Alinsky vs. Alinsky

What would you think if your favorite football team had access to their opponent’s playbook but refused to study it?  I’m not talking about Bill Belichick stealing a playbook from the other side.  No, I’m talking about being handed it on a silver platter and still failing to read it, study it, or devise a strategy to defeat it.  That is exactly what has been happening in the last batch of presidential races lost by Republicans.

The playbook is called “Reveille for Radicals” and “Rules for Radicals”, a pair of books by the father of community organizing, Saul Alinsky.  Together they form a playbook laid out over forty-five years ago to “rub raw the sores of discontent” and mobilize a redistributive revolution.  It was the playbook followed by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in their presidential runs.  It is now the playbook of Hillary Clinton in her run.

Obama taught Alinsky’s playbook as a community organizer and according to Michelle Obama herself, he quoted Alinsky on their first date.  More than anyone else in public life, Obama has employed the playbook diligently, and to great effect.  Hillary wrote her thesis on Alinsky, knew him, and carried on a correspondence with him.  She will likely do the same.  

For the last forty-five years this has been a one sided fight.  Republicans failed to understand the power of Alinsky’s model.  They failed to take the playbook seriously, failed to study it, and never developed a strategy to counter it.  Mitt Romney still doesn't understand what hit him in 2012.

Donald Trump brings that tradition to a grinding halt.  That’s not to say he has even read a single word Alinsky wrote.  He may not even know his name.  But Donald Trump is a natural born Alinskyite.  His own book, “The Art of the Deal”, is a kind of a businessman’s “Rules for Radicals”.  Trump's take-no-prisoners style and nice-guys-finish-last approach are right out of the Alinsky playbook.  Out of necessity and natural inclination, Trump has had to cut out the middleman and apply these tactics himself, which is a 180 degree departure from the normal politically correct Alinskyite approach.  Trump had neither time nor a willing community in the GOP to organize.   

The Democrats have never been in this position before.  They have never had to face a committed Alinskyite opponent.   Though Trump is self-taught in the art of “rubbing raw the sores of discontent”, using “ridicule as his most potent weapon” (That’s what all those stupid nicknames are about.), and all the other aspects of Alinskyism, he is rather effective.  The Left no longer has exclusive use of these divisive, dangerous, but highly effective tactics.  Payback is a bitch, and Trump is that bitch.         

That’s not to say Trump will waltz to victory based on the leveling of the Alinsky playing field.  The Left is still the dominant force in America today.  Demographics and nearly every lever of pop culture skew that way.  Media, academia, entertainers, actors, musicians, etc. all skew Left.  The most assigned economist at U.S. colleges is still Karl Marx, and it’s not even close.  Google, Apple, Facebook, and Twitter, with all their power to control information and opinion are all skewed Left.  The massive bureaucracies of government at the local, state, and federal level are all unionized, Leftist, and highly motivated.  

On the flip side, the counter-culture as personified by Donald Trump is diffuse, disorganized, and with nary a voice in pop culture.  It's going to be a lonely uphill battle for Donald Trump.   

But Donald Trump may actually know more Alinsky than he lets on.  Consider one of his final thoughts from his GOP convention speech:

“Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.” 

This reminded me of a quote from “Rules for Radicals”:

 

“The organizer’s job is to inseminate an invitation for himself, to agitate, introduce ideas, get people pregnant with hope and a desire for change and to identify you as the person most qualified for this purpose.”

This election is shaping up to be a two-way Alinsky battle royale.   Buckle your seatbelts... 

Dog Lives Matter

Had to put Rory down last week.  Despite what you may think about your own dog, Rory was the best dog ever.  Seriously.  Here's proof:

  

Barack [REDACTED] Obama's Filmmaker Enemies List

The House Benghazi report was released today, and it proves among other things that blaming the attack on a film was an Obama and Clinton lie.  To help legitimize the lie they went so far as to arrest the filmmaker, convict him on dubious tangential charges, and jail him for a year.  

Nakoula Baselley Nakoula, an Egyptian born Christian, was the ultimate political prisoner.    He was imprisoned to distract from the failure of Obama and Clinton to protect and defend their people in Libya, and to divert attention from the increasing risk of Islamic terrorism which they claimed to have defeated.   The diversion worked and they got reelected.     

But Baselley is just one of many filmmakers harassed by Barack [REDACTED] Obama and his surrogates.  Here is a list of some of the others:  

Joel Gilbert, Dinesh D'Souza, David Daleiden, Sandra Merritt, James O'Keefe, Joseph Basel, Robert Flanagan, Stan Dai, Logan Clements, Breitbart News, Glenn Beck, Pat Gray, Scott Baker, David Bossie, James Bopp, and Fox News. 

Remember those are just the filmmakers.  Others who write books, blogs, screenplays, articles, do comedy, make music, do talkshows, or run businesses have also been audited by the IRS, raided by various government agencies, or targeted by leftist surrogates under the Obama regime.

Here are the basic details of the harassed filmmakers listed above:

Joel Gilbert:  Mr. Gilbert made an anti-Obama film called "Dreams From My Real Father".  It drew the ire of Democrats on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) who voted unanimously to punish Mr. Gilbert.  When Republicans pointed out that liberal filmmakers like Michael Moore were not similarly harassed by GOP FEC members, the move was eventually blocked. Were it not for the split FEC, Mr. Gilbert would have been punished for making a movie critical of Obama.

Dinesh D'Souza: Mr. D'Souza admitted giving more money than was allowed by federal law to a friend who was running for office.  More importantly though, he made a couple of anti-Obama films in 2012 and 2013.  As a result of the ostensible campaign finance violation he was confined for eight months, put on five months probation, and forced to undergo psychological counseling.   Here's what liberal Harvard legal scholar Alan Dershowitz said about his conviction and sentence:  

“The idea of charging him with a felony for this doesn’t sound like a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion.... I can’t help but think that [D'Souza's] politics have something to do with it.... It smacks of selective prosecution.” He went on to say such alleged campaign violations are common in politics.

David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt:  These two were behind the Planned Parenthood undercover videos made by The Center for Medical Progress.  Barack [REDACTED] Obama himself made a point to single them out.  As part of their cover they used fake IDs, and that somehow became a pretense for felony charges, a raid on Daleidon's home, and seizures of his property.

“To storm into a private citizen’s home with a search warrant is outrageously out of proportion for the type of crime alleged,” said Matt Heffron a former federal prosecutor who is now Daleiden’s legal adviser. “It’s a discredit to law enforcement, an oppressive abuse of government power.”

James O'Keefe, Joseph Basel, Robert Flanagan, and Stan Dai: These people were part of James O'Keefe's undercover video organization, Project Veritas, the organization that single-handedly took down one of Obama's favorite community organizer activist groups, ACORN. They went on to investigate Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu and ran afoul of the FBI while trying make a film about her ignoring her constituents during the Obamacare run-up. They eventually settled for misdemeanor charges and accepted probation, fines, and community service.  O'keefe has also been harassed by Obama's DHS for making a movie about the open southern border.

Logan Clements: Mr. Clements made a movie called "Sick and Sicker...", an unflattering portrayal of Obamacare.  For his disloyalty he was handed his first ever IRS audit.  Coincidence?  You judge.  

Breitbart News:  OK, this could also be coincidence, but Breitbart News is a multi-media powerhouse that is foursquare opposed to Obama's policies.   They also coincidently earned their first IRS audit.  (Also, see David Bossie below who writes for Breitbart.) 

Glenn Beck, Pat Grey, and Scott Baker: Ditto above.  Glenn Beck and his Blaze Network don't just make videos.  They have an entire broadcast network, publish books, run a website, and do talk radio. All of it opposes Barack [REDACTED] Obama's policies.  So yeah, these guys all got their first audits by the IRS.  But that's not all.  Beck's top sponsor was targeted by Democrats and specifically by congressman Anthony Weiner, husband of Hillary's right hand person, Huma Abedin, and a known political hit-man for Democrats and Obama.  Weiner resigned his House seat in scandal, but his wife will play a major role in a possible Clinton administration.

David Bossie and James Bopp:  These men were behind the famous Citizens United SCOTUS case. David Bossie runs CU and James Bopp was the lawyer who defended the first amendment. The case centered around their right to make a film, in this case an unflattering portrait of Hillary Clinton. They won the case at the SCUTUS but ran afoul of Obama and the entire left who believe the first amendment only applies to Michael Moore and The New York Times. Hence, in front of the entire world, during a state of the union address, Barack [REDACTED] Obama publicly berated the justices who upheld the first amendment rights of filmmakers, thus sending a message to justices, filmmakers, and supporters of people who make films: oppose me and I will use the Bully Pulpit to bully you.

No list like this would be complete without mentioning Obama's number one target in the media and film world - Fox News.  Fox has been singled-out and harassed personally by Barack [REDACTED] Obama on numerous occasions.  These attacks sent a clear and chilling message to sponsors.  Ask yourself this: would you advertise on Fox News if you knew restrictive regulations, IRS audits, and federal harassment were disproportionately doled out to Obama's enemies?   Ironically, Fox just broke a record high for viewer ratings.

Are all these just coincidences?  You decide.

UPDATE:  If the subject of Obama's enemies lists interests you, read this piece by Mark Hyman in the American Spectator, Obama's Enemies List, written one month after he took office.  And this follow up, Obama's Enemies List Grows.  Oh, and this one too, Obama's Real Enemies List.      

   

We are all _________ Now

Why did  ______ replace Allah with _____?  Why did they redact all references to ____?  As others have pointed out, replacing words they don't like with words they prefer is not redacting.  It's lying. It reminds me of when Winston Smith in ____ sees proof of the ________ being fed to the _____.  This is that moment.   

So let's all start _________.   If all bloggers, journalists, writers, ___, started _________,  maybe we could call attention to the activities of the Ministry of _____ in the _____ administration.  Look, we all know who the top ________ is.  It is obviously ______ himself.  But make no mistake, as ____ is my witness, if everyone ________ from now on, and put the "we" in Orwell, mountains could be _____.

Embrace the _____.  See the _____.  Be the  _____.  

Trump would-be-assassin tries to grab cops gun!

Some nut declared his desire to kill Donald Trump Saturday, and then tried to grab a cops gun to do it.  Which is weird because, as we've been told, you can just go into any 7-11 and buy an AR-15 with no questions asked!

Whatever.  As I've documented before, Republicans are much more likely to be shot because the guys doing the shooting are almost always from the left!   Here's how I broke it down in March of 2010:

Have you seen the many references to the mortal danger President Obama is in from potential assassins? The latest piece appeared today in the UK Guardian . I’m not surprised we are seeing these stories because racist whackos could be an additional threat for Obama, but make no mistake about it, Presidents face danger as all modern ones have found out.  That said, Barack Obama is statistically much safer than even George W Bush was!

The tragic fact is that virtually every modern president has been the subject of some kind of assassination attempt. Every one. That’s not to excuse it, but to highlight that danger is part of the office. The job is not for the faint-of-heart. Some nut is going to try and fly a plane into your house (Nixon, Clinton, Bush 43), or blow you up (Kennedy, Bush 41, Bush 43), or just try to shoot you (Truman, Kennedy, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 43). And that is all of them post-WWII!

But, going back all the way, your chances of actually taking a bullet are almost twice as bad if you are a Republican. Five have been Republicans, (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Ford, Reagan) and three have been Democrats (Jackson, Truman, Kennedy).

As far as actual assassinations, three were Republicans (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley) and only one was a Democrat (Kennedy). In short, your chances of being killed are three times worse if you are a Republican! Moreover, Kennedy, the only Democrat was a tax-cutting supply-sider. If you look at it that way, Barack Obama will die in his bed as an old man. Now, if he could only quit smoking…

No Fly / No Buy?

Democrats want us to use the "No Fly" terrorist watch list to keep jihadis from buying weapons. They are half right.

Everyone agrees there absolutely must be a way to prevent jihadis, mental incompetents, criminals, etc. from buying weapons.  The problem is the current No Fly list is inconsistent with the constitution. Democrats like it that way.  Anyone can end up on that list and there is no way of tracing how they got there.  The people are not notified before being put on the list, so they only find out when trying to fly somewhere.  The list is not biometric and therefore subject to error.     Once on the list it is an Orwellian Kafkaesque nightmare to get off the list.  And the list could be politicized. Yes, the list could be politicized.

Sound familiar?

This is exactly like the IRS BOLO (be on the lookout) watch list which targeted Tea Party, Christian, conservative, and Republican non-profits that applied for tax exempt status.  Democrats politicized the IRS and used their BOLO list to keep conservative groups from raising money for the last few election cycles.  It was perhaps the most chilling abuse of government power in my lifetime and no one, including the president, has paid a price for it legally or politically.  

Republicans can be 100% certain that's exactly how a No Fly / No Buy list would work under another radical president.  Outspoken conservatives, constitutionalists, religious leaders, free marketers, NRA members, Bill of Rights advocates, etc. would soon find themselves stripped of their rights and unable to fly.

Fix the list.  Make it biometric.  Make it constitutional.  Apply due process.  Then use it to stop terrorists.

Watch Trey Gowdy make the due process case in 2015: (it's actually quite brilliant!)




One caveat:  Gowdy asks "Can you think of another constitutional right that is first chilled and then when you find out it's chilled you must then petition the government to get it back?"  He doesn't mention it, but this is exactly how the second amendment currently works.  It wasn't written that way, but that is how it has evolved and that is, I believe, it's major flaw.  (Details to follow...)    

The First Stage of Grief

(As posted on Facebook) 

Wow.  My timeline is really angry about what happened in Orlando. And there’s a lot to be angry about - senseless murders, families suffering, horrible maiming, and the loss of a sense of security in a sacred place like the home of Disney World. 

Now we are going through the inevitable stages of grief.  You know them by now: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance.  The dominant emotion I’ve been seeing since the moment the attack occurred is anger.  Anger at the gun used, anger at the second amendment, and anger at the NRA.  But this anger emerged immediately after the attack.  You skipped denial entirely!  Could it be that this anger is actually denial masquerading as anger?

I think so.  Leon Trotsky said, “You may not be interested in war, but war may be interested in you.”  That’s a pretty darn harsh reality – too harsh to even face.  So naturally denial kicks in. 

9/11 was a big wake-up call.  Of course there were others before that, but we kept hitting the snooze button.  After 9/11 though, there was no denying we had a problem.  So we got busy.  The new president came up with a doctrine to counter the jihad. We fought back, we fought hard, and we had a global strategy.   Along with the obvious military, intelligence, and diplomatic efforts, there was a serious and covert operation called The Global War on Terror. This was not an easy task.  Regardless of what you ultimately thought of him, Bush was a leader who took the effort seriously and kept us safe for seven years.  The jihad went into retreat.  It dispersed.  The hotbeds of the jihad movement became, relatively speaking, stabilized.

But it didn’t always go as planned.  Wars never do.  Communication was weak.  Political critics saw an opening.  Our unity crumbled.  And we slipped back into denial.  Enter Barack Obama. 

Candidate Obama promised to end the Global War on Terror.  He was not interested in that war regardless of whether or not it was interested in him.  Sure, he would continue pinprick bombings and assassinations when the opportunity arose, but commanding a global war?  No way.  In fact, he took the opposite view.  The jihad wanted safe havens – he gave them safe havens in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and others.  They wanted no surveillance – wish granted.  They wanted a nuclear and missile program in Iran - he gave them that plus $150 billion dollars to fund it.  The Muslim Brotherhood wanted Egypt and Turkey – he supported them.  The jihad wanted hijrah (a demographic invasion) into Europe and the US - he supported it.  They wanted access to the highest echelons of U.S. government - he invited them in.  They wanted all references to Islam removed from government security training manuals - he did it.  They wanted NASA devoted to Muslim outreach - he gave it to them.  (Do you think that last one looks crazy? Here's Obama's NASA administrator proudly declaring NASA's foremost mission is outreach to Muslims.)      

The jihad wanted a complete end to the war against it, and Obama supported that goal.  The military ceased combat operations, then withdrew completely.  Hardcore GITMO terrorists were released.  No new captures were allowed.  No further interrogations were permitted.  No new human intelligence was gathered.  Even Voice of America was neutered so we had no way to counter the jihad over the airwaves or Internet.   

For his support, Obama got a peace prize.  He bought a selfie stick, a set of golf clubs, and took a seven year victory lap.  Most of you applauded the performance.  You were in denial.

But the wake-up calls kept coming.  And you kept hitting the snooze button.  Nadal Hassan?  Workplace violence - snooze.  Benghazi?  A video - snooze.  Boston? Homegrown – snooze.  San Bernardino?  Lone wolfs - snooze.  Charlie Hebdo?  Send James Taylor - snooze.  Paris (with some of the strictest gun laws on the planet)?  Change Facebook picture - snooze.  ISIS?  JV Team - Snooze.  Human disaster in Syria?  Give it to Putin - snooze.  Russian jetliner bombed out of the sky?  Look, Kardashians! – snooze.  ISIS takes western Iraq?  Not going back - snooze.  Boko Haram?  A hashtag will do - snooze.  Brussels?  Where’s Brussels? – snooze.  Another attack in Israel?  Only Jews – snooze.  Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Nusra, etc?  Too complicated – snooze.  Taliban back in Afghanistan? – Wow, look at my 401K! – snooze.  Iran wants nukes?  Ben Rhodes says it’s cool  – snooze.

How many of these would have been prevented if the second amendment were completely repealed?  None.  What if it never existed?  Not a single one.  There were no guns on 9/11.  Even in San Bernardino, where they illegally used guns, they had bombs too.  The jihadi in Orlando was reportedly a gun licensed government contractor. 

That’s not to say a second amendment debate is not worth having.  We’ve been debating it since before it was adopted, and we will continue.  But in the context of the jihad, the second amendment is not only irrelevant, it protects us!  Israel is the country most threatened by jihad and they protect themselves pretty darn effectively with, among other things,…guns.  But you are in denial.  

Jihad blood is now flowing in the streets near Disney World and you can’t just snooze this one away.  This is real.  Large numbers of Americans are dead.  This is not some unpronounceable distant land most Americans can’t find on a map.  This is Disney World, man.  Every American has either been there, or wants to go there. 

And somewhere deep in your heart, or deep in your subconscious, you know why this happened.  And you know you were complicit on some level.  You hit the snooze button.  You were in denial.  You supported Barack Obama and his disastrous jihad policy. 

Of course you never wanted to hurt anyone!  You wanted peace! That’s always how it goes with appeasers.  But your denial has cost lives and left a vacuum.  The world is a mess.  The jihad is on the march.  Europe is gone.  The Mideast, save Israel, is gone.  Turkey is gone.  Libya is gone.  Afghanistan is gone.  And we may be gone.  But the truth of all that is too painful right now in the face of all those bloody bodies in Orlando. 

So you are lashing out angrily at guns, the second amendment, the NRA.  Things that will have no effect on stopping the jihad - the war you are not interested in, but is very interested in you.  Sorry, you are in denial.

Could Orlando have been prevented? II

And if your response is something like, "It's all about guns and Obama HAS been laser focused on gun."  I've got one word for you: Paris, where they have some of the strictest gun laws in the world.  

This particular islamic jihadist was licensed, not just to own guns, but to use them as a government contractor for Obama's DHS (Department of Homeland Security).  That, despite twice being investigated by Obama's FBI as a possible terrorist.   Obama's government knew he was a terror threat and still allowed him to own guns and work as a DHS contractor.  Let that sink in. 

Here's the deal:  The Holocaust was not due to gas chambers and boxcars. 9/11 was not due to box cutters and jet fuel. The Murrow Bldg. was not due to fertilizer and Ryder trucks. And Orlando was not due to an AR-15. In a world of absolute moral equivalence and political correctness it is forbidden, in an Orwellian sense, to judge because to judge is to discriminate and to discriminate is wrong. Thus we cannot see politically protected ideologies as a source of evil, and so must focus on objects and material things.  It's not the ideology you see, it's the tool used.  This is delusional and suicidal.

The salafist islamic jihad ideology is the problem and Obama is either oblivious or sympathetic.  As Leon Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war may be interested in you." Eight years of cooperation with this ideology will have to be reckoned with at some point.      

Could Orlando have been prevented?

Remember the Global War on Terror?  In the wake of 9/11 it kept us safe from domestic attacks by jihadist islam, and did so right up until the election of Barack Obama.  Obama won the presidency and declared that he had no interest in conducting a Global War on Terror, he was withdrawing resources from it, he was closing GITMO, he was ceasing combat operations targeting jihadi islam, and he was focusing his efforts on other things:      

From Jerome Hudson at Breitbart:

Below are 23 times Obama or his administration officials claimed climate change a greater threat than radical Islamic terrorism.

In a January 15, 2008 presidential campaign speech on Iraq and Afghanistan, Barack Obama said the “immediate danger” of oil-backed terrorism “is eclipsed only by the long-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most disastrously, that could mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline.”

On January 26, 2009, Obama delivered remarks at the White House on the “dangers” of climate change:

These urgent dangers to our national and economic security are compounded by the long-term threat of climate change, which, if left unchecked, could result in violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines, and irreversible catastrophe.

In May 2010, the Obama White House released it’s national security strategy, which said, “At home and abroad, we are taking concerted action to confront the dangers posed by climate change and to strengthen our energy security.” The document declared climate change “an urgent and growing threat to our national security.”

On September 6, 2012, during his Democratic National Convention speech, Obama said, “Yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet, because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They are a threat to our children’s future.

On January 23, 2013, in an address before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State John Kerry declared climate change among the top threats facing the United States.

February 16, 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry addressed students in Indonesia and said that global warming is now “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”

In a June 2014 interview, Obama said:

When you start seeing how these shifts can displace people—entire countries can be finding themselves unable to feed themselves and the potential incidence of conflict that arises out of that—that gets your attention. There’s a reason why the quadrennial defense review—which the secretary of defense and the Joints Chiefs of Staff work on—identified climate change as one of our most significant national security problems. It’s not just the actual disasters that might arise, it is the accumulating stresses that are placed on a lot of different countries and the possibility of war, conflict, refugees, displacement that arise from a changing climate.

During a September 2014 meeting with foreign ministers, Secretary of State John Kerry called Climate change a threat as urgent as ISIS.

On September 24 2014, the Obama USDA launched its Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture. In a memo posted by Secretary of State John Kerry, among other Obama administration officials, read,“From India to the United States, climate change poses drastic risks to every facet of our lives.”

On October 29, 2014, in an address to the Washington Ideas Forum, Obama’s Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said:

From my perspective, within the portfolio that I have responsibility for–security of this country–climate change presents security issues for us. There’s a security dynamic to that. As the oceans increase, it will affect our bases. It will affect islands. It will affect security across the world. Just from my narrow perspective, what I have responsibility for, that’s happening now.

During his 2015 State of the Union address, Obama said, “No challenge  poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.”

In a February 2015 address to college students in Iowa, Vice President Joe Biden said“Global warming is the greatest threat to your generation of anything at all, across the board.”

On February 09, 2015, in an interview with Vox, Obama said he “absolutely” believes that the media “sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism” as opposed to “climate change.”

On February 10, 2015, when asked to confirm if this means Obama believes “the threat of climate change is greater than the threat of terrorism,” Earnest responded, “The point the president is making is that there are many more people on an annual basis who have to confront the impact, the direct impact on their lives, of climate change, or on the spread of a disease, than on terrorism.”

During his April 18, 2015 weekly address on climate change, Obama said, “Wednesday is Earth Day, a day to appreciate and protect this precious planet we call home. And today, there’s no greater threat to our planet than climate change.”

In May 2015, the White House released a 1,300-page National Climate Assessment that declared climate change among the world’s foremost threats.

May 20, 2015 President Obama said in his keynote address to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy graduates: “Climate change, and especially rising seas, is a threat to our homeland security, our economic infrastructure, the safety and health of the American people.”

On July 13 2015, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy and Obama’s U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Kenneth F. Hackett wrote in a joint blog post on the EPA website, praising Pope Francis for dedicating his second encyclical to urging swift action on global warming.

McCarthy and Hackett wrote:

As public servants working in both domestic policy and diplomacy, we understand the urgent need for global action. Climate impacts like extreme droughts, floods, fires, heat waves, and storms threaten people in every country—and those who have the least suffer the most. No matter your beliefs or political views, we are all compelled to act on climate change to protect our health, our planet, and our fellow human beings.

An Obama Defense Department report released on July 29, 2015 says climate change puts U.S. security at risk and threatens the global order:

The report reinforces the fact that global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests over the foreseeable future because it will aggravate existing problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions that threaten domestic stability in a number of countries.

The report finds that climate change is a security risk because it degrades living conditions, human security, and the ability of governments to meet the basic needs of their populations. Communities and states that are already fragile and have limited resources are significantly more vulnerable to disruption and far less likely to respond effectively and be resilient to new challenges.

In his August 28, 2015 weekly address, Obama said “This is all real. This is happening to our fellow Americans right now,” he said. “Think about that. If another country threatened to wipe out an American town, we’d do everything in our power to protect ourselves. Climate change poses the same threat, right now.”

In a September address at the United Nations Climate Summit Obama said, “For all the immediate challenges that we gather to address this week–terrorism, instability, inequality, disease – there’s one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the urgent and growing threat of a changing climate.”

During a September 28 address at the United Nations, President Obama said that ““We can roll back the pollution that we put in our skies,” adding that “No country can escape the ravages of climate change.”

So yes, Orlando could have been prevented.  It's just a matter of priorities.