Tag Archives: Orlando

Who’s Minding the List? 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Who’s Minding the List?

by Bill Lockwood

Last week the Congressional Democrats were in full left-wing 1960’s hippie-socialist mode as they lawlessly staged a sit-down on the floor of Congress. Like the radicals of the old Kent State that they are, only now with suits and skirts, they chanted their pro-communist anti-gun slogans as they waved homemade signs. After Orlando, these radicals think to get their foot in the door on what the left has always been after—Gun Control. Remove the ability of the citizenry to defend itself.

“Moderate” (read “weak”) Republicans such as John Cornyn (R-TX) tried to mollify the Democratic rascals by proposing that mandatory three-day investigations be conducted by the Federal Government when someone on the “terror watch list” tries to buy a gun. His proposal would have allowed the Attorney General to block purchase of firearms while investigations were conducted. His proposal failed.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) went further. Her proposal would authorize the Attorney General to block any person from purchasing a firearm if there was a reasonable belief that the weapon might be used in terroristic attacks. Apparently, Loretta Lynch’s speech about winning over terrorists with “love” did not stick with Feinstein.

Fortunately, these measures failed to move forward. The Second Amendment is a PROHIBITION against the Federal Government from entering into this territory. The right of “the people” shall not be infringed to “keep and bear arms” is a codified right precisely to defend ourselves from an over-reaching government. Usurpation and intervention by the federal government were the two most prominent dangers to the drafters of the Second Amendment. This is why the “Bill of Rights” opens with the law, “Congress shall make NO LAW…”

Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist #84 that since our government is only a “limited government” with only a few specified powers it would have absolutely NO authority to regulate a citizen’s freedom of speech, religion, etc. Neither is there any federal authority to register or confiscate firearms or to block sales to those whom it considers possible “terrorists.”

Now enters the “Terror Watch List.” As baffling as it is, it seems the Republican Senators and Congressmen who are intent on mollifying the thuggery of the Democrats have forgotten who writes this list! When Obama became president and Janet Napolitano was the Secretary of Homeland Security, those who were singled out for government “monitoring” were: returning “military veterans” who were “facing significant challenges” as they sought to “reintegrate” into society. This situation, per Napolitano and Obama, “could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

Obama’s “Terror Watch List” also included “right-wing extremists.” In Obama’s Lexicon that includes those who study the Constitution or who are Tea-Partiers, or members of such organizations as the John Birch Society. Never mind that there are currently Islamic Jihadi Terroristic Training Camps in America—for these we must spread the banquet table. But we must watch those Constitutionalists!

I will put these proposals by Cornyn and Feinstein in simple syllogistic form.
•    The the Federal Government disallows those on the terror watch list access to firearms.
•    Those on terror watch list (per DHS) include “right-wing extremists” and “returning veterans.”
•    Thus, the Federal Government disallows returning vets and right-wingers guns.

For an encapsulated view of those bold hypocrites who are minding the Terror Watch List, consider also the recent interview that leftist Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) granted to a reporter on Gun Control.

The Reporter asks Charlie: “Why should, say, the uber-wealthy have that protection [ability to carry firearms] but individuals who are law-abiding citizens in your district should not?”

Charlie: “Well, law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun. You know that, so you’re not going to push me in that direction.”

Reporter: “But you’re protected by guns all over the place here in the Capitol.”

Charlie: (Laughing) “Well, that’s a little different. I think we deserve—I think we need to be protected down here.”

That attitude speaks for itself. Yes, it does make a difference who is minding the “Terror Watch List.”

Back to Homepage

 

Open Orlando Investigation? 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Open Orlando Investigation?

by Bill Lockwood

Last week’s Orlando night-club slaughter which claimed 49 lives at the hands of Muslim jihadist Omar Mateen continues to be “under investigation”, according to FBI official Ron Hopper. We must leave no stone unturned. Sounds very professional. “Ongoing investigations” defy drawing too many conclusions before the facts are all in.

However, there is one major zone that is absolutely off-limits to any “investigator”—professional or otherwise. The conclusions are already drawn and no further investigation is necessary. As a matter of fact, the entire Obama Administration has decreed this territory to be off-limits: Islam itself. Obama’s FBI has made it emphatically clear that examination of the teachings of Muhammad himself in the Koran or Sunna will be strictly avoided. No discussion or questioning that “Islam is a religion of peace” will be tolerated in our “tolerant society.”

How confident can an American citizen remain in this atmosphere of “accepted state doctrine” crafted by Dictator Obama? In explaining the obvious disconnect between the bloody reality in Orlando and our pro-Islamic state doctrine most pundits prefer that Barack Obama has been hugely embarrassed by his failures to keep America safe from Islamic jihadists and therefore has issued directives to discourage investigation into Islam. This is what I call the “Benefit-of-the-Doubt” option. Obama is trying, but not succeeding, therefore his administration alters the narrative.

Nonsense. This interpretation of Barack Obama’s handling of current events purposefully overlooks stubborn facts. Barack Obama has actually gone to great lengths to stigmatize any resistance to Islamic jihadist murder from the beginning. For example, in February 2012 the Obama Administration deliberately purged over 1,000 pages of documents from counter-terrorism training manuals for the FBI and other government agencies.

All references to “Islam” or “jihad” or related concepts were purposefully removed at orders from Barack Obama. He was not seeking to cover-up any particular jihadi crime that had recently been committed, but was giving voice to his world view. Islam good—Christianity bad. The FBI has been strong-armed by the Saul Alinsky radical in the White House to prostitute its common sense and investigative techniques to fit into Obama’s World. It has been in full retreat ever since Obama took the reins of power.

Barack Obama made clear early on that one of his main objectives is to crack down on “Islamophobic hate speech.” In Cairo in 2009 he told the Muslim world, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” Jihadist mass murder by Omar Mateen certainly creates a negative stereotype.

These same pro-Islamic objectives Obama announced in September 2012 while speaking before the General Assembly of the United Nations. “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” To “slander” means “to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike” (Al-Azhar University in Cairo, A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, 1999; see Robert Spencer, Arab Winter Comes to America, p. 257). As Spencer points out, this does not necessarily mean something that is “untrue,” but just something that a person would prefer not to be known. In other words, Obama confesses that he prefers some things about Islam to remain un-investigated. Orlando or no Orlando.

If the President of the United States is our chief ambassador to foreign nations and the United Nations; and if he truly articulates our doctrine; then we can expect nothing less than wild-eyed lawless Democrats who follow him to continue radical student-like sit-in’s on the Congressional floor. The blood may continue to flow from one Muslim jihadist attack to another across this once-great nation—but one thing that will not occur: an examination into Islam.

Back to Homepage