Friday, June 17, 2016

The War Against Guns

The “wrenching ritual,” the New York Times tells us, “has become all too familiar for President Obama.”

The ritual in question is greeting and mourning with the families of the victims of gun violence. Many times, these are victims of Islamist terrorism. Sometimes they are not.  Sometimes they are victims of psychotics that state governments, under the aegis of the ACLU, have refused to have committed involuntarily. Of course, when the victims are blacks who are gunned down by other blacks on the streets of Obama’s home town, the president does not show up and has nothing to say.

Lest we forget: at times the Obama administration, living in its own Fantasyland, has refused to call Islamist terrorists like Maj. Nidal Hasan, terrorists at all. It insisted on calling the Fort Hood massacre “workplace violence.” In this and in almost all other instances the press has had the president’s back. It might be considered a co-conspirator in the cover-up.

The Times might have asked why the Age of Obama has been so singularly infested with so much gun violence.  Does the president have some responsibility for the mood of the country? Does he bear some responsibility for keeping America safe? Should his Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security have been doing a better job?

As American airport security lines are backed up for hours on end, causing many people to miss their flights, the administration and the media seem to believe that it has all been caused by circumstances beyond their control. If a Republican had been in charge, he would have been taxed with gross incompetence and negligence.

According to the Times: Obama has no responsibility for any of the gun violence that has infected America on his watch.  It reports that Obama feels everyone’s pain. He is offering grieving relatives: "genuine hugs." He might not be very good at defending the nation and he might not be very good at fighting ISIS, but he is great at empathy:

He grasps for words of sympathy, comfort and condolence and offers long, tight embraces that the mourners will remember far more vividly than his words….

Beyond politics, the trip was a moment for the president to play the somber official role of consoler in chief. It was also the setting for a deeply personal and private set of encounters in which Mr. Obama, better known for his cool and unruffled temperament, dispenses with the trappings of his office and becomes an emotional father identifying with parents who have lost children.

But, Obama is not going to do anything about any of it. He does not think it’s his fault or his responsibility. He thinks that it’s all about guns. So, he has declared war on guns. As I have been pointing out all week, Democrats and the media are crafting a narrative that blames it on guns, on the NRA, on Republicans and on Christians. Not a word about the acts of the Muslims who Obama considers to be peace lovers. Not a word about presidential leadership or responsibility.

On its editorial page the Times lost all semblance of rational thought and has blamed the Orlando massacre on guns. You know, the new self-shooting guns, the ones that do not need a human trigger finger. But the fault does not just lie with guns. It lies with anyone who has opposed same-sex marriage and transgendered restrooms.

One might notice that these two postmodern inventions never existed in human history before very recent days. By the Times lights, throughout the course of human history in all human societies at all times and places gays were disrespected and degraded because they were not allowed to marry people of the same sex. They were not allowed to marry for love... like Romeo and Juliet. Of course, very few people ever married for love anyway, so what point is the Times making?

Now, it wants us to believe that an Islamist terrorist had learned to hate gays from the opponents of gay marriage. As it happens, everyone but the Times knows that ISIS, among other Islamist groups, is following Sharia law in making homosexual acts a capital crime.

And, of course, the Iranians with whom the Obama administration believes that it can strike a deal over nuclear weapons count among the worst offenders. About that, the Times has nothing to say. Nor has the Times covered the fact that Iran is a world-leading country in gender reassignment surgery. If they catch you being gay in Iran they will hang you. Better to be a eunuch than to be dead.

As for the infamous Times editorial of June 15:

Omar Mateen shattered the tenuous, hard-fought sense of personal safety that many gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have begun to feel as the movement for equality has made significant gains in recent years. His bullets and the blood he left behind that early morning were a reminder that in many corners of the country, gay and transgender people are still regarded as sinners and second-class citizens who should be scorned.

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.

For the Times it was not a terrorist attack on America. It was not an attack on our fellow citizens, and thus an attack on our nation.  For them it was an assault on their own dogmatic beliefs. Which apparently counts for more than an attack on the nation. Doesn’t this suggest that gay Americans are a people apart?

And then, of course, the Times lays a guilt trip on all those who have opposed its own radical agenda:

As the funerals are held for those who perished on Sunday, lawmakers who have actively championed discriminatory laws and policies, and those who have quietly enabled them with votes, should force themselves to read the obituaries and look at the photos. The 49 people killed in Orlando were victims of a terrorist attack. But they also need to be remembered as casualties of a society where hate has deep roots.

Not a word about Islam. Not a word about blaming Islamist terrorists. The Times really wants to make a certain group of Americans feel responsible for an attack that took place while Barack Obama was president. 

As for the presidential candidates, Donald Trump seems to have bought in to this anti-gun narrative by proposing to cut a deal with the NRA. It’s his way of showing that he might know how to govern the nation. Unfortunately, he is selling out to those who have been producing the grand drama that is shifting blame away from Obama.

If Trump missed the point, as might have been expected from a proponent of New York values, Ted Cruz did not. The Conservative Review reported on his speech on the floor of the Senate. Read it and you will see why Republican leaders preferred Trump to Cruz and why they thought that Cruz was the Devil incarnate:

“This week played out all too predictably.” Cruz said. He blasted Democrats for shifting to gun-control and in particular characterized Senator Chris Murphy’s (F, 8%) filibuster as “a political show on the Senate floor.”

“This is political distraction; this is political gamesmanship.” Cruz said. “And I think the American people find it ridiculous … this is not a gun-control issue. This is a terrorism issue.”

“You don’t defeat terrorism by taking away guns,” he added later, “you defeat terrorism by using guns.”


Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Outstanding post.

The net-net-net of all this is that Obama is not responsible for anything. He's just so... cool.

Tim Cook's Apple has a store in Saudi Arabia, but scolds North Carolina for distinguishing restrooms based on wedding tackle. The nerve. This is "where bigotry is allowed to fester"? Really???

Who's directing this trajectory of this kind of mindlessness? Where are we going? Who is piloting this ship? I can only conclude it is Valerie Jarrett, the world's most powerful person.

Blame America. Blame Republicans. Blame white people. Blame Christians. Why aren't American Hindus shooting up gay bars or military installations? Is Hinduism a "religion of peace"? Sure seems like it. Fear of Buddhists isn't making AR-15s fly out of stores. Southern Baptists aren't trying to infiltrate the national security establishment. What's wrong with Islam? Why is this not discussed?

The Left never misses an opportunity to spew their snide, hopeless ideology of victimhood. Hate is something other people do, according to the anointed of the New York Times.

So, in the end, it is being strongly suggested that Americans curtail or forfeit access to firearms, yet this is protected by the clearest Amendment to the Constitution, and it's second. Yet few politicians will say why.

This is not an offshore enemy wearing uniforms like Germany or Japan. The Islamists are using our freedoms and liberties to attack us on our own soil. Yet somehow law-abiding citizens are the ones to sacrifice. Porn peddlers can hide behind "free expression" emanations and penumbras from our First Amendment, while our government threatens good citizens with this idea of withdrawing a right that "shall not be infringed." This is plainly preposterous. Why not say that a burqua is a step too far for the free exercise clause, at least as it applies to security concerns because it can be used as a disguise? Is shariah free expression/exercise? Why does one group have to sacrifice and be treated as an enemy, while we welcome in 10,000 Syrian Muslim refugees without a background check? It makes no sense, unless it's intentional. I am convinced it is the latter. Our diversity does not make us strong when people refuse to socially integrate.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

What I most fear is that we're going to be facing a foe that uses asymmetric means to bring urban warfare to our lands. If they aren't afraid to die and don't wear uniforms and swear allegiance to a foreign enemy of the United States then they are not citizens, they are enemy soldiers and spies.

My concern is that we face a foe so fanatical that it's going to be like fighting the Japanese bushido code and kamikaze tactics in our own backyard. You're going to have to kill every single one. You can't defeat an enemy like that through law enforcement or conventional military means. You can only combat it by sealing the border as effectively as possible and using all means at your disposal to eradicate the enemy within. Perhaps in such a time of war there should be restrictions on civil liberties like gun purchases, but I think it is unwise and unfair to demand sacrifice from law-abiding citizens without demanding any of a population that harbors, aids or comforts our enemy. I'm thinking of mosques and madrassas.

Lastly, I think the time has come to end dual citizenship as an affirmative, precautionary measure. We can do this. No more dual citizenship, even with allies like Canada and Israel. You're going to have to choose. We cannot and should not do loyalty oaths, but we need to distinguish between aliens (both resident and illegal) and citizens. U.S. citizenship has lost so much value because we've cheapened it. It's one thing to call oneself an Irish-American, if you want to consider yourself one. It's a different thing entirely to hold a valid passport and citizenship from a foreign power. We need to he clear about who's who, who's in and who's out. Radical? I think it's common sense, given official intelligence reports about how ISIS operates and is working against us. If you are an American citizen, and you sear allegiance to ISIS, or aid, abet or comfort them, you are a traitor, and should be subject to prosecution as such. Get these loony guys out of the loop. If they're foreign nationals, they are deported instantly and subject to execution if they return to American soil. We've got to get serious. War is different now. It's time to start acting like it before we have to give up our precious freedoms and liberties.

Sam L. said...

IAC, I'm sure Ares has a good explanation for it.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Count on it, baby... count on it. With lots of cut-and-pasted crap and Wikipedia links. Whatever.

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

I also think we know Ares' game by now, which is the same as so many small, cowardly intellectual pretenders: ignore the theme/spirit of what one has written, and instead zero-in on a point of contention and blow it up into a colossus of intellectual horror (read: bigotry, the go-to rationale of the modern Leftist scoundrel). Ares has been trying to create "IAC the simpleton right-wing bigot" for many moons now. This kind of sophisticated admonishment may work on his yokel folk, but it ain't gonna work on me. Ares is an intellectual fraud and coward, a disgrace driveling meaningless nonsense to parade his own stupidity. I'm happy to allow it, because his every comment proves my point. So keep writing, Ares Olympus... we can't get enough!!!

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

Ares, I have a thought experiment for you, being that you're a good ol' Minnesota lad...

Actually, isn't not a thought experiment, it's a request for your opinion. Image that!

It concerns men's ice hockey, a Minnesota favorite.

What is your opinion of fisticuffs -- drop-the-gloves, bare-knuckled, traditional, old-fashioned fighting -- in men's ice hockey?

Many have asserted it is a part of the game... some say it's a factor, some say it's important. Some say it's a disgrace. What say you?

To focus your response, I'd like you to respond to the following wide-ranging,graduated response. Is fighting in hockey a/an:

(A) Inevitable part of the game?

(B) Necessary part of the game?

(C) Tolerable/tolerated part of the game?

(D) Occasional happenstance in the game?

(E) Vanishing part of the game?

(F) Unnecessary part of the game?

(G) Unfortunate part of the game?

(H) Disgrace to the game?

(I) Great part of hockey's past, present and future fan allure


Anonymous said...

Any chance Obummer thinks the Islamists have a point? They've been trampled all these years and it's payback time, like justice for us Americans, like our bill has come due. We deserve it. America sucks.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Malcolm, be prepared.... Ares Olympus will want to know if your studies peer-reviewed by people who think just like him.

Ares Olympus said...

Ted Cruz: “You don’t defeat terrorism by taking away guns,” he added later, “you defeat terrorism by using guns.”

Just out of coincidence, June 17 was one year the anniversary of the Charleston Church massacre where 21-year-old Dylann Roof attended a black christian church prayer circle before shooting and killing 9 members, hoping to start a race war.

If we take Cruz at his word, how should the Charleston church members protected themselves from this race-war killer? Should we assume all public places, including churches have members with conceal and carry guns under their shirts?

Perhaps we can blame Obama for the lack of guns in churches? Perhaps he has not been clear enough to convince everyone that they needs to carry guns if they want to avoid violence by young assassins?

But there was a difference, unlike Omar, Dylann survive his dastardly deed, and was rewarded with a trip to Burger King.

Clearly Cruz is right - we're too soft of a nation. If the police had just shot Dylann dead, we could have saved those 9 lives in the church.

No, I guess not, but at least as a deterrent for the next wannabe race warrior. He'll know he won't get Burger King meals by the police any more.