Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Obama Comes Out Fighting

Yesterday, President Obama finally took the gloves off. In a display described by some as strong and decisive and by others as weak and petulant, he got in touch with his true anger and attacked the real enemy. No, he did not present a plan to obliterate ISIS. He did not attack Sharia law for its virulent homophobia.

He attacked Donald Trump and all of those who have been criticizing him for not calling radical Islamic terrorism by its name. As many people, myself and Trump included, have pointed out, Obama was far more agitated by Republicans than he was by Islamist terrorism. It makes sense. ISIS has arisen in the wake of failed Obama administration policies.

Of course, Obama was engaged in theatrical posturing. He was not bringing the nation together and was not showing the cold anger of a resolute leader committed to fighting back.

Now, his satraps are out peddling the idea that the true culprit in Orlando was homophobia and therefore that we need to cleanse our minds of impure thoughts.  And they are floating the demented notion that if we aim our fire at ISIS and other radical Islamists, the terrorists will have won.

It takes a specially depraved mind to try to convince people that fighting back is a sign that the terrorists have won. By their logic if we bend over the terrorists will have lost. In war, victory has never gone to the squeamish.

Obama never misses an opportunity to make Americans feel guilty. In his warped mind, whenever anything bad happens to America it’s the fault of his true enemy, white people and Republicans. It’s punishment for their unacknowledged criminal impulses… like Islamophobia and homophobia. Rev. Jeremiah Wright is surely proud of his protégé.

Once Obama opened fire on Republicans the New York Times naturally editorialized that he was bringing Americans together. It added that Donald Trump would never be able to do.

The most divisive president in recent memory has taken the occasion of a horrific terrorist attack to divide the nation. At least he’s being true to character.

Michael Goodwin described the president:

Obama’s demeanor and tone were far from presidential — tantrums rarely are. Nor was he effective in rallying the nation to his cause. No surprise there. His cause is himself, always and only, and his greatly diminished historic presidency looks especially insignificant next to the bloodshed in Orlando. The iconic redeemer who promised hope and change never seemed so small and hopeless.

America saw Barack Obama at low tide yesterday, revealed as brimming with fury and bankrupt of ideas and even sympathy for the dead. The man who had an answer for everything and a solution to nothing is now also out of excuses.

And also,

He meant his attacks to be especially vicious, but the spectacle was more sad than provocative. The president needs a rest from the job as much as we need a new president.

Forty-nine innocent people were gunned down in a gay nightclub by an Islamic terrorist, another 53 lie wounded, yet Obama feels only his own pain. Public confidence in his effort to combat terrorism on his own peculiar terms while soft-pedaling the links to Islam were among the casualties in the Pulse nightclub. The world knows he’s a failure and he can’t stand the embarrassment.

Obama unleashed his tantrum because he was seriously torqued to see pundits and politicians pointing out his failure to name radical Islamist ideology as an inimical force. His was a “What’s in a name?” argument.  Or better, it was his version of Hillary Clinton’s immortal words: “What difference at this point does it make?”

Of course, as I pointed out in a tweet yesterday, if it makes no difference what you call it, why not call it radical Islam? Is Obama afraid to offend the Jordanians, as some have suggested. Or is he afraid of blaspheming a god he fears, as I have opined.

Either way, it matters what you call your enemy, because if you do not call it by its name you cannot fight it effectively. You cannot lead a nation into battle against… whatever. It’s unclear and unfocused and irresolute. If you don’t know who the enemy is, you cannot fight the enemy.

The Wall Street Journal quotes Obama’s rejoinder to those who accuse him of a pusillanimous approach to radical Islam:

“For a while now the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this Administration and me for not using the phrase ‘radical Islam,’” Mr. Obama said Tuesday, using his preferred acronym for Islamic State. “That’s the key, they tell us. We cannot beat ISIL unless we call them ‘radical Islamists.’ What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change?”

In its editorial the Journal answers Obama’s question:

We’re unaware of any previous American war fought against an enemy it was considered indecorous or counterproductive to name. Dwight Eisenhower routinely spoke of “international Communism” as an enemy. FDR said “Japan” or “Japanese” 15 times in his 506-word declaration of war after Pearl Harbor. If the U.S. is under attack, Americans deserve to hear their President say exactly who is attacking us and why. You cannot effectively wage war, much less gauge an enemy’s strengths, without a clear idea of who you are fighting.

Mr. Obama’s refusal to speak of “radical Islam” also betrays his failure to understand the sources of Islamic State’s legitimacy and thus its allure to young Muslim men. The threat is religious and ideological.

Islamic State sees itself as the vanguard of a religious movement rooted in a literalist interpretation of Islamic scriptures that it considers binding on all Muslims everywhere. A small but significant fraction of Muslims agree with that interpretation, which is why Western law enforcement agencies must pay more attention to what goes on inside mosques than in Christian Science reading rooms.

But, the Journal adds, the Islamic State is more a state of mind than a geographical locale:

The Islamic State threat is less a matter of geography than of belief, which is why it doesn’t matter whether Islamic State directly ordered or coordinated Sunday’s attack so long as it inspired it. This, too, is a reminder of the centrality of religion to Islamic State’s effectiveness.

In a larger, and perhaps more philosophical sense, Obama does not seem to understand the nature of the threat posed to America. Beyond his fear of blaspheming a religion he fears, he seems to be engaged in magical thinking. He seems to believe that calling something by its name means accepting that it is real. Not speaking the words counts as an effort to wish it out of existence.

It’s the mindset, stupid. And the policies that flow from it. Unable to say the words Obama is blind to reality.

The Journal continues:

No wonder the Administration seemed surprised by the Islamic State’s initial success in taking Mosul in 2014—soldiers of faith tend to fight harder than soldiers of fortune—and by its durability despite the U.S.-led air campaign. Last November Mr. Obama boasted that Islamic State was “contained” a day before its agents slaughtered 130 people in Paris. Days later, White House factotum Ben Rhodes insisted “there’s no credible threat to the homeland at this time.” Then came San Bernardino.

Of course, it will be interesting to see how this all works out in the presidential election. The most recent Bloomberg poll had Hillary Clinton leading the Donald by 12% among likely voters. One notes that polls of likely voters tend to be more favorable to Republicans. Undoubtedly, the events in Orlando will improve Trump’s poll numbers. How much, we do not know.


Anonymous said...

Of course he's come out fighting. It's Ramadan.

David Foster said...

Paul Reynaud, who became Prime Minister of France shortly before the German invasion, had a long-standing political rivalry with Edouard Daladier. A writer was asking him about these conflicts:

Writer: “Still, you must admit that Daladier is a patriotic Frenchman who desires the victory of France”

Reynaud: “Yes, I believe that Daladier desires the victory of France. But he desires my defeat even more.”

Possibly unfair to Daladier, but gives some idea of just how toxic the political conflicts had become in France by 1940. I'm afraid that in America today, we're pretty close to there.

Trigger Warning said...

"What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change?”
--- Barack Obama, 2016

"Don't tell me words don't matter!"
--- Barack Obama, 2008

Marsh said...

That Bloomberg poll is not reliable. No Bloomberg poll is. But, even if you were to give it credence, compare the numbers to their poll three months ago and you will see Trump has gone up and Hillary has gone down.

There's a reason Obama came out swinging. He knows Trump is gaining the ground on this. He's trying desperately to gain his footing. I don't think I have ever been more disgusted by Obama than I was yesterday. And that's saying something.

Trump WILL beat Hillary. He absolutely will be our next President. I've never been more sure about an election.

Ares Olympus said...

Stuart: One notes that polls of likely voters tend to be more favorable to Republicans. Undoubtedly, the events in Orlando will improve Trump’s poll numbers. How much, we do not know.

If "Fear of Muslims" was the number one issue for this country, surely Trump's poll numbers will improve. But it looks to me that "Fear of Trump" trumps "Fear of Muslims."

On other hand I agree it all depends on who shows up at the polls, and Hillary's low approval rating might give Trump a doorway, if his voters are more afraid of Muslims than hers are afraid of Trump.

I noticed yesterday was Trump's 70th birthday. I wonder what he wished for when he blew out the candles?
The poll finds 70 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of Trump, including a 56 percent majority who feel this way "strongly."

Trump's net favorable rating (favorable minus unfavorable) among non-college whites has flipped from a +14 in May to -7 in the latest survey. Among independents, Trump's net rating has shifted from from -19 last month to -38 in the latest survey, returning him to roughly the same standing as in April (-37).

Trump continues to be deeply unpopular with Hispanics, with 89 percent saying they have an unfavorable view of him, his highest mark in Post-ABC polling this campaign. Three-quarters of Hispanics see Trump in a "strongly unfavorable" light (76 percent), similar to 78 percent last month.

Sam L. said...

It is not fear of Muslims, Ares, it is distrust of them and those who claim to be our leaders, and based on evidence.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

I find what gets Obama upset to be highly amusing. It's impossible to be too cynical about this man.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares, it is most amusing where you choose to point the spotlight at and get worked up about. You traditionally seemed very afraid of conservative right wing loonies and traditional Christians in this country who "trample" upon gay rights (among others). When was the last time a professed Christian shot up a gay bar in the name of his religion? This does not happen. If it did, I'd understand the concerns that people had about such Christians.

Ares Olympus said...

Sam L, I more understand a distrust of The Fed and Central Bankers, but it seems Ron Paul and David Stockman are the only ones who worry here.

I haven't seen Trump doing any attacks on the central bankers, but you still have to wonder how much Trump really want to break the fiat system that protect his imaginary billions.

It's hard to imagine how this ends, and no politician has answers for this, unless it's the "New World Order" that Liberals want to create after the next manufactured crisis.

Ares Olympus said...

IAC: When was the last time a professed Christian shot up a gay bar in the name of his religion?

I wonder what gay bar shootings are on record? We can imagine most are related to gay people themselves, jealousy and all that, although we don't clearly know what the Orlando shooters connection to the gay scene. His father claims he was upset seeing two gays kissing in public, but that doesn't mean that his son wasn't secretly gay himself and was just using disgust as a cover.

This source definitely implies he was gay or bisexual, but still mere gossip.
As rumors circulated that Mateen had been hiding a double life, his father Seddique Mateen insisted Monday his son was not gay.

A former classmate of Omar Mateen’s 2006 police academy class, however, said he believed Mateen was gay.

Speaking to WFTV9 in Orlando, the classmate, who asked not to be named, said he was gay in 2006 but had not yet come out about his sexuality.

Mateen had asked him out, the classmate said.

“We went to a few gay bars with him, and I was not out at the time, so I declined his offer,” the former classmate said.
One couple, who work together as drag-dancing performers, said they’d seen Mateen as many as a dozen times at Pulse.

Ty Smith and Chris Callen also said they’d seen him escorted drunk from the club more than once.
“As I was onstage he was standing next to somebody, having a conversation, having a good time close to the stage. Later on that night ... he was out there dancing with another guy. It could be he just went crazy. Maybe he got radicalized and hated who he was,” Callen said.

Callen and Smith said Mateen liked to let loose at Pulse in a way he could not around his religious family at home.

Perhaps evidence will continue to rise towards his personal motives, but it looks like he was a divided person, with a compartmentalized sense of self, having one part that was religious and dutiful, and another sensual part that conflicted with his religion, and no way to integrate those selves.

Suicide is probably more common from such self-conflicts, but perhaps religion won - he projected his homosexuality on others whom his religion hated, and by killing others, he was demonstrating the hatred his religion expressed for his own nature that his father would never accept.

But its still all far short of explaining mass murder, and random pretense about doing it for ISIS seems rather senseless, although we can imagine their brutality works on the same madness.

Ares Olympus said...

IAC: When was the last time a professed Christian shot up a gay bar in the name of his religion?

This article documents some history of brutality against gays. There was only one case that explicitly mentioned Christianity.

So maybe the answer is 2000?
September 22, 2000 – Ronald Gay entered a gay bar in Roanoke, Virginia and opened fire on the patrons, killing Danny Overstreet, 43 years old, and severely injuring six others. Ronald said he was angry over what his name now meant, and deeply upset that three of his sons had changed their surname. He claimed that he had been told by God to find and kill lesbians and gay men, describing himself as a "Christian Soldier working for my Lord;" Gay testified in court that "he wished he could have killed more fags," before several of the shooting victims as well as Danny Overstreet's family and friends.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares, it must be a terrible burden for you, being so wise with all these intolerant people around.

Ares Olympus said...

IAC, wise? I'm just a fact-checker.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ah yes, you have certainly cornered the market in, er... facts. I forgot that knowing everything was your primary burden.

Anonymous said...

"What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change?”
--- Barack Obama, 2016

"Don't tell me words don't matter!"
--- Barack Obama, 2008

- Barack Hussein Obama , Constitutional Scholar

Sam L. said...

Barry came out fighting? I'd call it whining, or pissing and moaning,

Marsh said...

Ares, homosexuality isn't exactly condemned in Islam. A Muslim just isn't supposed to have homosexual relations w/ other Muslims. It's perfectly fine to have them w/ infidels though. The killer wasn't tortured by his manlove. He choose the club b/c he was familiar w/ it and it was a soft target. Just as the killer in San Bernardino chose his workplace.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares, since you're so afraid of all the intolerant U.S. right-wing extremists that lurk seemingly everywhere, I doubt you'll be relieved to read this quote:

"[The] threat from right-wing extremists domestically is just as real as the threat from Islamic extremism."

That was from our Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson. One month after San Bernardino.


Ares, should go work for Secretary Johnson. Seems you two have a lot in common. He needs your dizzying intellect and commitment to the truth... the facts only you can provide. You can go from being a civilian observer/critic to being a soldier/crusader bureaucrat against the dark, looming, devastating right-wing threat to our nation! It is holding us hostage! Maybe they'll make you into a Marvel character.

No wonder Obama is so upset. Who'd have known that our nation presently faces a two-pronged attack... not only from Islamists, but from right-wing American paramilitaries, too??? Take cover, the Obama Administration has taken its toughest stance yet on domestic terror!!! They've got this thing handled! Focus on the dangerous white people with AR-15s.

Facts are stubborn things, aren't they?

I can't decide which is scarier... that (a) Secretary Johnson believes this stuff, or (b) he has said he wants DHS to be in charge of gun control measures. That's right, this cerebral virtuoso wants to head-up gun control. We don't secure our borders, we can't get people through airport checkpoints in 2 hours, but we can talk of restricting guns because it's a "national emergency"... right when we citizens need to protect ourselves because President Obama has made it clear he won't. No, no, no... we absolutely cannot question any group's free exercise of their religion because it's protected by our sacred First Amendment, BUT our Second Amendment is certainly up for grabs in the face of all this unchecked, calculated barbarity. Seem like a fair trade to you? After all, it's all in the name of tolerance.

Ares Olympus said...

IAC, whether or not radical Right-wingers pose a larger or smaller threat than the peace-loving Muslims, I'll let you decide.

In general it looks like people who cling to their guns in fantasy defense against criminals or a tyrant government more often end up punishing themselves, shooting family members by accident, or having their kids shoot their siblings. Of course we know that's just the dumb 5-20% who will always exist to compete for Darwin awards.

Or the wannabe paramilitary patriots like LaVoy Finicum, it was surprising when he was shot and killed. I almost was beliving white people didn't have to follow the law, but the law won that round. We might call it suicide-by-cop. I like martyrs who can die without killing anyone. He didn't want to go to prison, and he won't.

And HEY, an interesting news development. Trump might actually make himself useful and play a bridge between the rigid Right and the rigid Left. Certainly no one on the Left is allowed to mention guns unless it is to bow down to the NRA first and swear alligence. Trump however is allowed by his new GOP voter vetting to express possible compromises that are otherwise taboo.
The presumptive Republican nominee tweeted Wednesday that he would be meeting with the NRA to discuss proposals to bar people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns.

Twitter: @realDonaldTrump " I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns. 8:50 AM - 15 Jun 2016

Support for tighter gun restrictions for suspected terrorists puts Trump at odds with Republicans and in line with Democrats, who have renewed their push for closing what they call the “terror loophole” in the days after a man who had been under investigation by the FBI murdered 49 people in an Orlando nightclub. But it’s not a new position for Trump. “If somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state and we know it's an enemy of state, I would keep them away, absolutely,” he said on ABC’s This Week in December, around the time when Democrats made their last effort to change the law.

The NRA and most Republicans have opposed linking the terror watch list, or the smaller “no-fly” list, to gun restrictions as both an infringement on Second Amendment rights and on due process, since many of the people on the list have never been convicted or even accused of a crime. The ACLU has also criticized the proposal as a violation of civil liberties. “The standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error,” Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, wrote in December.

Unfortunately I'm probably with the ACLU - secret watch lists have no due process, although I suppose it would be a good way to find out if you're on a list.

Maybe Trump's original proposal is better - since we can't punish suicidal terrorists who are already dead, but you can kill their family. Maybe we can use Obama's drones to execute family members? It works in Afghanistan and Pakistan at least. Why not try here? What's the worst that could happen? And Trump already said some neighborhoods in Minneapolis are so scary that police are afraid to patrol, so we've got a safe way for justice to proceed.

First we just need a law that says parents are guilty of the terroristic crimes of their children, if their children get themselves killed. Then the Orlando's shooter's father at least could be punished for procreating bad seed.

Anyway the good thing about Trump is whatever he thinks yesterday, you can depend he'll think something else tomorrow if you don't remind him. Perhaps his handlers can keep him sufficiently distracted from causing too much trouble over 4 years. He likes golf, right?

Marsh said...

Trump agreed to a meeting w/ an ally don't get delusional thinking they are going to help your side, Ares. Cuz he ain't. This is called smart strategy. Get used to saying President Trump.

Ares Olympus said...

Marsh, so it's delusion to imagine Obama and Trump are both talking about the same thing?

Obama (6/14): People with possible ties to terrorism, who are not allowed on a plane, should not be allowed to buy a gun.

Trump (6/15): I will be meeting with the NRA ... about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.

You'd almost imagine Trump is listening to Obama, but of course that's impossible. It must just be a coincidence.

Yes, I understand, by definition, if President Obama suggests a compromise for improved safety, it is a radical overreaction wrong-headed solution that will lead us down slippery slope and threatens our liberty, while if President Trump presents the same exact idea, it's a common sense conservative solution.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares, you are simply unable to distinguish political opposition from an actual enemy.

Dennis said...

It is good see that a site called "Had Enough Therapy" is kind enough to give Ares the attention he so dearly craves. Here Ares is, in his own imagination, standing astride of the evils of this country being the white knight he always wanted to be taking on all the people who he knows he is their betters. Captain Courageous in action
Obama's speech was everything conservatives could have hoped for in classical Obama style. It was petulant, dissembling, lacked applicability to the subject at hand and in many cases made no sense at all. Even a tertiary examination of the attempt at relevance left one thinking that Obama will go to any length to keep from defining the radical Islamic terrorist and terrorism.
I am not sure how many times one needs to state that before one can solve a problem one has to define it.
I can understand why Obama is mad. A lot of the "tap dancing" he indulges in no longer fools a lot of people, except maybe Ares and a few democrats with a byline.
I am always amazed and interested in how Ares seem to conflate ideas and issues into a puree of unintelligible drivel not fit for human consumption. If Trump wants to talk to the NRA then he is interested in the ramifications that that action might lead. Obama, as the ideologue that he is, is not interested in talking or understanding the ramifications. The attempt by Ares to make it seem as the same is intellectually dishonesty or worse shows a naiveté that one should have grown out of when they reach maturity. One wonders how anyone can compare a man like Obama who listens to no one except a very small coterie of WH toadies to Trump who is "now" at least interested in asking others for their opinion. Trump seems to be growing as a candidate whereas Obama has stayed in the same place that he started. The only thing that has changed with Obama is his increasing desire to find more weasel words to keep from actually dealing with the issues we have before us. The community organizer who has demonstrated only that he is good at disorganization.

Marsh said...

Delusional and confused.

Marsh said...

Well said, Dennis!

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Thanks, Dennis. Beautifully written. It continues to amaze me how the NRA is labeled the most dangerous organization in America for their focused advocacy of a clearly written amendment to the Constitution. The extrapolations other groups will go to link themselves to other parts of the Constitution are much more abstract. The NRA is pilloried as a bogeyman while the AFT, NEA, NAACP, SEIU, UFCW, AFSCME, etc. are funded subsidiaries of the Democrat party and get a pass. It's a circular system of graft and identity-based shakedowns. Republicans have to defend themselves on a range of perennial issues, and Democrats rarely have to defend their ties to this alphabet soup organized crime family (and Planned Parenthood commodities traders) never get mentioned... a free pass. It's remarkable.

Ares Olympus said...

IAC: Ares, you are simply unable to distinguish political opposition from an actual enemy.

It must be that simple if you say so.

Anyway, we know the NRA has no interest in Trump's probing about limits to the second amendment. But we know the NRA will say there are no limits. We can pretend the Constitution says that "All presidents shall obey the NRA's interpretation of Constitutional Law" and then things start to make sense.

But even I can tease out reality for Obama and Trump. If a person is barred from buying a gun because he's on a no fly list, like for talking back to an TSA officer, then the slippery slope says he should also be barred from owning a gun, so then police departments ought to be able to get a search warrant for anyone on a no-fly list and confiscate their guns. So that moves the TSA authority from controlling security on airplanes to controlling security for every square inch of the country. Clearly that won't do.

So I imagine that's something like what the NRA will tell Trump.

Maybe I'm just delusional and confused?

Ares Olympus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ares Olympus said...

p.s. Here's the NY Times editorial on the subject. Yes, I know the members of the NRA by their membership contracts are not allowed to read the NY Times, but perhaps there are a few rebels.
...First, support reasonable efforts to close the so-called terror gap, which would make it harder for suspected terrorists to get their hands on a gun. In December, Congress considered legislation by Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, and Representative Peter King, a Republican, that would have given the F.B.I. the ability to prevent gun sales to people it had reason to believe might be connected to terrorism.

The bill was based on a Bush administration proposal, and versions of it have been pushed for years, but Republicans on Capitol Hill, beholden to the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights organizations, voted it down.

Some critics say the government’s terror watch lists sweep up far too many innocent people. But the Feinstein bill allowed law enforcement officials to block a sale only after showing that a prospective gun buyer on the watch list was known or suspected to be involved in terrorism. If blocked, the person could challenge that denial in federal court.

Other effective measures include universal background checks to intercept people who are legally barred from gun ownership, like those convicted of domestic abuse and the mentally ill; and limits on magazine capacity, which some states have already enacted.

Mr. Mateen was able to kill 49 people largely because the assault rifle he was using could fire 30-round clips as fast as he could pull the trigger. No civilian anywhere should be allowed to have that ability.

What makes the legislative inaction all the more maddening is that there is general public agreement in favor of attempts like these to reduce the bloodshed. An overwhelming majority of Americans — including gun owners and even N.R.A. members — support universal background checks, while strong majorities want to block sales to suspected terrorists and ban high-capacity magazines.

And yet the N.R.A. rejects these steps, even though it says that terrorists shouldn’t be able to get guns. Instead, it clings to the absurd fantasy that a heavily-armed populace is the best way to keep Americans safe. That failed in Orlando, where an armed security guard was on the scene but could not stop the slaughter.

Most of the rest of the world figured this out long ago. But in the United States, the gun industry and its enablers continue to insist that the only solution is more guns, and more bullets flying.

The gun industry lobbyists may be beyond reason, but the lawmakers have a duty to respond to their constituents. Unfortunately, after each new massacre, far too many offer nothing more than condolences and moments of silence. That silence is killing us.

Of course all this is nonsense as the NRA proves. If crowded bars full of intoxicated people simply had half the people packing heat, wannabe mass murderers would be stopped in their tracks by a rain of bullets from a circular firing squad.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares, it's a gay BAR. It is against the law to bring a firearm into an establishment whose primary business is selling alcohol. This is true for regular citizens and those who have concealed pistol licenses.

Shows how much effect laws have on people hell-bent on murdering people. Why not pass more laws that wanton killers and criminals won't abide by?

On a political level, when was the last time the NEA or AFT and their Democrat lackeys ever advocated, suggested, supported or championed a school reform that was in the interest of of millions and millions of public schoolchildren? Why don't they support schools of choice? Why don't they give a $#%& about the children of Washington, D.C..? Why do Obama's kids go to a private school?

Ah, yes, you will say that public school teachers do not terminate lives. But bad teachers do destroy lives. And under the auspices of the NEA/AFT, kids don't stand a chance. More collateral damage, huh?

This is scandalous stuff, Ares. And no Democrat is ever held to account. Hell, they're not even asked questions about their blind allegiance to these interest groups. All because teachers are salt of the earth, and the NRA is the serpent in the garden. Barf.

Hey, Ares... Why are gays and lesbians buying guns off the rack like never before? Because they're scared. They're human, just like the rest of us... as we in the West have always known and recognized. I recognize that, you recognize that, Christianity recognizes that, but Islam does not. Curious.

Yes, to use your words, the silence is killing us... Our president's silence about the real problem. Guns do not kill people. They are mechanical devices. Human beings kill other human beings, for a host of reasons. A gun gives a human being the means to be an aggressor, but also a defender. It depends on what perspective one wants to look at. You just want to look at all the dead sheep who've perished in the jaws of the wolf. I want to empower the sheepdog.

The NRA doesn't prove nonsense, it proves necessity. And I'm embarrassed for you that you cannot recognize that. Grow up!