Omar Mateen unleashes terror in Orlando, Twitter mob blames Christians, NRA

Omar Mateen

Omar Mateen of St. Lucie County, Fla., massacred 50 people and wounded 53 others at a gay nightclub in Orlando on Saturday. The St. Lucie County man had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group and was previously investigated by the FBI. Those are the kind of details that rightly prompt discussions on homeland security and radical Islamic terrorism in objective circles.

On Twitter, however, the online mobs have directed their rage and anger at other targets: Christians and the National Rifle Association. Seriously.

Chase Strangio Orlando terror tweet

Yes, that’s right, a guy who pledged allegiance to ISIS before unleashing a terror attack like those in Paris or Brussels was somehow driven by “the Christian Right” to slaughter gay people — according to the Twitter mob.

Scott Weiner Orlando terror tweet

Scott Wiener, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, wants everyone to know that “Radical Christianity more than holds its own” when compared to the Islamic terrorists throwing gay men off tall buildings in Syria or mowing down innocent civilians around the world.

Islamic State gay execution

Finally, the Orlando-terror Twitter stream was filled with individuals like Deni Rosenberg, who want the world to believe that “good guys” with guns would not have saved countless lives inside Pulse Nightclub — despite the fact that it took a S.W.A.T. team (i.e., good guys with guns), to end the bloody standoff.

Deni Rosenberg Orlando tweet

Every time Islamic radicals kill civilians in western countries, the response by politically-correct activists is to proclaim, “this has nothing to do with Islam” — while simultaneously sliming Christians and gun-owners as the catalyst for terror. Oddly enough, these very same activists wonder why presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is popular with millions of Americans.

Pulse Attack CNN screenshot

If Donald Trump is elected the 45th president of the United States, then pollsters should ask about this moment in history. Millions of voters’ decision will be galvanized within the next week, and it is my opinion (as a Giant Meteor of Death supporter) that a cacophony of politically-correct platitudes will push them into Mr. Trump’s camp.

Giant Meteor 2016

Editor’s Note:

Regular readers know that this blog has been nominated for a Hugo Award. This morning I saw a trackback in my WordPress stats to one voter’s critique of my writing. I fell into a “No Award” category based on my “weaker” political fare. An example of my “weaker” efforts was a Dec. 12, 2015, post that warned of “Shariah Police” legally patrolling the streets of Germany — and how Christianity differs from Islam. (I’m not sure how my thoughts on Shariah law have anything to do with The Amazing Spider-Man, but I digress.)

“Ernst’s more political/social commentary posts are much weaker but the guy is saddled with having to defend poorly thought out positions,’ the writer said. “Overall, a bit middling with high variability. There are many better writers out there but as there is a danger of political bias on my part leading me to undervalue the rest of his writing I strongly considered putting him above No Award. However, even the best of his writing just isn’t up to award-worthy.”

Here is my “poorly thought out position” from that post: Shariah Law is dangerous (e.g., it allows for the execution of gay people, domestic terrorism, etc.), and 2 million refugees from the Middle East and North Africa will pose significant security problems for German authorities in the years to come.

Let me ask my Magic 8 Ball if “political bias” was at play with that “No Award” vote.

Answer: “As I see it, yes.”

Prediction: Statists will try to limit your use of 3-D printing technology

President Obama doesn’t seem to be a fan of technology. He once even lamented its deleterious effect on the economy, telling the “Today” show: “You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM; you don’t go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.” Given that, it’s a good bet he won’t be a fan of 3-D printing. Thanks to this technology, people will eventually be able to make the high capacity magazines and AR-15s that he hopes to ban — right from the comfort of their own homes.

It’s already happening. Extreme Tech reports:

“The first 3D-printed gun was created by forum member HaveBlue. It was a pistol, and consisted of a 3D-printed receiver, with a fully metal upper area, such as the barrel. The receiver is actually what legally constitutes a firearm, so in the eyes of the law, that’s a ‘real’ gun.”

Statist politicians will have a tough time regulating weapons when gun enthusiasts will have the power to print their weapons, magazines and ammunition from a favorite armchair. But they will try.

President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have claimed that “if it only saves one life,” their infringements of the Second Amendment will be justified. Using that logic, it isn’t hard to imagine a time when politicians will seek to limit access of 3-D printing tech to a select few (i.e., their friends and the “friends” who donate to their campaigns), despite the infinite ways it could positively impact our everyday lives.

Just as the United Nations seeks to wrestle control over the Internet in an effort to control freedom of speech, 3-D printing will be targeted for its ability to safeguard life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Politicians will eventually realize this technology’s potential, and it will be given greater scrutiny. Bureaucrats in Washington have shown no problem with attempting to curtail a right enshrined in the Constitution. They will certainly have no qualms attempting to withhold emerging 3-D technology from the general public.

Obama: Don’t mind me using kids as human shields on gun control

Obama Hinna Now Is The Time

Earlier this week President Obama decided he wanted to give a gun control conference flanked by children. Today, he’s decided to put video of his kiddie props into official White House YouTube videos. Unbelievable.

An excerpt from 3rd grader Hinna:

After watching the news all day one question popped in my head and that question is: “Can we stop using guns?” I think if there are no guns on the street no one could get hurt. Bullets don’t have eyes. It can hurt anyone. I’m really scared of guns and criminals around the world. love my country and I want everyone to be happy and safe. No guns. No guns. No guns. No guns.

Hinna seems like a nice little girl. Sadly, her parents are the kind of people who don’t mind her being turned into a political pawn.

While the behavior of Hinna’s parents is rather sick, it is President Obama who is the Grade A Loser for ultimately using a little girl as a human shield. Now the “war on women” smear will be converted into a “war on children” for anyone who disagrees with the administration’s proposals. Indeed, if the president was being philosophically honest with the public he would admit that he too subscribes to a third-grader’s logic on the issue: “No guns. No guns. No guns. No guns.” He would admit that deep down he wants an amendment to the Constitution, but that he could never muster the two-thirds supermajority of both Houses of Congress necessary to propose it, and the three-fourths of the states needed for ratification. (Shhh! Don’t tell anyone, but a lot of Obama voters own guns and would never give them up.)

Someone needs to tell Hinna that there are no guns in federal prisons, either — but people still get hurt. Badly. And some of them die incredibly gruesome deaths, too. The federal government controls everything these bad men and women do each day, from the moment they wake up until the moment they go to bed, and criminals still find creative ways to kill each other. And so, the way to have less successful shootings by madmen is not to have a police state that goes around trying to round up all the guns and counting bullets to find out if you have eleven or twelve in a magazine instead of ten — it’s to concentrate more attention on the behavior of madmen.

Regardless, if you’ve read this far I’ll let you in on a little secret: it’s called the assault shovel loophole. Long story short, guns have been around for a long time and they’re not going anywhere. The only thing strict gun control will get you is less individual liberty. Shovels don’t have eyes either, President Obama and Hinna. But they too can hurt someone — either as a traditional shovel or as an “assault shovel.” But if you increase individual liberties and properly promote civil society and the rule of law you’ll have a safer, happier country.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a video to watch of President Obama giving a speech in the preemie ward of a local hospital.

Yes, with a little elbow grease, you too can have your own AK-assault shovel.
Yes, with a little elbow grease you too can have your own AK-assault shovel.

Gun control for radicals: Obama goes Alinsky on guns rights

President Obama and Vice President Biden spoke on Wednesday — with children as backdrop props — to make the case for strict gun control measures. Both men framed power grabs, multiple times, as a “moral obligation” while demonizing opponents as extremists who want to “gin up fear and ratings and revenue.” Saul Alinsky would be proud.

Once again Mr. Obama turned to the erroneous logic that if anything can be done to prevent a single death, his administration has “a moral obligation” to try it. He spoke of “23 executive actions” to accomplish this goal and claimed that the “overwhelming majority of Americans” agree with him, but not one of his proposals would have done anything to prevent the Newtown, Conn., massacre that led to this manufactured crisis. If he were philosophically honest he would start with one call: to amend the Constitution of the United States.

The president readily acknowledged Wednesday that “there is no piece of legislation that can prevent every act of evil,” but he does not concede the laughable logic of arbitrariy limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds. On Tuesday night, New York decided seven was the magic number. Why not five? Or four? Or perhaps the U.S. could move to establish the musket as America’s weapon of choice.

Like most of the president’s speeches, Wednesday’s announcement was high on soaring vagueness and short on specifics. A ban on military-style weapons? Check. So now weapons that look scary will be banned, while weapons that are just as deadly can still be sold (for now). Supporters of the president’s endless supply of flowery platitudes will cheer his speech for multiple news cycles. Free-thinking Americans who care about consequences instead of intentions will not be so impressed.

Read more at Times247.