Hillary’s And Trump’s Response to Orlando — a Brief Comparison (Part II)

Bottom Line: Tens of millions of family and friends of the countless murdered victims of Obama’s and Hillary’s foreign policy might look you and me in the eye and ask, “Tell me again, why it was so damned important to elect a black President, as opposed to a good one? Were our lives, and our families’ lives,  really that cheap to you?”

In this post here, we compared the responses of the two presumptive major-party candidates for the Presidency in 2016.

We told you how they both sounded predictable notes. Trump said: Keep muslims from conflict hotspots out of America, until we can have sufficient vetting in place. Hillary said she’d put together a commission to study and make recommendations.

We then posed this question to you:

Which response to Orlando strikes you as the more rational response? Trump’s? Or Hillary’s?

The question was rhetorical, because the answer was obvious: Trump’s response was the more rational. As well as the more thought through.

Why? Well because Hillary’s idea was exactly what Obama has done about foreign affairs for nearly eight years now. In other words, Hillary said: “I won’t change a thing once I’m in the Oval Office.” How’s that been going so far?

A quick remark: when a  politician of any stripe says she’ll “put together a commission,” that’s almost always politicians’ cool-speak for, “I have no idea what to do, and I want to fob it off on someone else.”

In this case, though, that’s not exactly the case. Hillary knows what she wants to do about ISIS: the exact same thing as Obama’s been doing — or, more accurately, not doing — for the past nearly eight years. She wants, however, to put out the appearance of doing something substantive, something grown-up (as compared with the Trump idea which she’ll brand as simplistic and even childish), something that will result in a 2,000-page report filled with recommendations about freezing this person’s account, and entering into negotiations with that group, and sending aid to this bunch, and putting together sanctions packages, and  all the same sort of gobbledygook that will bury any real solution in a blizzard of blather.

Now, another thought exercise: Would America be better off or worse off, or the same, if no muslims were to enter the country in the next few years? Answer: Better off. Obviously.

Another pointed question arises from the obvious answer to the previous question: Which approach — Hillary’s or Trump’s — would serve as the better jumping-off place for an eventual permanent solution?

The answer to that one is obvious too.

Now, an observation. I lay the blame for ISIS, and its unimpeded path to vast power and influence in the Middle East, at the feet of Hillary and Obama, the principal architects of Obama’s pathetic excuse for a “foreign policy.” However, a good chunk of the blame must go to: the American Media.

Why? Simple, With their constant banging on the theme that a vigorous response to terrorism is “the terrorists’ greatest recruiting tool,” they were telling terrorism-prone dirtbags that if the United States did something vigorous to protect itself, then they, the terrorism-prone dirtbags, should get mad and, because they’re terrorism-prone dirtbags, they should do something.

Terrorism-prone dirtbags are not the bright ones; the ones sitting in the front of the class. They’re not the ones visiting the guidance counselor’s office to ask for applications for scholarships, or to find out the contact information for the admissions director at MIT. They’re not the ones eagerly going on-line to find out whether they made the Dean’s List. And these dimwits aren’t going out and getting real jobs — if they don’t shoot up nightclubs, that is. If they were to get jobs they’d be in maintenance, or security, or early-morning garbage removal, or any of a million jobs out there that are needed in order to keep the streets clean, and the litter picked up.

In other words: people like Omar Mateen are morons. They’re stupid and manipulable.

Like sheep.(1)

When the media began nearly unanimously harping on the idea that a muscular response to terrorism serves as the “terrorists’ greatest recruiting tool,”(2) Little Abdul and Omar and Osama and Suleiman el-CamelJumper all said to themselves, “Well, I guess I gotta get mad now!

Or to say this another way, if the media had harped on the actual truth — that a strong response to terrorism deters the brainless baboons — then we might be out of the Middle East today, leaving behind a stable, peaceful region, with democracy flourishing in Iraq.

One more quick observation: the election and re-election of Barack Obama were bad for America. The result is vastly greater and more burdensome regulation, putting lead weights on a naturally resilient and dynamic economy. The malaise under Obama feels exactly like that under Jimmy Carter. However, even worse, the arrival of Obama has meant, war, dislocation, misery, terror, horror and death for hundreds of millions around the world. There are deeply bad, real-world consequences around the globe  to putting brainless doofuses like Obama and Hillary Clinton in positions of power and influence.

Tens of millions of family and friends of the countless murdered victims of Obama’s and Hillary’s foreign policy might look you and me in the eye and ask, “Tell me again, why it was so damned important to elect a black President, as opposed to a good one? Were our lives, and our families’ lives,  really that cheap to you?

— xPraetorius


(1) At least sheep give you wool, though. And mutton. So, they have a purpose. A terrorism-prone dirtbag has as much, and similar, use as a pothole in the middle of the road, or a sinkhole in your yard. Potholes in the middle of the road, sinkholes in your yard and terrorists should all be treated pretty much the same way too.

(2) This is all part of the Big Lie coming from the left-wing media. If you’re little Johnny el-CamelJumper and you’ve concluded that the Great Satan (America, in their eyes) will do very little in response to your terrorist activities, are you encouraged or discouraged? Does American “restraint” make you like America more, or hate America less? Or does it make you have even more contempt for her? Do you think that America is being courageously self-controlled? Or cowardly, fat, decadent and stupid?

You and I both know the answers to those questions. And those answers don’t make the Obama Administration look good at all.

Furthermore, fortunately, we have history to answer those questions for us as well! When George Bush left office in 2009, the terrorist dirtbags were on the run, Iraq was stable and democratic, Afghanistan looked like a real victory.

Now, it’s all gone straight to he** under Obama. ISIS has murdered thousands, expanded its territory, and more importantly, its influence. Finally, and most damning, the terrorist dirtbags are more numerous than ever.

The only possible conclusion that history can offer from the past nearly eight years: the terrorists’ greatest recruiting tool — by very far and away — has been the Obama Administrations wimpy, feeble, blather-stuffed foreign policy.




Please Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s