believe that people are basically good? Do not misunderstand; there are many good and fine people in the world. Unfortunately, there are also many bad and evil people.
The other predictable reaction was the overwhelming call for more gun control. Julianne Moore tweeted: "How many people have to be killed before we act as a nation to # End Gun Violence?" The June 13, 2016 LA Times: "While it is essential to understand the motivations of the gunman, that shouldn't distract us from the issue of all-too-ready access to guns." President Obama: "This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school or in a house of worship or a movie theater or in a nightclub."
The first problem with the gun issue is that the left ignores the millions upon millions of guns that are out there that are never used for criminal purposes. The second problem is that the policy usually called for by the left results in only law-abiding citizens not having access to guns. Does anyone truly believe that people with evil intentions will be unable to obtain firearms? That any law will deter those who wish to commit evil deeds? For how many years/decades has heroin been illegal? Somehow, people are still able to obtain it. The third problem with the left's analysis is something that Obama, without realizing it, actually hinted at.
Obama mentioned the locations of various mass shootings - a school, a house of worship, a movie theater and a nightclub. Those places do actually have something in common - no one already there had a firearm. Only the perpetrators were armed. After the attack in Orlando I had the opportunity to speak with an LAPD officer. I asked if he thought there was a consensus among officers about whether private citizens should have the right to carry a concealed weapon. (The Federal Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit just ruled that there is no Constitutional right to concealed carry.) On the record, the officer said he had no comment. Off the record he said he thought it would be a good idea to have armed citizens. For those who disagree, I just have one question: if your loved one was killed in that nightclub, wouldn't you be a whole lot happier if one or more customers was armed and able to take out the perpetrator, before your loved one was killed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)