Again, political violence from the Left.

Progressive HateOn Wednesday occurred a tragic shooting of Steve Scalise (R) LA, and three others by progressive activist and Bernie Sanders supporter, James T. Hodgkinson, who opened fire on a group of Republican lawmakers practicing for a baseball game to be played today.  It was yet another violent incident perpetrated by a member of the far-left.

In the name of their cause, which has apparently degenerated into blind hatred of President Trump and by extension all Republicans, they have committed many acts of violence from hitting a Trump supporter on the head with a bike lock, to politically motivated riots on college campuses intended to shut down the free speech of conservatives, most notably an incident at UC Berkeley that prevented outspoken Milo Yiannopoulos from a scheduled speech at that campus.

Trump was not particularly beloved at first even among Republicans, who fought bitter primary campaigns against him during last year’s presidential election season.  Conservatives for their part have long since made peace with the fact that he is our President and have showed support where they agree, but have also pointed out where they disagree on many occasions.  For the most part, they are prepared to coexist with Trump nation.

This hasn’t been the case of the anti-Trump legions on the left. Far from coexisting with him and his fellow Republicans, they have deemed themselves a sort of resistance, fighting, all to often violently, against anything Trump has attempted.  They have called for his opposition, his impeachment, his imprisonment, and his death and the death of other Republicans, both implicitly and at times explicitly. The anti-Trump movement on the left has a particularly vicious streak.  So called “comedian” Kathy Griffin recently released a photo of her holding up a bloody, fake severed head of the President.  Even William Shakespeare has been co opted by the the malevolent Left, with a recent live performance casting a Trump doppelganger in the role of a modern-day Julius Caesar, who at the climax of the play is brutally murdered by former supporters to the cheers of the NYC crowd.  If you’re at all in touch with conservative politics, you know the list goes on and on.  That’s just the problem.

While yes, there have been isolated incidents of violence committed by those on the right, but those sorry displays of misguided fervor pale in comparison both in scope and intensity to those committed by the alt-left.  While those acts of violence are both uncommon and roundly condemned by vast majority of conservatives, violent rhetoric and actions have the tacit and not so tacit support of progressives. Malice towards Republicans, especially Trump, is widely and actively expressed by the left, among them was James T. Hodgkinson, who attempted the mass assassination of Republican lawmakers.  It was the evil act of an evil man who pursued to the end an evil, malevolent path of hate.  It’s a path shared by all too many progressives.  While they might not travel it to the farthest destination that Hodgkinson did, they are firmly on it.  If they have a shred of decency and civility, they should abandon that path. They can still protest, advocate, speak all they want against Trump or any politician, but if they want to call themselves civilized human beings they will let go of their hate.  In short, they need to decide what kind of movement they want progressivism to become; one of malevolence, intolerance and hatred, or one of peace, real progress, and coexistence with those who might disagree with them politically.

Regarding Nice, France and Baton Rouge

GWOTNice, France and Baton Rouge, Louisiana have more in common than the French origins of their names. They were both sites of recent terrorist attacks.  In the case of Nice, it was Islamist terror that killed more than eighty people in that resort town.  It was done in the name an extreme ideology that does not value human life.  It was an act of revenge for real or imagined offenses perpetrated upon innocents that had nothing to do with the terrorists’ grievances.  In the case of Baton Rouge, it was an act of anti-police terror that saw the murder of three police.  Like the tragedy in France, the attack in Baton Rouge was done in the name of an extreme world-vision so distorted it negated the value human life.  It too was an act of revenge.  Neither attack will do anything to further the supposed cause of the attacker.


Terrorism:  the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Source: Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary


In the case of Nice, Paris, Istanbul, Orlando, etc., the brand of terrorism was an all-too familiar one– Islamic extremism. These fit the definition of terror because they were acts of violence in support of a religious/political cause, that of violent jihad.  In short, these extremists want to impose their vision of Islam on everyone.  With virtually every attack, vengeance is cited as a motive.  The perpetrators cloak their actions in religion, or in the righting some alleged wrong.  Never does the Islamic extremist make an introspective assessment of their negative situation, it is always someone else, Jews, Westerners, apostates, etc. who are to blame for the societal problems they face.

Like the Islamic extremist, the anti-cop extremist engages in acts of extreme violence against innocents in order to further a political goal.  Also like the jihadist, the anti-cop terrorist acts from a misguided notion of justice.  Unlike the vast majority who share their stated cause, the violent extremist has no compunction against killing people who may have no association with the perceived injustice they lash out against. Though their base grievance might have some aire of legitimacy– that the deaths of blacks at the hands of police in several cases may have been unnecessary and avoidable, the extremest has little interest in true justice, but perceives vengeance as justice. No introspection here either, in the absolutist mind of extremist, the source of their problems has to be due to the actions of others, and those others are always in the wrong.  Killing anyone even resembling the ‘other’, in this case cops, helps solve the problem in the twisted logic of the terrorist.

Innocents have died recently in tragic attacks by extremists in the name of what they see as see as a worthy cause.  In one case, the cause is a long-standing animosity against all things and persons not a part of their perverted version of Islam. Over eighty people were killed without regard to whether or not they actually had any connection to the government or society they hold at fault for their situation.  In a city thousands of miles away, three police were murdered in an apparent act of vengeance for the actions of their fellow officers.  These murders follow the recent killings of police in Dallas, ostensibly  for the same reason, and act of vengeance for a perceived injustice.  The bitter irony in the case of Dallas is that the vast majority of protestors actually had no qualm with the police that were targeted, but police in other cities in America. On top of that, the police that were killed in that incident died protecting the very people who were protesting others of their profession they accused of wrongly killing blacks.

The other bitter irony is that in neither Nice nor Baton Rouge, will the acts of terror do any thing to further the stated or assumed causes of the attackers. Both attacks qualify as terrorism by definition, though only one has popularly been described as such.  Terrorists believe that the ends justify the means.  They claim for themselves the status of freedom fighter or enforcer of justice, but there is no justice in their actions, only vengeance and hatred.  Whatever their stated cause or grievance, they have twisted that cause beyond all semblance of legitimacy to the point that those who they purport to serve must disown their actions.  The individuals who committed these acts on two continents in pursuit of different goals both confused evil for good, vengeance for justice, and wrong for right. For that we can and should describe both as terrorists.

Quick Thoughts 7/11/16

Eagle Union Hillary Tesimony

  • If you chant “No justice no peace!” and that’s exactly what you get– no justice, no peace, don’t be surprised.
  • Speaking of “No justice no peace!”, the ‘no peace’ aspect in several instances now has meant the murder of cops.  Do the people shouting this slogan have any idea what they’re chanting?
  • To his credit, President Obama condemned the despicable shooting of Dallas police officers during his visit to Poland last week. It wasn’t with quite the passion and anger he reserves for condemning Republicans especially while overseas, but was appreciated.
  • According to FBI Director James Comey,  Hillary Clinton was “extremely careless” in dealing with our state secrets.  Is that anything like ‘extreme negligence’?
  • Also according to FBI Director James Comey, the FBI didn’t use Hillary’s testimony before Congress in their investigation.  Too bad, they might have spotted a few untruths in her testimony.  Silly Congress, assuming a ‘through investigation’ meant looking for discrepancies between statements made under oath to them and statements made to the FBI, especially since any discrepancy would logically entail a crime.
  • Hillary famously testified for eleven hours before Congress regarding Benghazi and her emails.  If you can’t find at least one false statement after eleven hours of a Clinton testifying under oath, you’re really not trying.

All terrorism is a hate crime.

GWOTOnce again we are faced with a tragedy born of hate perpetrated by an Islamic extremist terrorist.  Many have said that since the shooting early Sunday morning took place at a gay club it was a hate crime.  It was, but then every single act committed in the name of ISIS and their like is a hate crime, be it against gays, Christians, Jews, heavy metal fans, or soccer fans, or anybody else not exactly like them.  The fact that the terrorist’s targets were gay in this instance is irrelevant in the big picture.  This particular murderer just picked the group he hated the most to massacre, as if picking from some twisted, macabre menu.

It is not who he decided to massacre that should disturb or enrage us, it is that there is an entire self-proclaimed nation of extremists out there that has convinced themselves and their followers that the value of  human life is negotiable, worth much in the case of some, worth nothing at all in the case of others, many others.  Like the NAZI’s before them, they revel in having enemies that all their woes can be blamed on.  Scapegoats to blame for their failures and those of their bankrupt ideology.  They lie to themselves that their deeds serve a higher purpose.  They dehumanize others in order to kill them without remorse.  What eventually ended the NAZI’s reign of terror against the weak and the defenseless was a sustained and coordinated effort by the strong– not to reach an accommodation or accord with them, but to destroy them in detail on every battlefront.  What’s more, we and others who shared the means to do so made an irreversible decision to defeat the enemy and never give anything less than our utmost to do so.

We have heard a lot of strong talk after Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino, and the rest.  Each time we resolved not to be cowed or give in to terror.  We vowed to take the fight to the enemy, attack them with every means at our disposal. Indeed, we have taken action, we’ve killed them, captured them, taken away their money.  We’ve done so for years, but for all of those things we’ve done, there is still one thing that remains to do before we can end the terror.  We have to make that same public, non-negotiable, irrevocable pact with ourselves and our allies to win this war as we did the one three-quarters of a century ago against a similar foe.

With the military victory, we must strive for the moral victory. We have to win this fight staying true to our values.  We have to do it while preserving the rights to free speech, religion and peaceful assembly, the right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, the right to bear arms.  We have to respect and morn all who have been lost in this struggle, be they gay, straight, Christian, Jew, cop, soldier, or innocent bystander.  We have to understand what our enemy does not– that every human life is sacred, not just those we approve of, or those we can relate to, but all lives.  The reason is simple, because all of what we call civilization is hateful to them and thus a potential target for their militant extremism.  Every act of terror by definition is a hate crime, it’s not them victims that determines this, it is the terrorist.

 

 

 

 

 

The Left’s Recent Foolish Ideas for Combating Gun Violence.

Apparently, after another tragic shooting that could not have been prevented by the “common sense gun laws” being proposed by the Progressive left, they have begun to sense this line by itself is not being bought by most of America. Now with terrorism back on the front pages, the left has sized upon a new strategy to gin up support for stricter gun laws, equating gun rights advocates with terrorists.  This comparisons are intellectually dishonest, not to mention absurd. In some cases, the ideas may actually be dangerous.

A recent front page of the NY Daily News pictured among undisputed terrorists, NRA leader Wayne LaPierre.  By extension, the NRA could be considered a terrorist organization. The Daily News must have a very different definition of terrorism than the rest of us.  Terrorism is an effort to use violence to intimidate the population with aims toward achieving some political goal.  Sorry, buy exactly what acts of violence do the editors and staff of the Daily News allege LaPierre and the NRA have committed?  Maybe if they could cite one, they might have some credibility.  They can’t because their assertion is not only wrong, but ridiculous.

If you think that the New York Daily News has a lock on tragically foolish ideas concerning gun violence, sadly you’d be wrong.  There is a piece published on IrishCentral.com on Dec 4 by Cahir O’Doherty wrote a piece entitled:  Irish-style peace process needed for gun situation in America.  The title says it all.

For background, the IRA’s violent campaign against British rule in Northern Ireland known as “the troubles” was in full swing in the 1990’s when a cease fire was being brokered with the help of U.S. Senator George Mitchell.  The efforts to achieve a cease fire in Northern Ireland saw numerous setbacks but also advances. Finally, after the (completely unrelated) 9-11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington D.C., IRA leaders saw an opportunity for settlement and agreed to decommission their arms.

From the article:

“In America the time for a temporary cessation of hostilities in pursuit of peace may also have arrived. The nation clearly needs a peace process of some kind – and perhaps a respected outside mediator in the mold of Senator George Mitchell – to address the exploding crisis over guns.”

A cessation of hostilities?  The Troubles were hostilities, there were definite objectives being pursued with by both sides.  When both sides reached a compromise that contributed towards their respective positions, the hostilities ended. What are the objectives of a mentally ill person who shoots up a school or movie theater?  What is the common ground that a mass murderer shares with the rest of society that can be negotiated?  One cannot negotiate with someone acting out of rage and without reason.

Perhaps Mr. O’Doherty sees the NRA as one of the sides engaged in hostilities.  He seems to be casting the NRA in the role of the IRA in his analogy.  Any analogy between the IRA and the NRA is absurd on its face, but let’s play along for a moment with that notion.  The IRA was an organization, whose genesis came from an actual military organization– the Irish Republican Army, hence the name. They used violence to further their political goals of Irish nationalism. The NRA is not an army, it’s an association of like-minded American citizens interested in preserving their second amendment rights, rights that virtually every American already has.  They fight for to maintain these rights through exclusively peaceful means.  The right to bear arms was won over 200 years ago.

Again from the article:

“Outside mediators can see the path not taken and the forgotten angle, they can push past all the over familiar gripes and discover new ground. They were essential to the success of the Irish peace process, so why not here?

Is it wrong to suggest that America needs a peace process when there have been 73 different school shootings since the Newtown schoolchildren massacre? San Bernardino and God knows what else lies ahead.”

One wonders what the author means by “familiar gripes” as pertaining to gun violence.  Adam Lanza, who perpetrated the above mentioned Newtown school shooting was not part of some bigger organization, not the NRA, not the IRA, not anybody. He was not a ‘soldier’ fighting for some cause in common with the others who committed school shootings.  Many of those other shootings were part of gang and/or drug violence. Just what sort of peace accord do we reach with common criminals, save sending them to prison in exchange for their not menacing society while there?

Some who carry out mass shootings such as those in Paris and San Bernardino are members or affiliates of a terrorist organization with definable political and societal objectives, namely the complete domination of every human being on earth.  Cahir O’Doherty somehow does not seem to see them as one of the parties to be engaged in his proposed peace process.  Instead he maintains the ridiculous notion that NRA is somehow directing or is otherwise a driving factor behind the recent rash of shooting committed by them mentally ill, common criminals, and terrorists.  He tries, stunningly, to equate the NRA with the IRA, and suppose that if someone could just make a deal with Wayne LaPierre, guns en-masse could be decommissioned and the mass shootings would stop.

The anti-gun faction of the far left is actively trying to dupe the American people into conflating terrorists and mass-murders with pro-gun activists. The NRA is not ISIS or the IRA.  Wayne LaPierre is not a terrorist mastermind, directing school and other mass shootings. To even suggest so is irresponsible, not to mention defamatory.  Unlike in Northern Ireland, there are no two sides that if they could just reach some sort of accord, could end the violence. Law abiding gun-owners are not the problem, they are not one of the sides engaged in the “hostilities” being mentioned.  The cause of ending gun violence is not served by demonizing those who support the second amendment.

An ‘Inconvenient Truth’ About the 2nd Amendment

The ConstitutionThe Second Amendment:  “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.”

Inevitably, after a mass-shooting incident like the one recently in Oregon, debate ignites anew over our country’s gun laws.  The gun control side calls for “common sense gun laws”.   Most on that side are in earnest, they see the easy availability of guns as the problem.  Many Americans will agree, even gun owners, that guns should be kept out of the hands of the criminally insane.  They work out the math as:  maniacs + guns = mass killings.  On the left, the main variable, perhaps even the only variable in this equation is the guns.  Those on the political right see the ‘maniacs’ variable as being equally, if not more important.  That is a debate that reasonable people can and should have.

There is another equation that those on the far left are focused on, one that does not embody the altruistic reasoning as the one mentioned above.  For them, maniacs + guns = mass killings is but a façade, the one that really matters to them is:  citizens – guns = control.  They know that under the current state of affairs, to suddenly enact their agenda would be met by strong, perhaps even violent resistance.   They fear that their extreme vision for America cannot be achieved through Constitutional means.  Indeed, they are already testing those boundaries.  For these people on the far, socialist, fringes the second amendment to the Constitution poses an inconvenient truth.   A truth that they dare not speak of, nor wish to be understood by the average American.

America’s Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the pervasive social sickness that is driving the current rash of mass shootings.  If they had, maybe they would have crafted the second amendment a little differently.  We will never know.  We do know that they did have experience with a tyrannical government and thus wrote the Bill of Rights as insulation from such tyranny.  Most of those rights were to counter specific situations that they themselves were victims or potential victims of.  These include the right to be secure in ones possessions and not be subject to warrantless searches as laid out in the fourth amendment.  Most of the other amendments as well such as the rights of free speech and religion were meant to be protected by the government in the form of interventions by either law enforcement or by the courts.  The citizenry exercises these rights and the government is expected to enforce them.  The second amendment is different, the second amendment addresses the possibility of a rogue government that cannot or will not enforce certain of these rights.  In this extreme case, the onus is on the citizenry itself to both exercise and enforce the right to bear arms as a means of preserving the others.  Just to be clear here, the abridgment of rights must be severe and every other recourse must have been exhausted before anyone can claim to be acting as the amendment intends.  For the Founders the equation was:  responsible citizens + guns = the assurance of liberty.  That’s the inconvenient truth about the second amendment for the radical left.

Many Progressives have accepted the fact that the second amendment will not be repealed.  Some will note that they are gun owners themselves.  Democratic candidates often go out of their way to state that they and their family are hunters, or enjoy target shooting.  They wish to frame the argument over gun control in such terms. They hope that average Americans will associate their right to bear arms with such sporting pursuits.

Many politicians are fine with only minor changes to our gun laws in the name of public safety, but there are others who understand exactly why the second amendment exists and for them gun ownership is a problem.  The difficulty for the average American is distinguishing between the two.  How then do we know?  Telltale signs that a politician does not support the second amendment are:

  • Support for a ban on assault rifles. The wording of the second amendment includes:  “A well regulated militia…”  Militia by their very nature require military grade firearms.  This goes too for ammunition.
  • They make frequent statements such as: “You don’t need twenty rounds to kill a deer.”  The Founders did not write the second amendment to ensure your right to hunt or target shoot.
  • They claim the second amendment only applies to military and law enforcement and that ordinary citizens don’t need guns. The Founders deliberately used inclusive language in the amendment:  “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  Who are “the people”?  Me and you, providing we are responsible citizens.

If you want to discuss how we can reduce gun violence, that is a discussion worth having.  If you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the violently unstable, that’s reasonable.  We might decide to address the problem of the dangerously mentally ill and see how that works.  If on the other hand you want to take away the right of average law-abiding citizens to own a gun, then the question you owe America an answer to is:  What exactly do you have planned for us that you think can only be achieved by disarming the population first?

After Virginia, gun control or Second Amendment abridgment?

The ConstitutionShortly after the tragic on-air double murder of reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, (D) was calling for stricter gun control measures.  Even before the shooter was caught he used the incident as an opportunity to ask Congress to pass “common sense” gun control legislation, specifically universal background checks.  At the time, he had no way of knowing if the assailant had been subjected to a background check or not or if even was in legal possession of the firearm.    On that and subsequent interviews regarding the murders, he’s mentioned that he himself is a hunter and gun owner, has submitted to background checks in order to purchase his firearms.

Such a response is typical of gun-control advocates, calling for gun control after a tragic mass shooting before even knowing all of the facts of the incident.  Almost invariably, the measures they espouse either would not have prevented the tragedy they are referring to, or the shooter had obtained the guns illegally.  In the case of the Virginia reporter shootings, the gunman had undergone and passed a background check.  He had no criminal record, and was never found psychologically unfit to possess a firearm.  Governor McAuliffe was forced to admit that the legislation he is advocating would not have prevented the deaths of the two news crew members.  In virtually all of these shootings, the perpetrator was suffering from mental illness.  Anti-gun politicians always call for guns to be taken off the street, but never though, do they call for the dangerously mentally ill to be taken off the street.  They never decry the dysfunctional state of our mental health institutions.

Many gun control advocates will state as Governor McAuliffe did, that they themselves are hunters and own firearms.  That is to assure us that they don’t want to take the guns away from law-abiding sportsmen.  They ask “why do you need twenty rounds to kill a deer?” It seems a good and reasonable question, but the rights of sportsmen are not what the drafters of the Second Amendment had in mind.  The Second Amendment is not just about the right to bear arms, but the right to bear them in the roll of militia, citizen-protectors of life and liberty.

Militiamen
Militia: Citizen-Protectors

The free world recently celebrated the actions of four brave Americans and an Englishman in precisely that roll of citizen-protector.  They saved the lives and liberty of hundreds of people and did it, at least partially with the aid of a firearm.  The firearm was obtained the hard way, from the bad guy himself, but nonetheless they used it to help put the terrorist out of commission.  America, and evidently the world needs more such people ready and able to use firearms as a tool for preserving and protecting innocent life.  Now’s not the time to be taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens; criminals, and the mentally unfit yes, but not from the vast number of Americans who own and can use them responsibly.