Hillary on Islamic Extremism: Guest Post

Hillary points finger at Islam:  "Twisted ideology and poisoned psychology."

Peter Sage introduction:   Liberal, civil-libertarian, multicultural, inclusion-oriented, non-racist Americans have a problem: some of the people they want to embrace into the body politic have ideas that reject those values.   Some Christian doctrines are illiberal and these are a point of strain in American politics (contraception, abortion, homosexuality, rejection of science) but it rarely erupts in violence except around abortion.  American civil society accommodates the strain and survives: juries convict murderers of abortion providers.

Hillary Clinton, in Cleveland spoke of the value of our "open, diverse society."   But some practitioners of Islam condemn entirety of modern American culture, including those liberal inclusionist beliefs that allow them to join that civil society.    The shooters in San Bernardino and Orlando were born in the USA and grew up in America and then went to war against America.  This challenges the liberal doctrine of inclusion, of "presumption of innocence", of privacy, of anti-discrimination.   For most Americans this is not a conflict between American values and "faith", it is between American values and Islam.  The most radical of religious zealots don't just target homosexuals and abortion providers, they target any and all of us, and those people do it in the name of Islam. 

Mateen:  regularly attended gay clubs

Whatever confused or conflicted motivation emerges over the next few weeks for Mateen's actions  it remains that Mateen is Muslim and he cited ISIS in that 911 call at the initiation of his murders.  Maybe there was an element of self-hatred and internal conflict, but for the purposes of politics, Mateen was a jihadist.   He said so.

Hillary Clinton is no longer talking about open handed inclusion.   She said she will use every effort to identify and stop these dangerous "lone wolf" terrorists.   They are--or they grow into becoming--a cancer--people who turn on their host culture.    

Trump had been winning this political battle.   He had addressed that fear and had the political tailwind of it being, in objective fact, a legitimate risk demonstrated by actual events, at the Boston Marathon, Paris, San Bernardino, and now Orlando.  Events gave him "I told you so moments" which were made even more newsworthy when liberal pundits noted that it was graceless gloating.  (Look at Trump gloat over being right!  How narcissistic to brag about being right, always right!)  Other risks are objectively greater (cigarette smoking, driving drunk, gang shootings, heroin addiction, texting, fast food) but intentional bombing of civilians creates a perfect opportunity for breaking news 24/7 attention and panic.  Bullets and bombs create terror, and terror motivates democracies.

Hillary Clinton had attempted to appear mature, reasonable, steady-handed, non-xenophobic, and inclusive.  This was a disaster for her.  She appeared "not to get it."   She looked weak, passive, and frozen by political correctness.   Trump understood this phenomenon, framed it, and capitalized on it, at her expense.   

Today's guest post by Thad Guyer observes something subtle to the typical viewer of curated news: Hillary is changing direction.  The Cleveland speech is a tough Hillary who says outright that Islam has a problem and is a problem, one that is metastasizing its "twisted ideology and poisoned psychology."  Guyer's observations describe both Hillary's new condemnation of advocates of illiberal Islam but also the American news media.  

Guest Post by Thad Guyer

Thad Guyer's Guest Post;

Clinton Matches and then One-up’s Trump’s Anti-Islamic Extremism Thunder

In protest of Clinton refusing to acknowledge the domestic threat of Islamic extremism during the primary, I repeatedly asked to be removed from her campaign mailing list.  I said that while my support of her would continue, I would rejoin her mailing list once she corrected this default.  As of today, I am back on her mailing list.   

Clinton’s speech in Cleveland on Monday not only matched Trump’s assault on domestic Islamic radicalization, but she one-upped him—she called out the radical Islamist regimes in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait to halt citizen funding of radical Islamic movements, schools, mosques and imams. Click here for the 12 minute video clip

"The virus that poisoned his mind remains very much alive."

This is a major if not contradictory policy shift for her, since during the primary she cautioned that any criticism of Islam would alienate the Gulf states, whom she emphasized we need as coalition partners to combat ISIS.  Probably in view of the impending release of the heretofore secret 28 page section of the 9-11 Commission on Saudi citizen involvement in killing 3,000 people in NYC, Clinton decided Trump is the greater near term risk.  She’ll diplomatically clean up any damage with the sheiks later once in the White House.  The major shift in Trump’s policy is that he recast his Muslim visa ban as geographically based, not merely a religious test.  He now says his ban will be based on the violence level in each Muslim country.

 I watched the Monday Trump and Clinton speeches on Islamic terror back-to-back on YouTube.  The content was 70% the same—that is, in my view, they agreed almost verbatim on the nature of the Islamic terror threat and what we need to do about it.  The primary differences were: (1) Clinton upped the ante in her pointed no-holds-barred attack on Gulf oil kingdom support of terrorists; (2) her call that while we must get American Muslims to blow the whistle on radicals in their communities (she repeated this from an early primary debate), we must be careful to avoid scapegoating; (3) Trump’s advocacy that suspending immigration from violent countries in the mid-east must be part of homeland security, while she did not address immigration strategy at all--yet; (4) Islamic “hate” of American cultural diversity must be given special attention-- but she limited her rhetoric to LGBT, and he ratcheted up Islamic oppression of women, which she ignored;  and (5) gun control, which she advocated to loud applause, and which he decried to loud applause. 

Attack that virus with determination, clear eyes, and pride in our values.

 

 Both Clinton and Trump agreed that we need increased outreach and surveillance of American Muslim communities; continuing work with mid-east allies; enhanced intelligence gathering domestically and internationally; more supportive attitudes toward law enforcement (what she calls “first responders” and he calls “police”); and special protection of LGBT’s from radical Islamic hate.

Clinton made clear that she would not be outflanked by Trump’s anti-Islamic demagoguery.  To be sure, the Democratic primary is over, and she is marching to the center and distancing herself from Obama’s political correctness infused mantra that Islam is unrelated to domestic terror threats.  Her speech was the work of a master politician moving to where she must to mitigate the threat of a Trump presidency.  She will undoubtedly be chastised by Muslim advocacy groups for her quick and decisive pivot away from her prior almost unqualified “Islam is Peace” rhetoric, but she can count on most left wing media not reporting such chastisements.  Right wing media will report it, but each party’s base seldom leaves their media comfort zones, a prominent feature of American politics upon which each candidate counts.  Thus, YouTube is our most authoritative source in learning what the candidates are actually saying and emphasizing.  For me, there is now only one reliable media—the original source.