I wanted to wait a bit, to see how the government and this administration was going to handle the obvious terror attack by Omar Mateen in Orlando at the Pulse. The answer is not very well. The administration had made two things very clear; one, they are going to blame the guns, once again, and use a national tragedy to attempt to limit the second amendment rights of law-abiding people because someone does something horrible with a gun, and two; they have adopted a See no (radical) Islam, Hear no (defamation of) Islam, Speak no (words condemning radical) Islam mindset.
This second thing shouldn’t come as a surprise. After all, it took congress passing as part of the 2015 NDAA to declare the fact that Nidal Hasan was engaging in terror when he killed 13 and wounded 32 at Fort Hood in 2009. Up until that time the Obama administration had classified it as workplace violence…despite the fact that radical islsmist Hasan was screaming allahu akbar while going on his spree of violence.
Then again, after the San Bernadino shooting by Farook and Malik the president declined to call the shooting a terrorist act propagated by islamic radicals, despite all the clues pointing towards radical islam. In fact, only two days after the shooting he marched out Attorney General Loretta Lynch to give a statement that anti-muslim or anti-islam speech “…when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric—or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that we will take action.” Her blatantly partisan message, part of the Hear no Islam trifecta, drew staunch criticism about what she would have the DOJ do to regular Americans engaging their First Amendment rights and what speech exactly “edges toward violence” had Lynch walking back her comments just a few days later clarifying that “of course we prosecute deeds and not words.”
Now of course, moving on to Mateen and his acts of evil in Florida. When Obama made his speech, there was no mention of Islam, Radical Islam, or terrorists. All part of the Speak no Islam bit, and by refusing to call it terrorism he hopes the American people will See no Islam. He did say an act of terror, a term so ambiguous that it could be applied to any shooting anywhere at any time. Yes, someone going on a shooting spree is engaging in a terror campaign. But when that same person calls 911 three times to declare their allegiance to Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, you have a terror attack on your hands. It can’t be too much clearer than that.
Go ahead a few days to Lynch telling the press that when they release the 911 calls to the public they are going to censor out all the references to islam, isis, and the like. Why? Because they want to avoid re-victimizing the families of the deceased. Excuse me? Their loved ones are dead! Shot and killed by a terrorist that you want to scrub the record and put down as just another lone wolf type, mad at the world, taking out his frustrations, skipping over the fact that he had long been radicalized, had been investigated at least twice and then let go on his merry way, despite the fact that he didn’t change his tune the entire time. And you’re worried that the mere mention of islam, the proof of his radicalism on audio will hurt people more than they are already hurting?
The investigative arm of the FBI is at least as complicit for not heeding the warnings of dozens of people who saw something and said something, just like the big brother campaign wants us to. But that See Something, Say Something mentality DOES NOT APPLY to muslims or islam…because that would be profiling or something.
Instead, we attack the guns, call for a ban on the AR-15 once again, despite the fact that the gun in question wasn’t even part of the AR family of weapons. But that makes no difference. Enter the left and the vitriolic rhetoric machine. Guns are bad, guns are bad, guns make people do bad things. There is nothing worse than a gun…not even a not terrorist engaging in terror.
Good ‘ol Joe Biden made bad gun noises for the media and told them you can kill more people with a rifle than a handgun (I guess he ignored Seung-Hui Cho and the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007). Other politicians and news pundits have been lambasting guns and gun laws no matter how stupid they sound. Some of the worst, most idiotic speech came out of Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) when she inexplicably said, “You know, the fact is, the AR-15, the gun that Mateen used, that’s a weapon of war. It’s advertised as being able to do technologically advances in killing people that previous weapons have been unable to do, and somebody who’s buying that kind of a weapon isn’t buying it for target shooting. They’re not buying it to go out and hunt deer. You don’t need an AK-47 or an AR-15 to hunt deer. They’re buying it to do bad things, and we need to recognize that, and address it.”
Wow. Several things here…being able to do technologically advances in killing…I don’t even know what to do with that phrase. She was so caught up in her own rabidity she choked on her foam..I assume she meant the weapon is more technologically advanced than…a bolt action rifle? The weapon has been around since the 50’s for crap’s sake. There is nothing technologically advanced about it, it doesn’t go full auto, it doesn’t track people automatically, it doesn’t fire a laser. It’s just another gun. Oh, and good job vilifying the people who do buy them as someone who is going to do bad things with it. I’m sure the 5-10 million AR owners are just itching to shoot people willy-nilly in the streets. They’ve just been biding their time…or something. Lastly, she used the word NEED. No shit! IT’S NOT CALLED THE BILL OF NEEDS! It’s the BILL OF RIGHTS!! and brandishing a firearm, for protection, for hunting, for target shooting, to discourage despotism, is a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.
Once again, blame the guns, ignore the terrorists in the room and maybe the people will consent to give up their guns and open themselves up for massive terror attacks like we haven’t seen or are willing to talk about.
The narrative should be, we will do a better job investigating those who have indicated they are radical islamists or who have been reported as radical islamists. Yes, See something, say something applies to muslims as well and we will investigate those claims as assuredly as the IRS will be used to target conservative organizations. And finally, maybe we need to have a conversation about who should be allowed into this country, maybe letting in a pro-taliban afghani with ties to radical islam was a bad idea seeing as how he raised a son who went full terrorist in Orlando.
But we won’t, or I should say Obama won’t. Because the offical government narrative is ISIS is the JV team, they can’t harm us. Those terror attacks, aren’t. And if you would just let us get those pesky semi-automatic rifles from all of you, the government will be able to keep you safe.
Uh huh, right.