Thursday, June 23, 2016

The Theatre of Distraction

House Democrats have gone all-in with the theatre of distraction. They have staged a sit-in on the floor of the House of Representatives to force a vote on their latest piece of gun-control legislation.

Obviously, this pathetic bit of political theatre will make it impossible for the Republican-controlled House to do any such thing. For now the Democrats are reduced to saying that they have raised awareness.

Yet, the more the nation becomes aware of the Obama administration’s dereliction in dealing with Islamist terrorism, beginning with its inability to call it by its name, the more Democrats feel obliged to hijack the national conversation and to make it all about guns. Or about anything but terrorism.

As the administration insists that it cannot pronounce the term Islamic terrorism it draws more attention to its own failures to deal with the problem, either at home or abroad.

Of course, once you make guns the issue, you exculpate those who are committing the crimes. And it is not just terrorists who are committing gun violence. Under the aegis of Democratic politicians and its Obamaphile mayor the city of Chicago has become a free fire zone. By shifting the focus to guns, to the NRA and Christian Republicans the Democrats are standing up for their own constituents, many of whom committed these acts. After all, Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat.

And yet, the more you tell the criminals and the terrorists that they are not responsible for their actions, the more you give them motive and incentive to act. The more you use their actions as political ammunition to attack Republicans the more you make them feel that their cause is righteous. They are no longer just common criminals or deranged terrorists: they are social justice warriors.

Making the issue “guns” rewards criminal behavior and makes the problem worse.

It ought to be fairly clear that terrorism will not stop until it becomes too costly for the terrorists. It will not stop until they are decisively humiliated, shown to the world as losers and derelicts. Shooting one terrorist leader is not enough. It seems that  Peter Quinn was right: we ought to turn Raqqa into  parking lot.

The Obama administration, while conducting some successful drone strikes, thus doing its best to keep the conflict at arms’ length, is clearly responsible for the terrorist attacks and the increasing gun violence in America.

But, it has never taken responsibility for anything bad that has happened on its watch. Thus, it has failed to contain Islamic terrorism, but is out front with an effort to blame someone else. It is too late to blame George W. Bush, so it is reduced to turning the House of Representatives into a circus.

As if that were not bad enough, Attorney General Loretta Lynch stuck both feet in her mouth by taking a page out of the Hippie anti-war manual. She declared:

Our most effective response to terror and hatred is compassion, unity and love. 

It’s such a pathetic thing to say that you have to assume that the words were put in her mouth by some flunky at the White House.

Of course, this is the same politicized Justice Department that tried to excise all references to Islam from the transcript of Mateen’s 911 call. And, even after it was shamed into releasing an unredacted version, it still could not bring itself to call Allah by his name. In the final transcript Allah is translated as God.

Anyway, it’s easier than explaining why our crack law enforcement authorities have lost track of Mateen’s wife. Perhaps she was a co-conspirator. Perhaps she has blood on her hands. If ever she is caught and brought to justice, the nation will be witness to a grand public drama regarding her beliefs, her religion and her ethnicity—she is Palestinian.

And, it is better to lose her than to risk such a spectacle.

And there is nothing new about these efforts to absolve the Obama administration of all responsibility. Noah Rothman explains on the Commentary site that even the straight-shooting FBI Director, James Comey got caught up in the administration spin game regarding the shooting at a Chattanooga Army recruiting station:

In November of last year, FBI Director James Comey insisted that we may never know precisely why 24-year-old Mohammad Yousuf Adbulazeez attacked and killed four U.S. Marines and one sailor that summer at an armed forces recruiting center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

“We’re still trying to make sure we understand Abdulazeez, his motivations, and associations, in a really good way,” Comey said nearly four months after the attack. “Sometimes the way we investigate requires us to keep information secret. That’s a good thing. We don’t want to smear people.” 

And you were expecting this guy to conduct a fair and impartial investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails!


Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

This Administration is so predictable. You know what side they'll come down on: whoever the bigger victim group is.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

You've also gotta love it when all these Lefty politicians and celebrities do all these sit-ins and circulate stupid petitions when they're personally protected by armed bodyguards.

Ares Olympus said...

Stuart: It ought to be fairly clear that terrorism will not stop until it becomes too costly for the terrorists. It will not stop until they are decisively humiliated, shown to the world as losers and derelicts. Shooting one terrorist leader is not enough.

Is this argument in line with Donald Trump:
"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families,"

Given terrorists are often DEAD after their deeds, should we make their family members responsible?

Should the U.S. arrest and execute the father of the Orlando killer? Or perhaps his wife, or his 3 year old son?

Would that send the proper message?

Ares Olympus said...

Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood Trump. "Take out their families" means giving them a nice dinner, with Trump Steaks no doubt, to soften them up before the water torture.

Remember good-cop, bad-cop, that's how you brainwash people into confessing their sins against humanity.
Donald Trump said Wednesday night that he doesn’t necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists — a controversial proposal he has raised at various points during his campaign.

Instead, Trump told CNN, his policy would merely be “to go after them” if he wins the White House.

For those with even modest interest in international laws and moral norms, there was some relief. Trump did rule out cutting off the heads of captured family members of those terrorists.

And while he said he would bring back waterboarding for the terrorists themselves, he clarified that it would be on firm legal grounding (naturally).

“I’m in total support of waterboarding. It has to be within the law, but I have to expand the law,” Trump said. “I’ll work on it with the generals.”

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares Olympus @June 23, 2016 at 1:44 PM:

"Given terrorists are often DEAD after their deeds, should we make their family members responsible?"
No, so long as they are not responsible.

"Should the U.S. arrest and execute the father of the Orlando killer? Or perhaps his wife, or his 3 year old son?"
If the father or wife are conspirators with Omar Mateen, then yes. The 3-year-old does not have judgment, and is a stupid reference.

"Would that send the proper message?"
If they are conspirators in a mass killing, yes. I don't know about execution, but they should be brought to justice.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

I wonder why it's the SECOND Amendment, and not one that appears later in the Bill of Rights. Certainly it's the Second because it must appear in random order... I'm sure the Founders had a lottery the last day of the Convention and announced the amendments, selected in order, like it was a pageant. I'm sure they really weren't concerned about the Third Amendment guaranteeing the protection of their homes from Federal troops at all, and just added it as the THIRD Amendment as a therapeutic expresssion of their post-traumatic stresss from the Revolution. It's just another 18th century relic. My goodness, this is just another example of how America sucks. I suppose the Third Amendment is why Civil War commanders asked citizens for permission to make their homes headquarters and military facilities during that way. Oh, that's right, unless they were for Union purposes. What on earth are we talking about with the Second Amendment? The only logic I can figure is that uber-educated people don't like it.

Ares Olympus said...

IAC: If they are conspirators in a mass killing, yes.

I don't think that's what Trump was saying. He never said "Conspiracy" He said "They care about their lives." That to me means that Trump wants to bring HARM to people that a terrorist cared about.

And I don't know why you dismiss killing a 3 year old. It has nothing to do with his age of judgment. He's going to grow up someday, Allah willing. Who wants to be know as the son of a mass murderer? Wouldn't it just be mercy to bring his death? Can you imagine the shame a person must feel to know his father was a mass murderer? I can't imagine that, although I imagine it would be easiest to believe my father was righteous in his actions, and make up a bunch of reasons that justify that belief. At least then I wouldn't have to be ashamed of him.

And Stuart said "It seems that [TV character] Peter Quinn was right: we ought to turn Raqqa into parking lot."

We need to murder 220,000 Syrians in the city of Raqqa by a rain of bombs for being foolish enough to have their city invaded by ISIS and not fighting back hard enough. That'll teach 1 billion Muslims to give up and die and then our problems will be over.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares Olympus @June 23, 2016 at 6:30 PM:

"I don't think that's what Trump was saying..."

I don't care what you think Trump was saying. That's what I was saying. I never claimed to speak for Trump. Sharpen your reading skills.

Get a grip. I fear for your sanity already, and am concerned about what you will do to yourself when Trump wins in November.

BREXIT! The tide so turning against the global elites who think themselves our betters. Be on guard, Ares... your ilk is next.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

I wonder what the ARMED Capitil Hill police force thought of this. I'm sure they were doing their jobs protecting this circus stunt, and would've shot anyone who had ill-intent. Ah, the hypocrisy.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

I'm sure these conscientious Democrats are also exhausted from being waist-deep in a crack investigation of the Capitol Hill police shooting of Miriam Carey in 2013. Carey, a supposedly deranged woman who was unarmed and had her daughter in the car was shot dead. Where is the Black Lives Matter posse demanding justice for Ms. Carey? Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Where's is the gavel-to-gavel coverage of these hearings? Why aren't we in a relentless pursuit of the truth??? No justice, no peace!