History, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary, War Commentary

Loretta Lynch And The New York Times

8 Comments

How they made me join the NRA:

I wouldn’t doubt the editorial board of the NYT is also aware that the policy of the Nazi party was pretty close to what they are recommending, the confiscation of guns — for the National Socialists so that they could be sure they were only in the hands of those deemed acceptable (not Jews, etc.). To use Orwell’s term this time, that would make the NYT “objectively pro-fascist.”

But perhaps less harmful than our own government. Reacting to the San Bernardino Islamic ideology-based terror rampage… er, workplace violence… the first thing out of our attorney general’s mouth was to warn James Comey, director of the FBI, that the real danger from this event was anti-Muslim backlash and to watch his language. In other words, don’t call a duck a duck. According to DCWhispers, the order had come down from Obama and Jarrett to Lynch, in which order was unspecified, that Comey’s statements should be bowdlerized. It was.

Okay, I’ve had it. Mr. LaPierre, as I told you, I’m in. You’ve got another one-time Jewish lefty in the NRA. That should make at least one of us.

If these people want a civil war, they should be careful what they wish for, and shouldn’t delude themselves that they’ll win it. I don’t know if America will survive, but they sure as hell won’t.

[Update a few minutes later]

Barack Obama is getting what he wanted:

We now know from media reports that the President intends to call for gun control. He may even try by executive order.

This was the plan all along. Just like Europe.

Get Americans worried and fearful about terrorism, show that the government is incapable of dealing effectively with it, then declare that the only solution is to round up guns so terrorists cannot get them.

It is all by design. The President never had any intention of working aggressively to stop domestic terrorism. He needed it to fester and call it something else, just as he needs problems with Obamacare to fester to get to single payer, in order to curtail our freedoms.

Many of us saw this coming eight years ago. But more didn’t, or did and were cheering for it.

[Update a few minutes later]

The New York Times is calling for immense expense and a political civil war to reduce gun violence a negligible amount.

8 thoughts on “Loretta Lynch And The New York Times”

  1. We the People being armed is the biggest thing standing in the way of the american left doing to their opposition what the Nazis did to Jews.

  2. The political action (though he didn’t announce anything meaningful) would be a non-starter. If Americans were “clinging” to their guns before, a massacre where the enemy is already inside the walls is the worst possible time to suggest a general disarmament. It just shows they’re as stupid as they are worthless.

    His point about the No-Fly-List is also inane. Does anyone think that a jihadist can’t get his little sister or a jihadist who isn’t on the list to guy the guns?

    And of course there is Paris, a city where apparently only Muslims are running around armed. That didn’t work out too well.

  5. What a stupid question for the President to ask. Without even arguing the constitutionality of the law he wants; the first argument that comes to mind is that none of the recent shootings involved someone on the no-fly-list. The second argument, how about we first not allow people on the no-fly-list and not a US citizen to enter the country? Then if Malik had been on the no-fly-list, it would have stopped her. But I suspect Obama doesn’t want to discuss it, since he wants to import even more Malik’s without managing the vetting process that is already law.

    Besides trying to deflect the argument from the failure of his foreign policy, the President’s argument really opens the door for why we have a do-not-fly list without due process. It apparently it isn’t even a hinderance for becoming a DHS employee, so why not develop a process for properly cleaning the list? We can call it the judiciary.

    1. I’ve argued that Obama’s proposal would destroy the No-Fly List. Someone will obviously sue and the judge will rule that a citizen can’t be denied the right to buy a gun without some sort of due process (as is the case with felony convictions or commitment for mental health issues). So there will have to be a court procedure to be put on the list, and that will require an appearance. But most of the jihadis are on the No Fly List because we’ve picked their names up through intelligence. If we can’t put them on the list until we arrest them (probably for trying to blow up a plane), the List would no longer serve any useful purpose – except as another way to keep US citizens from buying a gun.

    2. I wouldn’t be surprised if importing more Muslims is an intentional effort to create a population loyal to Democrats that is overtly hostile to the ethnicity, religions, and culture of Democrat’s political opponents. There is no way that Democrats would support people that are so at odds with many Democrat ideals unless there was a way to use them for political gain. In this case, they come in radicalized against groups Democrats hate, they don’t need to be radicalized by progressive ideology in the classroom.

      New poll shows 70% of Muslims lean Democrat, which explains the constant efforts to say that jihad is a legitimate response to the USA.

Comments are closed.