The Orlando shooting gives our president the chance to finally answer the question millions of Americans have been asking for years:
A young American Muslim pledging allegiance to Islamic State is now responsible for the largest mass shooting in U.S. history. Can we finally drop the illusion that the jihadist fires that burn in the Middle East don’t pose an urgent and deadly threat to the American homeland?
We hope so after the Sunday morning assault on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando that killed at least 51 and wounded 53 as we went to press. The killer was Omar Mir SeddiqueMateen, the son of immigrants from Afghanistan who was heard shouting “allahu Akbar” (God is great) as he fired away. Mateen attacked a popular night spot for gays, who are especially loathed in Islamist theology.
Well no, we can’t “drop the illusion” because, guns!
That’s right, never let a tragedy go to waste and certainly never let a tragedy redefine your agenda priorities. Islamist terrorism? Bah, never heard of it (or at least never have admitted to hearing of it). Instead call those who try to identify the problem “Islamaphobes” … and screw the 911 call in which the killer pledged allegiance to ISIS or the fact that witnesses say he was yelling “allahu akbar” as he gunned down his victims or the fact that per those who knew him he was intensely homophobic as is his claimed religion.
Instead, let’s talk about guns:
Reporter Peter Doocy asked White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest: “Does the President really think that common sense gun laws would deter terrorists now that he has admitted that these two may have been terrorists?”
“Yes. The president believes that passing common sense gun laws that makes it harder for people with bad intentions to get guns, makes the country safer,” responded Earnest.
“But so the president thinks that when there are potentially two terrorists sitting around planning a mass murder they may call it off because President Obama has put in place common sense gun laws?” Doocy shot back.
“Why wouldn’t we make it harder for them? What’s the explanation for that?” responded Earnest.
This is the face of insanity. Why wouldn’t we make it harder for them? To do what? Ignore the law? Maybe someone ought to tell the fools in the White House that those who plan on committing mass murder don’t normally worry about breaking laws. In fact, it is pretty well known that criminals avoid getting their guns where the left thinks “common sense gun laws” would stop them cold. This is really not rocket science for heaven sake. And, as usual, the left and the White House seem absolutely clueless about human nature.
A recent study that was conducted by the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab has learned that Chicago criminals do not acquire their guns from gun shops, gun shows or the internet.
The study examined and interviewed inmates in Chicago’s Cook County Jail who are either facing current gun charges, or have a background consisting of firearms related convictions.
The study learned that virtually zero criminals have ever used the internet or gun shows, because that method is easily traceable. It’s much safer for a criminal to acquire firearms on the streets where they’re harder to keep track of, and that’s most criminals method of choice.
Furthermore, University of Chicago Crime lab co-director, Harold Pollack, said that criminals “were less concerned about getting caught by the cops than being put in the position of not having a gun to defend themselves and then getting shot.”
Does the point that “virtually zero criminals have ever used the internet or gunshots, because that method is easily traceable” resonate at all? Seems “common sense gun laws” are already doing what they’re supposed to do, however, criminals, as they’re likely to do, have decided not to play the game. They’re not going to risk getting caught. They’re going to go outside the law.
So, then, what’s the point of more laws if not to deny criminals guns? Seems that’s working rather well. Is the purpose, then, of more laws, to further hobble legitimate and peaceful gun owners perhaps? To make it harder and harder for law abiding citizens to own the means of defending themselves?
And what has any of that nonsense to do with what happened in Orlando?
Why, after another tragedy obviously perpetrated by a militant Islamist, is the question still being ignored!?
So, what would a ban on all Muslims being allowed into the US do?
Well, I don’t know. I certainly understand why there are those calling for it but there’s a simple point here, as pointed out in San Bernardino:
The attackers who killed 14 people in San Bernardino last week were discussing jihad at least two years before they opened fire in California, the FBI director said Wednesday.
The husband-and-wife duo “were radicalized for quite a long time before their attack,” FBI Director James B. Comey said during an appearance on Capitol Hill. This follows earlier statements by investigators that the shooters had both been adherents to a radical strain of Islam long before the massacre.
And one of them was a US citizen born in the United States.
Certainly, banning all Muslims from entry into the country would probably weed out some potential jihadis. But a committed jihadi isn’t likely to seek permission to enter. Not with the condition of our borders. And, on the other hand, I find it completely contrary to what I believe, even though I certainly have a level of understanding for those calling for it.
More importantly, and right’s questions aside, is the exclusion likely to do to Muslims here exactly what happened to the San Bernardino male half of the killing team. Radicalize them … or some of them. Homegrown jihadis.
All that said, it certainly seems that a devout believer in Islam would have a higher likelihood of embracing radicalism than some other religions. Part of that is because it is so incompatible with Western values and ideals. So, a devout follower is less likely to assimilate than those of other religions. Couple that with the demands of Sharia law and it appears to be totally incompatible with Western values and ideals (to those who become radicalized because of that incompatibility).
What about them? What does a country do with citizens, or non-citizens for that matter, who don’t want to assimilate, don’t want to embrace the country’s ideals and insist, in fact, demand, that the country change to accommodate their beliefs?
Just a bunch of questions that have popped into my mind as I watch all of the politics of the issue flying around the airwaves.
You have to wonder when the real backlash is going to begin … if ever. But until then, these people are going to push the West until finally the West pushes back. For example, a petition is being circulated and the following letter was sent to the City Council of Munich, Germany:
Dear City council of Munich,
I am writing this letter to bring to your attention something that I and many Muslims believe is unfair and requires attention.
I would like to inform you that the Oktoberfest is an Intolerant and Anti-Islamic event. We tried to ignore the event, but there too many Un-Islamic acts done at the Oktoberfest. Such as alcohol consumption, public nudity etc.
We understand that the Oktoberfest is a yearly German tradition, but we, Muslims, can not tolerate this Un-Islamic event, because it offends us and all Muslims on the earth.
We are requesting the immediate cancellation of the upcoming Oktoberfest event.
We also believe that the Oktoberfest might also offend all the Muslim refugees coming from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan. The cancellation of the Oktoberfest event will help refugees not to forget their Islamic history. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Now, obviously, a tradition that has been going strong since 1810 isn’t likely to be cancelled anytime soon. What’s interesting about this letter is its effrontery. And note too that it is Saul Alinsky fueled. Focus on the words used – “tolerate”, “offends”, “unfair”. Using the West’s own rhetoric against it. Of course, it seems obvious after you read the letter the irony must be “Un-Islamic” too.
But in the West, most folks would say, “hey, if you don’t like it, don’t attend, don’t drink and don’t get nude”. That’s apparently the Western notion of “tolerance”. But apparently the Muslim notion of tolerance is vastly different. They want the whole affair canceled because it is “Un-Islamic”. And whatever they determine to be “Un-Islamic” can’t coexist with them, it must be banned.
Syrian refugees are flooding Germany as we speak. Already Islam is not only large but real in Germany. At some point, when enough Muslims are of voting age, it will use Germany’s democratic institutions to elect its own to the government.
Given their apparent intolerance, it won’t be pretty if they do.
And, ironically, I think we’ve seen this movie in Germany before.
We’re working really hard in the media to avoid discussing the elephant that Mohammad Abdulazeez rode going to his Chattanooga Islamic terrorist attack. Official government sources are working nearly as hard.
“It” let’s talk like ‘it’ wasn’t killing 5 men while we’re worrying about whether or not he was ‘radicalized’ or depressed or a wannabe member of ISIS.
There’s no evidence he was inspired by ISIS you see.
I’d like to suggest there was no evidence that Major Nidal Hasan was inspired by ISIS either if that’s a helpful guidepost to those who are trying to figure out what we can do to prevent people from killing when they think they will gain entry to paradise for killing.
Just because young Mohammad didn’t write “Dear Diary, today, inspired by the glory of ISIS and all they do in the name of Allah, I’m going to go and kill some American servicemen” doesn’t mean the cause isn’t pretty obvious.
He was a lone gunman according to the President, who avoided the word ‘Terrorism’ like he avoids making useful decisions.
The kid did mention ‘becoming a martyr’ didn’t he? And what exactly does that mean to some people who practice the religion of peace?
Short and sweet.
To the best of my knowledge there’s only one world-wide religion that rewards you for dying while killing others. Only one major religion where “becoming a martyr” is a matter of choice. Only one where you get rewards for killing unbelievers.
And based on the xplodidopes who blow themselves up in mosques, even killing ‘believers’ can get you a reward even if the only difference between you is believing the prophet rose at 6:00 AM every morning while they insist emphatically he didn’t rise until 6:10.
In Christianity, you kill yourself, and others, and you are NOT going to get the first class treatment when you get to Heaven’s gates. You are most certainly not going to get it if you slaughter innocents first and manage to get yourself killed in the ensuing battle with the forces of goodness and niceness.
Only Islam rewards you with paradise for killing others before your number comes up in the fight, even if you’re the one who started it.
But we need to know young Mohammad was doing drugs and alcohol. What we know is it makes him a lousy practitioner of Islam. What we can guess is it could be a factor in why he needed the martyr bonus package to buy his way to paradise.
He was ‘in debt’ – sure, after you drop somewhere on the order of (easily) $3000+ to buy an AK74, an AR-15 and a Saiga 12 semi-auto assault shotgun, plus the ammo to feed them, and spend time, and money, at a range practicing with them, yeah, you’ve gone a lot deeper in debt then when you couldn’t make that $380 monthly car payment. Now oddly enough, he didn’t have that additional debt, until after he’d returned from a trip to the Middle East. I’m sure there’s nothing unusual about that though. I came back from Fredericksburg Texas a couple weeks ago, and when I got back to Dallas I went out and bought Heffeweizen and German sausages, so maybe it’s a coming back from the Middle East thing to go out and buy weapons and ammo.
Finally, the day Mohammad decided he was ready to ‘commit suicide’, he set out to shoot, and kill, not just any unbelievers, no, he went off to shoot and kill members of the armed forces of the United States of America. He seems to have had a particular bone to pick with the Marines but obviously he’d shoot American sailors too. I suspect Army, Air Force or Coast Guard personnel who crossed his path would have made their way onto his kill list.
Now let’s pack up all those bits of information as we ponder why he did ‘it’.-
A follower of Islam, looking to achieve martyrdom, takes a trip to the Middle East for several months, comes back and buys several semi-automatic weapons of man killing caliber, buys ammo for them, practices with them and then attacks the recruiting offices of the United States military. In the process he dies, thus achieving his goal of martyrdom. Before his ‘suicide’ is complete he kills 5 American military personnel, largely unarmed (because he’s a brave warrior seeking paradise), until finally someone puts enough jacketed lead into his nasty little body to put him down like the diseased animal he was.
Should we CARE what motivated him? Isn’t it all about the outcome for progressive America?
I don’t care if he was depressed, taking pills, in debt, confused or having a bad beard day. He wasn’t a good boy, he killed other people for nothing more than being Americans, in uniform.
And he did it, specifically, because his religion taught him that dying while killing infidels would get him into heaven.
It’s NOT any more complicated than that.
Is it radicalized? is it terrorism? (yes, and yes).
Who cares, if it’s not, it’s still Islam.
Now go figure out how knowing it’s Islam will prevent the next follower of Mohammed who’s ‘depressed and in debt’ from attempting to do little shoe kissing pork eating Mohammad Abdulazeez one (or more) better.
He’s been called a “scientist” for years, but his training is in industrial engineering. He’s about as much a climate scientist as I am. However, we’ve been constantly told that he and the IPCC speak for “science” when it comes to “climate change”.
Well, today he stepped down, submitting his resignation amid allegations of sexual harrassment.
I’m talking about Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, of course. Head of the IPCC that has published scare warnings for years, few if any of which have come true.
So why is an industrial engineer seen as some sort of an authority on climate?
Well it’s not because of his academic credentials, that’s for sure. Instead, its for his leftist credentials:
‘For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.’
In other words, his “science” is faith based.
And, the left says we should take him seriously … because, you know, “the science is settled”.
‘One of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists.’
Anyone – do you really believe an actual climate scientist will be recruited to fill the job?
An interesting article I think you’ll want to read. At least I found it interesting. It discusses the foundations of Islam and why, essentially, it is really not a “religion of peace”. In fact, as the author argues, as much as the West would like the name of the religion, Islam, to mean “peace”, in fact it means “submit”. We’ve talked here before about the need of a reformation in Islam to reorient it away from violent jihad and to a religion that actually preaches and practices “peace”. The outlook isn’t very promising. Here’s one reason:
The Qur’an contains many peaceful and tolerant verses, and these could well be used to create a genuine reformation — something several genuine reformers have tried to do. But there is a catch. All these moderate verses were written in the early phase of Muhammad’s career, when he lived in Mecca and had apparently decided to allure people. When he moved to Medina in 622, everything changed. He was soon a religious, political and military leader. During the next ten years, as his religious overtures were sometimes not welcomed, the peaceful verses gave way to the jihad verses and the intolerant diatribes against Jews, Christians and pagans. Almost all books of tafsir take for granted that the later verses abrogate the early ones. This means that the verses preaching love for all are no longer applicable, except with regard to one’s fellow Muslims. The verses that teach jihad, submission and related doctrines still form the basis for the approach of many Muslims to non-believers.
One problem is that no one can change the Qur’an in any way. If the book contains the direct word of God, then the removal of even a tiny diacritical mark or a dot above or beneath a letter would be blasphemy of the most extreme kind. Any change would suggest that the text on earth did not match the tablet in heaven — the “Mother of the Book,” much as Mary is the Mother of Christ — that is the eternal original of the Qur’an. If one dot could be moved, perhaps others could be moved, and before long words could be substituted for other words. The Qur’an itself condemns Jews and Christians for having tampered with their own holy books, so that neither the Torah nor the Gospels may be regarded as the word of God. The Qur’an traps us by its sheer unchangeability.
And, as he points out, the most “modern” interpretation does anything but put Islam in a “moderate” context:
Regrettably it is impossible to re-interpret the Qur’an in a “moderate” manner. The most famous modern tafsir, or interpretation, of the holy book is a multi-volume work entitled, In the Shade of the Qur’an. It was written by Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966), the Muslim Brotherhood ideologue often regarded as the father of modern radicalism. His interpretation leads the reader again and again into political territory, where jihad is at the root of action.
So that seems to be where we stand. Here, however, is the problem that confronts the West:
The besetting sin of modern Western politicians, church leaders, and multiculturalists is their ready acceptance of ignorance and their promotion of their own ignorance to the rank of expertise. Islam is one of the most important topics in human history, but how many schoolchildren are given details such as the ones mentioned above in their history classes? How many textbooks paint an honest picture of how Islam began and how it continued as a background to how it continues today?
Furthermore, how many real experts are denied contact with government and politicians so that lies are not made the basis for governmental decisions in the West? How many times will truth be sacrificed to fable while Muslim extremists bomb and shoot and behead their way to power?
These facts do not come from modern Western accounts; they are there in the founding texts of Islam, in the histories of al-Waqidi and al-Tabari. No-one is making any of this up. Muslims who avoid their own history should be brought face to face with it in all future discussions.
But, of course, that isn’t what is happening is it? We’re told over and over again that Islam is a religion of “peace” by those in the West who would rather believe that than confront the awful fact that its own founding documents portray anything but a peaceful religion — not to mention its history. For instance, were you aware that it is estimated that “between sixty and eighty million Hindus may have been put to death during the centuries of invasions by Muslim armies from 1000 to 1525.” That’s Stalin and Mao territory.
If you can’t or won’t deal truthfully with the problem, how can you ever expect to confront it successfully? When you remain in denial and you let the practitioners of the religion also deny the truth, how does one “reform” anything? And what does the continuous denial portend for the West in the not to distant future?
While I agree there may be far reaching implications concerning this decision and that the right might not like how all that plays out, I have got to say I have sore ribs from laughing at the hateful, screechy display put on by so-called “progressives” concerning the decision.
The first bit of nonsense they toss around is they’re being “denied” some sort of right to an abortion. Of course, no one has denied them anything. Planned Parenthood is ready when they are. Abortificants are available to them through their doctor.
No the problem is they’ll have to pay for it, not someone else. They don’t get to impose their will on others that don’t believe like they do.
And, of course, that just won’t do. Especially when it comes to <sneer> “religious” people/companies. Next thing you know they’ll be demanding kosher butchers sell ham and the Amish deliver goods by truck.
It is time to stem this tide of BS the left has unleashed. This cobbled up “right” to whatever they want and the equal “right” to have someone else pay for it. The imposition of their will on others to benefit themselves.
Charles Murray explains in today’s Wall Street Journal that, in essence, what these people want is their brand of fascism imposed on all of your lesser beings and if they don’t get their way they’ll throw tantrum after tantrum:
But philosophically, the progressive movement at the turn of the 20th century had roots in German philosophy ( Hegel and Nietzsche were big favorites) and German public administration ( Woodrow Wilson’s open reverence for Bismarck was typical among progressives). To simplify, progressive intellectuals were passionate advocates of rule by disinterested experts led by a strong unifying leader. They were in favor of using the state to mold social institutions in the interests of the collective. They thought that individualism and the Constitution were both outmoded.
That’s not a description that Woodrow Wilson or the other leading progressive intellectuals would have argued with. They openly said it themselves.
It is that core philosophy extolling the urge to mold society that still animates progressives today—a mind-set that produces the shutdown of debate and growing intolerance that we are witnessing in today’s America. Such thinking on the left also is behind the rationales for indulging President Obama in his anti-Constitutional use of executive power. If you want substantiation for what I’m saying, read Jonah Goldberg’s 2008 book “Liberal Fascism,” an erudite and closely argued exposition of American progressivism and its subsequent effects on liberalism. The title is all too accurate.
Indeed. Murray, however, distinguishes “progressive” from “liberal”, by claiming there is quite a degree of difference between the progressive left and the liberal left:
Here, I want to make a simple point about millions of people—like my liberal-minded dinner companions—who regularly vote Democratic and who are caught between a rock and a hard place.
Along with its intellectual legacy, the Progressive Era had a political legacy that corresponds to the liberalism of these millions of Democrats. They think that an activist federal government is a force for good, approve of the growing welfare state and hate the idea of publicly agreeing with a Republican about anything. But they also don’t like the idea of shouting down anyone who disagrees with them.
They gave money to the ACLU in 1978 when the organization’s absolutism on free speech led it to defend the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill. They still believe that the individual should not be sacrificed to the collective and that people who achieve honest success should be celebrated for what they have built. I’m not happy that they like the idea of a “living Constitution”—one that can be subjected to interpretations according to changing times—but they still believe in the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the president’s duty to execute the laws faithfully.
I’m not quite sure I agree but if there is a separation between the two, there is one hell of a big, wide, fuzzy border between the two. Given the antics of the left these past few years and their frantic attempts to expand government control along with cultural change while the Democrats hold power causes me to still lump both contingencies into the same hateful mass. Afterall, as Murray points out, “liberal” is a term stolen from an era when it described a group who believed in small, non-intrusive government, the individual and his rights and capitalism. That hardly describes “liberals” today. In fact, at best I’d call them “progressive light”.
Anyway, something to munch on as we watch the left continue to throw their juvenile fits over a court ruling that went against them. Now if we can only hope that the court continues to chip away at the oppressive law passed by a Democratic Congress popularly derided as ObamaCare. With each chip and the subsequent acting out by the left, one can only hope that the more moderate in America will become less and less enchanted with their siren song.
Over at RedState, Erick Erickson promoted a post in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage by “mjdaniels,” a Christian conservative and long-time lurker there. It’s a long post that makes a number of good points, but he ultimately makes a number of rhetorical errors that give his fellow Christian conservatives an easy way out, and they did fix on those errors. So it is that the people I see praising his argumentation with the fewest reservations are mostly not currently practicing Christians or self-identified conservatives.
Among those errors, the biggest was probably when he said, “Is Homosexuality a Sin? I. Do. Not. Care.” Christians are supposed to care whether others sin. The proper question is the duty others have to sinners. And behold all the RedState regular commenters saying that they’re called to rebuke sin and lead sinners away from sin, out of love. Many deny that enshrining these rebukes in legal exclusivity is tantamount to “hunting down sinful people,” and they claim that it isn’t them but same-sex marriage activists who are trying to “wield the power of the government to enforce my convictions on others.”
I’d sorely like to see how his fellow Christian conservatives would respond if they couldn’t focus on those errors. In particular, I wished “mjdaniels” had better focused on something he only said in passing at the end of his post: that opponents of same-sex marriage were essentially calling for “casting the first stone at” this set of sinners.
It seems to me that when persuading Christian conservatives, one should be absolutely clear that the status quo is coercion – discriminatory taxes and inheritance rules, and denying the right to contract, all of which conservatives agree is state coercion when it’s applied to them – and that when Jesus was challenged to support such coercion (stoning a woman caught in the act of adultery, according to Mosaic Law), he in turn challenged the teachers of law and Pharisees that the first stone should be cast by one who is without sin. When no one would stone her, he said he would not condemn her that way either, and he simply told her to leave her life of sin.
If even Jesus doesn’t think it’s humans’ place to punish violations of one of the Ten Commandments dealing with marriage, then it’s an uphill climb for a Christian conservative to argue that it’s their duty to uphold the use of such force based on moral strictures that are much less clear.
I find it baffling that conservatives think the government is capable of making a compact sacred by calling it a marriage, but there I see it in the RedState comments. Do they teach their children that the state’s refraining from coercion is an indication of societal approval of a behavior? No; what is not prohibited is merely left to be governed by the other aspects of civil society (the family, the market, churches, social pressure, etc.) and, if Christians are correct, God’s ultimate judgment.
No, really, you read it right. The Chinese government has banned reincarnation without government permission.
In one of history’s more absurd acts of totalitarianism, China has banned Buddhist monks in Tibet from reincarnating without government permission. According to a statement issued by the State Administration for Religious Affairs, the law, which goes into effect next month and strictly stipulates the procedures by which one is to reincarnate, is "an important move to institutionalize management of reincarnation."
Actually, despite the article’s claim (and as the article eventually points out), it really isn’t as an absurd of an act as it may seem, even though it is certainly representative of totalitarianism.
In fact, it is all about China’s war with the Dalai Lama.
At 72, the Dalai Lama, who has lived in India since 1959, is beginning to plan his succession, saying that he refuses to be reborn in Tibet so long as it’s under Chinese control. Assuming he’s able to master the feat of controlling his rebirth, as Dalai Lamas supposedly have for the last 600 years, the situation is shaping up in which there could be two Dalai Lamas: one picked by the Chinese government, the other by Buddhist monks.
We can all figure out how that will work.
The Chinese communists surface very visibly every now and then as if to remind everyone that China is far from a free country. And, in such a totalitarian country, no detail is too small for the government to ignore … even something in which it likely doesn’t even believe.
Actually, there’s a lot Ron Paul says I agree with, but there’s about 5 to 10% of what he says that makes him, at least to me, unsupportable.
But he and I see eye to eye on this thought (from an article about an interview he did with Candy Crowley):
Paul seemed almost baffled that everyone has been talking about social issues at a time when he and others are more concerned with preserving basic civil liberties and the economy.
Folks, for this election social issues is a loser. Sorry to be so blunt, and burst the social issue’s activists bubble, but this is the distraction the Obama administration badly needs and it is playing out pretty much as they hoped, with the candidates concentrating in an area that is so removed from the real problems of the day (and the real problems of the Obama record) that it gives relief.
Additionally, it gives visibility to the one area that usually scares the stuffing out of the big middle – the independents who are necessary to win any election (and, until this nonsense started, pretty much owned).
What is going on now is a self-destruction derby. And the tune is being called by the left (if you think the George Stephanopoulos question on contraception that started all this nonsense during one of the debates was delivered by an objective and unbiased journalist, I have some beachfront land in Arizona for you) and kept alive by the media.
How I see it is Americans, in general, don’t give much of a rat’s patootie about all this nonsense at this moment in history. They’ve watched their economic world collapse, they’re upside down in their houses (or have lost them), they’re seeing their children, great grandchildren and great, great grandchildren enslaved to government debt, they’re out of work and they’re suffering – economically.
And the GOP goes off on the usual nonsensical social issue tangent when there is a table laden with a feast of issues that are relevant to the problems with which the majority of Americans are concerned.
Really? Could we maybe see attacks on Obama for adding 4 trillion to the debt, or the highest unemployment rate in decades, or the failed stimulus, or his persistent attacks on fossil fuel even while we sit on more of it than most of the world combined but are getting much less benefit from that because of him? How about Keystone? Gulf permatorium? Solyndra? ObamaCare?
Instead what sort of attacks are made against Obama? Senior Obama Advisor: Rick Santorum’s ‘Phony Theology’ Comment ‘Well Over the Line’, which spawned, Santorum explains ‘phony theology’ comment, says Obama is ‘a Christian’ which results in, Santorum denies questioning Obama’s faith.
I cannot imagine a stupider subject being the focus of headlines at this time in our history nor a worse place for a GOP candidate than talking about other people’s faith or lack thereof. There is no upside to that. This is the sort of nonsense and ill discipline that has cost the GOP elections in the past, and is well on its way to doing it again.
The middle is watching and my guess is it is not happy with what it sees. If ever the GOP wanted to lay out a strategy to drive independents back to the Democrats, they’re well on their way. They are playing to every stereotype the left puts out about them.
Take a hint from the Clinton campaign GOP (as loath as they are to do so, I’m sure): “It’s the economy, stupid!”