More Gun Control Will Prevent Terrorism?

More gun control would have prevented this latest mass shooting, according to President Obama. At least that was the inference from his first statements on national TV in the immediate wake of the latest terrorist attack. Of course, it wasn’t a terrorist attack, it was perhaps another instance of work-place violence.

It can be argued that in those first minutes and hours, no one knew this was a terrorist attack and not just another crazed gunman looking for a high body count in a target rich environment conveniently labeled a “gun-free zone”. But, that argument is at best specious.

It is a certainty that by the time he addressed the nation, the President of the United States was briefed with the names and gender of the attackers as well as with the information about it being a developing situation with potentially more co-conspirators.

The bags with explosives left at the scene, the body armor on the suspects, the almost immediate reports of shouts about Allah and Infidels and the like were all early clues it’s be hard to believe the President wasn’t told.  While it is reasonable to not release information prematurely it is most certainly not reasonable to intentionally misdirect the American public.

There is an accusation out there that Obama is a Muslim and that explains why he will never conjoin the words terrorism and Islam. There is no merit to this accusation but when the POTUS nearly sprains his tongue, twisting it upside and back on itself to keep from saying Muslim extremism, jihadi or Islamic terrorist, it is not surprising that accusation gains traction. Why, exactly, the President of the United States refuses to label Muslim extremists as terrorists is simply baffling. At least with the false flag of gun control, the agenda being served is known.

Barely forty-eight hours after fourteen innocent Americans were killed and another twenty one were wounded, the FBI has officially labeled this incident an act of terrorism. Unsurprisingly, the President and the White House still have not. There was a statement about the President wanting the DoJ and the FBI to characterize and categorize this event. Supposedly, the President will speak soon and will actually use the word terrorism.

Beyond admitting this was an act of terrorism, it will be very interesting to hear what else the President has to say, as well as what he doesn’t say. It is highly doubtful that he will state the religion or religious motivations of the terrorists. It is equally doubtful the President will acknowledge the self-professed allegiance to ISIS by Tashfeen Malik, made on social media while her husband’s coworkers lay bleeding and dying. But we can be fairly certain that a call for more gun control will be part of his statement.

It will be most interesting to see how the President of the United States justifies his desire to disarm law abiding citizens, while we are a nation at war and the enemy is proven to be amongst us.

In his initial comments, the President made reference to work place violence being a possibility. The inference then became this was an instance of work-place violence that led to an act of terror, a theory still being floated by the White House more than twenty-four hours after the attack. While all the details surrounding what is now unequivocally known to be a terrorist attack by Muslim extremists carrying out jihad may never be released, there are some facts that, taken out of the context of terrorism and jihadi sentiment, could conceivably support citing work place violence as a motive or part of the motivation for this attack. It’s a stretch, but one the President made and is likely to continue to make.

Here’s what we know for certain – Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were jihadis. Muslim extremist terrorists. About these facts, we are now beyond all doubt. We’re told they were dismayed at the state of the society into which their child had been born and it was for the future well-being of their child that they were taking up jihad. They weren’t concerned with martyring themselves and leaving their child an orphan because according to the sect of Islam to which they subscribed, if they died their child was guaranteed entrance into Paradise. But, they didn’t plan on giving up their lives at this point, hence the remote controlled bombs and body armor. In other words, they had a plan.

Syed went to a Christmas party with his coworkers, got in an argument and left. From numerous sources, Syed did not get along with his coworkers. He displayed increasingly arrogant and misogynistic attitudes, in the name of Islam and demanded respect and the right to those attitudes as an expression of his religious freedom.

As for the argument with his coworkers at the Christmas party, there are currently a couple stories running. One is a continuation of the above – he was angry because his coworkers and bosses would not tolerate his intolerance. He was demanding the right to be an arrogant, misogynistic jerk in the name of his religion. Others disagreed that he had a right to express his religion in this way in the work place. Part of the final argument was about it being a Christmas party, something to which he took offense. He did not feel it was fair that there was a Christmas party when he had been told he could not act on his religious beliefs, i.e., make derogatory comments to and about women, treat them as inferior, worth only a portion of the value of a man, etc.

The other story is about the place where the party was being held. He was disgusted by the clientele of the agency housed in the building.

He reportedly said that mentally and physically handicapped people should be left to die at birth. When challenged over these statements, he responded that he was speaking from the protected place of his religious beliefs, that allowing the afflicted to die at birth by not feeding them or leaving them outside, exposed, was a mercy. According to this version, the attack happened when it did because, in response to his statements about his religion’s attitude toward the physically and mentally handicapped, his coworkers reportedly said belief in jihad and Sharia were symptoms of a mental handicap.

The truth is just as likely to be a combination of these theories as it is to be about something else entirely. But, the money bet is whatever it was that made him angry, it was something to do with infringments upon his expression of his religion.

There is no question that Syed and Tashfeen were fully committed to jihad and wanted to do their part in bringing about all-out war between Islam and America. The feeling is that an attack was planned, but it was not initially to take place at this Christmas party; there were unfinished bombs not deployed, and the number of rounds of ammunition spent was just a fraction of what was stock-piled by the couple. It appears that this attack was moved-up from it’s original timeline and therefore not as smoothly executed as it would have been had they adhered to the original plan. If that is true, we can only be thankful because if they had succeeded to the level they seem to have planned for the death toll could be in triple digits.

Taking these points into consideration makes the President’s comments about work-place violence almost sound plausible. The arguments Syed had with his coworkers made that the place where he would carry out his attack, but the arguments were caused by his adherence to jihadi interpretations of Islam. This was an attack by a Muslim terrorist against infidels who happened to be coworkers and therefore an easy target. The fact that he got to settle personal grudges in the process was just bonus. The intent, purpose and reasons were all because of the terrorist sympathies and jihadist Muslim beliefs of Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik. The choice of target was nothing more than a matter of convenience and had nothing to do with actual work-place issues.

Insulting Religion is an American Right

We all remember the Mohammed Cartoon Contest in Texas last May, an event clearly and solely designed to infuriate and insult, according to Islamists and its apologists. I don’t disagree that was part of the intent, but only insofar as that intent drove home the message of the event, which was an exercise of free speech. The point was and remains that in this country, you can say whatever you want about any religion. And that you have the right to without fear of that religion’s adherents killing you for doing so.

That now infamous cartoon contest that ended with the death of the two jihadi’s who were attempting to do exactly what was predicted, kill those in attendance, was organized and sponsored by private citizens and entities. The Federal government has actually given money through grants of the National Endowment of the Arts to people who want to express their opinion about a religion in intentionally inflammatory, insulting and derogatory ways. Some years back, an artist peed in a jar, dropped a crucifix in, took a picture and called it art.

Let’s stop and imagine the outcry if someone displayed a Quran floating in a jar of urine. Imagine the fatwas that would be issued. Now imagine if someone received government money for the project. The DoJ would be investigating for a possible hate speech prosecution, there would be marches, and protests, and CAIR would be filling the airwaves with demands we violate our Constitution and issue special protections for the religion of peace.

People reacted with disgust and even hateful words toward the person who called a crucifix in a jar of urine art, but no one showed up at the exhibition with guns intending to kill the artist and all those in attendance. Yet, the same liberal thinking that still defends this bit of ridiculous social theater as important and powerful art condemns the organizers of the cartoon contest for being intentionally inflammatory, hateful and acting counter to a peaceful coexistence with the religion of peace.

I wonder, do these people actually believe that the jihadis will not kill them, that the desire to subjugate us and completely annihilate our way of life won’t apply to them because they are championing jihadi’s right to be jihadis? Do these most looney of the loons of the Left really believe that the jihadis only hate us because of the actions of the Right and if only they could fundamentally change our society to be more in line with the nanny states of Europe we would all peacefully coexist? Are they unaware of what the Muslim jihadi terrorists are doing in Europe?

Quick lesson here in American civics – If someone believes their God is telling them there will be peace on earth only when the followers of their particular version of their sect of their religion are in complete and total control of all mankind, they have the right to believe that. They even have the right to say it. Loudly. They do not have the right to attempt to bring about their version of truth by violence, force or bloodshed. Not in this country.

Another – we do not protect a religion by silencing it’s critics.

One more – we take our Bill of Rights and Constitution pretty seriously. You might call those documents our American, secular religious texts. That belief system we will defend. With abundant use of the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

The only way to make all of this worse is to remember what else was going on this week…The Climate Change Summit in Paris.  You know, the thing that according to our President is a bigger threat than jihadis. Good thing clouds can’t hold guns or we’d be wiped out as a species.




Leave a comment