Hillary Clinton was given her first opportunity as the presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States to ignore Islamic terrorism. She was interviewed on CNN by Chris Cuomo regarding this past weekend’s horrific massacre in an Orlando gay nightclub where Islamic terrorist, Omar Mateen, murdered 50 people and injured 53 more.
To Cuomo’s credit he went at Hillary straight on by warning her that in light of President Obama’s refusal to use terms like “radical Islamic terror”, Hillary will be even more closing scrutinized by how she chooses to acknowledge global realities.
“Do you believe that this is radical Islamism or radical Islamic terror?” Cuomo challenged. Perhaps more impressive (I suppose) than Cuomo’s direct gauntlet throwing was Hillary’s still completely ignoring the question. “First all,” began Hillary, “it matters what we do more than what we say”. Which is Hillary speak for watch me skirt the question you’re raising to instead launch into what my camp has directed is the best possible way to massage the event to my benefit.
Hillary instead explained how “reaching out” to both American and global Muslims is what matters in defeating what she is “happy to call radical Islamism”. Of course, she clearly sidestepped labeling Mateen a terrorist anytime in this interview. When Cuomo brings up the anti-gun movement by smartly asking her to name a specific law that could have made this situation “not happen”, Hillary instead jumps all over gun permits and, uh, banning .50 caliber rifles? .50 caliber rifles have never been used in a terrorist attack.
That means that exactly one more terrorist attack has been orchestrated with box cutters than .50 caliber rifles. Whether Chris Cuomo was trying to get a straight answer from a slippery fish, or whether he was just setting her up to begin grandstanding, Hillary can’t say what law would make this never happen because their isn’t one. Terrorists are already criminals with no conscience about raping, murdering and brutalizing people into surrender or death.
Keeping guns away from all Americans in order to make it “illegal” for terrorists to procure them probably sounds as hilariously stupid to read as it does to write.
My last big takeaway from this clip is just a little bit of sympathy for the devil. Well, “sympathy” is a tad strong. Call it an ironic sigh. Poor libs, they are pretending to smother the grenade for so many supposed social victims and carrying so may flags for anybody they can call “oppressed”. Of course its all a long-con to use these people to move a true leftist agenda of constitutional upheaval, but balancing so many plates must get tiring and confusing.
It must be Code Red for Hillary and team in situations like this to have to figure out which group to victimize and which one to ignore. Not unlike Obama hypocritically celebrating at a Baltimore mosque known for supporting terrorists and murderous anti-gay precepts earlier this year (somehow the mainstream media missed it), the Dems must be ringing their hands over how to avoid pissing off one of their traditional constituents.
On the one end, they wouldn’t dare take a strong anti-Islamic terrorist stance and risk agreeing with Donald Trump. On the other, refusing to acknowledge that the Muslim votes they crave in November traditionally are hugely opposed to homosexuality has to feel like abandonment by the LBGT crowd.
In other words, in liberal speak, if one Christian politely refuses to bake a gay for a gay wedding due to religious beliefs, it’s okay to accuses all Christians of being hateful bigots. But, when a Muslim murders and injures 103 people in gay club it’s crucial to not judge Islam or even call it terrorism and still be able to wear a rainbow pin on your lapel.