Democrisy! Paul Krugman blames Republicans for global warming climate change, but lives in a huge house Don't worry: Our Betters know what's best for us!

If the left didn’t have double standards, they’d have no standards at all!

Krugman: Climate Change Will Kill Us All, and Republicans Will Be Responsible

By Adam Bandler | December 5, 2015

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman produced another doozy of column on Friday in which he warns that climate change will result in armaggedon and it will be fault of those dastardly Republicans.

The opening paragraph of Krugman’s column predicts, “Future historians — if there are any future historians — will almost surely say that the most important thing happening in the world during December 2015 was the climate talks in Paris. True, nothing agreed to in Paris will be enough, by itself, to solve the problem of global warming. But the talks could mark a turning point, the beginning of the kind of international action needed to avert catastrophe.”

Krugman then warns his readers that “we may be doomed. And if we are, you know who will be responsible: the Republican Party.”

The former Enron adviser spends the rest of his column dismissing the Republicans’ climate change skepticism as “conspiracy theories” without delving into any actual facts or data. He concludes his column by saying, “I’d urge everyone outside the climate-denial bubble to frankly acknowledge the awesome, terrifying reality. We’re looking at a party that has turned its back on science at a time when doing so puts the very future of civilization at risk. That’s the truth, and it needs to be faced head-on.”

Click to enlarge

There’s more at the link, as well as Dr Krugman’s original, but a picture is worth a thousand words: the noble Dr Krugman and his wife live in this huge house; how many solar panels do you see?

I am reminded of the line by Comrade Kaprugina in Dr Zhivago:

There was living space for thirteen families in this one house.

And, knowing his place — or knowing that he would be shot if he disagreed — Yuri Andreievich responded:

Yes, this is a better arrangement. More just.

One wonders when the esteemed Dr Krugman is going to partition off his energy hog mansion and allow those twelve other families to take up residence there. How is it that Dr Krugman, who lives only with his wife — his Wikipedia biography lists no children — needs a house of that size in the first place? Oh, I can see why he might want one, but why is it that someone who makes money railing about the evils of the top 1% of earners is engaged in such conspicuous consumption that he’d build of buy a house of that size?

This is the biggest problem with the “Warmists,” as William Teach calls them: they are either hypocrites or liars. Either they really believe the things that they say, and are mostly huge hypocrites to judge by their own conspicuous consumption lifestyles, or they don’t believe what they say, and are just plain liars. There is no third alternative!

Now, if they just behaved as they tell us the rest of us should behave, it would be far easier to take them seriously.

The toll of Political Correctness is 14 dead Americans Will anyone learn the right lessons?

July 3, 2001, was a day I will never forget. I was at the concrete plant when the cement tanker driver, a 41 year old independent trucker who looked to be in good shape, complained that his chest hurt. “You’re probably having a heart attack,” I joked.

“Well, my left arm does hurt.”

We laughed it off, and I got the call the next day: he had gone home, sat down in his recliner, and died. If I had taken him seriously, when he said that his left arm hurt, and taken him to the hospital, he might be alive today. Instead, because I, personally, failed to do something, when I knew better, a good man, with a wife and family, is stone-cold graveyard dead.

Neighbors of husband and wife San Bernardino shooters ‘noticed them acting suspiciously but did NOT report them for fear of racial profiling’

  • Syed Farook and wife Tashfeen Malik were ‘receiving packages’ and ‘working at strange hours in their garage’ according to their neighbors
  • But neighbors feared reporting them in case it was merely racial profiling
  • It has since emerged Farook and Malik had 12 pipe bombs in the house
  • The couple shot 65-70 rounds at Inland Regional Center on Wednesday 
  • They had 12 pipe bombs, tools to assemble bombs, 2,000 9mm rounds, and over 2,500 223 rounds stored at their suburban home, according to the FBI 

By Mia De Graaf and Snejana Farberov For Dailymail.com |

The husband and wife shooters who shot 36 people in San Bernardino in Wednesday had been acting suspiciously in recent weeks, neighbors claim.

Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, were apparently working late at night in their garage and receiving numerous packages to their home in Redlands, California.

But according to nearby residents, they did not report them for fear of racial profiling.

It has since emerged the couple had 12 pipes bombs, a stock pile of tools to assemble explosives, 2,000 9mm rounds, and over 2,500 223 rounds in their suburban home.

Aaron Elswick, whose friend lives on the street, told KTLA a neighbor described her regret at not reporting Farook and Malik.

‘Sounds like she didn’t do anything about it,’ Elswick said.

‘She didn’t want to do any kind of racial profiling. She’s like, ‘I didn’t call it in … maybe it was just me thinking something that’s not there.’

There’s more at the link, but, interestingly — though not surprisingly — a Google search for didn’t report profiling, made at 6:10 PM EST on Sunday, December 6, returned only two “professional media” sites, the Daily Mail story quoted above, and this local CBS story on the first page. There was this Fox News story at the top of the second page, but that was the only professional media story on that one. Going through the first ten pages of that Google search turned up exactly zero references to that story in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, or any other major metropolitan daily newspaper. Oh, there were plenty of links to conservative sites, but as far as the left are concerned, this is news to be buried. We have found out just what news the media believe is fit to print!

Well, President Barack Hussein Obama addressed the nation last night, discussing the war against Islamism — not that he ever called it that, or anything like that! — and said:

(I)t is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West.

Is it really a “perverted interpretation of Islam,” or is it actually fairly mainstream?

Here’s what else we cannot do. We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world — including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology. Moreover, the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim. If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.

That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda promote; to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.

But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans — of every faith — to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It’s our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes — and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of our country. We have to remember that.

First of all, I object to the Administration’s use of the initials “ISIL,” which stands for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and the Levant includes Israel; President Obama, by his choice of using ISIL rather than ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), subtly legitimizes Da’ish’s claims over the Jewish State.1

But, more importantly, he is telling Americans to do just what the witnesses who didn’t report the suspicious activities of Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, did, to refuse to say anything to the authorities which might indicate the profiling of Muslims. Our esteemed President would rather restrict the rights of all Americans rather than concentrate on the people who are most likely to actually be or become terrorists.

January 20, 2017, cannot come soon enough!
__________________________

  1. Da’ish is The First Street Journal’s preferred way of referring to ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fī ‘l-ʿIrāq wa-sh-Shām. The group renamed itself simply ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah, or simply Islamic State.

An Army Ranger

As noted in yesterday’s From Around the Blogroll post, Robert Stacey Stacy McCain’s son was just graduated from Army Ranger School:

Rangers Lead the Way

Posted on | December 6, 2015 | 3 Comments

“Acknowledging the fact that a ranger is a more elite soldier, who arrives at the cutting edge of battle by land, sea, or air, I accept the fact that as a ranger, my country expects me to move further, faster, and fight harder than any other soldier. . . .”
The Ranger Creed

Bob with his girlfriend Johanna, after his graduation Friday

COLUMBUS, Georgia
Friday morning was cold, and our family arrived at Hurley Hill in three cars. My wife and I had Kennedy and Reagan with us. Emerson rode with Bob’s girlfriend Johanna. Jim and Jeff had ridden down with Matt, a boyhood friend of Bob and Jim’s. We had more than an hour to wait before the graduation ceremony for Ranger school Class 1-116 began.

Hurley Hill is named in honor of Sergeant-Major Pat Hurley, who was killed during Operation Desert Storm. The hill overlooks Victory Pond, where graduation ceremonies are held for Ranger School, “an intense 61-day combat leadership course oriented toward small-unit tactics”:

It has been called the “toughest combat course in the world” and “is the most physically and mentally demanding leadership school the Army has to offer.”

Graduation ceremonies feature a “Rangers in Action” demonstration — rappeling, helicopters, explosions, hand-to-hand combat — that is very impressive. The demands of Ranger School are extreme. Our son Bob was among 90 graduates in a class that had begun with 350 men, and the attrition rate of more than 70 percent came this close to stopping Bob. He made it through Camp Darby with flying colors, but had to “recycle” Mountain Phase because of negative “peer reviews.” This news caused much stress and prayer for us, especially for my wife.

Mrs. McCain with Bob and his twin brother Jim (“photobombed” by 16-year-old brother Jeff).

Being an Army mom is a tough job under any circumstance, but when your son is going through Ranger School, he is incommunicado — no cellphones, no Facebook — and he only gets a few minutes to make a call from a pay phone after completing each phase. You can write him letters and he can write back, but this is a poor substitute for talking to him. Even if you’re not the “helicopter parenting” type, there is a frustrating sense of helplessness as a parent, knowing your son is going through such an ordeal and that all you can do is wait and pray and hope for the best.

Bob with his older sister Kennedy.

Mental toughness is essential to being an Army Ranger. The physical requirements are certainly demanding — 49 push-ups in two minutes, 59 sit-ups in two minutes, 5-mile run in 40 minutes, etc. — but the real test is psychological. The old saying by Vince Lombardi, “A winner never quits and a quitter never wins,” aptly expresses the situation of a Ranger School trainee. He is constantly pushed to the limits of his endurance while being required to perform tasks that require both physical strength and mental concentration, yelled at by Ranger sergeants who don’t want any quitters to make it through. The instructors all wear that Ranger tab, signifying their membership in an elite combat brotherhood, and quitters are not eligible for membership. About 40 percent of those who begin Ranger School are weeded out in Ranger Assessment Phase, a/k/a “RAP Week” at Camp Rogers, which finishes with a “ruck march” in which soldiers must march 12 miles with 65 pounds of gear in three hours.

There’s a lot more at Mr McCain’s original, but I want to point out one thing, from the middle photograph, where Mr McCain’s youngest son “photobombed” the picture. When our older daughter was graduated from Basic Combat Training at Fort Jackson, SC, we made the trek down, and our younger daughter got really big eyes seeing everything. She had never mentioned anything about enlisting herself prior to that, but she was talking about it soon after. At the time, she was a junior in high school, and she wanted to do BCT during the summer between her junior and senior years. Her recruiter was interested, but by the time she’d have had to commit, all of the MOSs which interested her were filled, and it made more sense for her to wait until October of her senior year to enlist. She was graduated on June 6, 2010, and left for BCT on June 22nd. Mr McCain, I’d say that it’s even money that “16-year-old brother Jeff” will be enlisting himself!

Our congratulations to the McCain family, and especially the new Ranger.

Rule 5 Blogging: Sailors!

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Megan Fox in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude. This week: United States Navy sailors! (Click any photo to enlarge.)

ARABIAN GULF (Jan. 18, 2014) Master-At-Arms 1st Class Renault Nwokeuku, right, instructs Aviation Maintenance Administrationman 3rd Class Amber Mahaffey, left, and Culinary Specialist Seaman Deantae Kirkwood how to conduct a proper take down maneuver aboard the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75). Harry S. Truman, flagship for the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group, is deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility conducting maritime security operations, supporting theater security cooperation efforts and supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Emily M. Blair/Released)

Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: Sailors!’ »

From Around the Blogroll

The brave editors of The New York Times decided to publish an editorial on the front page . . . as though most of their front page stories aren’t editorials:

Here is the text of the editorial, but I remain unmoved. Like President Obama, like the rest of the left, the editors of the Times want to do everything that they can to not blame the killers, to not blame Islamism, but to try to take action by attacking the rights of people who have not committed crimes, of people who are blameless, rather than going after the blameworthy.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

Even the editors understand that, when it comes to criminals, gun control doesn’t work; they have already admitted that.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

Trying without succeeding doesn’t seem like much of an argument to me. But read the words of the editors: they blame politicians, and say that the “voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs.” Does that not mean that the voters, the people in our democratic representative republic, approve the choices by those politicians not to infringe on our constitutional rights?

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

I wonder: would the editors of The New York Times say that the freedom of the press, the freedom that they exercise every day, ought to be subject to “reasonable regulation?” Perhaps they like Barack Hussein Obama, but Mr Obama will not be President 15 months from now, and who is to say that the next President — imagine if it’s Donald Trump! — would not want to impose real restrictions on the freedom of the press, restrictions that he might claim were “reasonable”? Indeed, published this very same day, is a Times article “95,000 Words, Many of Them Ominous, From Donald Trump’s Tongue,” decrying the Republican front-runner’s tendencies to use an “us vs them” style:

While many candidates appeal to the passions and patriotism of their crowds, Mr. Trump appears unrivaled in his ability to forge bonds with a sizable segment of Americans over anxieties about a changing nation, economic insecurities, ferocious enemies and emboldened minorities (like the first black president, whose heritage and intelligence he has all but encouraged supporters to malign).

“‘We vs. them’ creates a threatening dynamic, where ‘they’ are evil or crazy or ignorant and ‘we’ need a candidate who sees the threat and can alleviate it,” said Matt Motyl, a political psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago who is studying how the 2016 presidential candidates speak. “He appeals to the masses and makes them feel powerful again: ‘We’ need to build a wall on the Mexican border — not ‘I,’ but ‘we.’ ”

In another pattern, Mr. Trump tends to attack a person rather than an idea or a situation, like calling political opponents “stupid” (at least 30 times), “horrible” (14 times), “weak” (13 times) and other names, and criticizing foreign leaders, journalists and so-called anchor babies. He bragged on Thursday about psyching out Jeb Bush by repeatedly calling him “low-energy,” but he spends far less time contrasting Mr. Bush’s policies with his own proposals, which are scant.

The Times does not like Mr Trump’s “demagoguery:”1

And on Friday night in Raleigh, he mocked people who reportedly did not contact the authorities with concerns about the California shooting suspects for fear of racial profiling.

“Can anybody be that dumb?” Mr. Trump said. “We have become so politically correct that we don’t know what the hell we’re doing. We don’t know what we’re doing.”

The specter of violence looms over much of his speech, which is infused with words like kill, destroy and fight. For a man who speaks off the cuff, he always remembers to bring up the Islamic State’s “chopping off heads.” And he has expressed enthusiasm for torturing enemies beyond waterboarding. Last month, after several men hit a Black Lives Matter protester at one of his rallies, Mr. Trump said, “Maybe he should have been roughed up.”

The Times, as a good leftist newspaper, absolutely abhors the notion that we might take distinctions concerning people based on race of ethnicity,2 editorializing that we should Fear Ignorance, Not Muslims, and telling us that Muslim Refugees From War Aren’t the Enemy, but saying that we should instead fear law-abiding American citizens exercising their constitutional rights because a few crazies and jihadi break the law and kill people.3

The last thing I would ever do is depend on the left to protect my rights. In our good neighbor to the north, the left are trying to get climate change deniers criminally prosecuted, and I have little doubt that the editors of the Times would cheer that. Liberal writer S E Smith, obviously a city-dweller, asked, “What private individual needs to own a long gun?” Today being the second Saturday of deer season in Pennsylvania,4 something which probably makes a city-slicker nauseated, I can understand why some people would need to own a long gun. While I don’t hunt, I have several friends who were planning on being out in the woods today, and they will be using their sport to put meat on their tables.5

Let’s face facts: the left in the United States are no longer just the people with whom we have polite disagreements. Rather, they have become the people who believe that they should use the power of government, the police power of the state, to force everybody to live the way that the left say that they should. For the left, government no longer exists to protect people from having others trample on their rights, no longer has anything resembling a libertarian bent, but is as fascist as anything Benito Mussolini ever even dreamed of in requiring others to comply.

And now, on to the blogroll!

_______________________________
The main article, but not the blogroll section, published under a different headline on RedState.
_______________________________

  1. Demagoguery is my changing of the word to fit the line properly; the Times’ direct quote is, “Mr. Trump has built one of the most surprising political movements in decades and, historians say, echoing the appeals of some demagogues of the past century.”
  2. Except, of course, where Affirmative Action is concerned; on that, the editors absolutely approve of taking such distinctions.
  3. Yet, strangely enough, the editors were very concerned about the rights of the American people being compromised by the NSA surveillance program. I guess that the rationale that the Supreme Court has used in allowing Affirmative Action in some cases, that it is a “compelling government interest,” doesn’t apply to trying to protect Americans from Islamist terrorists.
  4. Technically, it’s the second Saturday of rifle season; muzzle-loader and archery deer seasons have already passed.
  5. And for more than a meal or two; some of them own large chest freezers, and they’ll have deer meat (no one calls it venison around here) throughout the coming year.

The feminists who ought to applaud Carly Fiorina for her successes hate her guts

From, believe it or not, Time magazine!

Feminists Are Total Hypocrites When It Comes to Carly Fiorina

They look at her and see a chauvinist in heels. They don’t welcome her to the debate, and they give her no respect

By Marjorie Dannenfelser and Penny Nance | Dec. 2, 2015

The double standard now on display with regard to Carly Fiorina has driven hypocrisy to new depths, as many of the same political and media personalities who’ve warned conservatives and Republicans to make a stronger appeal to women have gone ballistic with invective and hyperbole in attacking the GOP’s only female presidential candidate.

This goes further than the current blame game over the horrific murders in Colorado Springs. The furor being directed at Fiorina is just the latest example. Why do so many who strongly advocate for more women in office, and more women running for office, turn so despicably against conservative women who are willing to put themselves forward?

New Yorker liberal satirist Andy Borowitz mocked Fiorina’s correct assertion that liberals are consistently wrong in tying tragic events – such as this latest shooting – to rhetoric. The critics did the same to former GOP vice presidential nominee and Gov. Sarah Palin, literally blaming her for Jared Loughner’s shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona that left six people dead and several others wounded, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).

The left has learned nothing over the past five years; in fact it’s worse. Palin was wrongly blamed for the Tucson shooting, but today liberal commentators such as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews have gone so far as to sneer and offer that Fiorina is “enjoying” this tragic event.

It’s worse for Fiorina because, even though both she and Palin are strongly pro-life, it was Fiorina who took it upon herself to put the controversy caused by the Planned Parenthood videos front and center in the presidential campaign. Her display of courage and compassion at the Reagan Library Republican debate went into unchartered territory for a presidential race because, finally, it was a woman candidate who was willing to take the issue head-on when given a national stage.

And Planned Parenthood eventually did announce it would no longer accept reimbursement for organs from aborted babies

Abortion, sadly, is the difference maker when it comes to who gets the feminist seal of approval. Republican women who support abortion get a pass, they represent no threat to liberal feminist orthodoxy.

But to today’s so-called feminists and advocates for equality, who constantly demand more women in the process, more outreach to women and attention to certain issues, Carly Fiorina really isn’t a woman at all. They look at her and see a chauvinist in a pantsuit and heels. They don’t welcome her to the debate, they give her no credit for getting into the game, they don’t even give her the smallest modicum of respect.

There’s more at the original, but it simply goes to show you what we have already said: while Hillary Clinton is running to become the first woman President, Carly Fiorina is a candidate running to become President who just happens to be a woman.

Just as importantly, it exposes the tremendous sexist — and racist — bias of the left. For liberals, only white men are allowed the intellectual freedom to hold different opinions. The left might not like Ted Cruz’s or Marco Rubio’s opinions, but they don’t say that their opinions somehow mean that they aren’t real men; they do say that those fine men simply aren’t really Latino! Ben Carson is being denigrated by the left as an Uncle Tom.

And with Mrs Fiorina’s candidacy, we are now learning from Our Betters on the left that she isn’t really a woman, that she can’t really be a woman, because she doesn’t toe the feminist line. Her accomplishments in life, accomplishments achieved not because she is a woman, and not because she was some Affirmative Action hire, but because she is intelligent, diligent and hard-working, those things don’t count.

Because, you see, for the left only white men can succeed on their own. If a black man succeeds, why he must have had special help, and he must acknowledge that special help. If a woman succeeds in politics or business, it wasn’t because she was a strong, tough competitor, taking on men as an equal, but because Her Feminist Sisters secured the benefits of Affirmative Action for her.

This is the result of the nuttiness of modern feminism. The feminism with which some of us who are older grew up is the feminism which says that if woman are allowed equal access, they can and will compete with men as equals. That’s what Carly Fiorina did! And that’s what other women are doing today: women make up a substantial majority of students matriculating in college, and women today earn the majority of college degrees of all types: associates, bachelors, masters and doctoral. Mrs Fiorina was initially hired for an entry level position — one which was seen as a typical female job at the time — and she worked her way up the way everyone should: when given additional assignments, with a chance to succeed or fail, or say, “this isn’t my job,”1 she worked hard and succeeded.

That was what we old fogies thought feminism was supposed to be about, and that is the kind of feminism I can wholeheartedly support. But, for the feminists of today, equality isn’t enough, because that job has already been done! If feminism means only equality, then today’s Professional Feminists are out of a job!

I absolutely support the old-line feminism, the feminism which says just give women the opportunity to succeed and women will succeed. I even support Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s decision to open all jobs in the military to women, as long as the standards are maintained and no quotas are placed,2 because I believe that people should all have an equal opportunity to employ their skills and talents and ambition, but that no one should be somehow given special help; I believe in equal competition.

Would the old-line feminists be appalled at the treatment a very successful businesswoman like Mrs Fiorina is receiving at the hands of modern feminists? I’d like to think that they would, though, given liberal politics these days, the answer is: probably not. But if they were intellectually honest and consistent, they’d be celebrating Mrs Fiorina’s achievements, and not trashing her.

Will Carly Fiorina succeed in winning the Republican presidential nomination? I support her candidacy, and hope that she wins, but if she does not, she has still been given an equal opportunity to make her case to the voters, and it is the voters who will decide.
__________________________
Cross-posted on RedState.
__________________________

  1. The phrase “that ain’t my job” is the number one killer of careers and advancement.
  2. I am certain that I am in the minority among conservatives on this issue.

Prepare for the “workplace violence” meme for #SanBernardino

From RedState:

The Washington Post Tries to Humanize the Terrorists

By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | December 3rd, 2015 at 11:27 PM

They didn’t do this with the Colorado shooter. They just passed him off as a violent Christian extremist. But the Washington Post wants you to know

The home Farook grew up in was troubled and at times apparently violent. In 2002, when both husband and wife were unemployed and had run up credit card and retail debt of about $50,000, the couple filed for bankruptcy protection. And for most of the past decade, right up to early this year, his parents waged war in court against each other. Rafia repeatedly sought — and at least twice won — restraining orders against a husband who she said abused her verbally and physically.

See. It was not poor little Farook’s fault. He was driven to it by his parents. We need to be understanding of him. The Washington Post goes on to paint a rather fawning picture of the quiet and “respectful” kid who loved Chinese food.

The media always does this to terrorists. Rolling Stone put the glamour shot of the Boston bomber on its cover as if he was a rock star. Now the Washington Post want you to know Farook was a hard worker, quiet, and and smiled.

The American left, time and time again, tries to rationalize that somehow they and/or American society caused these people to become terrorists. It’s not them. It’s us. The Washington Post has just given us another example.

That’s hardly the only thing: Caleb Howe, also on RedState, noted that CNN Asks Slain San Bernardino Man’s Widow If He Was Asking For It, because one of the victims was a messianic Jew. It could be argued that the killers didn’t like Nicholas Thalasinos, but that doesn’t explain why they’d then choose to try to kill everybody.

Make no mistake about it: the left have a vested interest in labeling this workplace violence!

  1. If it is labeled terrorism, and especially Islamist terrorism, then the Democrats start losing the arguments about accepting 10,000 (or more) Syrian refugees;
  2. If it is labeled terrorism, the left’s arguments that this means we need more gun control automatically fail; and
  3. If this is labeled terrorism, then President Obama’s policies to contain and defeat terrorism are once again exposed as wholly ineffective.

The left were cheering after a whacko shot up a Colorado abortion “clinic,” because the three people killed were utterly meaningless beyond their value as political pawns, and some on the left immediately jumped on the fact that there was a Planned Parenthood center only a bit more than a mile away from the San Bernadino killings; when more of the facts came in, noting that the Planned Parenthood center’s nearby location was only a coincidence, the left were disappointed. When it turned out that the killers were Muslims, the left were crestfallen.

Why did Syed Farook and his wife choose to shoot up a Christmas party for his workplace rather than someplace else? It’s logistically simple: Mr Farook was familiar with the layout and the people, and knew he wouldn’t be questioned there! Terrorists look for soft targets of opportunity, and this was the perfect one.

I deliberately chose not to comment until all of the facts were in But such considerations didn't slow down the left!

From RedState:

Blaming White Americans First

By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | December 3rd, 2015 at 04:00 AM

There is an interesting trend worth noting. In the face of tragedy, the political left always blames rational Americans first — not crazies, not terrorists, but rational Americans with whom they have political disagreements, who tend to be white, Christian, and Republican.

It happened yesterday. As word came of a mass shooting in California, the left’s immediate reaction was to blame Republicans. A writer for the Guardian suggested assassinating NRA board members. CNN made to sure to document where the Planned Parenthood facility was. Alan Colmes did too. So too did Bloomberg. News reports spread that it could be a white suspect who did the shooting. Once it turned out to be a Muslim, the left-media would not even mention his name for hours after Fox News had broken the story.

Along the way, leftwing activists began shaming anyone who tweeted or put on Facebook that they were offering prayers. The left was shaming people as victims and relatives in California, with blood still on the ground, were praying together or texting, asking for prayers. Yes, the left was criticizing people for praying as the victims were praying.

When shootings like this happen in the United States, the first reaction of the American right is to blame either lunatics with mental issues or terrorists. They do not instinctively blame their fellow Americans with whom they have political disagreements. But time and time again, whenever there is a shooting, whether it is Floyd Lee Corkins shooting up the Family Research Council, the gay reporter in Virginia killing his two colleagues, the Islamic terrorist in Chattanooga, TN, or the three jihadists in California yesterday, the left always blames their political opponents. Their opponents tend to be mostly white, mostly Christian Republicans.

They peddle made up statistics on violent Christians and angry Republicans. They wrap themselves in comfortable memes. They refuse to acknowledge actual enemies to their freedom and they refuse to acknowledge the problems with mental health in this country. Their agenda is single-minded focused on taking away guns and shaming those who dissent from their agenda.

When the shooters turn out to be gay or Muslim or an environmentalist, the media sweeps it under the rug. When it turns out to be a single while male with mental health problems, the media indicts the entire political right and attacks the NRA.

There’s more at the link. Joe Cunningham, also on RedState, noted two tweets from leftists:

and

Then, via Leon Wolf, there was Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley:

and, once again, the ever despicable Kos:

I didn’t know that two Muslims were our “peeps.”1

For, yup, that’s how it has turned out: the two “suspects” are named Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, two Muslims. Mr Farook was an American citizen, who traveled to Saudi Arabia to meet Miss Malik, whom he first met online, and they returned as husband and wife. The Wall Street Journal noted that police are still investigating the crime, and the motivation behind it, and are not jumping to the conclusion that it was a terrorist attack assisted by Da’ish or any other Islamist group, or even whether Islamist sympathies simply inspired an otherwise completely separate attack:

Officials didn’t rule out terrorism and said they were investigating any possible connections to Islamic State, but so far had uncovered nothing linking the pair to the terrorist group.

Law-enforcement officials said they were just starting what would be a long investigation, and were searching for others who may have been involved in planning the attack. A third person was still in custody, but officials said it was unclear if that person was connected to the shooting.

“Based on what we have seen and how they were equipped, there had to be some kind of planning that went into this. I don’t think they ran home and grabbed tactical clothes and came back,” San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said at a news conference.

“They came prepared to do what they did, as if they were on a mission,” Mr. Burguan said earlier.

In other words, the actual professional people are investigating this, presumably properly, rather than jumping to conclusions, as President Obama and the left have done.

I will admit to a sense of schadenfreude when, after hearing the left immediately jump on the gun control meme before any of the facts were in, it turned out that the assailants were Muslims. The Obama Administration will probably classify this as “workplace violence,” regardless of what the investigation reveals.

But, if it does turn out that the killers were motivated by Islamist sympathies, or an affinity for Da’ish, or were actually financed or aided by an Islamist group, the Obama Administration and the left will still attempt to use this attack not to try to defend our country against the Islamists, but to disarm law-abiding citizens through further gun control legislation. Why? Because as Erick Erickson noted in his article title, when it comes to the left, they always blame white people first.
___________________________

  1. The slang “peeps” is defined as “people and especially the people who are your friends.”

It’s got to be tough to craft letters asking people for money And some candidates sure do get it wrong!

I get a lot of campaign e-mails asking me for a donation — including yet another one from Sarah Isgur Flores, Carly Fiorina’s deputy campaign manager — but this one kind of annoyed me:

Dana — I just got the report from my campaign manager and your name isn’t on it.

This must be a mistake.

I know times are tough, and I understand if you can’t donate today…

But before I close the campaign books for Nov., I wanted to give you one last chance.

  Chip in »  
Heidi and I thank you!

For liberty,
-Ted

P.S. If you did chip in and our emails crossed in cyberspace, thank you very much.

No, it isn’t a mistake, Senator Cruz: you didn’t receive a campaign contribution from me because you are not my preferred candidate! I understand that you think that you should be, and I will certainly vote for you in the general election if you win the nomination, but the tone of this campaign contribution letter is that I somehow owed you that contribution, and neglected to pay my bill!

There’s a right way to ask for money, and a wrong way, and I guarantee you that this was not the right way!

But I do have to laugh about one thing: it’s pretty humorous to say that you want to give me one last chance to donate before you “close the campaign books for Nov.” in an e-mail that I received at 6:14 PM on December 1st!

There’s something wrong with this news story! It just couldn't have happened the way it was reported!

From The Post and Courier:

Summerville man dies, N. Charleston man arrested after shootout with 13-year-old

Melissa Boughton Melissa Boughton Email @mboughtonpc | Nov 10 2015 3:47 pm

A 13-year-old Ladson boy fended off two would-be burglars by using his mother’s gun to protect himself while home alone Tuesday.

He killed one of them in an exchange of gunfire, and the second suspect was later arrested, according to the Charleston County Sheriff’s Office.

Lamar Anthwan Brown, 31, of Summerville, died at Trident Medical Center of gunshot wounds, according to Charleston County Chief Deputy Coroner Bobbi Jo O’Neal. He was dropped off at the hospital by the second suspect, Ira Bennett, after fleeing the Elderwood Drive home where the shooting took place, according to the Sheriff’s Office.

Bennett, 28, of Kent Avenue in North Charleston has been charged with first-degree burglary and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime.

The boy was not injured in the shootout, and his mother said she is just thankful he is all right.

And now we come to the part of the story which simply has to be a factual error:

Both Bennett and Brown have extensive criminal histories, according to a check with the State Law Enforcement Division. Bennett has been convicted of assault with intent to kill, pointing a firearm at a person and third-degree burglary. He has also been convicted of possession of a controlled substance, manufacturing and distributing a controlled substance and possession of marijuana.

Brown’s convictions included six felony drug charges. He had also been convicted of unlawful carrying of a weapon, disorderly conduct and trespassing.

Given that Messrs Bennett and Brown are both convicted felons, it was against the law for either of them to have had a firearm; gun control laws in every state, including South Carolina, where this incident took place, strictly prohibits felons from having weapons, and thus neither Mr Bennett nor Mr Brown could have been armed! And when “the Sheriff’s Office reported that the man returned fire,” why they just had to be mistaken, because the alleged burglar could not have had a gun with which to return fire.

Sarcasm aside, if Hillary Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama and the rest of the Democrats had their way, Mr Brown would still be alive, because the 13-year-old wouldn’t have had a firearm available to defend his house and himself. As for the boy, well, who knows: he might be dead now, but surely, surely! that would be a small price to pay for the gun control laws which kept Messrs Bennett and Brown disarmed.
_____________________________________
Cross-posted on RedState.