It took less than a few hours for politicians and their minions wasted little time to exploit the massacre at the Pulse night club in Orlando. President Obama gave heartstring-tugging speeches about the “evils of guns” and, like a child, could not resist making it a campaign speech by zinging Donald Trump. Still, Trump tripped over himself again trying to fuel the fires of the illegal immigration debate and House Democrats resorted to playground antics the moment it went into session after the shooting.
To recap, Radical Islamist Omar Mateen pledged his allegiance to ISIS and its Jihad against the West on Facebook and to an E911 center, then entered Pulse with a semi-automatic weapon and went on a Terminator-esque shooting spree. Before that, he scoped out a few other popular places in Orlando before choosing one where he would find the easiest targets. On top of that, investigators are looking into the possibility the killer’s wife was in on the plan.
Quickly, the Charming Man, President Barack Obama, did his best to direct attention away from the real issue (Islamic Jihad against the west) and took the opportunity to turn the media’s attention toward his precious gun control agenda. Congressional Democrats followed suit, using the childish tactics of catcalls and mockery. Their minion bloggers tried to help, while elements of the established traditional media complied.
While much of the public’s attention has been deflected toward the Executive branch’s political narrative, let us ponder the real questions:
Why did Obama minimize the fact that the attack was part of a Jihad and why does he continually seem to ignore the problems with radical Islamism?
This question often comes up, but one that should never have to be asked about a sitting U.S. President. With virtually every Jihadist attack (Ft. Hood, San Bernadine, Pulse, etc.) Obama has stopped short of acknowledging Radical Islam or Jihad as a reason when it is clear to all around him and most of the rest of the nation where the motives of the killer had lied.
Obama is not a stupid man, nor is he afraid to mention the truth lurking in the minds of the killers. In fact, the man who occupies the Oval Office might be the perfectly-groomed politician if not for his biggest flaw: overestimating his followers and underestimating his opponents. He actually believes Americans lack the mental fortitude and sense to ignore the threat of Jihad as he is ordering them to do. Obama’s M.O. with any mass killing is clear: prey on the weak-minded with emotional arguments after a massive tragedy to push his agenda. That Is why he wasted no time to turn the Jihadist mass murder into a gun control issue. How stupid does he think Americans are? His labeling the Pulse shootings as the worst mass killing in American (ignoring Waco and a few others) should be a clue.
Also, Obama ignores Jihad for several political reasons. He has a very Politically Correct base of supporters, including the ultra Left Wing MoveOn.org and CAIR, which build their livelihoods on playing the race/victim card; such groups’ influence and financiers own the current Democrat party and, consequently, this president. With that, he has resorted to following a PC initiative coming out of an advisory committee ordering such words as “Jihad” and “Sharia” not be used when discussing terrorism. This “Homeland Security Advisory Council’s (HSAC) Subcommittee” featured a lineup of Sensitivity Training graduates including a woman named Lalia Alawa, who caught the administration’s attention through her Twitter feed, where she claimed “9/11 changed the world for good” and constantly disparaged white people on her social media posts.
In the middle of trying to be overly sensitive to hwo he perceives as victims and subservient to the PC powers who placed him in office, Obama has little choice but to push an agenda and ignore the real problem.
What is the real motive behind the hard-core anti-gun agenda?
Despite the myths being spread by meme producers and Left-leaning organizations, the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights clearly states citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. There is no spin able to change it (although some schemers try and eliminate a properly-;placed comma when forging an argument). With that right, however, comes responsibility. As citizens, we should not infringe upon others’ rights with our own and never harm others. Therefore, certain laws are in place which make sense (a waiting period, screening, etc.) to keep legally-sold guns out of the wrong hands.
While some regulations make sense, diligent Americans are warned about powerful people who wish to take parts of the Bill of Rights away. While Obama’s gun-control supporters will say “the President is not here to grab all of your guns –you still have them,” we must be wary of the exaggerated nature of such arguments: It would be politically impossible to ban guns in one fell swoop, but one must not be fooled about the anti-gun ownership’s mentality and endgame: to keep all firearms out of the hands of its general population. It takes a quick Google search these days to find out how the U.K. gradually banned citizens from gun ownership. On the lowest level, this leaves only honest people defenseless from any criminal who knows he/she always has the upper hand with an illegal gun. In the U.S. , potential criminals should be afraid they could be shot dead if they break into grandma’s home and try to rob her.
The real interest in gun-control laws comes from a deeper agenda: there is nothing an authoritarian government like more than a disarmed and ill-informed public. Through manipulation and use of the media, this administration is clearly pushing forward with the “change” proposed during Obama’s campaign (“change” meaning: a move closer to Agenda 21, disarming the public, using fear tactics to circumvent the Constitution) all while distracting the public with divisive minor social issues like who can get married and in which bathroom people should whizz. Furthermore, Obama and his anti-gun minions continue to exploit tragedies like Orlando, Newtown, Aurora and the Giffords shooting with attempts to sway public opinion and push political action during extremely emotional periods, when humans tend not to think rationally.
While we are used to this practice, it is still dishonorable to manipulate people’s emotions to get knee-jerk support for one’s agenda. A fair-minded person would reason that it would be impossible to keep weapons out of any determined criminal or Jihadist’s hands (although not taking Muteen off of the Federal Terror Watch List might have helped for a while). As Americans, we need to be vigilant and alert to protect ourselves from home-grown unaffiliated Jihadists, other criminals and a government bent on total control over and dependence by its citizenry.