The Issue Hillary Fears Most: Terrorism

Terrorism has not been at the top of any candidate’s agenda during the last month or so. We should be thankful for that.  The only way for terrorism to rocket to the top of the headlines is for the terrorists to attack and kill people.


Instead, they seem to be lying low. Domestically, the news is focused on the battle between the U.S. presidential candidates.  Overseas, the news is about the re-taking of Mosul.  A hero has arisen – the Mosul Sniper, who has been taking out ISIS leaders.   Good news for Mosul is good news for Obama’s legacy and the beginning of a Hillary Clinton presidency.


However, Hillary’s record on the Middle East doesn’t bear proof of her ability in foreign policy and national security. Once again, we return to the book by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, Armageddon:  How Trump Can Beat Hillary (Humanix Books, 2016).  The terrorists will pop up again and we should be prepared – before the election.


“After the 9/11 attacks,” the authors note, “we all looked up into the sky to see if any airplanes were overhead ready to crash into nearby buildings. But in the aftermath of the random terror of the ISIS attacks, we need to look all around us – 360 degrees.  As we go shopping, walk up to an airline counter, step on a subway, see a movie, cheer at a sports event, or even just stay at home, we could become victims.  It is not just a few of us in the nation’s largest buildings or cities who are at risk.


“This pervasive feeling of danger – that is why it is called ‘terrorism’ – has created a sense of unease in all of us. It may matter to Obama if his voters are black or Latino or young or single women or gay.  But it matters not at all to ISIS.  Keeping America safe will inevitably be the single issue of the 2016 election.”


So far, the issue has been illegal immigration, including the illegal immigration of Middle Eastern refugees, many of whom are males of military age. Hillary has insisted that these refugees can be vetted.  France, for its part, has demolished the refugee slum nicknamed “The Jungle” and evicted the migrants.


Morris and McGann write that it is an issue that “will not go away.” But it is an issue that knows when to hunker down when a presidential candidate favorable to radical Islamic causes is in the midst of an election.  Still, it behooves us to remember that radical Islamic terrorists are waiting in the shadows as we bicker over former Miss Universes while we ignore or yawn at a blizzard of e-mails suggesting that the Democrat candidate is ineluctably corrupt.


“Paris…San Bernardino…Brussels. Each attack provides a graphic demonstration of the abject failure of President Barack Obama and [former] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to keep us safe.  Every time a bomb goes off, it brings us all back to the essential point:  our country is in a war and Obama and Hillary are losing it,” the authors write.


“As Obama ran for president in 2008, he was bedeviled by tapes of his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, ranting and raving about how evil America was. Commenting on the 9/11 attacks, Wright said that we had brought them on ourselves by our lawless international conduct.  He famously said, ‘The chickens have come home to roost.’  Now they have truly come home as Obama’s and Hillary’s weakness, appeasement, and failure to protect our country is resulting in massive new terrorism unseen since the 9/11 attacks.”


“When Obama took office as president and Hillary Clinton became his secretary of state, Iraq was quiescent after the successful surge in U.S. forces. ISIS did not exist.  There had been relatively few terror attacks in the United States, and those that occurred were dwarfed by the hundreds that were thwarted.  The shoebomber’s footwear failed to explode.  The taxi bomb in Times Square was discovered and defused before it could detonate.  The underwear bomber failed to bring down the airplane on which he was a passenger as his fellow travelers disarmed him.  But ow the world is a very different place.


“Paris’s heart has been ripped open by a series of ever-more-deadly terror attacks. Dozens were killed in Brussels, many within sight of the headquarters of the European Union.  Shooting rampages by Muslim jihadists have become a weekly occurrence in the United [keep in mind, this book was written in 2015 and published in March 2016].  ISIS controls territory equal in size to the state of New Jersey.  But Obama continues to put everything else first – ahead of protecting us from terrorism:


  • He won’t use our technology to pick up conversations involving terrorists. That violates their civil liberties.
  • He won’t keep refugees out of the country, despite the likelihood that their ranks are salted with terrorists. That would violate our principle of diversity and it’s not ‘who we are.’
  • He won’t stand up and condemn radical Islam. In fact, he won’t even say the words. That would violate pluralism and imply intolerance.
  • He won’t even go after the most likely terrorists. That would be profiling.
  • Instead, he wants to disarm honest, innocent Americans who are trying to protect themselves by purchasing guns.


“Everything comes before fighting terrorism with Obama.


“And with no condemnation from Hillary or Obama,” Morris and McGann continue, “New York City’s Mayor Bill DeBlasio disbanded the municipal agency within the Police Department tasked with keeping tabs on the locations (including mosques).”


“Back in 2004,” the authors write, “voters told pollsters that they tended to prefer Democrat John Kerry’s ideas on education, Social Security, the environment, and poverty. But they voted for Bush because of one issue:  his fight against terrorism.”


“In a survey in December 2015, general election voters reported that they trusted Republicans more than Democrats when it came to national security and the war on terror by a margin of 46 percent to 35 percent.


“This finding by Rasmussen is no surprise, nor is it likely to change. Ever since the days of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, Republicans have had the edge on national security as an issue.  And when President George W. Bush proved so aggressive and effective in pursuing the terrorists and President Obama so inept, the Republicans’ lead on the issue widened.”


“So now, only the core Democratic base of about one-third of the electorate gives their party the edge on the terrorism issue. Not only Republicans, but also the majority of Independents, say that they trust the GOP more on the issue.  As the 2016 campaign unfolds, Democrats all face a key dilemma:  the more they discuss and debate terrorism,” the better able the Republicans will be able to dominate the issue.


“…since the Democrats are running a former secretary of state who did little to stem – and much to inadvertently encourage – terrorism, the issue will cut even more strongly for the Republican candidate in the election.


“And Donald Trump is just the right person to hammer away at the issue. By blaming political correctness for the Administration’s failure to protect us, he has hit the issue head on.  Trump’s proposal to end all Muslim immigration [from countries where terrorists are known to breed] while the current tide of terrorist infiltration is high,” will work to his advantage to worried Americans.


“Nothing could more squarely link Hillary Clinton to the dismal record of Obama in fighting terrorism,” the authors write, “than her inept record at the State Department. As former secretary of state, she bears more responsibility than anyone else in the administration except for the president for the spread of ISIS and the growing number of terrorists salivating for a chance to attack us.


“New York City’s former mayor Rudy Giuliani even went so far as to say that Hillary created such an encouraging environment for ISIS to sprout that he said Hillary ‘helped create ISIS.’ He argued that she ‘could be considered a founding member of ISIS.’  The former may, who won national recognition for his leadership of New York after the 9/11 attacks, said that she helped ISIS grow ‘by being part of an administration [that] withdrew from Iraq.  By being part of an administration that let (Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki) run Iraq into the round, so you forced the Shiites to make a choice.   By not intervening in Syria at the proper time.  By being part of an administration that drew twelve lines in the sand and make a joke out of it.’


“Indeed, terrorism has grown like a week in the gardens Hillary was supposed to tend as Secretary of State. While she gallivanted around the world, racking up frequent flyer mileage, the terrorists were gaining ground.


“Foreign policy is the area of American politics in which the executive branch can make no excuses. Because of the president’s and the secretary of state’s exclusive control over policy and its execution, success works to their benefit while failures are also charged to their account.  (Look at how much mileage Obama got in the 2012 election from killing Bin Laden).


“Now the battle against terror has turned sour and the blame lies clearly with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Every aspect of the Obama/Hillary foreign policy has encouraged the rise of terrorism.


“For example, had America kept ground troops in Iraq after our 2011 pull out, there would have been no space for ISIS to develop. A small garrison of 10,000 or so would have been sufficient to keep things under control.  But we repeated in Iraq the mistake we made 20 years earlier in Afghanistan by pulling out and letting the forces of chaos reign.


“Obama, who originally surfaced in our politics as an early opponent of the war in Iraq, was determined to honor his commitment [to his base] to pull all of our troops out before the 2012 elections. During the 2008 elections, he and Hillary (his Primary opponent) excoriated Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate, when he proposed a continuing presence in Iraq to prevent the rise of groups like ISIS.


“McCain said, ‘It’s not a matter of how long we’re in Iraq; it’s if we succeed or not.’


“Asked by a heckler at a campaign rally about whether we should keep troops in Iraq for 50 years, ‘Maybe 100,’ was McCain’s reply.  ‘As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.’


“Hillary pounced, saying, ‘He [McCain] said recently he could see having troops in Iraq for 100 years. Well, I want them home within 60 days of my becoming president of the United States.’  Obama echoed her criticism, saying, ‘Senator McCain said the other day that we might be mired for 100 years in Iraq – which is reason enough not to give him four years in the White House.’


“Hillary had always played politics on Iraq and on the War on Terror. When New York was attacked on 9/11, Hillary had just taken office as its U.S. Senator, despite never having lived in the state.  She felt she needed to show toughness on terror and voted for the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq in 2003.  But by 2008, the war was unpopular, so she opposed additional troops, dubbed ‘The Surge.’


“Having both vowed during the election to remove all our troops from Iraq, neither Obama nor Hillary was willing to back a continuing presence there, however much sense it might make. Both agreed that our ongoing troop commitments in Korea and Germany had played a large role in deterring aggression, but neither one would apply that logic to Iraq.


“ISIS grew out of Obama’s and Hillary’s obstinate refusal to listen to the advice of people like McCain. Determined to produce a full pull out in time for the 2012 elections, Obama left in our wake a sectarian war between Sunni and Shia Muslims that metastasized into the formation of ISIS.


“As we left Iraq, we lost our leverage to force the Shia governments of Nouri al-Maliki and then Haider al-Abadi to moderate their course as they appointed anti-Sunni men to their new governments, alienating the 20 percent of Iraqi’s population that is Sunni.   Hillary and Obama vainly warned the Iraqi leaders to include Sunnis in their government, but lacking a troop presence there, they could do nothing to make their concerns stick.


“Instead, the Sunnis – who dominated the former government of Saddam Hussein – found themselves cut out. Their solution was to wage continued war against the government just as they had during the years when the United States had troops on the ground.  Now reorganized and energized by the increasing anti-Sunni bias of the Baghdad government, they set up a new organization to fight for them, Sunnism on steroids:  ISIS.


“Obama’s CIA director John Brennan summarizes what happened.


“The Islamic state, he said, was virtually destroyed under President George W. Bush after his surge in U.S. troop levels. Brennan said that ISIS was ‘pretty much decimated when U.S. forces were there in Iraq.  It had maybe 700 or so adherents left.  And then it grew quite a bit in the last several years, when it split then from al-Qaida in Syria, and set up its own organization.’


“But, Brennan notes, ‘[ISIS] can [now] muster between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria…this new total reflects an increase in members because of stronger recruitment since June (2015) following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate, greater battlefield activity, and additional intelligence.’


“As ISIS (called ISIL by Obama) was growing and recruiting, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes was minimizing the threat it posed to the United States. He said the major danger was Al-Qaeda, not ISIS.  ‘While both are terrorist forces, they have different ambitions.  Al-Qaida’s principal ambition is to launch attacks against the West and the U.S. Homeland…Right now ISILs primary focus is consolidating territory in the Middle East region to establish their own Islamic State.  So they’re different organizations with different objectives.’


“The Obama Administration has consistently underestimated the goals of ISIS. In an Aug. 8, 2015, interview with CNN, Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken echoed Rhodes’s dismissal of the danger ISIS posed.  He declared that while ‘unlike core al-Qaeda, right now, their focus is not on attack the U.S. homeland or attacking our interests here in the United States or abroad.  It’s focused intently on trying to create a caliphate now in Iraq.’


“President Obama famously weighed in, showing how lightly he took the rising power of ISIS. In an interview with New Yorker Magazine editor David Remnick on Jan. 7, 2014. Obama said, ‘The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.’  After the ISIS attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, it is clear how stupidly, grievously, and tragically wrong the administration’s assessment was.  It now is becoming clear that ISIS exists to attack the West.  But still Obama – with Hillary following after him – fails to grasp the true nature of the threat ISIS poses.


“After all, Hillary has stood stoically behind Obama’s inept treatment of ISIS. In the third Democrat presidential debate, Hillary incredibly said, “We finally have ISIS exactly where we want them.’  And Obama insisted during a visit to Turkey in November 2015 that ‘the strategy that we are pursuing is the right one.’  As the ISIS threat became clearer, Obama stuck with his refusal to make the kind of troop commitment that would hobble these terrorists.


“Committed to a strategy of air strikes and no ground troops, Obama has imposed such restrictions on our air campaigns that pilots report coming back from sorties with only a quarter of their bombs dropped. Where Republicans vow to do what it takes to beat ISIS, Obama keeps our efforts to a minimum.


“Nor have Obama or Hillary gotten the message that topping secular dictatorships in the Middle East opens the door to ISIS-like groups taking over, just as they did in Iraq. Throughout the Middle Est, they are not content to leave well enough alone, and insist on ousting dictators wherever they find them, regardless of the risk that somebody worse will succeed them.”


They used the argument that America, the land of freedom and democracy, would be hypocritical to allow and even support dictatorships. What we recognize is that gangs of Islamic rebels, seeking an Islamic caliphate supported by Sharia law, were a greater threat to the establishment of democracy than the dictators who were reining them in, to prevent them from abusing the women and children in their populations.


“Donald Trump puts the American policy options in a broader perspective. ‘The united States owes $19 trillion,’ he said.  ‘We have to straighten out or own house.  Cannot go around to every country that we’re not exactly happy with and say we’re going to recreate (them).  It hasn’t worked,’ Trump added.  ‘Iraq was going to be a democracy.  It’s not gonna work, okay?  It’s not gonna work and none of these things will work.’  Referring to Iraq, he said, ‘We’re nation building.  We can’t do that.  We have to build our own nation.  We’re nation building, trying to tell people who have (had) dictators or worse for centuries how to run their own countries…Look what’s happened to Iraq.  We got rid of Saddam Hussein.  I don’t think that was a helpful thing.  Iraq is a disaster right now and it’s going to be taken over by Iran and ISIS, so I think we have to focus on ourselves.’


“But Obama and Hillary have not gotten the message. They backed the overthrow of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak and almost opened the door to domination of that strategic country by the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Only the determined efforts of the Egyptian Army were able to depose the extremist government that had taken over in Cairo.


“Hillary’s complicity in allowing a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated regime under Mohamed Morse may have been influenced by her close connection to the Brotherhood’s leader. Morsi’s wife, Nagla Mahmoud, spoke of the ‘special relationship’ between her husband and Hillary.  Indeed, when Clinton criticized Morsi in public – likely in an effort to appease his successor, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a former Field Marshall in the Egyptian Army – Mrs. Morsi threatened to ‘publish letters exchanged between her husband and Hillary.’  Indeed, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation and the Muslim Brotherhood shared a high-ranking employee, Gehad el-Haddad, who worked for the foundation right before going to Egypt and serving s Morsi’s top communication official.


“Next door to Egypt, in Libya, Hillary again worked to oust a dictator, opening the door to massive terrorist and Islamist infiltration of the government. Muammar Gaddafi was no angel.  He was a vicious dictator who was behind the Lockerbie jetliner attack that killed 270 people.  The Libyan tyrant was defanged when President Reagan ordered an aerial attack on his home, killing his son in retaliation for Lockerbie.


“After that raid, Gaddafi stopped his attacks on the West. Then, when President George W. Bush toppled Saddam Hussein from power, Gaddafi saw the handwriting on the wall and voluntarily gave up his arsenal of biological and chemical weapons and ended his efforts to develop or acquire nuclear weapons.


“He was still a miserable excuse for a human being, but he was minding his own business. Then, Hillary decided he was committing human rights abuses.  Eager to please Obama’s key aide, Samantha Powers, who made her name speaking out against genocide in Rwanda, [Hillary] set her sights on ousting Gaddafi.


“Egged on by Hillary, Obama joined NATO in mounting air attacks that supported rebel ground troops. When they succeeded in toppling Gaddafi, the world saw that there was no genocide taking place, a situation reminiscent of George W. Bush’s surprise at not finding weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq.  But at least Bush followed the intelligence of his government in assuming that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had WMDs.  Hillary, by contrast, deliberately overrode the findings of the U.S. intelligence agencies and decided that genocide was, indeed, taking place.


“After Gaddafi fell, all hell broke loose. Naively, Hillary hoped that ‘good’ rebels who advocated a democratic, sectarian government for Libya would take over [calling Luke Skywalker!!] But as many experts had warned, they were thrown into retreat by Islamic fundamentalists allied with ISIS and al-Qaeda.  Our consulate in Benghazi was attacked and our ambassador Chris Stevens was killed along with three brave American guards.


“But Hillary still didn’t learn the lesson.


“Hillary then clamored for Obama to intervene in Syria to depose yet another dictator, Bashar al-Assad. At first, after al-Assad took over from his father, who had ruled Syrian with an iron hand for decades, he promised reform.  Hillary, deceived as usual, promoted him as a ‘possible reformer’ in March 2011.  But when al-Assad Jr. used poison gas against his own people as his nation erupted into civil war, Hillary swung over to the other side, calling for bold American action to depose him.  Led around by the nose by his secretary of state, Obama worked to arm the pro-democracy rebels in Syria.


“Idiotically, Obama and Hillary said that the weapons were only for pro-Western Syrian rebels who rejected both al-Assad’s horrific dictatorship and ISIS’s terrorism. But the fact is that they had no idea who was really getting the weapons.  And sure enough, they next surfaced in the hands of the ISIS forces, giving the organization the arms it needed to conquer large swaths of Iraq and Syria.  The idea of pro-democracy rebels in Syria proved as illusory as it had in Iraq, Libya, and Egypt.  ISIS took over merging with affiliates in Iraq to present an unprecedented crisis to the West.


“So here’s Hillary’s record:


  • She did not to stop President Obama from pulling our troops out of Iraq, opening the door to the growth of ISIS.
  • She assisted in the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt and acquiesced in his replacement by Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood leader.
  • She led efforts to topple Gaddafi in Libya, setting up an opportunity for Islamist terrorists to infiltrate and fight for control of that government.
  • She pushed for arms shipments to the ‘pro-democracy’ rebels in Syria who proved too weak to keep control of the armaments and they now arm ISIS in its battle against us.


“Even as ISIS and its allies took hold in Iraq and Syria, Obama – with Hillary’s backing – refused to take bold action against it, eventually settling for limited, pinpoint airstrikes that do little to crimp the terror organization’s growth.”


At best, the airstrikes have taken out minor ISIS leaders, giving Obama the appearance of victory while the big fish get away.


“With Hillary’s support, Obama even refused to attack the oil fields that provided ISIS with half of its revenues [ISIS has now set fire to those oil fields with the prospect of a possible defeat in view]. These oil wells, formerly controlled by the Baghdad government, pumped an estimated 120,000 barrels a day, bringing in at least $2 million each day to fund the army of mercenaries who fought at ISIS’s behest.  Why not attack?  Because, according to Obama’s former CIA director, Mike Morrell, the president feared doing so would inflict ‘environmental damage.’


“Donald Trump will not abide such nonsense. He said he’d ‘bomb the hell’ out of oil sites that are controlled by ISIS.  He said ‘the situation with (ISIS) has to be dealt with firmly and strongly when you have people being beheaded.  I would do things that would be so tough that I don’t even know if they’d be around to come to the table.’  He continued, ‘I would take away their wealth.  I would take away the oil.  What you should be doing now is taking away the oil.’


“In explaining what would happen after he ‘bombed the hell out of the oil fields,’ Trump said, ‘I’d then get Exxon, I’d then get these great oil companies to go in – they would rebuild them so fast your head will spin….’


“Hillary is all for intervening when the adversary is some geriatric dictator whose worst days are behind him but with a fledgling, vigorous, and robust terror threat in ISIS, Hillary is backing away from the conflict. During the Democrat primaries, she said, ‘In terms of thousands of combat troops, like some on the Republican side are recommending, I think that should be a non-starter.’ Hillary warned, ‘I don’t think it’s the smartest way to go after ISIS.  I think it gives ISIS a new recruitment tool.’


“She says that sending ground troops to battle them is ‘exactly what ISIS wants. They’ve advertised that.  They want American troops back in the Middle East.  They want American soldiers on the ground fighting them.’  Once again, Hillary is showing her gullibility.  While ISIS may brag, boast, and say, in effect, ‘bring it on,’ they will actually welcome U.S. troops about as much as a boxer would welcome Mohammed Ali climbing into the ring to fight them.’

Yet, ISIS may very well welcome American troops back to fight them. Obama’s ROEs (Rules of Engagement) ensure that Americans will fight, die, and lose because their hands are bound in the fight.  Let us hope that one of Trump’s first actions on his first day if he is elected President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces is to throw out the Rules of Engagement that hamstring our fighting forces.


Dick Morris and Eileen McGann published their book some six months ago, when terrorism is on the first page of every newspaper and the number one news item on every broadcast and cable news network. We’re grateful (to God) that ISIS is laying low for the time being.  The reason is, probably, that they prefer to fight a Hillary army, bound by rules of engagement that favor the enemy.


They know that a President Trump would immediately order extensive changes in the rules of engagement would place the strength back in the hands of the U.S. Armed Forces.   They know that refugees now on American shores would be expelled from the United States and those now trying to get in would have to return to their native lands, since Europe certainly doesn’t want them.


Hillary’s husband, Bill Clinton, attended (but never graduated from) Oxford University in England. While there, he and a friend led an organized, anti-American protest against the U.S. Embassy in London.  This is the American people elected – twice – over 20 years ago.  His wife, who now seeks to become the next president of the United States, was involved in a shady deal that sold American uranium to Russia.


How secure do you feel with the idea that Hillary, the Mother of ISIS, might be the next president of the United States?


Published in: on October 26, 2016 at 1:32 pm  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: