raydawg
Serious Thumper
Offline
SuzukiSavage.com Rocks!
Posts: 11551
pacific northwest
Gender: 
|
I appreciate this take.....
Thursday night, as the sun set over Washington, if you asked President Obama who had been brave that day, he’d have said himself, not the students who declared themselves Christians knowing they were going to die because of it. Barack Obama, after all, had stood up to Republicans and the NRA — real bravery.
In 1,299 words, at a press conference at the White House, the president never condemned the killings in Oregon. Before he spoke, officials confirmed that the shooter targeted his victims based on their religion. In 1,299 words, the president never called for religious tolerance.
Before we knew who the gunman was or what his motive was, the president of the United States rushed to the podium to make the case for gun control. He even admitted he was politicizing it and that the shooting should be politicized.
In his speech, the president said, “We talked about [gun control] after Columbine and Blacksburg, after Tucson, after Newtown, after Aurora, after Charleston.”
What is so outrageous is that this time the president decided to politicize the situation after we already knew that the shooter had demanded the victims declare their religion before gunning them down. But the president never mentioned that. He never mentioned religious tolerance.
But the president did not politicize the shooting in Virginia when it was a black, gay man who killed the reporters.
The president did not politicize the shooting in Chattanooga when it was a Muslim radical who did the shooting.
The president did not politicize the shooting of the Muslim family in North Carolina when it turned out the shooter was a gay-rights supporting atheist Obama voter. No, he and the political left ran from those stories as quickly as possible. “Look over there!!!” the media demanded. “Look at this story,” they declared as soon as the shooter did not mean the demographics that allowed them to press for gun control or talk about racism.
They moved on from those stories as quickly as they moved on from the story of the gunman at the Discovery Channel offices who was killing liberals for not doing enough to stop global warming.
They moved on from those stories as quickly as they moved on from the gunman at the Family Research Council who was a gay rights activist intent on killing Christians.
Before the identity of the shooter was public this time, however, the president rushed as quickly as possible to make the case for gun control. He wanted to get out the gun control story as quickly as possible, just in case the facts became inconvenient to his politics and the left had to again move on quickly.
What is so outrageous is that this time the president decided to politicize the situation after we already knew that the shooter had demanded the victims declare their religion before gunning them down. But the president never mentioned that. He never mentioned religious tolerance.
Last week, the president told Pope Francis that we should all be able to live our faith in the public square. Meanwhile his administration and allies continue to harass Christians and sue them. Now someone goes into a school, demands to know the religion of the victims, and guns them down. But instead of calling for religious tolerance – as he would have if the shooter had been a Muslim – the president instead demands gun control.
But in calling for “common sense” gun control, the president cannot name any gun control laws that would have stopped the shooting. In the same way Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe demanded background checks after the Virginia shooting only to find out the shooter had had a background check, the president cannot name any gun laws, other than curtailing gun ownership, that would have stopped the shooting.
That is why, time and again, gun control arguments fall flat. But men like Barack Obama keep trying.
Perhaps instead of the president politicizing the deaths of around a dozen Americans, killed for professing their religion, he should first answer a simple question: why are there more mass shootings like this under his watch than under George W. Bush’s watch? I really don’t think the man presiding over a cultural suicide should really be the man who leads on this issue, particularly when his “common sense gun control” policy solutions would not have stopped this tragedy.
Evil is on the rise. It is real. It is active. It is global. And the president more often than not coddles it instead of confronting it.
So perhaps we should just go back to ignoring him.
|
Pages: 
