You’ve likely seen them, but these numbers tell a completely different story than those the “Black Lives Matter” tell and the media hypes:
The Washington Post has been gathering data on fatal police shootings over the past year and a half to correct acknowledged deficiencies in federal tallies. The emerging data should open many eyes.
For starters, fatal police shootings make up a much larger proportion of white and Hispanic homicide deaths than black homicide deaths. According to the Post database, in 2015 officers killed 662 whites and Hispanics, and 258 blacks. (The overwhelming majority of all those police-shooting victims were attacking the officer, often with a gun.) Using the 2014 homicide numbers as an approximation of 2015’s, those 662 white and Hispanic victims of police shootings would make up 12% of all white and Hispanic homicide deaths. That is three times the proportion of black deaths that result from police shootings.
The lower proportion of black deaths due to police shootings can be attributed to the lamentable black-on-black homicide rate. There were 6,095 black homicide deaths in 2014—the most recent year for which such data are available—compared with 5,397 homicide deaths for whites and Hispanics combined. Almost all of those black homicide victims had black killers.
Police officers—of all races—are also disproportionately endangered by black assailants. Over the past decade, according to FBI data, 40% of cop killers have been black. Officers are killed by blacks at a rate 2.5 times higher than the rate at which blacks are killed by police.
Some may find evidence of police bias in the fact that blacks make up 26% of the police-shooting victims, compared with their 13% representation in the national population. But as residents of poor black neighborhoods know too well, violent crimes are disproportionately committed by blacks. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, blacks were charged with 62% of all robberies, 57% of murders and 45% of assaults in the 75 largest U.S. counties in 2009, though they made up roughly 15% of the population there.
Such a concentration of criminal violence in minority communities means that officers will be disproportionately confronting armed and often resisting suspects in those communities, raising officers’ own risk of using lethal force.
So this gathering of facts would, or should, support an entirely different narrative – if the media reported on it honestly and if they had analysts who dealt in facts instead of emotion and opinion driven by ideology and agenda.
I’ ve seen these facts numerous times in numerous places and they’re pretty hard to argue against. If black men are disproportionately represented in crime statistics it is because they disproportionately commit crimes – especially homicide. If black lives mattered to “Black Lives Matter” that is one of the major issues the movement would be confronting. But, of course, it’s not. Instead it is focused on another issue, one that they have wildly misrepresented. That is that police are out to kill blacks and black men specifically.
Nonsense. There is nothing among the facts above that supports that contention. Conversely, there’s much to say that BLM’s claim is exactly what I called it – nonsense.
Once you add to that the lack of leadership from the White House and Barack Obama and you can see why this has become an explosive problem. As Myron Magnet points out in City Journal:
True to form, Obama went into grievance-mongering mode on July 7. . . . . His familiar conclusion: “If you add it all up, the African American and Hispanic population, who make up only 30 percent of the general population, make up more than half of the incarcerated population. Now, these are facts. And when incidents like this occur, there’s a big chunk of our fellow citizenry that feels as if because of the color of their skin, they are not being treated the same. And that hurts.” . . .
If you want to ignite race riots, a sure-fire way to do it is to stir up black hatred and suspicion of cops, which will in turn make cops warier of blacks and more trigger-happy, and so on, until an explosion occurs. So thanks, President Obama. You have set back American race relations by 50 years.
And he has. Grievance mode that blows past the facts provided by Heather MacDonald in favor of – nonsense. Gangs and gang related activities of two minority populations lend themselves heavily to what grievance mongers like Obama would like to call “disproportionate.” Also note that he’s gone after police who are responsible for 258 deaths of blacks while other blacks are responsible for the remaining 5,827 deaths. That, to a reasonable person, would seem the most frightening statistic if you were concerned about “black lives”, wouldn’t it?
Finally, as for “disproportionate,” when you see statistics like blacks were charged with 62% of all robberies, 57% of murders and 45% of assaults in the 75 largest U.S. counties in 2009, though they made up roughly 15% of the population there, what would you expect to see in arrest results? Those who are making this “disproportionate” aren’t the police. They’re the black criminals. Another great issue for a real human rights organization to address.
But Black Lives Matter isn’t a human rights organization. They totally ignore the real issues facing the black community. No, they’re a racist organization that, in the mold of the blamer-in-chief, are trying to play victim and blame shift the problems of the black community on whites and police while claiming the motivation is racism.
It’s … that’s right … nonsense.
The Dallas police murders, and that’s what the are, appear to have been a conspiracy. Again it appears to be the result of the other side of “The Ferguson Effect” – the implied “wink and nod” that violence toward police is ok.
It was toward the end of a very peaceful protest, ironically against “police violence”, that the murderer struck. Interestingly, even though the killer was pretty explicit about his purpose, we’ve seen none of the usual race baiting language from the left, because …
But during the overnight standoff, the suspect told a police negotiator he acted alone and wanted to kill white people, especially white police officers, Brown said.
Recall how it went with the Charleston shooter? Remember what he hoped to accomplish by those shootings? My guess is that’s precisely what this fellow hoped to foment. Check out the link.
Another irony of the Dallas situation is that the Dallas police were pretty much a model for what the Obama administration thought a police department should be. He’d even hailed their effort recently. However …
The relationship between Dallas police and the community is hardly perfect, of course. But the ironic effect of Thursday night’s murders is that quick assumptions about how they fit into the national debate over police use-of-force obscure a more nuanced and more positive truth.
And that, of course, is because of the insta-analysis news networks, the 24 hour news cycle and their arguing “know-it-alls.” They can be depended upon to inflame and misinform, especially initially, because it is more about sensationalism and ratings than about the hard work of good journalism. Watch how this gets zero mention in the next few days.
Is “diversity” destroying what it means to be “American”? The very short answer is, “yes”. A commenter to the WSJ and immigrant who became an American had this to say:
One cannot become Chinese or Hispanic or Eskimo; one is either born so, or not. But one—everyone—can choose to become American (“At Home in America” by Aatish Taseer, Review, July 2). I know, because I did, immigrating to this country in 1959. I did not abandon my Hungarian origins or family, but I did embrace the values and mindset of a free and brave people, bound by common ideals and a heritage that was inheritable and sharable by the simple act of pledging allegiance to a flag.
Sadly, the melting pot of my youth is gone, replaced by an insidious celebration of diversity. Diversity celebrates not common goals, common values, common aspirations and certainly not who you are. Diversity enshrines what you are, embeds you in what “community” you belong to.
I am glad that Mr. Taseer has found his home, as I did so many years ago. But I fear that few of his fellow American immigrants and citizens share his longing to be “free of the past, and safe in the future.” Rather, they are busy throwing away our common American identity in the name of diversity. Differences, “the knots of intractable history that [are] integral to identity,” divide and rule more and more every day in America, too.
I too have been around long enough to see the melting pot be replaced by this diversity nonsense as well. Tribalism with a new name. We all know what tribalism has done to many lesser developed nations over the eons. Why we think, or should I say, our elite think that reverting to tribalism is a positive is beyond me. Bottom line, what makes America exceptional is the melting pot. What will make it just like any other country is “diversity”.
Speaking of tribalism, Glenn Reynolds, while talking about something else, hit the nail on the head – politics:
Tribalism is the default state of humanity: The tendency to defend our own tribe even when we think it’s wrong, and to attack other tribes even when they’re right. Societies that temper those tribal tendencies do much better. But there is much opportunity for political empire-building in tribalism, and if the benefits of stoking tribal fires exceed the costs, then expect political actors to pour gasoline on even the smallest spark.
This is precisely the intent of “diversity”. It is to enable “political empire building” and that’s exactly what has happened. So, as mentioned, the “exceptionalism” of America, until the insistence on “diversity”, was the ability to “temper those tribal tendencies” and to establish goals and aspirations that held common ground for all people, regardless of the culture from which they came . Liberty, freedom and the way of life they promised were what made “America” a great country. Large government, factional policy and pushing tribalism are a sure formula for its demise.
Finally, speaking of politics and tribalism, the proverbial race baiting extortionist who pointedly ignores the violence in his home town of Chicago to talk about Dallas chose to weigh in on the shootings.
Human rights activist Jessie Jackson has pointed the finger at Donald Trump and his followers for helping to create a rising climate of fear in America which has contributed to the shocking deaths of five police officers in downtown Dallas.
Calling this guy a “human rights activist” is akin to calling Hillary Clinton an “honest politician”. Jackson is an opportunist of the first degree, and extortionist who has used race as a basis for boosting cash from corporations and is as dishonest as the day is long. That said, what he’s doing is called “projection” by most psychiatrists. There is no one who has helped “create a rising climate of fear” than have he and Al Sharpton, another race baiting extortionist (and tax evader). How one gets from Dallas to Trump when the killer said he wanted to kill cops and white people is only for Jesse Jackson know. I, on the other hand, blame the murders on the Jesse Jacksons of the world and their constant attempts to demonize the police.
Hope you have a great weekend.
What happened today, with the FBI Director folding like a wet paper box and recommending Hillary Clinton not be prosecuted, has to go down in the annals of the history of the United States as the day respect for the law in this country died.
Andrew McCarthy outlines the irrefutable facts in the case:
There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.
So what shouldn’t be something that anyone could get around, assuming every box was checked as Comey says, is the consequences of their felony violations.
But … when it comes to the elite (politicians and various media types), there’s always a “but” … then Comey says:
Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.
Intent or lack of intent really doesn’t repair the damage her gross negligence cost us, does it? In fact, that’s the point – “intent” is irrelevant. Damage to our national security is relevant. Comey is arguing that opposite – that if we mishandle classified material in such a way that it causes damage to the United States and its national security, but we do it with “no intent to harm”, why we’re good to go. As long as we intended no harm, well, in “otherworld” apparently “no harm was then done” and we should be left to do it again when occupying an even higher office. One can come up with endless variations on the “no intent to harm” nonsense when applied to other crimes. And guess what – it doesn’t do any better when used in those sorts of context either.
I have to wonder where James Comey will go to get his integrity back, because with that bit of nonsense he lost it. As did the organization he heads.
I wonder if he even thought about that. Apparently this whitewash was worth his honor and reputation, including that of the former proud organization he leads. Disgraceful doesn’t even begin to cover it.
Intent? In a gross negligence case? It isn’t even relevant. As McCarthy points out:
In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.
I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.
One doesn’t need to be a Supreme Court Justice much less even have a law degree to understand these points. So how in the world did Comey justify this to himself to the point that he actually made this pitiful argument? How? How does a man who is qualified enough to be selected to lead one of the most elite law enforcement agencies in the world – one more time … law enforcement agency – just trade in his honor, integrity and reputation that quickly for … what?!
Finally, I thought McCarthy’s conclusion was spot on:
Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.
Comey’s job is not to decide whether to prosecute or not. His job is to gather the evidence and let those who do that job make that decision. And he clearly gathered enough evidence, according to himself, to make the case.
And then threw out an irrelevant excuse as justification for not doing so.
No penalty for Clinton’s obvious gross negligence and the harm she did to national security. No accountability.
And the same can be said for Comey. Oh he won’t be reprimanded, you can count on that. No, the only way he’d have gotten in trouble with the administration is to recommend indictment. Nope, he’ll likely be able to keep his job in the next Clinton administration – at least until Hillary finds someone more suitable and amenable to her priorities. Yup, no accountability for Comey either.
Well, except to be seen by those who know better as a honorless political hack who traded his integrity and reputation, and that of the FBI, for a pat on the head from his masters.
Remember, folks … laws are for the little people.
Hat tip to Q and O reader Eric who sends along the link (in a comment) to the piece I’m referencing today. It is an extremely well written dissection of Barack Obamas dismal foreign policy record – a record that can only be described in one word – failure.
If I wanted to add an adjective to the description, I might choose “hideous”, since it is the worst foreign policy we’ve suffered under since King George. Kevin Ortin writes the piece and he uses an interview Obama did with Jeffrey Goldberg as the basis of his article.
Ortin points this out as the key graf in that interview:
[Obama] went on to say that the Saudis need to “share” the Middle East with their Iranian foes. “The competition between the Saudis and the Iranians—which has helped to feed proxy wars and chaos in Syria and Iraq and Yemen—requires us to say to our friends as well as to the Iranians that they need to find an effective way to share the neighborhood and institute some sort of cold peace,” he said. “An approach that said to our friends ‘You are right, Iran is the source of all problems, and we will support you in dealing with Iran’ would essentially mean that as these sectarian conflicts continue to rage and our Gulf partners, our traditional friends, do not have the ability to put out the flames on their own or decisively win on their own, and would mean that we have to start coming in and using our military power to settle scores. And that would be in the interest neither of the United States nor of the Middle East.”
Some of us have long argued that, despite what the President says in public, his actual policy as executed is the pursuit of détente with the Islamic Republic of Iran, usingthe nuclear agreement as a facilitator. The President came in with one overwhelming goal: to draw down U.S. resources in the region. By deputizing Iran to protect core U.S. interests, such as this malign fantasy that the U.S. and Tehran share an interest in defeating the Islamic State (IS), while creating an “equilibrium” that protects Iranian “equities,” it would allow an order to take shape that did not require the U.S. to police it. By definition this meant empowering Iran against its neighbours, notably the Gulf States, since Iran had heretofore been contained. Here Obama confirms virtually every point of that argument.
One could hardly imagine a more naive and absurd policy if they tried. But Ortin is correct, that’s precisely what Obama imagined and tried to implement – mostly by himself. Empowering Iran with the belief that they would then be the “equalizer” and stabilize the Middle East is to ignore all of Iran’s actions and rhetoric to date. Iran has no interest whatsoever in stabilizing anything and has, for years, using the unrest in the region to further the theocracy’s goals.
That’s simply indisputable.
The vision fails because any notion of “balance” between the Iranian revolution and its neighbours is a mirage. The clerical regime does not intend to take the U.S. offer to “share” in bringing order to the region; Tehran intends to upend the entire U.S.-underwritten structure and replace it with Iranian hegemony—a project in which it is now receiving Russian help. Thus, “balance” is ceding the region to Iran under another name. On paper the Gulf States have military prowess that dwarfs Iran’s. In reality, Iran has asymmetric structures like the Quds Force, the expeditionary wing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps led by Qassem Suleimani, which the Gulf States do not, capable of terrorism and subversion in a way the Gulf States cannot match. Indeed both Obama and John Kerry have lamented that the Arabs do not have a Quds Force or a Suleimani, something and someone who can get things done.
This is perhaps the largest problem of all for Obama’s vision: Iran simply cannot do what he wants it to—namely bring order to the region. Iran does not want order, of course: the IS threat is very helpful in keeping Iran’s client governments in Baghdad and Damascus pliable and in inducing concessions from the Americans, plus IS’s caliphate covers areas in western Iraq and eastern Syria dominated by Sunni tribes that Iran knows it could not rule even if it wanted to. And if Iran tried to move into the Sunni Arab zones, as it has done in parts of Iraq, through its rabidly sectarian Shi’i jihadist militias, the result is terrible destruction, demographic engineering, and the setting of the stage for long-term instability.
Read the whole thing. As I mentioned, it is very well done and it is about as damning as anything I can imagine. There was an article somewhere this week in which the author claimed that Barack Obama was just too smart for us and we had no way to really appreciate what he’s done.
I’m sorry but a syphilitic idiot with no foreign policy experience could have done better than Mr. Obama. And that’s fairly evident to even the most uninformed among us. Obama has been a foreign policy disaster and that is taking understatement to its limit.
It seems that Obama has finally decided, with less than a year left in office left, to come clean and make the case for his legacy. The President has now laid out the parameters on which he wants to be judged; it would be churlish to refuse. The academic and media criticism might be the least of it, however. There are many predatory regimes watching and calibrating when to make their move.
His “legacy” is weakness, miscalculation, naiveté, indecision and blame shifting. Pretty much a description of all aspects of his presidency. But Ortin is right – the predators are licking their chops and only waiting to see which of the abysmal choices we have we’ll put in the Oval Office in January. Meanwhile, Obama’s Titanic of a foreign policy is actually aiming for the iceberg.
I assume you may have seen this:
The FBI’s study showed 64 “mass killing” incidents from 2000 to 2013. The gunmen in these cases murdered 418 people.
The 418 people who were killed over a 14-year period works out to an average of 29.8 persons a year.
To be clear, no one wants to see even one life lost to tragedy, but the mainstream media’s focus on “mass shootings” to the detriment of other news where hundreds or even thousands more lives were lost is telling.For example, the CDC bicycle-related injury report for 2010 shows that almost twice as many people died on bicycles in that one year than were killed in “mass shootings” during the 14 years studied by the FBI. Thus, while there were 418 deaths in “mass shootings” from 2000 to 2013, there were 800 deaths by bicycle in 2010 alone.
Moreover, there “were an estimated 515,000 emergency department visits” due to bicycle accidents.
And CDC death statistics for 2010 show there were 26,009 deaths from “falling” for that year alone. That’s right–26,009 deaths in one year from falls from ladders, counters, roofs, mountains, etc.
To summarize there were an average of 29.8 deaths a year for 14 years from “mass shootings” versus 800 bicycle related deaths and 515,000 bicycle related trips to the emergency room. Plus an additional 26,009 deaths from falling.
Now this isn’t news to anyone who has been following this debate for any length of time and has been interested in the facts, not the ideological take or spin.
In a nation of 300 million plus with about the same number of guns among the population, the loss of life in mass shootings is … that’s right, statistically insignificant. That doesn’t mean we should like them or condone them or not feel grief and outrage about the deaths. What it means is that there is no crisis, no significant problem, no reason to concern ourselves about draconian gun restrictions because of “mass shootings”. Oh sure they give the 24 hour news channels plenty to shout about and of course it gives the politicians what they feel is an easy mark to “solve” the problem. But just as the 26,009 deaths from falling are statistically insignificant (hey, I know, let’s outlaw falling .. or should we outlaw stairs and ladders?), so are the mass shooting statistics.
“Assault weapons” are not a problem (they’re semi-automatic weapons … period) and mass shootings, while a tragedy are certainly not a crisis that requires more laws, regulations and rights violations. The gun control laws in place now have never stopped a mass shooter from doing his thing. What has stopped them though are other armed and law abiding citizens.
That’s the lesson that should be taken away from these tragedies. Not the guns. The statistics do not support any further gun control because of “mass shootings”.
Interesting points today from some who has “been there and suffered that”.
The Yazidi woman, Nadia Murad, who escaped captivity in 2014, testified before the Senate Homeland Security committee about the horrors of living under ISIS, CNN reported.
“The USA must act. We must terminate Daesh [Islamic State] and all such terror,” she said through a translator. “Daesh will not give up their weapons unless we force them to give up their weapons.”
Murad spoke out about the Orlando massacre that left 49 people dead, offering condolences to the victims and saying she was not surprised by the terror attack. “I knew if ISIS were not stopped, they would deliver their crimes everywhere,” she said.
She also confronted the Obama administration on its inability to act in protecting Americans as the president pays lip service to fighting ISIS but does nothing serious to eradicate the radicals.
“If a country as strong as your country cannot protect its citizens in Orlando, or in Belgium or in France,” Murad asked, “how come a small minority like us can protect ourselves while we are in the heart of the land where the radicals are?”
But the USA isn’t going to act. It has a chief executive that can’t even bring himself to identify the problem or the enemy. And you have to admire her question. It’s to the point, isn’t it?
The reason we can’t – or won’t – “protect ourselves” is there is no will to do so among those charged with the duty to do so. And, after the latest massacre, they’re intent on removing everyone else’s ability to do so by railing against guns, the NRA and whatever other ideological boogey man they can throw into the mix. It’s election time dear – you life, the lives of Americans, the lives of anyone are not as important is realizing the Democrat’s election goals.
Oh, and this point was pretty telling too:
Calling on the Islamic community to act, Murad said “The Muslims must be the first ones to resist this.”
“We have not seen that Daesh have been labeled as an infidel group within Islam by any Muslim country,” said the woman who had six of her brothers and her mother executed by ISIS in one day, CNN reported.
Well think about that … why haven’t we seen so-called “moderate Islamic countries” label or declare ISIS an “infidel group”. Well it’s fairly simple I would assume – they’re more afraid of ISIS than the US and the US has likely brought no pressure to bear on them to do so. Either that or they have no problem with what “Daesh” is doing.
This woman came through hell to sit in front of the US Senate and tell her story. Her confusion about why a nation as “strong” as this one does nothing and can’t even manage to identify the enemy or utter its name are understandable.
Weakness. Fear. Lack of leadership.
Sigh. I guess the old maxim “you get the government your deserve” certainly rings true today. House Democrats are staging a sit in because the Speaker of the House won’t call a bill to the floor that violates the Constitution and denies due process to people who are placed on its secret no-fly and terrorism lists.
They’d like you to believe it is a “gun control” bill. In fact, it is a “due process denial” bill, and we ought to refer to it that way. Their claim is expanding government’s authority to defy the guarantees of the Constitution will help curb gun violence.
Really? How? Will it stop someone who ends up on the list and still wants to buy a gun from getting one? Certainly not as just about any criminal can tell you (and as study I linked a few posts back revealed). Again, that “Human Nature 101” thing seems to stump these deep thinkers.
And the irony is that one of those leading the charge for violating the Constitution and denying due process – civil rights icon John Lewis (okay, it’s a bit of double irony) – was once placed on a no-fly list without due process.
So what has been the result of not getting their way and denying you due process protection? They’ve been reduced to throwing a collective tantrum and harkening back to the good old days when they were protesting Vietnam or whatever. They even come up with a clever chant – “No Bill. No Break”. You see they’re supposed to take a legislative break and now, apparently, the desire to deny you your rights is so strong they feel called to pretend they are Social Justice Warriors and act accordingly.
Where’s “Black Lives Matter” when you need them. Now here is a perfect protest for them to hijack and they’re nowhere in sight.
Not that I necessarily believe there’s anything better coming along behind it, but this one is just blatant with its disregard for both the law and our traditions.
To say I was aghast at the decision to censor the 911 call from the Orlando murderer (even though what was said was widely known) would be an understatement.
I immediately asked “why”? Now, I’m not a conspiracy theorist at all so I don’t subscribe to much of what some are saying out there. To me it speaks of three things, in this order – 1) politics, 2) fear and 3) arrogance.
One … If they acknowledge that fact that this was a terrorist attack by a representative of a sworn enemy that the administration (and by extension, the leading Democratic contender for President) has badly mismanaged to the point that they are regularly striking random targets here – well, that reflects pretty badly on the “home” team. So let’s pretend it’s something else and let’s divert attention to things like guns, Christians and the NRA.
Two … They’re afraid of ISIS and what ISIS can and will do. So they handle that fear by ignoring it and pretending it doesn’t exist and hoping it will go away, or at least leave us alone. If they call it’s name (i.e. Islamic terrorism) and acknowledge its existence, they’ll be called upon to do something. They haven’t a clue about how to do that. So again they divert. The US Attorney General, in attempting excuse the “omitting” of parts of the transcript of the 911 call talked about her ‘greatest fear’ – and it ain’t ISIS or attacks on Americans:
Speaking to the audience at the Muslim Advocates’ 10th anniversary dinner Thursday, Lynch said her “greatest fear” is the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric” in America and vowed to prosecute any guilty of what she deemed violence-inspiring speech.
“The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence,”she said.
Three … pure arrogance. While other examples of censored releases were blamed on “glitches” (French President’s remarks, State Department briefing), they didn’t even try on this one. It’s rather hard to blame “glitches” when actual words are replaced with the word “omitted” or actual words are changed to other words (Allah/God). The administration isn’t even playing the game anymore. No more blaming it on glitches, just pure and plain censorship because the words said by the killer don’t help support the narrative this fearful administration has been trying to push on the people for almost 8 years.
And now, the Attorney General of the United States says her greatest fear is “rhetoric” against Muslims? Really?
Speaking of rhetoric, “the most transparent administration” ever has forever made it clear that transparency is campaign rhetoric for consumption of the rubes in flyover country only. They won – they’re your rulers. They can do whatever they want.
Suck it up, buttercup.
After this past couple of weeks, it is hard to decide which idiocy or outrageousness to talk about. So I’ll use a couple of pictures to make a point:
This, my friends, is the number of homicides, by any means, within the US, since 1950. It points out that we presently have the lowest homicide rate in 51 year. OK, chart number 2:
Here we have the number of guns in the US, by year. It is acknowledged that there are over 300 million guns in the hands of US citizens.
So, given the homicide rate, where again is the problem? Where is the crisis? Well, there isn’t one … at least not the one the idiots on the left would have you believe. It’s kind of like their climate change argument, even if the numbers don’t support the conjecture, they go ahead with the conjecture as if it is truth anyway. And when the facts are presented, they simply turn their head, cover their ears and yell “la la la” like a 3 year old. It is an amazing thing to watch. Guns are not the problem. The problem in Orlando was the product of a culture that is incompatible with ours. I wonder, if he had nailed all the entrances and exits shut and burned the place, would they be talking about banning matches? Would they even be talking about matches? Nope. Probably something just as outlandish like blaming an event carried out by a self-declared Muslim terrorist on Christians. Oh, wait …
How hysterical has it gotten on the left? Well, they’re all involved in demonizing a gun that wasn’t even used in the massacre so they can ban it. And the uncritical among them? Well they’re acting fairly typically. Like this restaurant owner in Maine:
A restaurant owner in Portland, Maine, has come under attack by gun advocates after she announced she would not allow assault rifle users to eat at either of her venues.
Anne Verrill, announced on the Facebook page of her fine-dining restaurant Grace that after the massacre in Orlando gay club Pulse on Saturday, owners of AR-15 assault rifles were not welcome there or at her other restaurant in Falmouth.
Of course an AR-15 is not (let me say this again for the slow out there – NOT) an assault rifle. Or, said another way, the AR-15 is not equivalent to an M-16 – which is, in fact, a military grade assault rifle. The difference, of course, is between automatic and semi-automatic. And it also includes some much beefier parts for the real assault rifle – the M-16 – that aren’t found on the AR-15. The reason for those beefier parts is the requirement it be able to fire automatically and sustain that without being damaged.
Why is that? Regulation?
Semi-automatic AR-15s for sale to civilians are internally different from the full automatic M16, although nearly identical in external appearance. The hammer and trigger mechanisms are of a different design. The bolt carrier and internal lower receiver of semi-automatic versions are milled differently, so that the firing mechanisms are not interchangeable. The design changes were done to satisfy United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requirements that civilian weapons may not be easily convertible to full-automatic.
So, there you go. Oh, and as mentioned above, the AR-15 had zip to do with Orlando. But hey, facts, who is worried about those?
Anyway, back to poor misguided Anne of the Mooseville Inn, Chili Parlor and Law School. After many angry responses, she deleted the post and did a little quick step to the rear on her former hysterical rant. And here’s the laughable part:
‘I don’t want to take away guns of responsible gun owners,’ the second post said. ‘I don’t care if you have 12 hunting rifles if you are a responsible hunter. I want people to not have the power to own weapons of war.’
See above concerning what this weapon is – it is NOT – (once again NOT) a weapon of war any more than those “12 hunting rifles” the “responsible hunter” may have. In fact, if I were to guess, many of those 12 hunting rifles are much more powerful than an AR-15. Since this is picture day, let’s try this one:
Yes you can get a 556 AR-15, but the most popular of them is the .223. It’s a varmint rifle, for heaven sake. Here, I’ll tell you what, how about another picture?
OK, see the round on the right? That’s a .223 round. The center round? A .308 – a very popular round for hunting. And finally, the big guy on the left? The ever popular 30.06. Hunting rounds.
So, Anne, what were you thinking? That just because an AR-15 might look like an M-16 that it was exactly like an M-16? If you slap wings and a tail on a car, does it make it an airplane? Ignorance, dear lady, is what put you in this position. That echo chamber you’re a part of is not your friend. But you’ll now suffer the consequences of your ignorance because, as I understand it, there are a whole lot of folks in Maine who like to hunt and also like the AR-15.
Bah! I’m too frustrated with the level of ignorance out there to continue with this.
Have a good weekend!
I’m still sitting here shaking my head as I watch and listen to the left react to the Orlando massacre.
If you simply read their screeds you’d have concluded by now that it was the work of a right-wing Christian (or just a plain old “toxic male”) with an AR-15 instead of a Sig wielding Muslim who had pledged allegiance to ISIS in a 911 call prior to the massacre and was a registered Democrat.
In fact, the AR-15 meme has taken on a life of its own with such luminaries of the left as lyin’ Michael Moore and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and some wimpy NYT metrosexual calling for its ban. On what grounds one wonders, but hey, they’re leftists – fantasy is their business if it helps them move their agenda one inch further to fruition. Ignore the facts, full speed ahead. Moore even made up stuff about the round(s) the AR-15 fires claiming they are banned by the Geneva Conventions. Uh, no. Not even close. Pure fiction.
Sally Kohn, a CNN contributor, went on a bigoted anti-Christian rant that attempted, in however a tortured manner, to make a moral equivalence between Christian disapproval of homosexuality and Islam’s death sentence for homosexuals.
Milo Yiannopoulos, a right-wing gay activist, explains the difference for those who lack the ability to discern it:
There are eleven Muslim countries in which I could be killed for being a homosexual. The state penalty is death. One hundred million people live in country where the penalty for homosexuality is death. This is not radical Islam. This is mainstream Muslim society.
And this isn’t some hazy made-up claim like Michael Moore’s, it’s their law. Guess who is taking political donations from those countries?
Instead of facing the truth of Orlando, the left, as usual, has chosen to divert and pretend the problem is on the right. That way, their agenda remains viable and they don’t have to confront nasty little ideological conflicts they’re trying so damn hard to avoid:
“Look what’s happening in Sweden. Look what’s happening anywhere in Germany, anywhere there are large influxes of a Muslim population. Things don’t end well for women and gays. The left has got to make a decision. Either they want female emancipation and it wants gay rights or it wants Islam. It’s got to pick.”
But, at this point, it refuses to do so. It is more afraid of being called Islamaphobic than it is of condemning a religion/ideology that throws gays off of buildings, burns them or hangs them and treats women as chattel.
That’s what the Sally Kohns, Michael Moores and Bill Ayers of the left should be doing. Instead they’re after a weapon that wasn’t even used in the massacre and a Constitutional amendment that gives us the freedom to defend ourselves.