The anti-gun fervor that grips Obama and the Democrat party serves dual political strategies.
The first is to make believe that IslamoNazi ideology does not exist. The Obama regime fantasizes that radical Islam is, um, workplace violence, or violent extremism — anything other than what it obviously is, and what the terrorists tells us it is.
Which is why the Obama DOJ are censoring—rewriting history—20 minutes of the phone calls made by the Orlando terrorist. Remember, every impulse of postmodern progressives is totalitarian.
The second strategy is to blame America for Islamist violence.
Make no mistake about it, by blaming guns, gun owners, the NRA, and the Second Amendment, the Democrat party blames America. They have been doing this since the 60s.
You see how it works; the Democrats talk about guns as if guns have a life of their own. As if guns decide to commit evil deeds all on their own without human moral agency. The leftist media picks up on the goofy, over-heated anti-gun rhetoric and voila, everyone’s talking about guns instead of discussing and confronting the actual enemy — IslamoNazis.
The Democrats have embraced appeasement as an overarching policy and philosophy. Whether it’s the racists of Black Lives Matter or the Jew-haters of CAIR, the Democrats corral their votes by denying their eliminationist ideologies.
The truth is quite simple. IslamoNazi ideology is spreading like a cancer across the globe. The only way to defeat this scourge is on the battlefield and through effective counter propaganda.
America accomplished these twin goals in World War II — by reducing Germany and Japan to ashes. Half-measures are doomed to failure. The only language radical Islam understands is the language of brute power.
And apparently, the only language the Democrats understand is Orwellian Newspeak.
How about a post on Obama’s statement that the right to bear arms is “not what liberty means”? To whom is it not obvious yet that this man does not like liberty at all (except for himself)?
I suppose in a very narrow sense he’s right. The right to bear arms is what liberty depends on, and it is a component of liberty but not all of it.
Then again, clearly that’s not what Obama intended to convey. What he meant instead is that peons should not have arms, only the bosses. Charlie Rangel said it too the other day, a bit more plainly.
Funny, just this morning during breakfast I asked my husband if he thought Truman was right to drop the bombs. He answered, “Absolutely, because the Japanese would never give up and the only way to make them stop was to totally overpower them.” Comparing the Japanese to the Arabs is not really fair to the Japanese, who actually contribute positively to mankind and civilization, but in one way they are similar: The Arabs will never give up, and every concession, every weakness, every “kindness” shown to them is just an indication that they are on the right track and if they only persevere they can overpower their opponent.
I’m not too emotionally invested in the 2016 election, because (my tin hat firmly tied under my chin) election night, I fully expect Obama to pull down the curtain and reveal his army of ISIS fighters prepared in every state, every city, every zip code, ready to force the rest of us to swear allegiance to him or die.
Japan was a belligerent nation that was offered not once, but three times, the option to surrender by President Truman. His obligation was to the United States and the troops on the ground. He did the right thing. To illustrate that point, seventy years after the fact, Japan is a democratic ally. As by the way, are Germany and Italy. Victory is not negative.