Home Contact Register Subscribe to the Beacon Login

Thursday, April 28, 2016


MINOT, ND -- "If Mr. Trump gets his way, it will be like Christmas in the Kremlin. It will make America less safe and the world more dangerous," stated presidential candidate Hillary Clinton hours after 34 people were killed in an ISIS attack in Brussels on March 22, 2016.

It seems clear that since Barack Obama has been in office and Hillary Clinton served as his Secretary of State for four years, America is less safe and the world is more dangerous. This is not to suggest they are responsible. However, it gives one pause to ask: If not them, then who? Their policies, positions, rhetoric, and strategy certainly have not been effective in making Americans, or anyone in the world, safe.

Mrs. Clinton, attempting to educate Americans during an address at Stanford University the same day, lectured, "What America needs is smart, strong, steady leadership to wage and win this struggle. In our fight against radical jihadism, we have to do what actually works." The former Secretary of State rejects the old saying, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me" and turns it on its head. In her Stanford address, she stated, "One thing that we know does not work is offensive, inflammatory rhetoric that demonizes all Muslims."

Apparently, she thinks that if we do not say anything that offends our enemies, then they will be nice to us. Maybe they will be civil and stop murdering Christians and other innocent civilians; maybe they will stop beheading children and women. Or maybe these activities are not the result of our hurtful rhetoric. Maybe these activities say something about whom or what our enemy actually is.

Clinton chastised Mr. Trump for his promised policy position as President to reinstate water boarding and harsh interrogation techniques. These practices, which are currently illegal, have been shown to produce results, yet she condemns them. She does, however, support directed targeting and killing with drones and missiles. In fact, as Secretary of State, she participated in these policies. Somehow, killing enemies is an acceptable policy that works, but water boarding them is too barbaric to consider.

Mrs. Clinton did not specify which policies would work. This failure is the very behavior that she criticized in both Mr. Trump and Mr. Cruz.

She had four years as Secretary of State to hone a strategy to address the threat of jihadism. Instead, she described steps she did recommend as aimed only at "radical jihadism," ignoring the historical facts surrounding the words of the Koran and the roots of Islam.

Although not an expert, I do know that modern military theory holds that a war cannot be won by primarily using an air campaign. Yet Mrs. Clinton suggests the U.S. should "intensify the air campaign." Oh, yes, Mrs. Clinton did propose another way to battle jihadism -- combating the extremist group's ability to spread propaganda on the Internet. I wonder if she is seriously suggesting that doing so would pose a severe, perhaps mortal, wound to the terrorists.

For a woman whom many have called the smartest woman in the world, I question whether these are solid strategies to confront and defeat a barbaric enemy. Increasing air strikes and cutting off internet access do not seem like effective ways to deal with religious terrorists. If these measures were effective, why did she not counsel them as Secretary of State? Why did she not advocate them in her discussions with President Obama?

Mrs. Clinton's suggestion involving increased security is the most troubling of her comments. She wants "greater security protocols at airports, potentially clamping down on public zones within terminals, before security checkpoints; and taking a harder look at our security protocols at airports and other so-called soft sites, especially areas outside our guarded perimeters."

She demands that we stop expressing hurtful rhetoric against terrorists. She proposes massive, invasive, time-consuming, and expensive steps to further create an internal police state in America. These are steps that would, presumably, expose each American and guest to increased police and security invasions that are significantly more intrusive than those to which we are presently required to submit.

Remember, those willing to give up freedom for security will end up with neither. Or is a police state part of Mrs. Clinton plan?


Click here to email your elected representatives.


No Comments Yet

Post a Comment


Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?