Thursday, June 23, 2016

The Democrats rxn to terrorism is in inverse proportion to its threat by QUANTA

ISIS acts to kill Americans and Democrats not only polarize the nation in a nonsensical way, they FORCE the issue into their dialectic.

First, there was no tragedy in Orlando. There was a military attack carried out by a saboteur enemy terrorist, whose specific target was Americans Civilians. That’s why Disney was scouted.

HAMAS blows up Sbarro.

HAMAS shoot up a Mall.

HAMAS blows up a Passover Seder (with cyanide involved, btw)

ISIS and Islamic Fundamentalism causes attacks in Orlando, San Bernadino, Ft Hood, North Carolina, Seattle, and ps >> NYC, PA, and DC AMONG OTHERS

This is the reality. If the Sig Sauer was not available the enemy terrorist would have blown himself to bits, or walked in with 8 loaded Glock 19′s or 22′s and 20 reloads and fired away with both hands.

This is not some nut with mommy’s weapons. It was a military operation by a single enemy terrorist (we think).

But to the Democrats the facts are an inconvenience. This world MUST exist only through the mind’s eye of their world theory of how things work. Therefore this is a gun murder and the solution is an anti gun solution.

And they shut down the House and divide the nation over their dialectic.

Yesterday the senate BY ONE VOTE did not pass a bill which would have given the FBI the authority to examine remotely, your browser history WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.(PS Ted Cruz, the Constitutionalism expert, voted YEA). Will we be searching histories to allow us to gain our own rights soon? Conduct ‘certain types’ of interstate business? Be denied certain licenses or certifications?

I am an American who happens to be Jewish, and I blog, and I have been threatened. I would not be overly SHOCKED to find my name on a ‘list’, now or later. Does this mean I SHOULD HAVE a weapon or my having a weapon means I am a threat to Americans who happen to be Muslims who are minding their own business and see Islamic Fundamentalism and want to throw up? Who decides? Some people who are the type that gave Nidal Hassan glowing fitness reports, or fired Stephen Coughlin? On what basis will the decision be made?

What’s next?

A three day waiting period a five day waiting period, a new star chamber to create a no gun list, would only have DELAYED this attack by days AT MOST, and created a new way to attack, or method to obtain a gun at worst.

What difference does any of this make when the FBI is told OVER and OVER and OVER that this enemy terrorist may be an enemy terrorist and they either cannot at or will not act (as if there is a difference)?

We are currently witnessing a sit-in by Democrats which no doubt proves in the their own echo chambered minds, that similar to Chris Murphy’s broken brain, the republicans don’t care if they sell guns to ISIS.

Missing from any of them in this lockstep lemming parade is a SINGLE thought about who the enemy terrorist really is and represents, how to stop and kill them WHERE THEY ARE INSPIRED, and how to WIN THIS WAR.

This war is against the USA’s people having guns, in their minds, and winning means we accept we are bad and only certain few of us  get them, and they will decide who that is, by their own criteria.

I don’t care about the civilian casualties where these enemy terrorist attackers are built mentally, anymore than I would have cared about the civilians in the Ruhr, or Nagoya in 1941-45.

There are many people, experts, smart and studious people, such as Tom Nichols, who think ISIS etc can never be an existential threat to the USA.

But in the fallout, and in the reaction to these threats to our daily lives we can see the roots of dissolution, national enmity here, and finally violence to enforce the domestic political policies in response. The democrats have shut down the house to enforce their will on guns. Suppose the republicans there called for local political support on the Mall to show public displeasure?

The mujahedin in Afghanistan were not an existential to the USSR, were they?

The history of self government tells us that our societies fail by suicide. Some quickly.

To the Democrats the USA MUST BE a violent nation, because we are a violent people, with a violent history, and does evil and violent things because we were flawed at birth.

In their heightened consciousness ‘love and compassion’ will keep us together and safe as we overcome our collective id, by heeding their leadership to a better place. The USA is bad, and we must take away those items which make us so. GUNS, PROFIT, BUSINESS, and substitute for that our obeisance to the inevitable end of individual professionalism and individual success which have unethically made the USA the principal aggressor in the world.

Those who oppose this on principle are ridiculed as marching around with ‘tri-cornered hats’, or pilloried as evil gun nuts, bitter ended bible thumpers, and suspected of being racist recidivists who don’t care if enemy terrorists in the USA have guns as long as they do.

Is there ANYONE who thinks FDR, HST, JFK, HHH, LBJ could have supported what is going on in their party right now?


midnight rider said...

Excellent. Btw has anyone wondered whether individually or collectively if the IBA bloggers are on that 8000 Americans ISIS list?

Pastorius said...

I've wondered a bit.

But I think if we were, we would know. I think SOMEONE would have told us. If not the FBI, then I think someone else who does what we do would have told us.

Obviously Pamela and Robert and Bosch would be on that list.

Pastorius said...

Edward Cline, who is a friend of friends, is on that list.

Always On Watch said...

We are currently witnessing a sit-in by Democrats

They are making fools of themselves -- and driving some who typically vote Democratic either to sit out this election or vote for Trump.

BTW, they were feasting on a buffet during the sit-in and sitting on pink-striped pillows.

Pastorius said...

Why The Democrats Are Pushing Gun Control Even Though They Know It's Pointless and Likely a Political Loser

Damage control. Also squirrel!

The possibility that terrorist attacks might shift the electoral terrain in Donald Trump's favor has been one of Democrats' biggest worries since he emerged as the presumptive nominee.
...More broadly, both experimental and real-world studies have tended to show that in the US and abroad, the major party with a more hawkish reputation usually benefits when international terror becomes a major concern.

...In that context, focusing the political argument on gun regulation rather than Omar Mateen's admiration for ISIS or questions around Muslim immigration to the United States is a strategic win. Democrats may not win many votes with thin gruel, poll-tested gun control proposals, but they aren't going to lose any.

Always On Watch said...

I personally know a few Dems and independents who are fed up and won't vote this time around. Two factors driving them away before this inane sit-in? This administration's many lies and obvious Islamophilia.