Posts Tagged ‘Mark Steyn’

ISIS’s Orlando Attack

Posted: June 12, 2016 by ShortTimer in Government, Guns, islam, Jihad, Media, terrorism
Tags: ,

50 killed at a gay nightclub in Orlando, FL, by an Islamic State terrorist.

That’s about what the headline should read everywhere.  And at least a few places, it does.

Still, spin is being applied.  From NBC:

His father told NBC News his son was enraged after recently seeing a same-sex couple kissing in front of his family, an event that could have set him off.

In 2013, Mateen was interviewed twice by federal agents after coworkers reported that he made “inflammatory” comments to them about radical Islamic propaganda. The following year, the FBI looked at him again because of ties with an American who traveled to the Middle East to become a suicide bomber.

Law enforcement sources told NBC News he swore allegiance to the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in a phone call to 911 moments before the rampage at Pulse.

There’s no indication that Mateen was in touch with terrorists overseas or that the attack was directed by someone else, a law enforcement officials told NBC News. Nor is there evidence that anyone helped or encouraged him, several officials said.

He had ties with a suicide bomber, but didn’t have ties overseas.  Possibly technically true, but it’s also a way to try and distance him from who and what he is.

ISIS doesn’t have to issue a membership card.

With that information, investigators are looking into whether religious extremism motivated the attack and are piecing together what triggered Mateen, who lived roughly two hours south of Orlando in Fort Pierce and worked as a security guard.

Mateen didn’t appear to have any direct ties with ISIS, sources said, although he was a follower of ISIS propaganda and referenced the Tsarnaev brothers, who carried out the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013, at the scene of the shooting.

What motivated them again?  Oh, yeah, they were “lone wolves” or something, motivated by… uh… stuff.  Probably anti-marathon screeds put out by the rabid right-wing National Pressure Cooker Association.

But while law enforcement delves into what may have radicalized Mateen, who was born in New York and lived in Florida for at least the past decade, his family believes he was fueled by pure hate against the LGBT community.

He just hates them to hate.  Most people have a motivation to hate someone or something.  I wonder what that motivation was.

His father told NBC News that his son was affected by a recent incident involving two men showing each other affection.

“We were in Downtown Miami, Bayside, people were playing music. And he saw two men kissing each other in front of his wife and kid and he got very angry,” Mateen’s father, Seddique Mir Mateen, told NBC News on Sunday. “They were kissing each other and touching each other and he said, ‘Look at that. In front of my son they are doing that.’ And then we were in the men’s bathroom and men were kissing each other.”

This had nothing to do with religion.”

Well that’s cleared up, then.  Glad it has absolutely nothing to do with religion and that there’s nothing to see here, otherwise people might start wondering about the “Islamic” part of the Islamic State.  Or they might start asking about his father’s support of the Taliban (scroll waaay down at the link).

Now how did he get those evil guns that he used to kill those gay people out of clearly-unrelated-to-Islam hate?

His job in security, meanwhile, gave him access to his weapons; police say he used a handgun and AR-15-type rifle in the shooting spree.

ATF officials tweeted Sunday that he legally purchased the firearms within the last week.

Yeah, about that last part…

An ex-wife of Mateen told The Washington Post that he was prone to violent behavior and beat her. They had met online eight years ago and she moved to Florida to be with him.

“He was not a stable person,” the unidentified ex-wife said. “He beat me. He would just come home and start beating me up because the laundry wasn’t finished or something like that.”

Well if that were true and she did anything about it, the Lautenberg Amendment would’ve kept him from buying guns legally.  For those who’ve never seen a form 4473 (the background check paperwork you fill out to buy a gun), this is the important part for this case:

4473 lautenberg

So she didn’t bother to tell the police, and they didn’t bother to investigate, and no one bothered to arrest him for spousal abuse, and thus someone who was prohibited from legally buying a gun was able to buy a gun.

He also wouldn’t have had the job he did, because to be armed security requires being able to pass the equivalent of a 4473.

Also from NBC, because it’s never too early for the left to beat those gun control drums, especially if it can be leveraged with special victim identity groups:

Mass shootings often reignite the policy debate over access to guns, and hate crimes present another fault line in that debate.

In most states, people convicted of misdemeanor hate crimes may still legally purchase guns.

The majority of states “have not enacted laws to prevent convicted misdemeanant hate criminals from having easy access to guns,” according to a 2016 report, “Hate and Guns,” by the Center for American Progress.

As for Mateen, he was able to legally purchase firearms within the past week, according to the ATF. Federal authorities had twice investigated him for potential links to terrorism, the FBI said, but no ties were confirmed.

Under federal law, it takes far more than a terror review to bar someone from legally purchasing guns.

He beat his wife.  If anyone had bothered to prosecute, he’d have been convicted and couldn’t have bought guns legally or had access to them legally.  Making a thought police law that applies to one group over another not only makes an unequal justice system (which is the social justice point), but in this case it clearly would have made zero difference.

I wonder how long until the American media starts lecturing the gay community on how it should avoid being Islamophobic.

This reminds me of Mark Steyn’s many prescient comments as Islamic terrorists have attacked in Europe.

~What’s the next phase? Well, Brussels is currently about 25 per cent Muslim and they’re mostly young. Conversely (as I pointed out in America Alone), the Flemings and Walloons are getting a bit long in the tooth. In any society, who provides the policemen and soldiers and security guards? The fit and healthy – ie, the young, the ones who can pass the physical. So increasingly the chaps responsible for keeping an eye out for Muslim terrorists will themselves be Muslim.

SSDD.

After 9/11, it was the fashion among the western left to demand that we ask ourselves: “Why do they hate us?” As I wrote in America Alone all those years ago:

‘Why do they hate us?’ was never the right question. ‘Why do they despise us?’ is a better one.

Just in case our enemies needed another reason to despise us, today the inactivist group Somnolent Tilty-Headed Wankers for Peace launched an exciting new graphic: the same old clapped-out hippie peace symbol but incorporating the Eiffel Tower (right)! Isn’t that a cool, stylish way of showing how saddy-saddy-sadcakes you are about all those corpses in the streets of Paris? It’s already gone viral! And that’s all that matters, isn’t it?

Our enemies use social media to distribute snuff videos as a means of recruitment. We use it to confirm to them how passive and enervated we are: What was it the last time blood ran in the streets of Paris? Oh, yeah, a pencil – for all those dead cartoonists. But, given that blood in the streets of Paris looks like becoming a regular event, it helps to have something of general application. What about, ooh, a tricolor with a blue tear at the end? No, better yet: a peace symbol with a croissant in the middle. No, wait…

What’s that? All you are saying is give peace a chance? But what, in fact, are the chances of peace for Paris and France? What are the odds?

Oh, sorry. All they were saying is give peace a chance. And, having said it, they’ve gone back to sleep until the next atrocity requires another stupid hashtag or useless avatar.

Really, SSDD.  Just stateside this time.

Want an avatar but you’re unsure about the tricolor of whichever European country’s been bombed today? Need a quickie illustration of Tintin, Manekin Pis, Asterix, Topo Gigio, the Little Mermaid, the blonde from Abba, etc, with their heads at an angle and a tear running down? Maybe a Belgian chocolate melting from a broken heart, or a frite in mayonnaise tinged with regret? How about the all-in-one hashtag that instantly updates to each new slaughter? #JeSuisParis, #JeSuisBruxelles, #JeSuisYourTownHere! Call Sad-Mart, the one-stop shop for all your useless solidarity gestures! #NousSommesEverywhere!

And a quote that he brings back quite often, because it encapsulates, broadly speaking, the loss of the West to fight for its own principles:

Mr van den Boogaard is a Dutch gay “humanist”, which is pretty much the trifecta of Eurocool. He was reflecting on the accelerating Islamization of the Continent and concluded that the jig was up for the Europe he loved. “I am not a warrior, but who is?” he shrugged. “I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”

We’re going to go through the hashtags and the buttons and the flagwaving and there will be nothing done about it.  The enemy won’t be identified except as “hate”, which will make for an interesting time when we declare a “War on Hate” if one hasn’t been called already.   People who don’t know how to deal with enemies, who won’t even name them for fear of offending their own moral socjus rectitude, will point fingers at people who didn’t do anything, from the NRA to video games to Republicans to any of the usual cultural suspects.

From that same post a three months ago from Steyn:

You can’t say our enemies don’t have our measure. A new ISIS poll:

What colour will the Eiffel Tower be next?

Whatever terrorists bet the long shot on “rainbow flag” probably won that.

Advertisements

Stumbled over this piece on the Daily Beast the other day about how illiberal college students and their enabling leftist professors want to ban history:

Students at Western Washington University have reached a turning point in their campus’s hxstory. (For one thing, they’re now spelling it with an X—more on that later.) Activists are demanding the creation of a new college dedicated to social justice activism, a student committee to police offensive speech, and culturally segregated living arrangements at the school, which is in Bellingham, up in the very northwest corner of the state.

Students have the right to push for robust changes to campus conditions, of course. But if administrators care about free speech at all, they will ignore these calls to create an almost cartoonishly autocratic liberal thought police on campus.

Prefacing the hard-leftist demands with “of course” is an odd thing to include, unless one agrees with almost all of the demands.  Otherwise, it would have gone without saying.  The cartoonishly autocratic “liberal” thought police are exactly what the left wants.

Even a writer for the leftist Daily Beast that sympathizes with them has started to wonder about how far the left has gone, and see much of the problem:

At the heart of this effort lies a bizarrely totalitarian ideology: Student-activists think they have all the answers—everything is settled, and people who dissent are not merely wrong, but actually guilty of something approaching a crime. If they persist in this wrongness, they are perpetuating violence, activists will claim.

It’s not bizarrely totalitarian.  It’s completely understandable.  Their ideas are untenable, fail when left to reality, failed in experience in the past, and so in order to continue they must criminalize dissent to protect those failed ideas.

This is not new, nor is it limited to college speech codes.  It’s endemic to those on the left who know their ideas fail.

Take threats of criminal charges against those who question global warming climate change:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch has considered taking legal action against climate change deniers.

The United States’ top lawyer told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that the Justice Department has ‘discussed’ the possibility of a civil lawsuit against the fossil fuel industry.

She said any information her office has received has been sent to the FBI in a bid to build a case.

With evidence of data tampering on the side of Manbearpig believers, with predictions about weather that continually fail to materialize, with even believers of anthropogenic global warming not feeling it’s really a threat, it’s come to finding threats to the Manbearpig orthodoxy and going after them as criminals.

Of course, we’ve already seen this with Mark Steyn being sued and targeted for criticizing the Hockey Stick graph.

I started looking for a video on that specifically, but instead found this video of him talking about criminalizing of dissenters to a goverment panel and citing numerous examples:

It’s relatively short, but hits a few extra places dissent is being criminalized, mostly in the realm of climate “science”.  Because of course one of the critical parts of the scientific method, right after “observation of experiment” and “conclusions of experiment”, is “organize government to punish potential dissenters”.

The Daily Beast, Demographics, and Mark Steyn

Posted: February 20, 2013 by ShortTimer in Culture
Tags:

The Daily Beast/Newsweek has this interesting piece titled “Where Have All The Babies Gone?” (the page title heading is “Why the Choice to Be Childless is Bad For America”):

The global causes of postfamilialism are diverse, and many, on their own, are socially favorable or at least benign. The rush of people worldwide into cities, for example, has ushered in prosperity for hundreds of millions, allowing families to be both smaller and more prosperous. Improvements in contraception and increased access to it have given women far greater control of their reproductive options, which has coincided with a decline in religion in most advanced countries. With women’s rights largely secured in the First World and their seats in the classroom, the statehouse, and the boardroom no longer tokens or novelties, children have ceased being an economic or cultural necessity for many or an eventual outcome of sex.

But those changes happened quickly enough—within a lifetime—that they’ve created rapidly graying national populations in developed, and even some developing, countries worldwide, as boomers hold on to life and on to the pension and health benefits promised by the state while relatively few new children arrive to balance their numbers and to pay for those promises.

These changes are not theoretical or inconsequential. Europe and East Asia, trailblazers in population decline, have spent decades trying to push up their birthrates and revitalize aging populations while confronting the political, economic, and social consequences of them. It’s time for us to consider what an aging, increasingly child-free population, growing more slowly, would mean here. As younger Americans individually eschew families of their own, they are contributing to the ever-growing imbalance between older retirees—basically their parents—and working-age Americans, potentially propelling both into a spiral of soaring entitlement costs and diminished economic vigor and creating a culture marked by hyperindividualism and dependence on the state as the family unit erodes.

It goes on for several more pages.

Mark Steyn would like to welcome the left to 2008.  He’s been writing about demographics far longer than that, and has already explained the point of the entire article in much more thorough detail.

If you’ve read anything by Steyn, you can skip the Daily Beast article.

If you haven’t read anything by Steyn, you should – just find anything about demographics, and then you’ll see you can skip the Daily Beast article, too.