January 22, 2022

Will Hillary Clinton Ever Say ‘Islamic Teorrorists’?

What gave rise to Al Qaeda or modern terrorism in general? One could speculate or point fingers at people, certain situations, events or alliances, but at the end of the day, terrorists are almost exclusively individuals who have perverted a religion. Whether it’s the IRA, the Westboro Baptists, or Al Qaeda, the founders/leaders of these groups have all decided that this is what God intended — that they are doing God’s work. At least that’s what they profess.

I added the Westboro Baptists because they are psychological terrorists, although as despicable as they may be, to date I don’t think they’ve killed any innocents. “The founder of Westboro Baptist Church, Fred Phelps, notorious for leading hateful protests against gay rights, is actually a Democrat with [a] long history of endorsing Democratic candidates.”

Okay, so that’s how they get started. But what facilitates them, particularly Al Qaeda and radical Islamists?

Well, that one’s easy … Liberals. Yes, you read that correctly. It’s liberals and their unwillingness to recognize and call these groups what they are — radical Islamic terrorists.

When Major Nidal Hasan ran through Fort Hood shouting “Allahu Akbar” as he slaughtered unarmed soldiers, how again was that clear “Islamic terror” incident classified? “Workplace violence.”

And why? I believe it’s for two reasons. One, is that today’s Democrat party, and certainly this administration, is fast becoming joined at the hip with the Muslim Brotherhood. Some would say (me) that they already are.

The other is just a warped sense of political correctness — to do or say whatever is necessary not to offend a “protected” class of people. Oh, and with all politicians (at least most) there’s always the sleazy opportunist factor. We can’t forget that.

This Boko Haram group of thugs is a perfect example. Anyone with eyes, ears, and half a brain, knows these guys are radical Islamists. And yes, they are also black. Black and Islamic. That’s two — two — two protected classes in one! It sure doesn’t make them any less evil.

Yet former Secretary of State Hillary (Helen Keller) Clinton could neither see nor hear any evil and thus refused to classify the terror group as such, despite the pleadings from her own party.

In 2011, Boko Haram bombed a United Nations building in Nigeria. Congress, the FBI, CIA and AFRICOM pleaded with Clinton to classify them as terrorists, and again she refused.

Now all the sudden, Hillary (George Patton) Clinton has appeared to have changed her tune. Well, kind of. Remember, Democrats like to work in the gray areas. There is no black and white. (Unless we’re talking about the race card.)

She recently stated, regarding the Boko Haram kidnappings, that “access to education is a basic right and an unconscionable reason to target innocent girls. We must stand up to terrorism,” and “the Government of Nigeria has been, in my view, somewhat derelict in its responsibility for protecting boys and girls, men and women.”

Did Hillary Clinton actually use the “T” word — terrorism? Yes, but don’t expect the word “Islamic” to be linked to it.

So why the change from dove to hawk-ish? And I say hawk-ish because Hillary doesn’t actually say we should do anything — nor does she specifically state that members of Boko Haram are terrorists. Rather, she just allows it to be implied. This way, she can either confirm or deny, depending on the situation. Neat trick.

So again, why the apparent change in posture?  Gee — couldn’t be that for Hillary Clinton 2016 is fast approaching, could it? The Dems must know the electorate sure doesn’t want another weak Commander-In-Chief.

From now until the next presidential election, Hillary must appear tough on terror without appearing tough on terrorists or linking specific groups to terrorism.

It will truly be a tight-rope walk worthy of the Flying Wallendas.

But with the media’s help, anything is possible in America, and Venezuela and Cuba and Iran and Russia and North Korea, etc.