Archive for the ‘Progressives and Left’ Category

Alternately titled “leftists saying what they really want, but also using it as clickbait“:

The president zoomed in on exactly the right point Tuesday: What about the rights of those killed by gun violence to live free from terror?

There is no right to freedom from fear.  It also could never be achieved.  Some people fear the dark.  Some fear light.  Some fear clowns.  Some fear bees.  Some fear the unknowable, unfeeling empty vastness of space.

As a technical point, those killed aren’t alive, so they can’t live free from anything.

President Obama said a lot about guns in his teary press conference Tuesday, but the one thing that he is not saying, despite all the howling from the right, is that he intends to take away Americans’ guns. Yet equally significant is the realization that individual citizens are unwilling to free themselves of the destructive weapons that are wreaking havoc on our society. Numerous Americans care more about their individual freedoms than our collective freedoms, and they are unable to see how these individualistic desires undermine the essential fabric of a democracy.

All freedoms are individual freedoms.  If individuals within a group have no freedom, there is no freedom.  Restricting individual rights to free speech also means restricting a “collective” right to free speech by removing voices that the government doesn’t like.

Much like the bumper sticker slogan, my guns must not be working right, because they haven’t wreaked any havoc.

This democratic fabric includes the Second Amendment that has been contorted, misinterpreted, and applied in a way that destroys its intended meaning and threatens the safety and stability of our nation.

Here comes the usual “the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says” argument.  The only people contorting it and misinterpreting it are those trying to destroy its meaning in order to disarm the populace.

And as the president pointed out on Tuesday, this grotesque emphasis on the Second Amendment impairs other Americans’ ability to freely exercise many of the other 26 amendments.

Try exercising your Third Amendment rights without any way to resist.

Come to think of it, your First is easily extinguished, as we’ve seen on college campuses where a mob can simply push a reporter out of public spaces.  Your Fourth is pretty hard to defend if you can’t protect your own home.  Your Fifth is a lot easier to have ignored if the police and prosecutors simply threaten you.

As President Obama forges a lone path toward gun regulation, we must wonder how we as a society have arrived to a point where “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” has morphed into allowing individual citizens to possess firearms for their individual protection with little to no concern about the security of a free state.

There’s not much security to a free state when only the government and its agents have guns.  In fact, that’s not a free state at all, that’s a tyranny.  That’s exactly what the founders were discussing.

And then there’s this asshole comment:

It is well documented that gun sales and gun-related deaths have increased since Obama came into office, but the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), which opened the floodgates and redefined the Second Amendment, rarely receives mention.

Murder is down.  In 2007 there were 17,128 murders.  In 2013 there were 14,196.  Numbers have been on the decline for decades.

Murders with firearms are down.  2010 saw 8,874 murders with firearms.  2014 saw 8,124.

DC v Heller didn’t change the Second Amendment functionally for most of the nation.  Many state constitutions already cover the right to keep & bear arms even more specifically as a personal right of self-defense.  There were no “floodgates” to open.  Places that have historically been anti-gun are still throwing up barricades to exercise of rights that are still being fought against in court.

The court’s decision in the case went against 70 years of legal interpretations of the Second Amendment that stated in United States v. Miller that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” the state militia, and the Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”

Brown v Board of Education went against nearly 60 years of legal interpretations justifying segregation, too.  It also corrected a historic wrong.

US v Miller was a bullshit ruling.  The arms-infringing National Firearms Act of 1934 which Miller was challenging says that a shotgun with a barrel under 18″ requires a $200 tax stamp to own, buy, or sell.  $200 in 1934 amounts to $3500 today.  It’s a financial barrier to firearms ownership and exercising of rights.  It’s a poll tax for guns.

The court magically ruled that a shotgun under 18″ barrel length isn’t suited to any kind of militia use or any other use (despite the fact that agencies from the FBI to USBP to IRS all use 14″ barreled shotguns today in manners that are entirely consistent with the uses the judges said they couldn’t be used).

Miller was a bank robber who argued against laws that would’ve sent him to jail not so much for bank robbery, but for effectively owning a piece of pipe that was less than 18″.  The court decision was made in such a way that Miller could never travel to the Supreme Court to challenge the ruling, and Miller was killed before the ruling came down and he could’ve effectively challenged it.

It’d be like if the Miranda decision were never made because Miranda were killed before being able to make the challenge to SCOTUS.  Mind you, Miranda was a kidnapper and rapist who was convicted both on initial trial and on retrial after SCOTUS review – it’s said good court decisions can often come from bad people.

In Heller and then in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court in a pair of 5-4 decisions determined that federal, state, and local governments could not create restrictions that could prevent an individual the right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense. The intent of the Second Amendment had shifted from allowing citizens to own firearms so that they could band together in an organized and regulated militia run by either local, state, or federal governments to allowing citizens to own guns for their own purposes so long as they fell under the individual’s definition of self-defense.

Let’s reference Blackstone, which is part of where the Second Amendment came from:

a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression

And that’s just pulling a quote from wikipedia.  The founders knew that restrictions turned into strangulation of rights, and that’s why they eliminated that part – and stuck simply to a codified recognition of protecting the tools of self-preservation.

To borrow from Tom Gresham:

A well-educated people, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.”  Now, ask if this means that only well-educated people could keep and read books, or does it mean that everyone can have books as a means to produce a well-educated people?

Clickbaity McDailyBeast goes on:

Not surprisingly, countless Americans purchased more and more firearms to protect themselves from the “inevitable” moment when the government or “Obama” was going to forcefully take their guns away. Not surprisingly a byproduct of this new interpretation of the Second Amendment has been a rise in unregulated militias or American terrorist groups who challenge the authority of federal, state, and local governments.  Ammon Bundy and his posse of men who call themselves the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom who just this week forcefully took over a federal building in Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon are just one such iteration of this emboldened unregulated militia movement in America.

Actually, this “new interpretation” is pretty much what most state constitutions have always said.

“American terrorist groups”?  I think the Bundys are basically the same kind of people the president would support if they were a union blocking a factory.  The Bundys just want to take over their agricultural means of production – which means public land they don’t feel like paying for.  No real difference from the union members who try to take over industrial means of production except that the unions try to take from private citizens they view as class enemies while the Bundys want to take over from a government they view as a class enemy.

Frankly I find both of them reprehensible, but neither are very good terrorists.  Unions haven’t been effective terrorists since the Wobblies, and ranchers haven’t made effective terrorists since the Johnson County War.

The Oath Keepers, formed in 2009, are one of the largest unregulated militia movements in the nation, and regularly you can find them injecting themselves unnecessarily into conflicts. In Ferguson, Missouri following the death of Michael Brown, Oath Keepers arrived carrying semi-automatic riffles so that they could prevent looters from destroying property, and many of them said that they saw nothing wrong with taking the life of a looter to prevent the destruction of property. They also advocated that Ferguson residents obtain firearms so that they could protect themselves from the police.

So they wanted to protect people who lived there from armed mobs that were burning their homes and businesses?  And they wanted Ferguson residents to protect themselves against police they viewed as threats to the community?

I tend to view the Oathkeepers as a bit silly, but reading it from this Daily Beast goofball, he makes them seem positively balanced.

Also, I don’t think trying to provide stability for a community, however misguided, makes them terrorists.

Instability, terror, and death are the inevitable outcomes of a heavily armed citizenry, yet in the 1846 case Nunn v. State of Georgia, an integral case that the Supreme Court used in the Heller decision, the state of Georgia—my home state—argued that arming citizens and allowing them to openly carry firearms created a safer environment. And the referencing of this decision only continues the Supreme Court’s idyllic reimagining of America’s Southern states.

Lolworthy.

Georgia in 1846 was a slave holding state where African Americans were counted as three-fifths of a person and were not allowed the right to vote.

The 3/5ths compromise was so that states that weren’t slave states wouldn’t be outnumbered in congress by slave states.  Slave states wanted black slaves counted as whole persons for purposes of distribution of representatives.

Firearms at this time were regularly used to keep blacks in line and sustain the South’s racist, oppressive society.

Dumb.  Gun control was used to keep blacks in line – The Racist Roots of Gun Control is a good read that explains it.  If only the powers that be in racist slave states had firearms, they would’ve had them to “keep blacks in line” as well – and if they needed more arms, they would’ve expanded the authority of the state.

Short version of that section is basically he thinks that guns=racism.

But far from rejecting that old logic, we’ve embraced it, and the application of the South’s antithetical principles have brought instability, danger, and a disregard for human life to rest of the United States. Armed and dangerous and unregulated militias are on the rise, in addition to the numerous lone-wolf attacks that befall schools, offices, shopping centers, and public spaces at a disturbing frequency.

Except they haven’t brought violence.  Those “lone wolf” attacks aren’t from “unregulated militias”, they’re from individual lunatics who can’t be stopped with laws and who are frequently jihadis – adherents to a terrorist ideology.

Right now the Second Amendment is being applied in a way that takes away the rights of thousands of Americans each year, and the president must address this crisis to ensure the safety and stability of not just the American citizens who are threatened by gun violence, but also the ideals and institutions that govern our society that are being threatened by the archaic notions of stability from a racist and oppressive society and the unregulated militias of today that openly advocate armed conflict against the government.

Nice try playing the race card.  Gun control was used against the black man to control the black man.  Take the guns from the free men of all colors today and you just put your faith in government, which between 2000 and 2008 I’m sure this clown would’ve opposed as Bu$Hitler would’ve been his boogeyman of the day.  Take all the guns from the free men of Georgia in 1846 and you have a slave state controlled by a government that would expand its authority until blacks (and poor whites) were controlled anyway.

Obama is not going to take away America’s guns. I would argue that he should, as countless Americans have displayed a gross misuse of the social responsibility that comes with gun ownership, except that using force to attempt to disarm people of their firearms might inevitably lead to more violence and bloodshed.

Obama is not going to take away America’s presses.  I would argue that he should, as countless Americans have displayed a gross misuse of the social responsibility that comes with the written word, except that using force to attempt to silence people might inevitably lead to… he’s gonna disarm them first, right?  Well then no problems!  On to our glorious utopian future!

Gun owners should want to regulate and reduce their gun usage for the greater good, but our society is too consumed with the myopia of employing lethal force to resolve minor disputes that it cannot imagine an environment without widespread gun usage. And countless Americans are unable to see that their gun usage actually jeopardizes the very freedoms and liberties they have chosen to fight for and defend via the barrel of a gun.

Ah, the “greater good”.  He should’ve said “for the children” instead.  Gets more feels that way.

Lethal force isn’t used for minor disputes, unless you consider human life something of minor consequence… of course being a big control freak statist… he probably does.

Widespread gun ownership, bearing arms, and possession of arms, does not necessarily mean usage.  I burn down targets at the range, but I have yet to use a firearm in to resolve any dispute inside the US.

Actually, declining gun usage and ownership, and trusting the state with arms and force is what jeopardizes freedoms and liberties, because no man can legally take another man’s rights away – but a government can, and governments do.

On to stupidity part 2 “America should regulate bullets“:

When I chaired the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, I was grateful that we had authority to regulate lead in household paint. Banning the use of lead-based paint in homes has prevented brain damage in countless children over the years.

So why wouldn’t Congress allow us authority over another dangerous consumer product often made with lead?

Specifically, why not bullets?

Although it may seem unbelieveable, at one point I was a child.  I don’t remember ever looking at walls and thinking “I should start chewing on paint chips”.  When I was at an age younger than that, my family lived in and worked in an environment that would be considered dangerous for a child today… but my parents kept me from eating screws, nails, and construction debris.  Congress wasn’t needed to protect me as a child.  Nor was it needed before 1972 when it was created.

As to why not bullets?  Because ammunition is a key component of arms.  And because you’re trying to come up with a backdoor regulation scheme to go after something you don’t personally like.

Why not have some chaste religious zealot decide that the risk of STDs that condoms don’t actually prevent means the CPSC can regulate condoms in order to cut down on sex that the zealot doesn’t like?

This idea isn’t new. In 1974, the CPSC’s first chairman made clear his belief that the agency could probably regulate ammunition, and a court agreed — whereupon a frightened Congress passed laws making it impossible even to try. Now is the time for the president to begin pushing to correct that mistake.

I can’t help but hear that last line said like Dick Jones in Robocop saying: “I had to kill Bob Morton because he made a mistake… now it’s time to erase that mistake.

The slavering regulatrix can’t even begin to fathom that there are people who don’t regard her totalitarian state as something desirable, nor that their representatives would seek to prevent tyranny which she demands through any means possible.

How can we do more when the National Rifle Association has persuaded Congress to put roadblocks in front of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention research into gun deaths? When more than half of Americans oppose tighter gun control even after a year of such bloodshed?

Support for gun control has been falling dramatically.  People know being disarmed doesn’t make them safe, and doesn’t make anyone safe.

The NRA opposes CDC “research” because it’s “research” that will be pushed into the kind of conclusion that statists desire.  Stats will be massaged until they get the “right” answer demanding more regulation, more control, and less freedoms.

James Holmes bought more than 4,000 rounds online before his 2012 rampage in a Colorado movie theater. Twenty years ago, when purchases were offline, it would have been tough to spot someone like that. Today it would be easy.

Why should my old agency be the one to do the regulating?

No one should be doing regulating.

James Holmes is a wonderful example of how there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men.  Holmes was working on neuroscience/neurosurgery before he snapped.  He was being trusted enough to become the kind of person you call when you need someone to stab around in your brain.  On paper, he looked like a fine upstanding young man.  He also spent time making IEDs and rigging his apartment to explode.  Take away ammo and he’d use something like a pressure cooker bomb and fireworks.  Or he might just kill patients for decades on the operating table.  It’s not the tool he uses to cause the harm, it’s the person doing the harm.

When someone who may be dangerous is prevented from buying ammunition, any gun he has hidden becomes like a car without gas: a useless hunk of metal.

Yeah, and he can go buy a few gallons of gasoline and he has a firebomb ready to go.  He can also start playing with chemicals and explosives like were used at the worst mass killing at a US school in history – the Bath School Disaster of 1927.

There are many ways to move ahead. We could license ammunition purchases like drivers, ban online purchases and mandate background checks for buyers. But it would be pointless for me to outline the precise steps that should be taken up front — except for the first one: ending Congress’s disgraceful attempt to chill research. Funding to study regulating ammunition should begin now.

Congress was wise enough to see through that.  It’s not “research”, it’s funded justifications for tyranny at the expense of a constitutionally recognized right.  The author of this anti-freedom screed outright says she wants more restrictions on a right, and she wants to backdoor it with a bureaucracy that’s largely unaccountable, and she already has her answers.  If the CDC came out with the same conclusions the FBI shows in crime stats (referenced above) that gun crimes are down, and that they found John Lott’s study (More Guns, Less Crime) is the case, she’d demand more research until such time as her answer is reached.

This would be like Congress funding research for the CDC to analyze the effects of unpleasant speech on the public in order to go after the First Amendment, or funding research into the the effects of lethal chemicals and execution methods to undermine the Eighth Amendment.

Times and cultures change.

Tyrants never do.

From Politico, a story on how the Obama administration is saying it’s going to target citizens engaged in lawful commerce and exercise of their rights:

According to gun industry insiders and others familiar with the proposals, the changes include requiring an expanded number of small-scale gun sellers to be licensed — and therefore conduct background checks — whenever selling a weapon. This wouldn’t close the so-called gun show loophole, though it has the potential to narrow it.

The administration is also expected to impose tighter rules for reporting guns that get lost or stolen on their way to a buyer.

They won’t go after straw purchasers, but they’ll come up with more rules and regulations for those engaged in exercising rights specifically outlined by the Constitution.

as one of the major proponents of a change, Everytown has recommended adding several factors to the definition — including selling guns in their original packaging, reselling a gun shortly after acquiring it, maintaining a certain quantity of guns for sale or selling more than 25 guns a year — as possible signals that someone needs a license.

For people who are engaged in shooting sports, that’s not really that many.  There are already laws on the books that target people who are actually in the business of dealing guns without a license.  If law enforcement wants to go after someone for selling guns without a license because it’s their undeclared business, they can – and it’s a matter for law enforcement to figure out “is this guy a dealer, or is this guy someone who’s well-to-do and buys and sells a lot or is he liquidating inherited guns or is he X Y Z that’s not criminal?”

Another victory for advocates is likely to be a requirement for all licensed dealers and manufacturers to report to federal authorities any guns that are stolen in transit to a buyer as missing from their inventory. Currently, advocates say, thieves often target packages addressed to gun retailers in the hopes of stealing unregistered guns that are harder to trace. And while buyer and seller might sort out refunds or replacements on their own, they’re not required to report the missing guns to the National Crime Information Center.

There’s already a form for that.  Buyer and seller don’t sort out refunds or replacements on their own if packages turn up missing – one or both parties will report the package missing for insurance purposes.  Plus they don’t want a gun stolen in transit to end up as their problem once the thief uses it.

White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett also raised gun-control advocates’ hopes for new domestic violence provisions last month. In a post on the actress Lena Dunham’s website, Jarrett noted that guns are the most likely cause of death for women who are victims of domestic partner violence.

Somehow I’m unsurprised that Valerie Jarrett is exchanging notes on the web with Lena Dunham.  Probably won’t post much to Dunham about efforts to fight against sexual assault on children.

Gun-control activists acknowledged that changing the rules for licenses might have limited impact on what sellers actually do in the short term. But in this political environment, they’ll take whatever measures they can, no matter how incremental.

“Setting cultural norms,” said Everytown research director Ted Alcorn, “is something that laws do.”

And there’s the point.

This isn’t about doing anything that prevents crime or violence.  This is about a boot stamping on a human face forever.  These are the moral busibodies who will torment free men endlessly.

They’re going after a Constitutional right and trying to push people away from it culturally.  They’re trying to destroy the right by making it culturally nonexistent.  They’re trying to make it harder and harder to buy and sell guns.  The numbers game is just the camel’s nose.  Right now they want 25 guns a year… next it will be 15, then 10, then 5, then 2, then 1, then 0.

The same game has been played in many states with magazine restrictions.  30 is too many!  20 is too many!  15 is too many (NJ, CO)!  10 is too many (CT, CA, MA, MD)!  7 is too many (NY)!  5 is too many!  3!  2!  1!  0.  When gun control advocates are asked what the number they “need” is, they will never settle on a number to stop on.  After Newtown, the argument was “30 children will be killed” and they demanded mag restrictions… why?  If 30 children is terrible, why is 15 children okay?  Or 10 children?  Or 5?  Or one?   Because of course it’s not the number, that’s just a way to get a restriction that can then be pushed further.

Currently NY is pushing for an ammo ban that will drop allowable purchases to an absurdly low level:

If enacted, the legislation would place strict limits on the number of bullets a gun owner can purchase over a 90-day period, and ban gun dealers from selling ammunition for a firearm to anyone unauthorized to own such a weapon.

The bills are aimed at owners of high-capacity rifles, but they would also affect owners of handguns with much smaller magazines, even six-shooters.

The provision would limit the amount of bullets a gun owner can buy to no more than twice the amount of the capacity of the weapon ever 90 days, which means someone who owns a six-shooter could only buy 12 bullets every three months, the Brooklyn Eagle reported.

48 rounds a year with a typical revolver.  One box of ammo (minus two rounds) for the year.

You can’t maintain a lot of proficiency with that little ammo… of course, to the gun-banner, that’s not a bug, that’s a feature.  Restrict the ability to shoot, then say people are incompetent, then take away the guns.  It’s a win-win for the leftist statist.

It also uses laws to set cultural norms – you can’t introduce someone to shooting with 4 rounds per month.  You can’t go plinking with 1 round per week.  With a double-barrel shotgun, you’d have 4 rounds per 3 months, 16 per year, so it’d take you years just of nursing your state-approved amount to go shoot sporting clays.

It’d be amazing to see this same objective pushed for other rights.  What if they pushed against the First Amendment and you were only allowed so many words per yea

“If I have a cold, I can’t buy Sudafed without ID, but I can walk into any gun shop and walk out with enough bullets to arm a small army without showing any kind of ID,” Ms. Simon said in a joint release. “I can buy any kind of bullets regardless of what kind of gun I own. I don’t even have to own a gun to stock up on bullets. Nothing stops me from having friends buy even more bullets for me. The sky is the limit. The San Bernardino shooters had 6,000 rounds of ammunition. We need this legislation so that cannot happen here.”

Yes, you should be able to buy all the Sudafed you want as well.

There are also laws against murder and lots of gun laws in CA and that didn’t stop the San Bernadino terrorists.  There are also lots of gun laws in India and that didn’t stop the Mumbai terrorists.

“Setting cultural norms,” said Everytown research director Ted Alcorn, “is something that laws do.”

It’s to push people away from their rights by making them hard to exercise.  Push people away from their rights and then they can be taken away.

Hell, the left can make laws so inherently oppressive that people don’t even understand why or how they’re being oppressed anymore.

Really sharp guy.  Covers a lot of topics as he refutes lefty social justice arguments – eventually by personalizing the demands that SJWs make and putting them to the SJW.

He uses Alinsky’s rule 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

The SJW college student is just foolish enough to engage the discussion that his flawed and failed ideas cannot hope to win.  That’s why SJWs drop/change subjects, deflect, call people racist, and use the “shut up” response to any and all criticism.

They already have a lot of these things waiting in a drawer to be cranked out the next time the have to push their agenda.  The NYT did a page 1 editorial on how we must ban guns for the children to prevent terrorism.  It’s full of the same things we expect to see every time they crank out their gun control screed, full of the same “no rights are without regulation so we can infringe them even if they say ‘shall not be infringed'”, etc. etc.

Obama went out saying that the ability of US citizens who are convicted of no crimes to buy guns is “an insane loophole”. Of course he’s talking about the terrorist watch list/no fly list, which as we’ve noted before has erroneously included people like the late Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy, who spent months trying to get it fixed – and when you’re a former president’s brother and one of the most powerful Democrats in the country and it takes months… what does that leave for the common man?  Even the leftist ACLU opposes the no-fly list.  Meanwhile, there are at least 72 people on the no-fly terror watch list who work for DHS or TSA.  Keep in mind that Obama was calling for the terror watch/no fly list ban before San Bernadino as well – something that since the San Bernadino terrorists weren’t on the watch list, would have made no difference then and would make no difference now.  This is just exploiting a crisis.  (And of course the way to keep potential terrorists from doing any terrorists acts is to have the AG charge them with terrorist activities.)

The calls for gun control rather than terrorist control have been everywhere in the last week.  AG Lynch said the Obama administration would call for more, Obama spent last Friday talking gun control and not terrorism; and then there’s the stupidity of the left as they call for bans, not just the lack of any understanding about a bullet button, but one Dem congresswoman saying that “multi-automatic round weapons are easily available“, and a host of bogus statistics and BS that come from people who don’t even know what they want to ban, but they know they want to take it away from you, the leftist-parody-of-itself saying the NRA funds terrorism, and then as the left peels back the mask to reveal it’s true face – the straight up calls for disarming everyone.

A true liberal position, the place to start, is to call for domestic disarmament. That is the banning of the sale of all guns to private parties coupled with a buyback of those on the street (Mexico just moved to so control guns). Collectors can keep their guns as long as they remove the firing pin or fill the barrel with cement. Gun sports can be allowed — in closed shooting ranges. And hunters can be allowed to have long guns (if they pass background checks) with no scopes, which are not sporting. But, these exceptions aside, liberals should call for a gun-free nation and point out the much lower murder rates and fewer deaths due to accidental discharge of fire arms found in those civilized nations where most guns have been removed from private hands — and often even from those of the police.

That’s a true progressive leftist position – there’s nothing “liberal” at all about stripping everyone of their right of self defense.  It is, however, a wonderful plan to create tyranny.

Fists/A World Without Guns by Oleg Volk

oleg volk responsible government agents liberals and dissidents

Photo by Oleg Volk

ABC News managed to acquire a picture of the San Bernadino terrorists as they entered the country:

ca san bernadino terrorists at the airport

Federal officials around the world today are urgently trying to track the backgrounds and contacts of the newly-married parents of a baby girl who killed 14 people in California last week in a suspected ISIS-inspired attack, as a new photograph emerged showing the future terrorists entering the U.S. together for the first time last year.

The image, apparently taken as the couple moved through customs in Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport on July 27, 2014 and obtained exclusively by ABC News, shows Tashfeen Malik clad in all black looking directly into the camera as the taller Syed Rizwan Farook stands behind her, black bearded and with a blank expression. It is the most recent photograph of the two to be made public.

It’s a subtle bias of the media to describe them as “newly-married parents of a baby girl” as though to humanize them by comparing them to a traditional family; and at the same time to denigrate the traditional family by making these terrorists into a traditional family.

Americans are taught from an early age not to judge a book by it’s cover.  Problem with that is that there are words on the cover, and those words will sometimes give us an indication of what’s inside the book.  You don’t pick up Ann Coulter’s “How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)” and expect it to be some kind of treatise on mathematics.  You don’t pick up a Michael Stackpole Battletech novel and expect it to be a collection of poetry based on the Bhagavad Gita.  You don’t pick up “Mein Kampf” and expect to find a bedtime storybook.

Likewise, you don’t look at those two and think “these are people who really want to come to America and embrace American values and assimilate into American culture”.  These are people who look just like they are.

Offhand, the American muslims I’ve known who’ve wanted to integrate into American culture did so in part by acting like and looking like Americans.  One woman I knew also actively wanted to be American so she and her children would be protected by the American legal system against family members who wanted to murder her for not wanting to be shoved into a force marriage.  She rejected the oppressive culture, rejected being stuck in a forced marriage with a man 40 years her senior, and wanted no part of the culture of those two terrorists.  Others I’ve known go out and start shops and businesses emulating American culture in different ways – bringing positives from their culture to US culture – and bringing a traditional mercantile nature while disregarding the conquest-by-the-sword malice on the negative side of their culture that they’ve left behind not just because they personally dislike it but also because it’s bad for business.

That idea of not judging a book by it’s cover, and by not judging at all, is why the neighbors who saw Arab men going in and out of the house at all times of night didn’t bother to report anything.  They didn’t want to judge a book by it’s cover and be judgemental and racist, so they said nothing… and terrorists attacked because out of the goodness of their dumb little hearts, people won’t call a spade a spade.

The official response is that there is no terrorism here and that anyone who speaks bad about Islam or Muslims or the terrorism that seems to follow wherever they go will be punished by the Attorney General.

Lynch addressed the Muslim Advocate’s tenth-anniversary dinner and declared that she is concerned about an “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric . . . that fear is my greatest fear.” Her greatest fear is — not terrorism — but a nonexistent Islamophobic backlash? ISIS has demonstrated that it can bring down passenger jets, strike the heart of a great Western capitol with urban assault teams, and inspire horrible carnage in California. We also know that ISIS has pledged to keep attacking the U.S. and possesses chemical weapons. Yet it’s politically incorrect speech that strikes fear into the heart of our attorney general.

Doesn’t matter what you’re seeing in front of you – if you observe things that happen repeatedly, begin to make a theory about why they happen, and see that theory pan out as things happen again, it doesn’t mean you’re applying scientific reasoning, it means you’re a racist islamophobe who must be punished for badthink.

Lynch of course has decided to backtrack a bit on her “you are all islamophobes fearing people who are only attacking you because of your violent microaggressions at them and because you’re bigoted against them and that’s why they have to kill you and you deserve it” because her reasoning is so far leftist ideologue that it’s plainly absurd to the run-of-the-mill Mametian-brain-dead liberal:

“We always have a concern when we see the rhetoric rising against any particular group in America, that it might inspire others to violent action — and that violent action is what we would have to deal with,” Lynch told journalists at Justice Department headquarters. She also urged Americans “not to give into fear” in the wake of the apparent terrorist attack in California. “So, [what] we’re focused on, obviously, is protecting all of the people under the ambit of the Department of Justice.”

Let’s see… in San Bernadino, Muslim terrorists killed more than a dozen people and their organizations and adherents swear to kill more.  Anti-muslim people killed… zero.

Sure, makes sense to go after the people who might say bad things about the people killing them.

“At this point…we’re not prepared to limit any particular ideology to what may have inspired these individuals,” the attorney general said.

Translation: “I will not blame Islamists for this because even though it’s plainly apparent it’s the reason and the terrorists themselves said as much before they went on their murder spree, I am such a leftist that I can only see them as victims of America and so it must always be America to blame.”

They’re terrorists.  Lynch won’t say it, Obama wouldn’t say it (until the FBI called it terrorism).  To their hard leftist view they steadfastly refuse to understand reality because they’re so ideologically brainwashed they can’t.

Newest thing today is that Syed Farook’s mother was a member of a pro-caliphate group:

Rafia Farook, the mother of San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook, is an active member of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), a Muslim organization that promotes the establishment of a caliphate and has ties to a radical Pakistani political group called Jamaat-e-Islami.

To the left, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a duck, has been genetically tested against other ducks and is a perfect 100% DNA match for a duck, then you’re a racist Islamaphobe.

Really, though, when a book is titled “Collected Mujahideen Handbook – From Al Qaeda’s Inspire Magazine: How To Wage Jihad, Build Bombs, and Kill The Kafir” and says so on the cover, it’s probably a reasonable inference that it’s not a biography of Beethoven.

There’ve been other examples of the “they had it coming/they deserved it” theme in the last week, but I think this is probably the worst, a hit piece on a terrorism victim written by a woman with the extremely apt last name Stasi:

Stasi: San Bernardino killers were radical, ISIS-loving monsters — but one of their victims was just as bigoted
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Saturday, December 5, 2015, 7:57 PM BY Linda Stasi

They were two hate-filled, bigoted municipal employees interacting in one department. Now 13 innocent people are dead in unspeakable carnage.

One man spent his free time writing frightening, NRA-loving, hate-filled screeds on Facebook about the other’s religion.

The other man quietly stewed and brewed his bigotry, collecting the kind of arsenal that the Facebook poster would have envied.

What they didn’t realize is that except for their different religions they were in many ways similar men who even had the same job.

Basically the whole piece is: “See!  Muslims and Jews and Christians are the same because that horrible Messianic Jew said bad things on facebook!  That’s why he deserved it!”

One man, the Muslim, was a loser who had to travel all the way to Pakistan to get himself an email bride. (I refuse to add to their fame by using the killer and his murderous wife’s names.)

Based on the tone of the article and other writings by Ms. Stasi (for those who don’t know, that name is hilarious… it’s like getting lectured by Ms. Gestapo), I suspect the real reason not to write “Syed Rizwan Farooq and Tashfeen Malik” is not because of a concern about adding fame.

The killer, however, became half of an Islamic Bonnie & Clyde, while the other died as the male equivalent of Pamela Geller.

Bonnie and Clyde were robbers who killed people as part of their chosen criminal profession.  They were not terrorists.

bonnie clyde 1967

They probably also won’t get a Hollywood movie glamorizing them… for at least a few years, anyway.

Pam Geller wrote a blog called Atlas Shrugs for years, and now writes with her own name.  She just writes things that aren’t PC.  As far as I know, she’s never killed anyone, but she’s had people try to kill her because they don’t like what she says.

Frau Stasi’s opinion of Geller has been noted in the past.

Geller, like ISIS and al Qaeda, revel in hate and nothing would make any of them happier than to be the catalyst for the killing of hundreds of innocent Americans to prove a point. Geller would be a hero to the hateful. Damn the cost in innocent lives, damn the heartache.

Don’t think for a minute that violence isn’t what she, just like the murderers of ISIS, want. Suppose there was a contest to draw God in defiance of Jewish laws? Would that be free speech or hate speech? What about cartoons of Jesus with his genitals up in the air?

While we have freedom of speech, we also have freedom of religion, which shouldn’t be impinged upon.

Yeah, imagine if it were so bad that taxpayers had to subsidize some kind of offensive art against JesusOr how about this, if a well-known cartoon show drew Jesus offensively?  Oh yeah, that’s right… if you make fun of Christians or Jews (or Buddhists or Shintos or Animists or Sikhs or atheists or Hindus or deists or Zoroastrians or Pastafarians), they don’t go kill you.

If it weren’t for the tyrannical oppressive patriarchal genocidal theocracy that Islam is and demands throughout much of the world, she wouldn’t care.  It’s the nature of the religious/ideological institution that is Islam that brings its critics.  It’s like how rigid dogmatic Catholicism or more extreme Evangelical Christianity brings in the atheists to criticize it.  Difference is, after he made Dogma, Kevin Smith didn’t end up like Theo Van Gogh.

theo van gogh telegraafFrau Stasi continues:

As Americans, we have the right to mock anybody’s God, yes, but except for the vile few like Pamela Geller, and murderous religious fanatics among us, it’s just not what we do or what we celebrate.

Well, except for shit-tons of musicians.  Trent comes to mind immediately.

All that, in the Stasi’s view, makes people who say bad things basically the same as those who do bad things.

Make no mistake, as disgusting and deservedly dead as the hate-filled fanatical Muslim killers were, Thalasinos was also a hate-filled bigot. Death can’t change that. But in the U.S., we don’t die for speaking our minds. Or we’re not supposed to anyway.

The first part of that opening sentence can be translated as “I have a black friend” used as a shield, followed by the predictable racist comment.  She may as well be saying “as bad as those child-rapists were, those kids were also total brats.”

Thalasinos was an anti-government, anti-Islam, pro-NRA, rabidly anti-Planned Parenthood kinda guy, who posted that it would be “Freaking Awesome” if hateful Ann Coulter was named head of Homeland Security. He asked, “IS 1. EVERY POLITICIAN IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR? 2. EVERY POLITICIAN IS A MORON? 3. EVERY POLITICIAN IS RACIST AGAINST JEWS?” He also posted screeds like, “You can stick your Muslim Million Man march up your asses,” and how “Hashem” should blow up Iran.

His Facebook page warns that “Without HEALTHY PREGNANT WOMAN (Democrats) would have NO SOURCE of BABIES to SACRIFICE and SELL!”

Um… he worked in government.  And most people are anti-government, just different parts of it.  And what’s wrong with being anti-theocratic patriarchy?  Or being pro-individual citizen self-defense rights?  Or opposed to killing infants still in the womb?

This is just Stasi making the victim an “other” and a political opponent.  She can’t critically dissect his positions because someone who’s anti-PP is pro-life and is… well, pro-life – and is opposed to abortion on moral grounds that it’s killing innocent people.  Someone who is for the NRA is for self-defense and is for… well, self-defense – which would be protecting oneself and other good people and defending against bad people who actually have to commit attacks against you first.

Ann Coulter is also a NYT best-selling author.  She’s actually much less “hateful” than she is a cultural provocateur.  She trolls.  People with coherent philosophies and arguments have little to fear from her, because most of her schtick is humor and absurdity.  Those with emotional arguments find themselves pulled in, and easily destroyed.  Those with coherent views defuse her joking invective and then it’s just a regular discussion.  Admittedly her humor is hit-or-miss, even for those who often agree with her.

Factoring in the recent baby-parts-for-cash videos showing Planned Parenthood haggling over prices (a practice they defended against “extremists” and then suddenly stopped… which seems like an odd thing to do if it’s completely above board), comments from somebody with a particularly religious objection to abortion condemning Democrats for supporting abortion providers and making taxpayers subsidize abortions seems not very extreme.  (It doesn’t take much to understand the point if one looks at it a different way, either – if a feminist found out that her tax dollars went to fund abortions for culturally sexist parents from the third world who aborted only girl babies, do you suppose she might be upset at the political party that supports that program?)

Thalasinos’ comment on the scheduled for the Million Muslim March isn’t very far out, either.  The Million Muslim March was even condemned by CAIR (who themselves were co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case, and cry “Islamophobia” almost every time they speak).  And considering the Million Muslim March was supposed to take place on 9/11 (intentionally to offend, but whatevs) in 2013 – it shows you Frau Stasi had to go back two years to find something offensive.

Complaining about politicians being bought & paid for and morons is now bigotry?  Complaining that they’re racist against your ethnic group is bigoted?  Stasi better get going after the Black Lives Matter movement and pretty much every ethnic identity with any kind of advocacy group.  Seriously, the Stasi is saying politicians are a protected class that can’t be criticized now without the critic being a bigot?  Bigoted against what?  Politicians?

Considering that the media will go out of its way to find the absolute worst that people they want to demonize say, and that she had to dig back at least two years for the one line… Thalasinos actually sounds pretty sedate, considering the level of stupidity people post on Facebook.

We have freedom of speech but even so, a city worker should refrain from such public bigotry. Municipal workers have been fired for spewing and posting racial and sexual slurs.

Public bigotry against what?  Against politicians, Democrats, jackass Muslim groups that even far a left terrorist-apologist Muslim group condemns?  Bigoted against the Iranian regime supports global terrorism and shot Neda dead in the street?  Against an institution called out for selling baby parts?  I wasn’t aware those are equated with racism and sexism now and meant the victim deserved it.

Damn, Stasi.  Don’t you know?

full retard

Because you just went.

Even if one were to run with Stasi’s blame-the-victim scheisse and assume that one of the victims somehow deserved it because he disagreed verbally with his murderer, what did the other couple dozen people killed or wounded do to deserve it?

Well, that’s because they made fun of his beard.  No, really:

ca san bernadino shooting made fun of beard

Not sure if I’ve seen that kind of media response before, ever.  I don’t remember CNN having a banner like that during Columbine that said “teens were rejected by their peers”, or one during Newtown that said “First-graders called killer a poopie-head”.

The whole crux of this is the “victim had it coming/victim deserved it”, by showing how horribly oppressed that Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were, seeing as how people… made fun of him for his beard… and disagreed with him (and Frau Stasi) and posted things on Facebook.

I am reminded of Evan Sayet’s story of a guy who says “I hate my wife”.  Frau Stasi is that guy.

I scrolled through some of Frau Stasi’s other posts and stumbled on this one, which should serve as another example of why to be wary of any calls to use the no-due-process secret terror watchlist for just about anything, least of all removal of citizens’ rights:

Stasi: State Department must list gun-loving NRA as terrorist organization

One terrorist group is responsible for more civilian deaths since December 2012 (the Sandy Hook massacre) than Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas and the Taliban. Yet it is the only nearly-state sponsored terrorist group that is not listed by the U.S. State Department as such.

It is the National Rifle Association and for their unending lobbying that’s kept a lid on gun control we now have 428 times more American deaths by gun than deaths by foreign terrorists.

Easy as that – list it as a terrorist group, disarm those who resist the state.  Now stand by for a further example of “figures lie, liars figure”:

No? Between 2012 and 2015, according to University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database, ISIS has murdered approximately 12,138 civilians, Boko Haram,10,092, the Taliban 9,427 and Hamas, 85.

In that time, Americans have murdered or spree killed via gun and assault rifle, 87,423 people in the United States.

nra blamed for actions none of its members commit

To Frau Stasi, the NRA is worse than ISIS.

Let’s check on that 87,423 number of hers.

The CDC says only 11,000 people were murdered with firearms in 2013.  The FBI says about 8,900 in 2012 and about 8,500 were murdered with firearms in 2013.  Interesting that in 2013 there were 687 people murdered with hands and fists and only 285 murdered with rifles – those evil assault murder guns.

Assuming her numbers are correct at 87,500 (rounding up) people murdered with firearms between 2012 and 2015, and with the FBI able to confirm that only 8,900 and 8,500 were murdered with firearms in 2012 and 2013, then that leaves us with about 70,100 murders for 2014 and 2015… so about 35,000 murders a year, roughly the same number of murders as Nigeria.  Let’s say we roll with the CDC’s number and assume 11,000 for 2012 and 2013, that still leaves us with 55,500 murders for 2014 and 2015 – about 28,000 murders per year (rounding up some more in her favor).

The violent crime rate has been dropping for years, and there weren’t 35,000 murders in 2014 or 2015, nor were there 28,000 murders in 2014 or 2015.  Frau Stasi is full of scheisse.

The (FBI) report says that in 2014 the U.S. recorded the fewest murders since 2009.

What she might be lying about are suicide deaths with firearms. Those numbers account for many deaths, but aren’t indicative of anything but suicides.  Japan, with limited firearms access, has a much higher rate of suicides.

But 21,000 depressed people killing themselves per year isn’t reason to care about mental health to Frau Stasi, while under 9,000 (many of those are dirtbags killing dirtbags, and there are some more that are dirtbags killed by people defending themselves) is reason to have the boot of government stomp on the rights of individuals and leave them defenseless against criminals who will never follow the law, as well as defenseless against governments that will eventually become like… the Stasi.

While you weren’t looking, the Obama administration made sure not to let a crisis go to waste and the SECDEF opened all combat positions in the military to women.

Washington (CNN)All U.S. military combat positions are being opened up to women, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced Thursday.

The decision allows women to fill about 220,000 jobs that are now limited to men — including infantry, armor, reconnaissance and some special operations units.

“This means that as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before. They’ll be able to drive tanks, give orders, lead infantry soldiers into combat,” Carter said at a news conference Thursday.

They won’t meet the standards because the current standards are “too high”.  Once the standards are lowered (or men not wanting to be accused of sexism let failures pass) they won’t contribute to the mission because they’ll be – by definition – substandard, and they won’t be able to drive tanks, give orders, or lead infantry soldiers into combat as well as the men currently in those jobs.  Also, the men who come in after the adjusted standards will also be substandard.  The entire military will suffer.

“There will be no exceptions,” Carter said.

Carter’s historic announcement comes after years-long reviews, and after public push-back from the Marine Corps, which had sought exceptions to keep positions such as infantry, machine gunner, fire support and reconnaissance to men. A Marine Corps study suggests all-male squads are more effective in combat and less likely to be injured than integrated groups.

Carter acknowledged the Marines’ resistance, but said he’d decided to set a policy that covers the full department.

“We are a joint force, and I’ve decided to make a decision that applies to the entire force,” Carter said.

He will never be laying in the street bleeding and needing someone to carry him to safety.

“Moving forward,” Dunford said, “my focus is to lead the full integration of women in a manner that maintains our joint warfighting capability, ensures the health and welfare of our people, and optimizes how we leverage talent across the Joint Force.”

Ah, moving forward – the relentless march of progressivism.  It will not maintain warfighting capability, will not ensure health and welfare, and will not “optimize leveraging talent”.

He acknowledged that “some service members, men and women, have a perception that integration would be pursued at a cost of combat effectiveness.”

And they’re correct.  Combat effectiveness is meaningless to a man who will never face combat and whose world consists of what’s best for the party.

However, Carter said: “The military has long prided itself on being a meritocracy.”

It’s only been a partial meritocracy recently, and now it’s not a meritocracy at all.

Standards will drop, combat effectiveness will fall, the hard scientific biological differences of men and women will be ignored in the name of progressively harming the US and all its institutions, and the military and the US will suffer.

blog us light inf