Featured Post

Castro and the Nazis: Makes Perfect Sense

As we come up on the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, we see newly declassified German intelligence documents reporting that Fi...

Friday, July 17, 2015

Chattanooga Murders: Progressives Get the Credit

As this is being written the news reports continue to come in re the shooting in Chattanooga at two military-related facilities. It seems four Marines have died, one sailor has been seriously injured, and one policeman also wounded. The shooter is dead--not clear at this moment if by police or his own hand.

The MSM covered itself in its usual PC glory on this one. Initial reports, of course, emphasized that the shooter was a white male with an automatic weapon. When the killer's name came out (I won't print that scum's name here) well, doncha know, the word Mohammed is right in there. Surprise! The media engaged in its usual rush to exonerate, citing anonymous sources who said--within minutes of the shootings, mind you--that there was no evidence linking the events to terrorism. We saw the same pattern after the Ft. Hood killings.

Yes, shocking but true, the killer is a Muslim. This time an immigrant from Kuwait. The killer was enjoying all sorts of privileges here, including education as an electrical engineer, and a nice middle class life in a nice middle class suburb. Some reports indicate he even become an American citizen. Well, yes, folks we have yet another triumph of our progressive immigration policy. Another Dreamer achieves his goal . . .

Make no mistake about it. The progressives who run our institutions own this mass murder as much as they do the murder in San Francisco and the daily toll of murders in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, East Los Angeles, etc. They own it from their encouragement of Muslim immigration all the way to the "gun free zones" in which our military are forced to operate unarmed despite mounting evidence that they are targets of terror. We have highly trained Marines forced to "duck and cover" and run for their lives instead of doing what they do better than anybody else: send terrorists off to their appointment with seventy-two virgins or raisins or whatever the idiocy is.

We also have, of course, a desultory statement from a bored and even irritated-looking President Obama reciting some pro-forma boiler-plate words about sympathy for the victims. He can't rouse anywhere near the energy he did for the shooting in Charleston or for his imaginary son Treyvon Martin. These Marines are his; he is their Commander-in-Chief; he, however can't be bothered as he is too busy making sure Iran is safe.

So as the progressives march about our country tearing down 150-year-old Rebel battle flags, and digging up the graves of long-dead Confederates, Islamic killers run amok in that same country, and more get their visas as we speak.

Progressives, you built this, you own it.

34 comments:

  1. Military gun free zones are a result of a law signed by Bush 41.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, still bad. Do away with it.

      Delete
    2. And yet Barack Obama, who has happily ignored, as well as instructed others not to enforce, laws he doesn't care for, has done nothing in this case.

      The shootings at Fort Hood or the Naval Yards meant NOTHING to Obama, so the deflection is immaterial. Obama and the Left OWN this.

      Delete
    3. It should be up to the military itself to decide how weapons and how security are handled at their facilities. This is at the feet of the Joint Chiefs. The blood of these men is on them, too. They need to act.

      Delete
    4. Sorry Charlie ... it was Bill Clinton. See the following from Breitbart: "According to a Washington Times editorial written days after the Nov. 5, 2009 attack on soldiers at Fort Hood, one of Clinton’s “first acts upon taking office… was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases.”"

      Delete
    5. In the interests of accuracy Mr. Potts, the policy actually predates Clinton (though I'd personally prefer it so).

      The directive was issued 25 FEB 92. PDF here:

      http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf#page=3

      5210.56

      ***

      Delete
    6. Had to confirm something (reliably) Mr. Potts before I would post it to Diplomad's site - I was *somewhat* unsure to whom precisely you were replying. ... The initial *Anon* commentor or Acethepug as there, both the Fort Hood and the Naval Yards were referenced prior to your comment.

      Anon at July 17, 2015 at 1:06 AM gets something fundamentally wrong, "Military gun free zones are a result of a law signed by Bush 41" in that .. there really are no such animal as "military gun free zones" (shouldn't be too hard to understand why the terminology 'military gun free' is obviously .. forgive my [possible] coining a new term .. Oxymoronic. (Emphasis on the third and fourth syllables .. ox,y,Mor,On,ic).

      The 1992 pdf link above should be sufficient explanation.
      ___________

      Where it gets "kinda foggy" is wrapped up in when the Brady Act got enacted which was during the Clinton years, 30 NOV 93 at which time we "began to enjoy" seeing Gun-Free-Zones (some might say "Free Fire") popping up - excuse the last adverb please.

      As the '92 GHW era initiated DoD directive effectively made it halfway onerous for a "simple recruiter" to have to do the paperwork to carry - it became doubly so after [cough] Gun Free Zones began [cough cough] popping up.

      And the Tennessee Recruiting Office - by all available information - appears to've been precisely located in such a Gun Free Zone.
      __________

      Props to the Chattanooga Tennessee PD.

      ***

      Delete
    7. OK. I get your point … but, from your referenced directive. comes the following statement:

      “It is DoD Policy: 1. To limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel. The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm shall be made considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms. DoD personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties shall be armed.”

      Can we not conclude that, if Homeland Security and the FBI have issued warnings about possible terrorists attacks in this country, and ISIS has particularly called for attacks on military personnel … and since there have already been multiple attacks on military facilities in this country (Ft. Hood, multiple military recruitment offices, Washington, DC Naval Yard, etc.) that a rational person might conclude that there is now a “reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried”?

      Or, am I just not understanding the administration’s mindset?

      Delete
    8. Respectfully Mr. Potts ... it is not so much that we've available to conclude anything precisely speaking.

      You of course Mr. Potts notice Diplomad's previous post (paragraph 6) "Let me start with a minor technicality" gets us into these gray areas?

      If we're limiting our conversation to FBI, I'd say "Sure, you're right my mistake" but what we've got intervening as you note, is DHS --- Respectfully Mr. Potts, when was the last time you heard, either from our government guys or the media put it, "threat to our Nation" or for that matter, "threat to our Republic"?

      Been awhile hasn't it?

      But ... so many versions of, 'threat to the Homeland, ... something [or another to] the homeland ... maybe just me but that [I maybe should preface my dad was a WWII guy] sounds like a creepy North Korean kinda speak.

      You may Mr. Potts disagree which I respect but these days, me and you respectfully disagreeing looks to be a soon lost art - I guess we'll see.
      ______________

      I'd preferred Mr. Potts your;

      "Can we not conclude that, if Homeland Security and the FBI have issued warnings about possible terrorists attacks in this country, and ISIS ..particularly called for attacks on military personnel … and since there have been attacks on military facilities in this country ... a “reasonable expectation that life will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried”?

      could've been, more succinctly put but heck, I've received myself an F where you Mr. Potts got a C.
      _____________

      Thing to Always keep in mind Mr. Potts is there's some very few, very Premier, very experts running around in our Nation, our Republic taking care of us - predating DHS but our Congress doesn't have any good grip where those Agencies are concerned.

      DHS > Department of Homeland Security .. J. Edgar ever give a label like that?

      FBI, US Marshalls, Secret Service, our various State Agencies and very especially, Our Locals ... was always pretty excellent actually when it came down to it.

      Those People "know us" which in my opinion was better.

      Mr. Potts, if you please - read this

      http://warontherocks.com/2014/09/congress-can-fix-dhs-but-needs-to-fix-itself-first/

      All this *Protecting the Homeland* crap is just that. Crap.
      _____________

      Now it may just be the way I am but, ... I *worry* more about getting struck far more often by a bolt of lightning than I do about any f**king terrorist immigrated from Kuwait.

      And what DHS has spent on TSA and them losing at every beat to our Red Teams.

      We've allowed our Politicians/Leaders to go plumb Loony - and we bitch about 'em spending so much.

      ***

      Delete
  2. This is an agenda, based on the application of Saul Alinsky's 11th Rule for Radicals:

    RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)'

    They are creating the problem, to destabilise the target (Americans generally), and offer solutions based on more socialist restrictions and government control, for the good of everyone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've never understood the objections to Alinsky. Wasn't he just describing Thomas Jefferson's modus operandi?

      Delete
    2. these are not the conditions under which the founders found themselves.... though it does sometimes look like we're headed that way... context is important.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    3. Perhaps more like Thomas Paine. Now, if you are referring to Jefferson's campaign for the Presidency against John Adams, not so different. He did found the Democrat Party, after all.

      Michael Adams

      Delete
  3. backofanenvelopeJuly 17, 2015 at 4:43 AM

    Personally, I think Obama is a Muslim and that the Manchurian Candidate was not fiction!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Worse. He is the ideal dhimmi.

      Delete
    2. The Number One enemy of the U.S. is the usurper in the WH, who lacks authentic ID's. With a half-brother in the Muslim Brotherhood, and a past active support of Odinga, it's clear what side Obummer is on. Clearly not the USA's.

      Delete
  4. I think backofanenvelope has the right of it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Our military members are forced to be unarmed to defend themselves right here at home, despite an elevated threat level for months. Our military is NOT combat ready to defend our nation today (March 2015 General Odierno testified before Congress that the Army is at an historically low level of combat readiness - ONLY 33% of our brigades are combat ready). And in the days before this attack - the Secretary of Defense raised transgender servicemembers being allowed to serve openly as a top tier issue to improve our military effectiveness. They're talking about cutting 40,000 more soldiers from the Army, but EVERY transgender soldier facing separation will have "its" case reviewed at the highest level of the Defense Department per Ash Carter. The rest of these soldiers most assuredly will be separated pro forma.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are so doomed! Who will stop this insanity? Who can stop this insanity?

      Delete
  6. Commander-in-chief, SPIT.

    I don't know how (or why) miltary members salute this disengaged president. Some major insubordination on a large scale is required.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not unless Obama fails to exit the White House at the end of his term.
      The American people lost the election in '08 and '12 in a way that wasn't just fair in a machiavellian fashion, but pretty straight up fair. Americans were duped, and they (mostly) still don't realize it... We must pay the price for that, and no insubordination from our military can save us from ourselves in this.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    2. Only, the nation is pretty much split 50-50 pro what we here call America and what we'd call anti-American. This is the result of the Gramscian march, the takeover of institutions including education and the MSM. So I am not sure if the people were duped or just didn't know better because of what they were taught in school and hear every day from NBC, CBS, ABC, et. al.

      And note that Obama is working for the left takeover and depreciation of the military. It won't save us from the left. Transgender folks are unlikely to be conservatives I'd think.

      Delete
  7. i taken to calling it the #ChattanoogaJihad

    I'll bet some wag could make a new set of lyrics for that old song - it's too un-p.c. in the old versions anyway.

    Pardon me, boy
    Is that the Chattanooga choo choo?
    Track twenty-nine
    Boy, you can gimme a shine
    I can afford
    To board a Chattanooga choo choo
    I've got my fare
    And just a trifle to spare

    This is so desperately sad and unnecessary.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I forgot to mention the very high presence of jihad in Tennessee. Here's just two of many essays we've published from the Tenn Justice people:

    http://gatesofvienna.net/2015/03/how-the-muslim-brotherhood-operates-in-tennessee-part-1-of-8/

    http://gatesofvienna.net/2015/07/tennessee-aclu-the-lefts-biggest-hypocrite-part-2-of-5/

    Both series are worth reading. The second is only just started...

    It would be worth anyone's time to get that newsletter. Especially if you live in Tennessee...

    It is, as you say, a progressive thing. Their dreams are our nightmares.

    ReplyDelete
  9. For about an hour or two after the shooting, the perpetrator was muslim. Now, he's not... just look at any current headline. Now he's "just a normal American". I'm surprised they're not claiming he was Christian, but it's still early.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "For about an hour or two after the shooting, the perpetrator was muslim. Now, he's not ..."
      ___________

      "The New York Times reports that Abdulazeez's father was questioned by federal authorities about contributions to an organization with terrorist ties, and may be have been on a terrorism "watch list" at one time, but was later removed."

      http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2015/07/defeating-ultimate-smart-weapon.html

      Delete
    2. The trip ("alleged" so big Caveat) to Yemen, if confirmed - would tend me at least toward not so much Daesh .. ISIL .. but rather AQAP.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/17/us-usa-shooting-tennessee-idUSKCN0PQ1WY20150717

      ___________

      However much "our" investigators would prefer otherwise. Still .. caveat.

      Delete
  10. I am willing to advance (as a veteran) that anyone currently serving or considering the same should resign their commission, not-reenlist at the end of enlistment term, or decline to seek said service.



    ReplyDelete
  11. Robert of OttawaJuly 17, 2015 at 5:39 PM

    As Obomber says: "Hey, circumstances happen". Grief, this man really hates America and really loves himself.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The shooter described as "white male"? Well, a lot of people from the Maghreb to the Panjab fit that description!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thank you for pointing out Obama's demeanor while speaking about the attack. I couldn't believe that he didn't display the slightest bit of outrage or even anger. What in the heck is wrong with this man? Is he on drugs? No emotion whatsoever. Just mind-boggling.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I notice that Abdulazeez, while born in Kuwait, had a Jordanian as well as US passport. This strongly suggests he's one of those poor, downtrodden, suffering "Palestinians" whose cause is so noble.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This strongly suggests he's one of those poor, downtrodden, suffering "Palestinians" whose cause is so noble.

    His father is described as Palestinian.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Another beneficiary of white privilege

    ReplyDelete