During the 2016 election season, amid a surge of Islamic terrorism in Western nations, Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton has made the inclusiveness and the protection of Muslims one of the top priorities of her campaign. While Americans repeatedly see terrorist attacks on U.S. soil that are carried out by jihadists pledging allegiance and showing admiration for the Islamic State, Clinton seems to hold steadfast to the notion Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. In November she tweeted, “Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”
She has disseminated that viewpoint during her speeches and through Twitter on multiple occasions overtime:
While the nation understands the truth that not all muslims are terrorists, her opponents argue that repeatedly ignoring the fact that these dangerous, violent, American-hating jihadists self-identify as muslim is only hurting the efforts to combat terrorism. Clinton’s number one opponent, Republican candidate Donald Trump, has been outspoken about his plans to fight terrorism, stating that he believes to do so you need to start with identifying the radical Islamists’ motivations, allegiances, and ties to Islamic countries that fuel these ideas.
Nations in Europe have felt the role their lax immigration policies have had on the increase of Islamic terrorism. The organized attacks all over Paris in November, the truck massacre in Nice, France, the airport bombings in Brussels, just to name a few, were all committed in the name of Islam,by migrants who immigrated from Islamic countries. The growing number of domestic terror attacks in the U.S. acted out by jihadists is no different. Between the Boston bombers, the Orlando shooter, and the latest New York/New Jersey bomber that was captured on Monday, there is no doubt that we are seeing a huge rise in attacks from those who spread terror in the name of Islam and have traveled back and forth from the U.S. to muslim nations. Many claim that forbidding the influx of migrants from these Islamic regions may not be negative, but rather a positive move in terms of National Security.
Clinton, on the other hand, fights back against her opponent, turning his rhetoric into a war on Muslims.
Clinton continuously changes the narrative of these attacks. In June, the nation fell victim to a man who entered a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, gunned down innocent civilians, murdering 49 and injuring dozens more, and set aside time during the assault to pledge his allegiance to the Islamic State via phone calls to 911 and through online posts. Despite his proclamation and admittance of motive, Clinton turned a blind eye to his ties to Islam and claims he acted out of “homophobia,” making it into a gun control issue.
With the ever growing threat of radical Islamic terror on our nation, voters may question whether Clinton would be a President with an admiration for unification or if she would actually just be a Commander-in-Chief who ignores national security threats in the name of political correctness. As Americans continue to be injured and slaughtered by these animals, there is no doubt such a question will be weighing on the minds of civilians before casting their vote in November.