Who Would Protect Us Better, Trump or Clinton?
By: Bill O'ReillyAugust 18, 2016
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

While the left-wing media wants to put a stake through the Trump campaign's heart, the truth is he does have a chance to win the presidency.

That chance hangs on two issues - the economy and combatting Islamic terrorism.

If there is another terror attack on U.S. soil, Americans will react and that, of course, could change voting patterns.

Almost a year ago after the Paris attack I put forth a plan to defeat the ISIS savages.

O'REILLY: “Here is the strategy you should employ immediately.  The president of France clearly stated the ISIS attack was an act of war.  France is a member of the 28-nation NATO alliance.  Article 5 of that alliance says that an attack on one country is an attack on all.  So all 28 nations should now begin to organize a campaign to crush the ISIS killers.  That should include ground troops, bombings, no-fly zones, border security for Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and a central command and control center based in Europe.  Once NATO declares war on ISIS things will radically change.”

Obviously the Obama administration ignored that advice and continued a far less aggressive action against ISIS.

Here is a stunning fact - there are 28 nations in the NATO alliance.  Only eight are actively fighting against ISIS.

The USA, Britain, France, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Turkey.

Australia is not part of NATO but does contribute.

So where are the other 20 NATO countries?

Why are they not fighting the killers?

President Obama is silent on that question.  And it is appalling that NATO has not been organized to defeat the ISIS threat.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein agrees:

"It is now time to recognize that an increased US presence, acting with NATO countries and other partners, could enhance the effort to eliminate Islamic state.  Creating a NATO rapid-reaction force to serve as an attack force against Islamic State would make a major impact. … [And] would help to eliminate ISIS safe havens and to stanch the flow of refugees into Turkey and Europe."

Senator Feinstein is correct.  We were hoping she would come on The Factor to talk about it but she has declined.

You may have noticed that is a pattern among Democratic senators.

I'm not paranoid but there seems to be an organized effort to keep Democratic politicians off this network.

Anyway, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have also put forth strategies.

TRUMP:  “My administration will aggressively pursue joint and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS.  International cooperation to cut off their funding, expanded intelligence sharing, and cyber warfare to disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting.”


CLINTON: “We cannot contain ISIS.  We must defeat ISIS. ((EDIT)) We need to rely on what actually works, not bluster that alienates our partners.  And doesn't make us any safer.”

Mrs. Clinton would most likely take a more aggressive stance against ISIS than President Obama but she has not really spelled that out yet.

What this comes down to is will.  Barack Obama simply does not have the motivation to quickly destroy the ISIS savages, thereby sending a message to the world.

That is clear.

But the present danger is also clear.  The next terror attack is coming at any time.  There will be more innocent people slaughtered while NATO does little to stop the carnage.

And what about those poor refugees that Senator Feinstein mentioned?  Who’s helping them? Who’s providing safe zones near where they live?


Summing up, Americans are engaged emotionally with the terror fight and that will affect the upcoming vote.

Both candidates should make ISIS a top priority.

And that's the memo.