Saturday, December 5, 2015

San Bernardino, Part III

In earlier posts, I commented on how after 9/11, the left and the mainstream media made Muslims the victims. The attacks that killed nearly 3000 Americans were carried out by men - all of whom were Muslims. Yet, in the twisted thinking of the left the Muslims were the victims.

And the left is at it again. After the San Bernardino murders, Attorney General Loretta Lynch spoke at the Muslim Advocates Dinner. Lynch: "Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric or, as we saw after 9/11, violence against individuals...when we see that, we will take action."

Did the Attorney General of the United States say she would prosecute anti-Muslim "rhetoric?" And what does "edges towards violence" mean? Surely, the Attorney General must know that the Supreme Court has given the legal standard for not protecting such types of speech - and that standard is not what she has articulated. What was once a "clear and present danger" standard was subsequently modified to speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action...and is likely to incite or produce such action."

So the speech must not only incite but be likely to lead to imminent lawless action. But we have a bigger issue. Lynch also commented on "an incredibly disturbing rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric...the fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor." Why is that your biggest fear, Ms. Lynch? Your FBI Director says he has 900 open investigations, spread out through all 50 states, looking into ISIS threats. So why isn't the threat of further attacks by ISIS and other radical Muslims your biggest fear, Ms. Lynch?

Everybody probably recalls the story out of Texas about the "clock boy." 14 year old Mohamed brought a clock to school which he claimed he had built himself. Others disputed that and said it was simply a store purchased clock. In any event, he brought it to school - with wires hanging out of it. His science teacher told him not to display the clock in other classes, but, of course, he did. One teacher called the police and Mohamed found himself under arrest.

Currently, Mohamed (after being invited to the White House and moving to Qatar) has a $15 million lawsuit against the Irving Independent School District and the City of Irving. He also wants written apologies from the city's Mayor and Police Chief, and the School District.

What does any of this have to do with the San Bernardino shootings? Plenty. You see, there has been an effort by those Muslims who support the terrorists to prevent any speech that is critical of Islam, and to prevent any actions that they say are discriminatory towards Muslims. In actuality, their goal is to intimidate other Americans from speaking out against radical Islam, or even reporting suspicious activity when they see it.

And the left joins in as the useful idiots of those Muslims supporting terrorist acts, by declaring any anti-Muslim speech as being hateful. And now the Attorney General has taken it one step further by threatening prosecution of those who engage in "anti-Muslim rhetoric." You see, this fear of either being sued or prosecuted or just not being politically correct and appearing racist all have the same intended effect - discourage Americans from speaking up and taking action.

So, maybe we should not just blame the Muslim perpetrators of this horrific crime in San Bernardino; maybe we should also blame political correctness. It has been reported that at least one neighbor was suspicious of some of the killers' activities, but did not report it to anyone for fear of being seen as a "racist." Another site reported a man working in the area was also suspicious - but again said nothing for fear of being accused of racial profiling. And it has happened before when the Army knew of Major Nidal Hasan's radical leanings - but did nothing because of political correctness.

Again, for my concerned liberal readers, I fully acknowledge that not all Muslims support terrorism. I acknowledge that the male shooter's brother served this country honorably in the Navy. But if mere political correctness - being seen as a bigot, or being called an Islamophobe - is enough to prevent people from reporting suspicious activity, how much more so is the deterrent effect of a $15 million lawsuit, or the threat of criminal prosecution? So, if it's your chance to speak up and do something, will you?

San Bernardino, Part II

The official site of the FBI notes a total of 14,196 murders in the US in 2013, obviously not all by guns. They state that the total represents a 7.8% decrease from 2009 and a 12.1 decrease from 2004. A decrease in the murder rate! Yet, while these mass killings are indeed horrific, and while every sane person feels for the victims and their loved ones, the left is automatically drawn to the issue as an issue of guns. In 2006, 1830 were killed by knives. The number was 1817 in 2007. Shall we ban possession of knives; or at least control their sale and distribution?

In 2013, 32,719 people were killed in auto accidents. Of that total, 11,126 had a blood alcohol equal to or greater than .08%. Where is the call to ban cars? (I know, a few wackos would have us do just that.) Where is the call to ban alcohol? I believe we tried that once. The CDC reports that on a daily basis "more than 9 people are killed and more than 1,153 people are injured in crashes that are reported to involve a distracted driver." On a daily basis! Who has not seen people talking on their hand held phones and even texting while driving?

Why bring up auto fatalities, distracted driving fatalities and deaths by knifing? Because the number of those fatalities in each instance exceeds the number killed by mass shootings. Auto fatalities far exceed fatalities by mass shootings. Yet, the left and Democrats only see one thing - guns. It is certainly true that these mass killings are shocking. It is true that they have the ability to shake us to our core in a way that these other fatalities do not. (I am not even discussing deaths caused by various medical conditions, with each of the more serious causes numbering in the hundreds of thousands per year.)

These mass killings are so random. They can hit anybody at any time. The victims in San Bernardino included men and women, young and old, and were black, white, Asian and Hispanic. There is, perhaps, a feeling of urgency to do something - anything - to stop these killings from happening.

Said one letter writer to the LA Times: "I don't know whether to hate the gun lobbies, hate terrorists or hate myself for hating anyone." Such confused moral thinking. I know who I hate - the evil terrorist perpetrators of the crime. It has been repeatedly noted that the guns used in San Bernardino were purchased legally. So existing gun laws made no difference. What new gun laws short of confiscation would have made a difference here? No one believes confiscation is possible. We have laws on the books in many states against driving while talking on a hand held phone. The same for texting and driving. Yet people do these things all the time for the sake of their own convenience.

If putting convenience ahead of safe driving laws is not a deterrence, then why would any gun laws deter those motivated by an ideology? Radical Islamists often do not expect to survive their terrorist attacks. If that is the case, no law and no threat of punishment will deter them. But, as this blog has noted previously, the left does not see the world as being a conflict between good and evil. The left actually believes that radical Islamists would not kill people without access to guns. Tell that to the Israelis, who have been suffering one knife attack after the next in the current intifada. Tell that to the victims of ISIS beheadings.

Not surprisingly, the mainstream media gets it wrong again. In their 12/3/15 editorial, the LA Times opines: "We need to get rid of most concealed-carry laws and make sure there are no guns on school campuses." Yes, let's tell all the bad guys where no guns are allowed so they know they will meet no resistance when carrying out their evil attacks. Of course, these attacks were not at a school and had nothing to do with concealed-carry issues.

The American people are smarter than the editorial writers of the Times, who reside in their ivory tower. On the day after Thanksgiving (Black Friday) the FBI processed more firearm background checks than they ever have before in a single day - 185,345. People want to protect themselves and their families. And contrary to the Times' opinion, we need more permits to carry concealed weapons for law-abiding citizens. Somebody needs to try to stop the perpetrators while the police are still driving to the scene.

San Bernardino, Part I

A young couple, with the husband having a good job, and with having a six month old daughter, and by all accounts living the American Dream, decided to give it all up in order to commit mass murder at the San Bernardino Inland Regional Center. As is the policy of this blog, I refuse to name the perpetrators. However, they were both Muslim. 14 people were killed and at least 21 were wounded.

When the police tracked them down, they were found to have "1400 assault rifle rounds and 200 handgun rounds" in their vehicle. A search of their home revealed "a dozen pipe bombs, 2000 9-millimeter handgun rounds, 2500 .223-caliber assault rifle rounds, and hundreds of tools that could have been used to make more explosive devices..." (Data from LA Times, 12/4/15.)

It was reported that the husband had been to Pakistan, and twice to Saudi Arabia, the second trip apparently being for the purpose of bringing back his future wife. Some in the media have reported that the wife had sworn her allegiance to the head of ISIS. Meanwhile, much of the mainstream media, along with Democrat leaders, felt that the story was all about guns. President Obama said that these mass killings have "no parallel anywhere else in the world."

John Lott had a piece in the 12/3/15 Investor's Business Daily. (Lott holds a Ph.D. in economics and has worked at various universities as well as the conservative American Enterprise Institute. He is an advocate for gun ownership, but has been accused of having his studies funded by the NRA and a gun manufacturer, which he denies. So, there is your background.) He points out in his article that the number of deaths from mass killings in the US during Obama's nearly 7 years in office totals 394. However, he says that in just this year alone, France has had 508 fatalities from mass killings.

In looking at the rate (as opposed to actual number) of mass killings from 2009 to mid-June, 2015, Norway came in with the highest rate at two per million people. It was followed by Macedonia, Serbia, Slovakia, Finland, Belgium, the Czech Republic and then the USA. Closing out the top ten were Austria and Switzerland.

In support of Obama's plan to bring at least 10,000 Syrian refugees to the US (Hillary says it should be 65,000) he mocked Republicans, claiming they feared widows and children. Mockery has always been Obama's preferred debating technique. In any event, he ignored the fact that many young men would also be among those refugees. And now we see just how well the supposed strict vetting program of those refugees would likely work. The murdering wife came to the US on a "fiance visa." Both the FBI and Department of Homeland Security ran background checks on her - and cleared her for a conditional green card.

This woman had a six month old daughter. Yet, she would clearly be one of those women Obama would say we have no reason to fear. What kind of mother abandons her newborn child in order to commit mass murder? Was she driven to do it by the easy accessibility to guns? Or, was she driven to such behavior by the evil ideology of radical Islam? Reading the 12/3/15 editorials in the LA Times ("Horror in San Bernardino") and NY Times ("The Horror in California") one would reasonably conclude that it was all about access to guns. Neither editorial mentioned that the couple was of the Muslim religion, nor that they were drawn to radical Islamic ideology.

The LA Times editorial said that "the common element in the vast majority of these mass killings - and in the daily parade of violence across the country - is the easy access to firearms." They go on to state that "from 1998 to 2013, an average of 11,500 homicides each year were committed with guns in the US."