Massacre in Orlando, Part II

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.