[guest post by Dana]

Here are a few excerpts from Hillary Clinton’s post-Orlando remarks:

The third area that demands attention is preventing radicalization, and countering efforts by ISIS and other international terrorist networks to recruit in the United States and Europe.

For starters, it is long past time for the Saudis, the Qataris, the Kuwaitis and others to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations. And they should stop supporting radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path toward extremism.

…

Still, as I have said before, none of us can close our eyes to the fact that we do face enemies who use their distorted version of Islam to justify slaughtering innocent people. They’d take us all back to the Stone Age if they could, just as they have in parts of Iraq and Syria.

Here are 10 countries where homosexuality can be punishable by death: Mauritania, Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

In the following countries, homosexual acts can be punishable by death:

Afghanistan: Death penalty laws exist but are unlikely to be implemented, according to the 2015 IGLA report.

Brunei: Brunei has adopted a death penalty (stoning) for homosexual acts and plans to implement it in 2016.

Iran: In accordance with sharia law, homosexual intercourse between men can be punished by death, and men can be flogged for lesser acts such as kissing. Women may be flogged.

Iraq: The penal code does not expressly prohibit homosexual acts, but people have been killed by militias and sentenced to death by judges citing sharia law.

Mauritania: Muslim men engaging in homosexual sex can be stoned to death, according to a 1984 law. Women face prison.

Nigeria: Federal law classifies homosexual behavior as a felony punishable by imprisonment, but several provinces have adopted sharia law and imposed a death penalty for men.

Pakistan: Death penalty laws exist but are unlikely to be implemented, according to the 2015 IGLA report.

Qatar: Muslims can be put to death for extramarital sex, regardless of sexual orientation. Death penalty laws exist but are unlikely to be implemented, according to the 2015 IGLA report.

Saudi Arabia: Under the country’s interpretation of sharia law, a married man engaging in sodomy or any non-Muslim who commits sodomy with a Muslim can be stoned to death. All sex outside of marriage is illegal.

Somalia: The penal code stipulates prison, but in some southern regions, Islamic courts have imposed Sharia law and the death penalty.

Sudan: Three-time offenders under the sodomy law can be put to death; first and second convictions result in flogging and imprisonment.

Yemen: According to 1994 penal code, married men can be sentenced to death by stoning for homosexual intercourse. Unmarried men face whipping or one year in prison. Women face up to seven years in prison.

Here are the countries from which the Clinton Foundation accepted donations:

Qatar $1-$5 Million

Brunei $1-$5 Million

Saudi Arabia $10-$25 Million

You can go here for a further look at the countries where homosexuals face imprisonment, and from which the Clinton Foundation took money.

Hillary Clinton has not addressed this hypocrisy on the campaign trail, but last year her husband-surrogate was questioned about it, and he rationalized it this way:

We do get money from other countries, and some of them are in the Middle East. The United Arab Emirates gave us money, do we agree with everything they do? No, but they’re helping us fight ISIS and they helped build a university with NYU. . . . My theory about all this is, disclose everything, and let people make their judgments.

…

I believe we’ve done a lot more good than harm[.]

But given we’ve been told a hundred times that Bill Clinton is not running for president and therefore what he says or does is irrelevant, I am looking forward to hearing from the nominee herself about this little post-Orlando matter. No doubt there will be a media inquiry. Any day now…

–Dana

The New York Times editorial board is blaming the Orlando shooting on Republicans:

While the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear, it is evident that Mr. Mateen was driven by hatred toward gays and lesbians. Hate crimes don’t happen in a vacuum. They occur where bigotry is allowed to fester, where minorities are vilified and where people are scapegoated for political gain. Tragically, this is the state of American politics, driven too often by Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish.

To the contrary: the precise motivation for the attack is quite clear, actually. John Sexton explains:

Omar Mateen told a 911 dispatcher what his motivations were. He killed 49 people in solidarity with ISIS and their extreme Islamic beliefs. ISIS, it must be noted, routinely murders gays (or people suspected of being gay) by throwing them off tall buildings. In other words, there is no reason to doubt his hatred of gays could stem from his religious leanings.

In addition, we know the FBI had twice investigated Mateen for possible Islamic radicalism. Every authority from the president on down has indicated this was an act of home grown terrorism, an apparent case of self-radicalization. How much more precise to do we need to get on the killer’s motivation?

Despite the clear influence of radical Islam generally (and ISIS specifically) on Mateen’s actions, the words “ISIS” or “Islam” or “Muslim” appear nowhere in the New York Times editorial. Nor do the editors mention that the shooter, who was supposedly driven to violence by that Republican hatred, was a registered Democrat. I have not noted the shooter’s political registration before today, because I believe that doing so would amount to pointless and unnecessary partisan point-scoring. But the editors’ equally pointless decision to drag Republicans into this discussion has compelled me to name Mateen’s political affiliation as a defensive measure, even though I am no longer a Republican — because I spent enough years as one that I am still outraged when they are absurdly blamed for something that is not their fault.

I’m now going to make an argument for rhetorical effect. It is an argument that I don’t believe, because I believe the moral responsibility for the shooting lies exclusively with Omar Mateen. But my argument is far more plausible than blaming Republicans, and in any event I need to justify the headline of the post — and it’s an argument that I’m willing to bet a lot of you will believe. That argument is this: if anyone besides Omar Mateen is morally responsible for this shooting, it is the very people who deliberately and repeatedly ignore the danger posed by radical Islamic terrorism, to the point where they strain to overlook red flags raised by the behavior of a Muslim. After all, we have heard allegations that Mateen, while working as a security guard for a federal contractor, talked about killing people — and yet, his former co-worker alleges, these complaints fell on deaf ears because he was a Muslim.

And nobody has been more staunch in their refusal to ignore the dangers of radical Islam than the editors of the New York Times, who do not even mention ISIS in this editorial, much less tell their readers that the shooter “pledged allegiance to ISIS and referenced the Tsarnaev brothers, the terrorists who exploded bombs at the 2013 Boston Marathon.”

So if you’re going to blame someone besides Mateen for this shooting, blame the members of the New York Times editorial board. Those members include James Bennet (@jbennet), Terry Tang, Robert B. Semple Jr., Linda Cohn, Vikas Bajaj (@vikasbajaj), Francis X. Clines, Lawrence Downes (@lawrencedownes), Carol Giacomo (@giacomonyt), Mira Kamdar (@mirakamdar), Ernesto Londoño, Anna North (@annanorthtweets), Serge Schmemann, Brent Staples (@BrentNYT), Teresa Tritch, Jesse Wegman (@jessewegman), and Elizabeth Williamson (@NYTLiz).

These are the people whose corrosive politics contributed to the murder of 49 people in Orlando. Go hold them responsible.

If you like your plan, you can pay lots more:

Premiums for the most popular ObamaCare plans are expected to rise by an average of 11 percent next year, according to new research that will likely fuel GOP attacks against the healthcare law.

Health insurers are seeking steeper premium hikes in 2017 than in previous years, according to a report released Wednesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation. The report offers the most comprehensive — and alarming — data so far about the premium costs that ObamaCare customers will see when they renew their coverage this fall.

Not to worry! Help is on the way this November! Americans face a stark choice this election season, between a candidate who likes the ObamaCare mandate, and a candidate who likes the ObamaCare mandate.