Featured Post

Towards a Pro-America, Pro-West Foreign Policy

For years, I have written in this humble blog that Obama and his team have created an unprecedented foreign policy disaster. The disaster be...

Monday, June 20, 2016

Guns, Gays, and Lists: The Progressives Go Insane(r)!

Some reflections while the Diplowife patrols an open-air Southern California granite storage lot (in 113 degree weather!) in search of perfect kitchen counters and bathroom shower tiles. I am trying to ignore the heat and the sensation of wallet pain, so I will write as therapy.

The progressives are getting nuttier and more destructive by the day.

The Orlando atrocity has sent the progs to the moon in a blast of, well, lunacy. Per the progs, an inanimate object, a gun, caused the Orlando massacre. Now, of course, this might be anecdotal, but since I returned to the States, I have monitored my guns every day; none has yet to burst out of either the glass cabinet or the steel safe, and go on a killing frenzy. Maybe I have very well mannered guns? I notice, too, that my cars have never roared out of my garages to kill, or self-identify as IEDS; nor has any of my pressure cookers become a bomb; likewise, no member of my collection of knives, daggers, and swords has lunged at passers-by. I, however, am keeping a watchful eye on the boxcutter in my toolbox--don't trust him/her/it/zhe, at all.

On the issue of gays: Can we assume that most if not all of the victims of the Orlando massacre were homosexual? Yes, perhaps, maybe . . . don't know. I have friends who have gone to predominately gay bars, and are not gay. I know gay people who go to predominately straight bars, restaurants, and movie theaters. I, therefore, might assume most of the Orlando victims were gay, but have no idea of how many.

Bottom line: I don't care if the victims were or were not gay.

I don't recall anybody fretting about the sexual orientation of those killed at Pearl Harbor,  December 7, 1941. I don't remember commentary about the sexual orientation of those murdered September 11, 2001, or of those blown apart by a bomb in London, July 7, 2005. The people killed in Orlando were killed on American soil by a jihadi terrorist inspired to do that killing by Islam. I don't care that he was born in New York. He grew up in an alien culture (read about his lunatic Afghan father) that calls for loyalty to an ideology, Islam, wildly hostile to the USA. He was full of hate for the very freedom that allowed that murdering thug to live a good life here.

The 49 dead people are 49 dead people who should not be dead. Again, I don't care at all about their sexual orientation. I agree that the Orlando massacre was, indeed, a hate crime--it was a hate crime perpetrated by the follower of a creed, Islam, that hates the West, freedom, joy, and America, in particular. I see flying rainbow flags in memory of those dead as a disgrace; they died because they were in America and exercising the freedom that comes with that. Those dead were the brothers and the sisters of every American, straight, gay, white, black, brown, etc. They were killed by an act of war as surely as those killed at Pearl Harbor. This was an Islamic attack on America. They died because the evil man with the gun was a good Muslim. Period.

The progs, of course, can't admit this. We see, for example, the ludicrous almost funny, Onion-like episode whereby lightweight Attorney General Lynch releases the 911 transcript of the killer's calls to the police but edits out any mention of Islam or ISIS,
Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ron Hopper defended the deletions. 
"[Mateen] does not represent the religion of Islam, but a perverted view," Hopper said, later adding: "Part of the redacting is meant to not give credence to individuals who have done terrorist attacks in the past. We're not gonna propagate their violent rhetoric."
Ah, yes, Assistant Special Agent in Charge Hopper that well-known authority on what is and is not Islam . . . I assume if the killer had sworn loyalty to the KKK, to the NRA, or to a Baptist church, that would have been deleted, too? Hmm, ASAC Hopper? Crickets . . . 

Hours later, of course, the White House, bombarded by scorn and ridicule, had to beat a hasty retreat, leaving Lynch, Hopper, and the rest of the PC posse out on a limb, and release an almost unredacted transcript--they still deleted the word Allah and substituted God.

After Pearl Harbor did FDR talk about an attack by "certain" Asian forces?

This is why we're losing this battle. Our ostensible leaders can't even name the enemy. Idiots. Idiots. Idiots.

So what do the progs propose to keep us safe? Why, of course, that ol' stand-by, "gun control" with the added plus of another ol' favorite, the "secret list"! I have discussed this before; you can read my view on "secret lists," and remember it comes from somebody involved in producing such lists. 

Yes, the same progs driven to tears and historical falsehoods when discussing the blacklisting of a handful of Communist Hollywood apparatchiks, want secret lists to deny Constitutional rights without even the hint of due process. The list? Well, as it turns out, "the" famous "terror list" is actually two lists: one, a "no-fly" list, has about 81,000 names on it, of whom maybe 1000 are "US persons"; the other comprises some sort of "higher scrutiny" listing, and has 28,000 names of whom under 1,700 are "US persons."

The Muslim shooters in San Bernardino and Orlando did not make either list.

These lists are as bogus as the progressive commitment to keeping our nation and citizens safe. 

Does anybody think that any list to deny gun rights won't be manipulated? How long before some PC doyen in Justice or Homeland Security exclaims in horror while clutching his/her/zhe pearls, "No! No! We have too many Muslim names on this list! We need diversity! We need more white male members of the NRA and Tea Party on there!"

You know that would happen. 

Going to check on the granite selection . . . 

28 comments:

  1. Actually ... I (kinda/sorta) have long found myself having giggling fits whenever this misAdministration's mouthpieces come forth issuing such as Hopper's;

    "We're not gonna propagate their violent rhetoric."

    ____

    When: They all use the acronyms IS, ISIL, ISIS ... Jubhat al Nusra.

    Yea even Obama hisself.

    IS = Islamic State!

    ISIL = Islamic State in the Levant!

    Like. Who do they think they're kidding?

    (Except for themselves. Maybe ... or, perhaps I better hope they're kidding themselves ...

    ***

    ReplyDelete
  2. The fact that these lefties, in their media rants, are suggesting (without coming right out and saying it) that if I am not an active supporter of everything to do with the gay lifestyle, I am responsible in some measure for this murderous attack, since I am by definition "homophobic".

    I find that a personal insult. These victims were Americans doing what free people are free to do. The Islamic fellow could not handle that: He, and he alone, encouraged by his violent faith, is the one responsible.

    Graham

    ReplyDelete
  3. If, even with this additional scrutiny, they insist on substituting "God" for the terrorist's use of "Allah," it makes one wonder what else they are lying about every single Allah-damned -- sorry, I meant G*d damned -- day.

    ReplyDelete
  4. An thought (crime) experiment. If it is acceptable to deny Americans on a secret, no due process, Star Chamber list the Constitutionally enumerated fundamental right to bear arms, why allow these Listers the arguably more dangerous rights of free speech, freedom of religion, free association, etc.

    Anwar al-Awaki's videos and association were involved in almost every"Homeland" jihadists decision to mass murder.

    I submit that al-Awaki's words are more dangerous than any gun or bomb. Yet no LIBPROG Communist suggests banning them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. An thought (crime) experiment. If it is acceptable to deny Americans on a secret, no due process, Star Chamber list the Constitutionally enumerated fundamental right to bear arms, why allow these Listers the arguably more dangerous rights of free speech, freedom of religion, free association, etc.

    Anwar al-Awaki's videos and association were involved in almost every"Homeland" jihadists decision to mass murder.

    I submit that al-Awaki's words are more dangerous than any gun or bomb. Yet no LIBPROG Communist suggests banning them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, the much-hyped "muslim who turned in the shooter" article points to two people whom he knew had watched al awlaki's videos, and *both* of them ended up committing heinous crimes of which the author disavowed as justified in Islam. So I guess it's only 'certain Islamic sermons' that are to be forbidden? How many people did this guy know who have watched those same videos, 3? 30? 300? I suspect it's 3, himself included.
      Note that the author of this article *doesn't* pick apart Al Awlaki's message and describe precisely what he believes in Awlaki's message is un-Islamic. I suspect he doesn't do this either because a) he hasn't read the quran, or b) he knows he can't refute it, but I'm more than open to a third option there.

      Lynch doesn't claim to be muslim, and her organization is not authoritative in determining what is/isn't Islam, and by at least the spirit of the first amendment should never *claim* to be determining what is or isn't Islam (even if the specific text only directly disallows laws).

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  6. Agree totally with your post, especially the part about searching for counter tops and tiles. When we did our kitchen remodel, my wife literally went to every granite purveyor from Santa Barbara through the San Fernando Valley. Fortunately she did not bring me along since apparently I am superfluous to the process once the budget it set.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I read an article recently that tries to explain the reason why the left refuses to accept the fact that Islam is the motivation for many terrorist attacks. It boils down to the fact that the left has placed Islam onto the victimhood pedestal, and because of it's enshrined place in their world view, no matter how egregious of a terrorist act, no matter how strong the proclamations by the perpetrators that Islam is the motivation. They refuse to accept it as fact, and direct their ire at peripheral matters, in order to maintain the view that everything is the fault of America and that terror acts will stop if we only listen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That plus the fact that there are so few Communists left in the world to grovel to. The Left needed a substitute.

      Delete
  8. Perhaps if people pointed out more often how similar Islam is in many ways to the Roman Catholicism of centuries ago, the Left would find it possible to distance themselves from it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose all religions will necessarily experience 'back to the foundations' movements. Roman catholicism/Christianity, imo, has been routinely reformed in this way, and so has Islam, particularly in the post-Ottoman regime. The results are difficult to escape with mere logic.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    2. Christ Himself, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity is God. There all similarities with any other 'religion' end, "Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in secula seculorum, Amen."

      Delete
  9. "Nothing to do with Islam"--

    Once again, the American secular liberal claims to be more knowledgeable about Islam than the entire faculties of Al-Azhar and Qom combined. I get it that not every Muslim is into Jihad against the United States, and that there are probably a good number, God bless them, passing information to the FBI about the bad guys.

    But, pleeeeeeeeeeeease: Let's be honest that there is a jihad doctrine in Islam and that there are some Muslims who believe it should be invoked against the USA and its citizens. And let's not embarrass ourselves by having our spox being so protective of a religion which they do not in the least profess.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why granite?

    ~M.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Diplowife decision. Not to be questioned.

      Delete
  11. Dip,

    AG Lynch stated on Face the Nation that 99.5% of the people on these watchlists are not citizens. Can You shed some light on why we even allow these folks in the country? Regardless, I would think (don't know for fact) that a non-citizen cannot legally buy a gun here.

    Given this, it would seem this whole list thing is a leftwing distraction. Of little value. And certainly a frightening giant step into the Orwellian world we seem well on our way to.

    I also thought she said there were 800,000 people on these lists.

    BC

    ReplyDelete
  12. The leftist, statist program of benevolent rule comes in two stages: take complete control, then impose the plan. They look wistfully at any regime which has complete control. That is the hard part needed to accomplish their dreams. For example, Obama has praised the power that the Chinese government has to implement policy (*1).

    They showed with ObamaCare that they have no fear of specifying mind numbing, Rube Goldberg complexity. It is no matter that it doesn't work well or at all. With complete control, they have decades to tinker and experiment with getting it right. Forward! for as long as it takes. Time and the peasantry don't matter when you are rebuilding the world by the seat of your pants.

    The Leftist position: The Muslim dictators and warlords do terrible things. But, eventually we will apologize and atone for our past injustices and convince them to follow the liberal path. The dictators aleady have complete control, a good start. In the meantime, peasants, gays, Christians, and Jews will die, but that is the unavoidable course of history.

    The most beloved slogan of the Left is: "You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs." That is nonsensical, because people and societies are not omelettes. It is only self-justification for causing harm.

    But, in that line of thought, I suggest: "Leftists can't make an omelette without breaking all the eggs."

    (*1) http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/11/obama-gee-it-would-be-easier-to-be-president-of-china/
    === ===
    Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”
    === ===

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Woe is US 'Drew!
      The Beast is through the
      gate, and on the doorstep!
      Worse, so few with a will to FIGHT!
      On Watch~~~
      "Let's Roll"

      Delete
    2. Only one question: is this sarcasm or your honest beliefs?

      Delete
    3. I should have made it clear that my question above was for Anonymous, not for Andrew.

      Delete
  13. Spot on. The same lefties had no problem blaming an old flag when a white democrat killed members of a black church in South Carolina but refuse to call the Islam spade what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In order to ensure that no information about the killer's motive will be disclosed, the FBI has "lost track of" the wife. She is probably on her way to Saudi Arabia by now. Never to be seen again.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I guess it's kind of rich for the EU and the UK to complain about immigrants from Syria, when they're not willing to work on the problem at the source.
    Perhaps the refugee disaster there should not result in a bunch of new EU/UK citizens, but rather a loss of mandate by all groups operating in Syria and a resultant large scale effort to remove them all, resettle/pacify, and then return those refugees.
    Heck, the so-called Palestinians have been screaming about 'rights of return' for so many decades now, why would the Syrians want anything else? Oh... because there aren't more than traces of jews and christians in Syria... so it's fine?
    Can swap Mexico for Syria and the US for the EU/UK probably. I've got no problem with a wall, but reforming Mexico by whatever means necessary is the only action that will really resolve the issue.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous seems to think the UK/EU are distinguishable in this instance. Sadly this is not the case although after today with any luck it will be and the EU can go to ......

      Delete
  16. Islam is to humanity and human rights as anti-matter is to matter. They can not exist in the same place at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hammer*Nail*Head ! You just cut to the chase beautifully. 😎

      Delete
  17. Only one tweak I'd make. Instead of doyen, I'd have used doyenne -- le mot juste. Call me sexist if you must.

    What counts is not what islam teaches but what muslims do.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I saw Diane Feinstein a day or two ago proclaiming in the Senate that it wasn't really a problem to have people erroneously on the "no fly" list.
    "All they have to do is prove their innocence" and all will be well.

    Constitution be damned!

    Graham

    ReplyDelete