Following the shootings in Charleston, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton immediately seized upon the tragedy to again push for more gun control. Obama blathered on about how twenty one year olds were children and not adults as recognized by every state in and thus should be barred from purchasing weapons. Hillary went on about “common sense reforms” without getting specific whatsoever, as usual. It is the typical, meaningless, useless rhetoric of the left. They offer a useless, typical, meaningless answer- ban the Confederate Flag.
Because flags kill, right? Never mind the Clinton’s honoring the Confederacy.
There have a number of mass killings over the last few years:
Aurora
Phoenix
Sandy Hook
Fort Hood
Charleston
They have one thing in common- all occurred under Barack Obama.
The above shootings were all perpetrated by angry men. Why are they angry? They are angry in part because our President invites anger. He incites anger. Let’s revisit Obama’s words:
“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
“They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
“We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
“It’s time to Fight for it.”
Obama urged his supporters to fight:
“It’s time to Fight for it.”
and
“Hit Back Twice As Hard”
Obama wanted you to report on and turn in your neighbors.
Obama vilifies anyone who disagrees with him. He insults them and impugns their motives.
And if that didn’t work, Obama encouraged followers to
“Punish your enemies.”
Barack Obama has to accept his share of the responsibility for the climate of hatred that exists today as he has in no small measure contributed to it. While it is entirely appropriate for a message of condolence, what about these facts?
15 people were killed this week in Chicago.
Murders In Baltimore Rise To Highest Level In 4 Decades
Obama was so upset by the shootings in Charleston that he went fundraising immediately afterwards.
There will be calls for action, of course, and most will wither with time. As noted, liberals will call for more rules and more laws that will only affect legal gun owners. The Obama regime once looked at returning vets as terrorists but none of these mass murders were committed by veterans. Most of the villains were mentally ill. People taking psychotropic medications do need attention regarding gun ownership. That’s going to be a tough subject but liberals will not fail us.
They always punish those who respect the law as an answer for those who do not.
Barack Obama has poisoned the well in this country and the milieu of hate he has nurtured again claims the lives of innocents.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Well in the most recent case perhaps Obama was the cause. Roof was an avowed right wing race hater who saw the USA as being taken over by black people
Dr J Bush said “you are either with us, or against us” You appear to be against teh man that Americans elected to be their leader. Under Bush we were told that dissent in time of war is tantamount to treason. Perhaps you forgot what the GOP said about people dissenting from those 2 wonderful wars/occupations.Republican attacks on dissent since 9/11
December 2001: In response to Democratic plans to question parts of the USA Patriot Act during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, John Ashcroft suggests that people who disagree with the administration’s anti-terrorism policies are on the side of the terrorists. “To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies, and pause to America’s friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.”
February 2002: Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle expresses mild disagreement with US anti-terror policies, saying US success in the war on terror “is still somewhat in doubt.” In response, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) says that Daschle’s “divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country.”
May 2002: After the disclosure that President Bush received a general warning about possible Al Qaeda hijackings prior to 9/11, Democrats demand to know what other information the administration had before the attacks. In response, White House communications director Dan Bartlett says that the Democratic statements “are exactly what our opponents, our enemies, want us to do.”
June 2002: Republican Senate candidate Saxby Chambliss issued a press release accusing Senator Max Cleland (D-GA) of “breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution” because he voted for a successful 1997 amendment to the chemical weapons treaty that removed language barring inspectors from certain countries from being part of United Nations inspection teams in Iraq.
September 2002: Campaigning against Democrats who did not support his legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security (a department whose creation he had previously opposed), President Bush said that “the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people.” After a speech by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle criticizing the Bush administration and the GOP for politicizing the war on terror, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), the House Majority Whip, criticized those in Congress who are “questioning the president’s leadership, that are constantly throwing up hurdles to keep us from doing what we have to do to protect the American people.” He added, “These are people that don’t want to protect the American people… [T]hey will do anything, spend all the time and resources they can, to avoid confronting evil.”
May 2004: After Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) said “the direction [in Iraq] has got be changed or it is unwinnable,” Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) said Democrats are “basically giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” Similarly, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called President Bush an “incompetent leader,” House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) said Pelosi “apparently is so caught up in partisan hatred for President Bush that her words are putting American lives at risk.”
September 2004: As John Kerry steps up his criticism of the Bush administration’s handling of Iraq and the war on terror, Republicans repeatedly suggest that he is emboldening the enemy. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) says that “while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats’ manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.” President Bush says, “You can embolden an enemy by sending a mixed message… You send the wrong message to our troops by sending mixed messages.” And Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) claims that terrorists “are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry,” adding that Democrats are “consistently saying things that I think undermine our young men and women who are serving over there.”
In addition, South Dakota GOP chair Randy Frederick attacked Senator Tom Daschle, saying “Daschle’s three years as Complainer in Chief have brought shame to the honor of his office, concern to our men and women in uniform, and comfort to America’s enemies.” When asked about this comment, John Thune, Daschle’s opponent, cited Daschle’s statement that President Bush “failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to war” before the invasion of Iraq, saying “What it does is emboldens our enemies and undermines the morale of our troops,” adding, “His words embolden the enemy.”
July 2005: Senator Dick Durbin states that a description of US interrogation procedures at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility sounds like something “done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others.” Presidential adviser Karl Rove responds by suggesting that Durbin and other liberals seek to put US troops in danger, saying that “Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.”
November/December 2005: With critics of the war in Iraq growing increasingly vocal, Republicans lash out, suggesting that Democrats are encouraging the enemy and want to surrender to terrorists. President Bush says that “These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will.” Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) states that “Many on the Democratic side have revealed their exit strategy: surrender” and Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) says that “[T]he liberal leadership have put politics ahead of sound fiscal and national security policy. And what they have done is cooperated with our enemies and are emboldening our enemies.”
After DNC chairman Howard Dean says “The idea that we’re going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong,” Republicans reiterate the same line of attack. House Speaker Dennis Hastert says Dean “made it clear the Democratic Party sides with those who wish to surrender” and GOP chairman Ken Mehlman says Dean’s statement “sends the wrong message to our troops, the wrong message to the enemy, the wrong message to the Iraqi people.”
January 2006: President Bush suggests that “defeatists” on Iraq are disloyal by contrasting them with a “loyal opposition,” stating that the American people “know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.”
March 2006: Senator Russ Feingold introduces a motion to censure President Bush. In response, Republicans suggest that he is harming national security and endangering US troops. RNC chairman Ken Mehlman says that “Democrat leaders never miss an opportunity to put politics before our nation’s security” and that they would “would rather censure the President for doing his job than actually fight the War on Terror,” refers to “repeated Democrat attempts to weaken these efforts to fight the terrorists and keep American families safe,” and states that “Democrats should to be focused on winning the War on Terror, not undermining it with political axe-grinding of the ugliest kind.” Senator John Cornyn adds that the resolution would “make the jobs of our soldiers and diplomats harder and place them at greater risk.”
June 2006: In response to Democratic calls for a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, President Bush suggests that Democrats want to surrender. “There’s a group in the opposition party who are willing to retreat before the mission is done,” he said. “They’re willing to wave the white flag of surrender. And if they succeed, the United States will be worse off, and the world will be worse off.” However, Bush adviser Dan Bartlett is unable to name a single Democrat to which this description applies.
September 2006: During a press conference the day after the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11th, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said, “I wonder if they [Democrats] are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people,” adding, “They certainly do not want to take the terrorists on and defeat them.” When asked if he intended to accuse Democrats of treason, Boehner replied, “I said I wonder if they’re more interested in protecting the terrorists… They certainly don’t want to take the terrorists on in the field.”
After Democratic House minority leader Nancy Pelosi said the capture of Osama bin Laden would not make the US any safer, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said “Where do your loyalties lie?” while standing next to a poster depicting Pelosi and her statement.
Senator Rick Santorum also attacked Democratic minority leader Harry Reid on the Senate floor, saying, “If you listen to the Democratic leader, our lesson is: . . . Let’s put domestic politics ahead of the security of this country. That’s the message.”
October 2006: In emails to GOP supporters, President Bush asserted that Democrats “will wave the white flag of surrender in the global war on terror” if they win the 2006 election; RNC chairman Ken Mehlman used Democratic opposition to the Military Commissions Act to suggest they do not want to interrogate terrorists, stating that “84% of the Democrats in the House voted against interrogating terrorists, as did 73% of the Democrats in the Senate”; and Senator Sam Brownback claimed Democrats “want to … weaken our ability to fight an effective War on Terror.”
January 2007: Defense Secretary Robert Gates denounced a resolution opposing President Bush’s plan to increase troop levels in Iraq, saying, “I think it’s pretty clear that a resolution that, in effect, says that the general going out to take command of the arena shouldn’t have the resources he thinks he needs to be successful certainly emboldens the enemy and our adversaries. I think it’s hard to measure that with any precision, but it seems pretty straightforward that any indication of flagging will in the United States gives encouragement to those folks. And I’m sure that that’s not the intent behind the resolutions, but I think it may be the effect.”
Appearing on “Meet the Press,” Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said that “I think that’s a dangerous position to take, to oppose a sitting commander in chief while we’ve got people being shot at on the ground. I think it’s one thing to have a debate and a discussion about this strategy, but to openly oppose, in essence, the strategy, I think that can be a very risky thing for our troops.” Senator John Cornyn said, “To offer nonbinding resolutions which encourage our enemies and undermine our allies and deflate the morale of our troops is, to me, the worst of all possible worlds.” And Senator Jon Kyl added that “[t]he worst thing would be for the Senate by 60 votes to express disapproval of a mission we are sending people to lay down their lives for.”
February 2007: White House spokesman Tony Snow said that “Osama bin Laden thought that a lack of American resolve was a key reason he could inspire people to come after us after September 11th. I am not accusing members of the Senate of inviting carnage on the United States of America. I’m simply saying you think about what impact it may have.” Rep. Don Young (R-AK) twice repeated a quotation falsely attributed to Abraham Lincoln on the House floor, which states that “Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged.”
April 2007: The White House and other Republicans begin referring to the Democrats’ proposed withdrawal date from Iraq as a “date for surrender” and “waving the white flag of surrender.” Sen. Norman Coleman (R-Minn.) said the Democrats were “handing al-Qaeda a victory that they will be able to use to strengthen their forces and then hurt and kill more Americans.” Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, a presidential candidate, said that, if a Democrat were elected, “it sounds to me like we’re going on defense. We’re going to wave the white flag there [in Iraq].” And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that “[Democrats] used this serious effort — what should have been a serious effort to fund the troops — as an opportunity to send a memo to our enemy on when we’re going to give up and to get pork for various and sordid projects back home.”
July 2007: Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman attacks Sen. Hillary Clinton’s request for information about US preparation for eventual withdrawal from Iraq, suggesting it will boost enemy propaganda. In a letter to Clinton, he wrote, “Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia.”
August 2007: GOP chairman Mike Duncan claims that Democrats want the US to lose in Iraq in an email to supporters, writing that “The Democrat leadership believes failure by our troops in Iraq… is essential for them to win elections in 2008,” that “Democrat leaders are hoping for our troops to fail so their party can gain a political advantage,” and that “The Democrats are hoping our troops fail in the War on Terror in the craven desire that it will boost their party’s electoral fortunes in 2008.”
September 2007: Republican presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and John McCain attack critics of General David Petraeus, including Hillary Clinton and MoveOn.org. Giuliani tells Sean Hannity that “You should not be allowed to malign someone’s reputation unfairly just because you think it’s good for your campaign,” while McCain states at a press conference that “MoveOn.org ought to be thrown out of this country” (a statement he later retracts).
February 2008: Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney withdraws from the race, saying “If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”
In addition, GOP Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison said that a Democratic bill requiring a rapid withdrawal from Iraq would “put a bullet right in the hearts of our troops who are there.”
May 2008: In a fundraising email to supporters, NRSC chairman John Ensign suggests that one of the top legislative priorities of “Big Labor, MoveOn.org and extremist environmental groups” is “weakening our national defense.”
September 2009: During a town hall meeting, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) calls Nancy Pelosi one of the “domestic enemies of the Constitution” shortly after saying that “[Second Amendment] gun rights are actually critical to prevent treason in America.”
Why do you want to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the USA by seeking to create divisions and doubts about our POTUS and Commander in Chief
You’re absolutely spot on that Obama has been blowing the dog whistle.
It is a testament to the people of this country that so few had responded.
But his goal, achieving stricter gun control laws, will be unattainable via this tactic of Obama’s.
Obama’s post-shooting ritual of calling for new gun controls is always answered by the reality of how laxly present gun control laws are enforced., by how this-or-that shooter obtained his gun legally, and would have even under any new laws.
Thus the public remains trending against more gun control laws.
In fact gun purchases have ballooned under Obama, with spikes in sales after his every call for more controls!
Background checks had overwhelming public support nationally up to the vote in 2013. Even so several Democrats voted against it.
Nate Silver, founder of the fivethirtyeight blog that is filled with statisticians, has an article up, post-the Charleston, South Carolina shooting.
It is titled:
Black Americans Are Killed At 12 Times The Rate Of People In Other Developed Countries
In it were these statistical nuggets:
Silver then links to this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/25/giulianis-claim-that-93-percent-of-blacks-are-killed-by-other-blacks/
Now, ”homicides” are not necessarily gun killings.
People have recently used driving a car into a crowd, a knife, a machete, cudgels, even their fists in a racially-based ”knock-out game,” that kills every now and again.
Dr. j
I agree with your argument about Obama’s divisiveness. He is the most divisive President we have had. He purposely tries to divide this country along race, class, and party lines. He encourages conflict and division and will exploit Charleston to its fullest. However, mass killings have occurred under other Presidents as well. The mass killings that have occurred on his watch aren’t because of guns, flags, or Obama. They are because of the twisted minds of the people doing the killings. Hasan and Roof in particular would have gladly killed Obama just as they had killed their other victims.
You mention Chicago as you well should and I saw this below on another site.
“In 3 days 32 shot 5 dead in Chicago, Shooters Black, Victims Black!”
You also cite the following:
“The above shootings were all perpetrated by angry men. Why are they angry? They are angry in part because our President invites anger. He incites anger.”
Yes, these people are angry and yes there have been and continue to be cases of “White on Black” violence and hate as evidenced by the latest outrage. And yes, this young man should be put to death as far as I’m concerned.
Yet how are we supposed to take anything these liberal blowhards say seriously when they steadfastly refuse to address the pure hatred shown in black on black violence, and in the President’s case in his “hometown” as an example..
We dwell on the mass murders “in one place” such as a church or a movie theater. Then the lefties get their panties into a wad once again calling for confiscation of guns and so forth from the filthy hating whiteys! And to make the situation even more of a farce, the dunderhead in the White House says “these kind of things don’t happen in other civilized countries”. Tell that to the the folks in Norway or in France who lost loved ones to radical terrorists or worse. Yet President Bozo refuses to point out the mass murder taking place around the nation every day or week.
We sure as hell haven’t heard a word from him or his lackeys as to the Black officer shot to death in New Orleans by a black thug. And we sure as hell don’t hear from him and the Sharptons of the world as to the violence in Chicago, Detroit and the other cesspools of violence where black on black crime is beyond rampant.
Obama and company including the self loathing white lefties are quick to jump on the “hate” bandwagon when it is a White in Black thing but still refuse to address the Black on Black violence which is in fact the vast majority of murders and violence against Blacks. That is just cold hard fact.
And until the Black community, our brain dead leaders of every political stripe, the Sharptons and Jacksons of the world who’s only lot in life is race hustling and overt lies to shape their agenda, the mass media that continues to perpetrate the blatant lie of “white on Black” mass murder and so forth, this is going to keep being painted as such.
Yet make no mistake of this. The Black on Black murder rate we see is going to keep getting worse because in the eyes of the liberal left as well as the race hustlers of the Presidential and Sharpton ilk it is something that needs not to be talked about. Only White hate can be used to prop up their phony baloney positions. Yet every day and every week, the mass murders and violence gets worse in the inner cities but as it doesn’t fit the “narrative”, it continues to be ignored. And yes, although these crimes are taking place 2 or 3 murders at a time, one can make the case that it is in fact mass murder, every bit as insidious as a church shooting or worse.
One would normally use the word hypocrisy as to the rantings and ravings of those in power who use certain acts and so forth to illustrate their points, I’m not sure that fits here as to these scumballs in the White House and those who are driving a wedge into racial relations in this country. Hypocrisy? no. Hate? Evil? I don’t know. But there has to be some words to describe it.
My heart bleeds for the victims in Charleston! And I marvel at how the victims relatives can express forgiveness and love at this time. I always wonder if I lost a loved one like this, could I be that forgiving as God wants us to be. I hope I could and yet I wonder if I could.
“Barack Obama has to accept his share of the responsibility”
Obama accept responsibility for anything? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Good one, Doc!
Why didn’t we get the same scolding about gun control after Ft. Hood?
@another vet: I’m gonna give you today’s voice of reason award.
Joe Tote Those relatives in Charleston truly are amazing–on this Sunday it helps me rethink my Christianity–that and Pope Francis’ wonderful statement about the treatment of our fellow beings—the animals.—–I’ve been leaning Buddhist lately.
Two more progressives jump on the gun control wagon:
Karl Rove: Only Way To Stop The Violence Is To Repeal Second Amendment
Once again Karl proves he is an idiot. Even IF the Second Amendment were repealed (which it wont be), that act alone would not stop gun violence. Opening a discussion about the repeal of the Second Amendment would however be the political end of each and every RINO fool in Congress who listens to Rove and even attempts it. If they were stupid enough to vote for it, it would also very likely result in insurrection.
Pope says weapons manufacturers can’t call themselves Christian
So, the Pope decides that he (as only one man) has been endowed with the authority to declare that all Christians (Catholic or not) ‘can not call themselves Christians if they manufacture or invest in weapons’. Thus proving that he is without question a far-leftist radical and (via his own words,) that he is completely ignorant of history. Socialists and other oppressors always take away the rights to bear arms, which was precisely what happened in each of the historical genocide events he mentions. (He also it seems, believes that having an extra-special “atta-boy” in high school Chemistry makes him an expert in climatology, but that’s a separate issue). Does his Holy Arrogance expect that Protestants will harken to these words? He is doing everything he can to “fundamentally transform” the Catholics into weak, socialist shepherded sheeple, rife for the shearing via elitist party leaders and leaving them cold, fleeced, unprotected and vulnerable to the wolfish predators of the world.
@john:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=kill+george+bush&qs=n&form=QBIRMH&pq=kill+george+bush&sc=7-16&sp=-1&sk=&sid=5519EA3BF8714D6A8342577FC790EDC3
@another vet:
The left blamed George Bush for absolutely everything so it seems only reasonable to return the favors. Obama has fomented hate and division and has incited violence. Of that there can be no doubt.
@joetote:
Indeed. Neither Obama nor Sharpton is bothered as long as the deaths occur one at a time, or they occur in heavily democrat controlled areas where there is no political advantage to be had.
While I don’t think Ft. Hood belongs in the same category (it was an Islamic terror attack) one other thing every one of these killings (but for Charleston, as far as we know now) were committed by liberals. So, why don’t we pass a law that prohibits anyone that votes Democrat from owning guns? The same law should enable law enforcement to enter their homes and confiscate ANY weapons (guns, knives, baseball bats, machetes, automobiles, hammers, fire extinguishers, chains, lawn mowers, weed eaters, garden implements, any hand tools or chemicals). Identify the threat, then neutralize it.
As to Roof, as hard as the left tries to make him the son of Reince Priebus, his actions makes him far more leftist than conservative. In each and every tragic incident, the left immediately tries to make the perpetrator to be a conservative, then it always turns out to be the opposite. But, thanks for playing.
Let us also not forget the support the left always shows for violent behavior. The left, from Obama on down, excused, if not actually supported, the violence, destruction and crime of the Occupy Wall Street thugs. The left always makes excuses and sometimes even glorifies the riots and destruction incited by their false statements and accusations surrounding a black person killed by anyone but a white person. The left celebrates and encourages violent upheaval because they know their policies and results are never going to win anyone over.
@drjohn: I know the left blamed Bush for everything including Katrina as in the actual hurricane itself. I blame Obama for helping to incite the flare-ups in Ferguson etc. but not for the killing spree folks. Eventually he may get his wish of all out head banging amongst the races and/or social classes. And like most agitators, he’ll be shielded from the fall out.
@another vet: One would think that any responsible leader with a concern for the safety of the citizens would have denounced the violence and destruction of the OWS and race-related riots in on uncertain terms, no if’s, and’s or but’s about whether or not they were justified; destroying the livelihood of innocent people is NEVER justified by other private citizens, particularly when looting is involved.
But Obama didn’t. Holder didn’t. Pelosi didn’t. They made excuses for the actions of the looters, speaking of how hurt their feelings were by this event or that.
Then they want to blame the right for violence.
Happens whenever there’s a Democrat in the White House.
Think back to when Willie was in.
To go a bit further, some of these were false flags (or government sponsored and propagandized for politics), I tend to see validity on this latest one as a hit on the Senator by a drugged up liberal promised things by the left. Ovomit said it would take our ability to overthrow the oppressive government away, as would any tyrant. Fear the government that fears your guns. If the government does what the people want, there is no need to fear the people. If you want to oppress the people, first you must disarm them.
Don’t forget Christopher Dorner and Aaron Alexis. Liberals.
@cmblake6: “a hit on the Senator by a drugged up Liberal promised things by the left.”
Does anyone agree with this?
Do you understand why I shake my head in disbelief at many of the reactionary statements I read here at F.A,? Some Lib. statements as well.
@rich wheeler: Well, Rich, it’s like this; either inflammatory rhetoric incites people to do harm or it doesn’t. So, when Palin puts cross-hairs on a map to indicate elections the Republicans are going after and it is deemed that THIS is enough to cause a madman to shoot a Senator, then a photo of a Senator speaking with a gun pointed at his head might cause a madman to shoot a Senator. You liberals don’t get to turn the dangers caused by rhetoric on and off like a light switch.
Now, liberals calling for the shooting of police pretty much speaks for itself (show me the conservative equivalent of that), but it is the left that likes to blame violent images and rhetoric for violent events, then act all hurt and shocked when the same rules of engagement is applied to their actions. Is it or is it not dangerous, particularly when the category of mass killers is restricted almost exclusively to liberals?
@Bill:
Something we don’t have.
@Bill: My congratulations to Conservative Gov. Nikki Haley and Conservative Sen Tim Scott.
They get it.
Bill didI miss you calling out the Cliven Bundy posse for aiming guns at law enforcement ? I pretty much remember a lot of stuff about jack booted thugs
Isn’t the right always terrified that “tyranny” is going to have the cops take all their guns?
And Bill let’s not forget that jihadis are NOT lefties. They most definitely come from the right side of the political spectrum. Just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean they aren’t conservatives in almost all of their views. Anti abortion anti union anti woman government based on religion small government (like an emir or caliph) and of course the jihadis believe taht Allah gave them all that fossil fuel so climate change is OK with them
Because loony right wing rhetoric has pushed so many unbalanced people over the edge.
@Jeff: So, because of right wing rhetoric, liberals go on shooting sprees? Perhaps you can provide some examples of these connections.
@john:
You didn’t miss it; it was never there. If you were to recall (and ignore your left wing propaganda which is devoid of facts), the BLM people showed up, ARMED and positioned SNIPERS on the nearby hills. Oh, did you forget that part?
THEN the militia showed up in armed response.
Then why does the left defend them and condemn anyone that calls them terrorists, “Islamophobes”? Fact is, the left fears them and is afraid to call them what they are.
@Bill:
Exactly. What the “Jihadis” (as leftist John calls them,) are are violent religious-fanatic socialist-fascist oppressors, ruling very much like Che Guevara and the Castro Brothers did when they took over Cuba. The only difference is their extremist and bloody religious fanaticism.
As you point out quite correctly, if they were from the political right, it would make no sense whatsoever for Code Pink and other Democrat-leftists to be supporting and running interference for them.
Since you brought it up, we must push the onus back on you john. Why are your fellow far-leftists supporting what you claim (without any citing of facts,) is a “right wing” and “conservative” Jihadi movement? Why does Obama say that he stands with these radical fanatics? IF, they are “Right wing” religious fanatics (as you claim,) why has Obama done nothing about the hundreds of fanatical Islamic training camps that the FBI has reported to have popped up in various US states? With the Border patrol’s reports of Islamist fanatics training Mexican crime cartels, and using Obama’s open border policies to invade the US, why isn’t the Obama administration defending the nation against these (so called) “right wing” foreign invaders? Explain yourselves john, as we don’t understand why you, Obama and the rest of your progressive activists are on the side of these (supposed) “conservative” Jihadis.
re: 26:
What the “Jihadis” (as leftist John calls them,) are are violent religious-fanatic socialist-fascist oppressors, ruling very much like Che Guevara and the Castro Brothers did when they took over Cuba. The only difference is their extremist and bloody religious fanaticism.
Ridiculous. The jihadi extremists are fundamentalist extremists. They’re religious conservatives. Liberal thinking is the total opposite of their mindset.
Um, actually no. They are not conservative by any means They practice an extremist version of their religion that only accepts the most radical, oppressive, violent and xenophobic portions of the Koran. A conservative religious person considers all teachings of their religion, not just a select few. A conservative rejects such radical change.
Jeff, if you are so convinced that these are fanatic “conservatives” and “Right wingers” then you need to explain why Code Pink, Obama, and the US’s radical far-left defends these religious fascists while our political Conservative right-wing does not. Your and John’s position makes no logical sense if what you say were true. Explain why Obama is not interested in stopping their take-over of the Middle East. You need to explain why the Obama administration is knowingly allowing radical Islamic training camps to continue to pop-up in various locations within the US borders. You can’t explain any of this because you & John and your “ridiculous” theories are full of crap.
@Ditto: A religious Conservative believes in a literal translation of the Bible and salvation thru “THE RAPTURE.”
That’s extremism–no?
@rich wheeler: I don’t believe they kill people to accomplish it, though.
The belief that the entire universe and all the stars and planets derived from the explosion of one particle is a bit extreme as well, when you think about it, isn’t it? Yet, that’s what most of us believe.
@rich wheeler: 7
You’re back to ‘stand up’ again?
@Redteam: I’m gonna do a stand-up routine on The Rapture
Frankly i think Obama and the demac-RATS want to masssacares to happen so he can ban guns using a EXCUTIVE ORDER
@rich wheeler:
Well, I can’t top that.
@rich wheeler:
With the poorly way you worded your question, I would have to say “No.” The wording of your question shows a decidedly great ignorance of religion in general, and with your inclusion of the “Bible”, “salvation” and “The Rapture”, of Christianity as well. If you wish to discuss the world’s religions, you should study theology, so as to have some clue to what you are talking about.
Only some religious Conservatives would follow the Bible, (ie. Christian Conservatives.) Other religious Conservatives may not follow the bible (Jews, Buddhists, Islamist, Taoists…etc). Your ignorance on the subject of theology is staggering.
Some Conservative Christians might follow a “literal” interpretation, other Conservative Christians of the very many different Christian sects are likely to disagree with a particular “literal” interpretation and between each other’s interpretation. Many Conservative scholars recognize that some portions of the Bible should be read with allegorical interpretation. Allegorical interpretation is an interpretive method (exegesis) which assumes that the Bible has various levels of meaning, and tends to focus on the spiritual sense as opposed to the literal sense. There are some phrases that are viewed as written in a period form of art. There are also different interpretive versions of the Bible, based on differing translations of the ancient texts. All this allows those who study the Bible to have variations in what they perceive the Bible to say. This does not mean one Conservative Christian is any less Conservative than another.
@Ditto After reading again your absurd assertions in your final paragraph in #28 I found no interest in your most recent comments. IMO Your personal dislike of BHO has clouded your reasoning,
@rich wheeler:
IMO you can’t handle the truth Rich so you ran away. You can’t handle the fact that you showed yourself to be a fool in #29 with your poorly conceived and written question. Are you so uninformed that you really think that the conservatives of all the world’s religions follow The Bible (a Christian tome), and accept it’s concept of “salvation through Jesus”, as well as it’s Rapture prophesy?
No, you clearly realized that you had your head up your anterior orifice when you’d penned that asinine question, and that a strategic retreat was needed to desperately try to save face. (Hence your diversionary parting shot in #36.)
See Rich run.
Run Rich run.
@Ditto: I’ve never run from your comments Ditto. You know I’m always here. It’s just that some of your statements are so patently absurd I don’t grace them with a response.
You say Obama defends jihadists–how so? He is not interested in stopping their takeover of the M.E,–not so
My favorite He KNOWINGLY allows radical Islamic training groups to prop up in various U.S. locations–outright fabrication.
Like I said –I’m here for sane commentary and discussion–
@Bill:
I know of nothing he did that indicates he is a conservative. I know he burned the American flag, that is trademark leftie.
@rich wheeler:
Look, you don’t need to be talking about ‘patent absurdity’ when you are saying that the lives of blow flies and mosquitoes are as valuable as human life. A statement that ‘all lives have value’ is meaningful when we’re talking about humans, but when you equate those with maggots, blow flies and mosquitoes, it is truly a measure of having gone ‘off the deep end’.
@Redteam: The only person who mentions” maggots,blow flies and mosquitos” is you RT.
What continues to amaze me is your kind supportive words for the racist murderer Roof.
@rich wheeler: You telling me you don’t consider maggots, blow flies and mosquitoes live sacred, same as human?
Link to the statement I made in support of Root.
Your complete conversion to socialism surprises no one.
@Redteam: It’s OK rt . where you reside it’s acceptable to bash gays and be a white supremecist Your support of Roof is understandable’
Maggots .mosquitos –what’s a blowfly— sacred?? Are you nuts?
@Redteam: So would killing people in order to evoke a response from society to achieve a political goal be a left wing characteristic. So would immediately, with no evidence, proof or reason, blaming their opponents for a heinous act.
@Bill: So you think leftists might start killing people and blaming it on rightists.
Did you read Mad magazine when you were a kid—Spy vs. Spy??
@rich wheeler: Yes, I think they MIGHT. Leftists vandalized their own campaign headquarters. Leftists have joined in Tea Party rallies and made racist spectacles of themselves. Leftists have staged hate crimes on themselves. This very administration staged a gun-running scheme to Mexico which, had it not been exposed, could have been used to prove the lie the left had been telling about US guns going into Mexico and coming back to the US and killing people (which these did). When there is no foundation to leftist accusations and their agenda is falling behind schedule, they are above creating said foundation.
@Spurwing Plover, #33:
The “Obama is going to take your guns away” scam is nothing more than a highly successful gun industry marketing strategy. With an assist from the gun owner-sponsored N.R.A—the lobbying organization that doesn’t want you to be free to buy and own a “smart gun,” if that happens to be your personal preference—the industry has managed to sell more unnecessary firearms and ammunition than at any other time in history, during a period that included the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.
We’re now well over 6 years into the Obama administration. How many guns have been confiscated? What we’ve actually seen—against all common sense—is a nation-wide liberalization of gun laws.
@rich wheeler: You are the one that said all life is equal, that a mosquito and a human are the same. If you think that’s stupid, stop saying it.
@rich wheeler:
? Victim of liberal education system?
Roof? every house has one, most are supported.
How do you know if it’s acceptable to bash gays here? What is a white supremacist?
@rich wheeler:
LOL.