6/17/16, "Trump’s Moral Clarity: “America must unite the whole civilized world in the fight against Islamic terrorism”," sundance, tcth
[…] America must unite the whole civilized world in the fight against Islamic terrorism, just like we did against communism in the Cold War… (more)
That sentence identifies a global vacuum. A missing element just too uncomfortable for President Obama and liberal leaders within multiple Western nations to acknowledge. From that sentence a clear policy is born. A missing policy; missing leadership.
I predict that in the coming weeks/months candidate Hillary Clinton and President Obama will be forced to accept and adopt the clarity within Donald Trump’s position. They’ll simply have to. Because if they don’t, the voters they need will abandon them in droves.
Neither Hillary Clinton, nor President Obama are willing to admit the transparently obvious: there is a threat from Islamic Terrorism, that directly endangers the core liberal values carried by their own base constituency.
The various politically correct catch phrases being used by Hillary Clinton such as "radical jihadism," or "radical Islamism," are not going to stand up against Trump’s willingness to call them to task. The obfuscations within the Clinton position is weakening her daily; and her arguments will not stand up against scrutiny from the intellectually honest.
The larger intellectual segment of the LGBT community is already asking: Is there a non-radical Jihad?
The silent response from the left is deafening.
Many of you will remember how candidate Ted Cruz essentially dropped his own platform positions and took up advocacy for Donald Trump’s positions; even attempting to claim them as his own. However, even if they wouldn’t admit it, the Cruz followers knew inherently their candidate was only mirroring Donald Trump. On the issue of Islamic terrorism, the same is going to happen soon with Hillary Clinton and even President Obama.
If they don’t make the shift soon, they’ll lose the election because only Donald Trump will be seen as conveying the honest moral clarity.
[…] America must unite the whole civilized world in the fight against Islamic terrorism, just like we did against communism in the Cold War.
[…] When I am President, I pledge to protect and defend all Americans who live inside of our borders. Wherever they come from, wherever they were born, all Americans living here and following our laws will be protected.
[…] The media talks about “homegrown,” terrorism, but Islamic radicalism, and the networks that nurture it, are imports from overseas.
Yes, there are many radicalized people already inside our country as a result of the poor policies of the past. But the whole point is that it will be much, much easier to deal with our current problem if we don’t keep on bringing in people who add to the problem.
For instance, the controversial Mosque attended by the Boston Bombers had as its founder an immigrant from overseas charged in an assassination plot.
This shooter in Orlando was the child of an immigrant father who supported one of the most repressive regimes on Earth. Why would we admit people who support violent hatred?
[…] So whether it’s matter of national security, or financial security, we can’t afford to keep on going like this. We owe $19 trillion in debt, and no longer have options.
All our communities, from all backgrounds, are ready for some relief. This is not an act of offense against anyone; it is an act of defense.
I want us all to work together, including in partnership with our Muslim communities. But Muslim communities must cooperate with law enforcement and turn in the people who they know are bad – and they do know where they are.
I want to fix our schools, roads, bridges and job market. I want every American to succeed. Hillary Clinton wants to empty out the Treasury to bring people into the country that include individuals who preach hate against our own citizens.
I want to protect our citizens – all of our citizens.
That speech is clear, crystal clear. It is unarguably direct and truthful. There is no effective counter to this truth when cast against the blood-stained sidewalks and nightclubs.
Oh, they’re trying. They are trying to dilute the factual Islamic Terrorist attack by framing the Orlando massacre as a ‘hate crime’ against a special interest group. But even the combined Clinton/Obama machine can’t make a narrative lift that steep and heavy.
The Clinton machine is a poll testing political behemoth. So too is the Obama political enterprise.
But the clarity behind the position of Donald Trump is water to a thirsting electorate who are alert and recognizing the PC-ism of the left, which drives the denial of Islamic Terrorism, has real and significant consequences.
We are a week away from the only hope they have to avoid making the shift.
If the Brexit vote is successful, and Great Britain breaks free from the EU, you can be guaranteed Hillary Clinton will shift 180°, drop the radical jihadism gobbledygook nonsense, and begin talking directly about Islamic Terrorism. Watch."
"The case is Gonzalez et. al v. Twitter, Inc., Google, Inc., and Facebook, Inc."
6/16/16, "Family of ISIS Paris attack victim sues Google, Facebook and Twitter," Washington Post, Jacob Bogage
"The family of an American student killed by the Islamic State during a November 2015 attack in Paris is suing Twitter, Facebook and Google for providing, “material support” to the terrorist group.
Nohemi Gonzalez, 23, was the only American victim among 130 killed in coordinated attacks at a Parisian soccer stadium and concert venue.
In a complaint filed this week in the U.S. District Court of Northern California, her father, Reynaldo Gonzalez, argues the three platforms “have knowingly permitted the terrorist group ISIS to use their social networks as a tool for spreading extremist propaganda, raising funds and attracting new recruits.”
The Islamic State, also known as ISIS, has active presences on both Facebook and Twitter, though the platforms have cracked down in the past and deactivated accounts affiliated with terrorist organizations.
Google is named in the suit, filed this week, as the owner of YouTube, which the Islamic State has used to post propaganda including videos of executions.
“Google, Twitter and Facebook provide infrastructure and material support for ISIS to conduct terrorist activity,” said Keith Altman, attorney for the family. “These companies are not doing a good enough job from keeping the terrorists from using their network.”
In some cases, the complaint says, the social networks place ads next to Islamic State content and share revenue with the terrorist group generated from those ads.
The platforms, though, could be shielded from the suit under provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which does not hold websites liable for content users post.
“[Social networks] can censor more or less anything they want and it also have incredible abilities to leave up as much as they want to leave up,” said Ryan Calo, professor of law at the University of Washington and co-director of the school’s Tech Policy Lab.
In a statement on its website, Facebook said there was “no place for terrorists or content that promotes or supports terrorism,” but also said the suit was “without merit” and pledged to defend itself “vigorously.”
Twitter also said the suit was “without merit.”
“Violent threats and the promotion of terrorism deserve no place on Twitter and, like other social networks, our rules make that clear,” a spokesman said.
Google declined to comment on pending litigation and defended its “strong track record of taking swift action against terrorist content.”
But Altman said the networks do far too little to police their users.
When a site deactivates one account, another pops back up to take its place without much oversight.
“It’s like whack-a-mole,” he said. “I don't think ISIS could sustain their operation without these social networks.”
The first conference set for the case is in September.
The case is Gonzalez et. al v. Twitter, Inc., Google, Inc., and Facebook, Inc."
Donald J. Trump Positions