Hillary Clinton should not be the next president of the United States, and it’s about time for Democrats – the voters, the people on the ground who think that this party is the one that promotes fairness and justice and equality – to wake up and realize that her mentality is dangerous.
Right now, we need one thing and one thing only: strength. We need leaders who understand that there is an evil infection out there and that it is going to destroy us if we don’t start taking aims to stop it. We do not have a leader like that in the White House right now, and Clinton has proven that she is made of the exact same stuff as Obama. We just can’t have that right now.
On Sunday, days after the U.S. was hit by an ISIS terrorist attack – and that’s what it was, regardless of how disconnected the actual perpetrators were to the organization – Clinton appeared on ABC’s This Week to say that she would not use the term “radical Islam” because it makes it sound like “we are declaring war against a religion.”
“It doesn’t do justice to the vast number of Muslims in our country and around the world who are peaceful people,” Clinton said. “No. 2, it helps to create this clash of civilizations that is actually a recruiting tool for ISIS and other radical jihadists who use this as a way of saying, ‘We are in a war against the West — you must join us.”
Does this woman think that we actually have to inspire that kind of recruitment? For the last seven years, President Obama has been following this exact playbook. And, to a lesser extent, his predecessor did the same thing. George W. Bush didn’t avoid calling it “radical Islam,” but he often said that we were not at war with Islam. And guess what? After years and years of following this playbook, ISIS still exists! It doesn’t matter if we call it radical Islam or if we call it narcissistic psychopathy.
If there is an element of psychology here, then denying that ISIS is based in Islam is the most reckless thing we can do. Because it is a trivial matter for these terrorists to prove that this isn’t true. Does Clinton think these young jihadists are going to believe what she says about “what Islam is” over what radical Islamic clerics say? Are they even listening in the first place? Probably not.
So why is it important to call it radical Islam? Not for the sake of would-be murderers, that’s for sure. We call it that because it’s the truth, and the truth is the best weapon we have against this dangerous ideology. It’s not about stirring up panic and suspicion; it’s about seeing the playing field as it is. If we can’t do that, then how can we possibly combat this threat?