San Bernardino Shows Urgent Need For Bi-Partisan Islam Control
I must be psychic. On Wednesday, when we only knew that there were at least two shooters in San Bernardino, that they had assault weapons and body armor, and that they were in and out of the Inland Regional Center in less than 5 minutes, I knew this was a religion-of-peace operation.
Then we learned that the name of one of the shooters killed by police was Syed Farook, that he was newly devout (recently grew a beard and adopted Muslim garb), and that he went to Saudi Arabia to marry Tashfeen Malik — the other shooter — a lady he’d met on a Muslim dating site (www.letscommitmassmurdertogether.com) where his profile included his interest in target practice and his desire to marry an old-fashioned girl who would wear a hijab.
Initially, the mainstream media were doing the workplace-violence tango, which went something like this: Farook got into a heated argument with a co-worker at a Christmas party, went home, got his body armor, guns, some pipe bombs, roll-out bags and the little lady (“Hey, honey, wanna help me kill some infidels?”) came back and shot the place up.
Just like the 2009 Ft. Hood massacre — which was also called workplace violence. We were told that Major Nidal Hasan killed 13 of his colleagues and wounded 30 others because he was stressed out over the prospect of being posted to Afghanistan.
You’d think Hasan shouting “Allah akbar,” as he pumped round after round into fellow soldiers, would have been a dead giveaway. But it took years and a mountain of evidence — including Hasan’s courtroom confession — before the Army would admit it was terrorism.
When Muslims are involved in these attacks, it’s always about everything except Islam. Thus, the Boston Marathon bombing was the work of two maladjusted Chechen refugees — who just happened to be newly radicalized Muslims who spent a lot of time on jihadi websites.
It took two weeks before the Obama administration admitted that the Benghazi butchery wasn’t sparked by an Internet video.
Rushing to judgment is never justified — unless it’s in the cause of advancing gun-control mania.
Like a demented Energizer Bunny, within minutes of the news of the San Bernardino murders (at least 14 dead, and 17 wounded), President Obama rolled on stage beating his anti-gun drum.
“The one thing we do know” (besides the fact that Islam had nothing to do with it, of course) is that “we (in the United States) now have a pattern of mass shootings that has no parallel in the world.”
The president never lets reality interfere with ideology.
Didn’t terrorists just kill 129 people in Paris, mostly with firearms? And didn’t Anders Breivik use guns to kill 67 people in Norway in 2011? According to FOX News, there were more casualties in France due to mass shooting in this year alone (508) than in all of Obama’s presidency (424).
Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, for gun-controllers, mass shootings only occur in countries like America, with its appalling frontier mentality.
So, the San Bernardino killings prove the need for a “bipartisan solution” further restricting access to firearms, Obama intoned.
And how would that have prevented the tragedy? Yesterday’s New York Times discloses: “California has the strictest gun laws in the nation, according to the most recent report card by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. It is among a handful of states that ban the sale or possession of many assault weapons.” Didn’t the Jihad Family know the weapons they used to turn a Christmas party into a bloodbath are illegal in California?
Instead of targeting gun owners, try to imagine Obama saying that San Bernardino shows the need for “bi-partisan support for Muslim control.” After it stopped foaming at the mouth, the Committee on American Islamic Relations would have called it racist and paranoid, and not at all nice. The suggestion would have been condemned by every Democratic presidential candidate. And the Norwegian Nobel Committee would have taken back Obama’s Peace Prize.
How would Islam control work?
• The administration would cancel plans to bring 85,000 Syrian refugees to America, in the calendar year that began on October 1, including many jihadi sleepers.
• Potential refugees would have to pass a religious test (Christians yes, Muslims, no) which Obama recently condemned as “un-American.”
• The FBI would stake out every mosque in the country. According to a random survey of 100 U.S. mosques, undertaken by the Mapping Sharia In America Project, three in four either had imams who preached holy war or jihadist literature on the site.
• National Security officials would be screened by a panel composed of former UN Ambassador John Bolton, former Vice President Dick Cheney and Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy. Then we wouldn’t end up with the politically lobotomized, like Obama’s ISIS Czar Robert Malley, who in a 2010 documentary suggested that Hamas was basically the Palestinian equivalent of the Salvation Army.
How did I know San Bernardino was another episode of the Wonderful World of Jihad when only the bare facts were known? Because it had the earmarks. Guess how many mass shootings in the United States in the last 15 years involving more than one gunman were committed by non-Muslims? Exactly two — including Columbine.
In the words of our Peerless Leader: “This is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together. This is a political choice we make to allow this to happen every few months in America” — by refusing to recognize the connection between Islam and terrorism?
How many more must die, Mr. President? How many more?
First published at GrasstopsUSA.com
Top 6 on BarbWire.com