Bookworm:
Sometimes I’ve been a little bit unclear about what, exactly, it means to “politicize” an event. After all, some things are inherently political. For example, the attack on the Benghazi compound either did or did not reflect administration failures before and during the attack, and did or did not involve an administration cover-up after the attack. Any report on the attack was, therefore, going to end up taking sides in a political fight.
What I do know, however, is that there are some venues where the political subject matter should never be touched . . . say, at a memorial service. There, you talk about those who died and what they meant to those who still live. If you start politicizing the event by talking about your ideas about what caused the person’s death, you’ve pretty much lowered yourself to the level of the Westboro Baptist Church. In their case, of course, one needs a complete vocabulary of Shakespearean invective to describe adequately the human detritus that populates that loathsome organization.
So what does it say about the fact that, at the Navy Yard memorial, President Obama saw the microphone and thought, “Wow, what a great opportunity this will be for me to push a deeply divisive and, in the last political go-round, unpopular political agenda”? For Obama, to have the thought is to act on it. So, in front of grievingfriends of relatives, Obama gave a political speech:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/RisL1Yh-7ME[/youtube]As President, I have now grieved with five American communities ripped apart by mass violence. Fort Hood. Tucson. Aurora. Sandy Hook. And now, the Washington Navy Yard. And these mass shootings occur against a backdrop of daily tragedies, as an epidemic of gun violence tears apart communities across America — from the streets of Chicago to neighborhoods not far from here.
Aside from turning the President into a card-carrying member of the “Westboro Baptist Church House School of appropriate conduct at a funeral or memorial service” club, those two sentences pack in a world of dishonesty.
First, Fort Hood wasn’t “gun violence,” it was an act of war committed by a dedicated jihadist taking orders from foreign leadership. Second, there is no epidemic of gun violence across America. Take away specific areas and perpetrators (i.e., young black men living in “gun-free,” Democrat-run urban enclaves) and you end up with gun crime rates comparable to those in Europe. And third, as Katie Pavlich nicely points out (hat tip: Hot Air), none of Obama’s gun crime initiatives would have prevented Aaron Alexis from going on his killing spree:
But….but….but….never let a crisis go to waste!
So, facts don’t matter.
Touching the hot buttons while they are hot is important, not facts.
This has been mentioned in the conservative media many times. When the propaganda media have an agenda in mind, they won’t let facts like that get in the way of their agenda.
I figured out what our soon to be president was when he said he wanted a national civilian security force that is as strong as, as powerful, and well funded as our military. I immediately took his words to mean, “I want a civilian force under my direct control that is strong enough to defeat our military.” I see this coming more and more every day. Why do I see this?
(1) He wants a national security force that is equal to our military that is under his direct control. We have the National Guard, but they have to be activated by each governor of each state, then turned over to him.
(2) He wants to take away our guns.
(3) Many federal agencies have ordered hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo (a total of over 3,000,000,000 so far), thousands of guns, and nobody knows how many armored vehicles like are used by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. What are they expecting? Why do agencies like the Social Security Administration need hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo. Is this an attempt to hide how much ammo, guns, and armored vehicles the obama administration is building up?
(4) obama is expected to sign the gun treaty with the UN, giving them a lot of control of what types of guns and ammo we will be allowed to have. I’m guessing that these rules will apply to the police and military. If you don’t think so, keep in mind that the UN has moved to a United States hating organization, where foreign leaders are allowed to condemn the USA on the UN floor, and most of the members cheered when we were condemned by others.
(5) Over 40 federal agencies now have SWAT teams that will be directly under the control of the president. It used to be that the FBI would be called in if a SWAT team was needed for a federal raid. Why are we putting them in so many federal agencies now?
(6) Hitler and obama are the only two people in the world who had their own emblem. Look at what obama is doing, and most of it is mimicking what Hitler did. Hitler’s national civilian security force was called the Brown Shirts. What will obama call his? How many of them will come from the federal agencies that ordered hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo each? They will have more rounds than our Army does. Why do they need more than our military? Why do they need enough to shoot every American citizen 5-6 times?
I’m glad I live in a state that lets their citizens have guns, and as many as they want. I feel very safe knowing there are many guns around me, and the ones who own them know how to use them.