Bill O'Reilly: The aftermath of the Orlando massacre

There are two major situations the nation must deal with in the interest of your public safety. Keeping you and the people you care about safe from random violence. First, the Islamic Jihadi, second, guns. On the ISIS Jihadi front, Congress must declare war on specific terror groups like ISIS. Shifting the primary role of protection from law enforcement to the military.

A declaration of war would allow the President much more leeway in neutralizing terror threats both within the country and outside the country. Also NATO nations would then have to step up the fight against the savages, bringing more power to the battlefield, which, of course, is everywhere. This strategy is not a knock at American law enforcement. They are doing excellent work. But, as we have learned in the Orlando case, the FBI had the terrorists Omar Mateen in its files. But civil liberties being what they are, suspicions are not enough.

You can't detain someone for long without proof of a crime. In a war situation, a declared war, investigators would have far more options in defining enemy threats and dealing with them. It is troubling that the current commander-in-chief will not say the words Islamic terror to define the threatening enemy. Again today, responding to the mass murder carried out by an ISIS sympathizer, Barack Obama would not reference the specific threat from the Islamic Jihadi.


PRES. BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES: As far as we can tell right now, this is certainly an example of the kind of homegrown extremism that all of us have you been so concerned about for a very long time.


O'REILLY: So-called homegrown extremism is a problem that will never be solved. There will always be violent loons like Timothy McVeigh and the Boston marathon killers. No power on earth can extinguish that. But organizations like ISIS and al Qaeda are far different story. They can be confronted and destroyed just as the third Reich was during World War II. By the way, talking points will say it again there is no difference between ISIS and the Nazi ideology, none. Hitler and his maniacal followers targeted homosexuals for exterminations along with Jews and other groups.

The Orlando terrorists hated and targeted gays in conjunction with the ISIS philosophy. President Obama doesn't seem to understand that you cannot contain evil. You must destroy it. His policies of retreat in the Middle East directly led to the rise of ISIS, a situation that has resulted in horrific mass murders in at least 20 countries, as well as the migration crisis now going on in Europe. At first, Mr. Obama tried to marginalize ISIS by calling it the jayvee. And then he outsourced the fight to the Kurds and other groups.

Foolishly stating that they might be able to mitigate the threat. Because the liberal American press has largely supported the retreat, Mr. Obama's continued failure to stop the Jihad or even define the threat accurately is basically down played by the National Media. Summing up, America is under attack by Muslim fanatics. Just because they don't use tanks and planes doesn't mean it isn't war. It is. Now on to guns. President Obama is much more comfortable promoting anti-gun policy than he is discussing the Jihadi.


OBAMA: We are also going to have to make sure that we think about the risks we are willing to take by being so lax in how we make very powerful firearms available to people in this country. And this is something that obviously I have talked about for a very long time.


O'REILLY: Mr. Obama is correct in asserting that Congress should debate which weaponry is acceptable under the Second Amendment. Public safety demands that certain weapons not be allowed. You can't sell a bazooka or hand grenades. Congress has the power to outlaw specific weapons and did so in 1994 with certain kinds of rifles, but that ban has now lapsed. The debate over weaponry is valid and necessary. But when you hear a politician or pundit say that banning guns will stop mass murder, no, you are being deceived. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the U.S.A. and bad people will always be able to get them, period.

Also self-protection is guaranteed by the constitution and that will never change. All Americans have a right to own firearms. Not necessarily to carry them around, to own them. States make carry laws depending on what their population wants. Now, 20 years ago, there was a mass murder in Tasmania, a part of Australia. Thirty five people shot dead by a maniac using a semiautomatic rifle. Australia with a population of 24 million then banned automatic and semi-automatic rifles as well as essentially banning handguns. Caught with one illegally, you can get 14 years in prison.

Since that time, 1996, gun murders have dropped 72 percent in Australia. But here's the kicker. Roughly during the same period of time, gun murders in the U.S.A. have dropped 30 percent, nonfatal shootings 61 percent. Why? Not because of banning guns, but because of long prison terms given to violent offenders, including drug gangsters. That strategy now being attacked by the left. Summing up, the same constitutional gun policy might be this. Certain kinds of deadly weapons should be banned for sale by Congressional legislation. All crimes committed with guns, including illegal gun sales should be federalized and subject to strict, mandatory prison terms.

But the right to own firearms for individual protection, protection of families should remain protected everywhere. And the right to carry should be determined by individual states. What works in Delaware might not work in Idaho. America needs to punish the Jihadists and protect its own citizens. By finding realistic solutions to vexing problems. Crazed ideologues on both sides actually help the terror killers. And so do weak leaders. And that's “The Memo”.