And then we have Loretta Lynch, US Attorney General, who visited Orlando this week, and still is looking to find what “motivated” the killer. You know, the man who attended a radical mosque, who dedicated himself to Allah, who said he was taking revenge on America for killing Muslim women and children, and who declared allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Our Attorney General doesn’t know what motivated him. Considering that her office has tried its level best to erase and expunge and Muslim Holy War references from the record (including translating “Allah” as “God” so as not to offend) it is apparent that Ms. Lynch isn’t so much interested in determining his motivation as she is in keeping it a secret from the rest of us. This brings to mind something said by Madeline Albright, then Secretary of State, who, discussing the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 said, weeks after the event, “We still are not sure this is an act of terrorism.” Well, the cast may change but the dialogue stays the same.
The conservatives in America, often called “right wingers” allegedly are nourished by “social issues” such as abortion and guns – but the Progressives are even more defined by those social issues. Abortion on demand is the central issue that has driven the Democrat party to the left, by driving so many pro-life people out of the party, and being anti-gun equally defines the modern Progressive, and Democrat officeholders who are strong supporters of the Second Amendment are getting more and more scarce. Economics once was the major divisor of our political parties. Now, it is the “social issues.”
Look no further than the Senate votes this week on “gun control” proposals. Confronting the worst mass shooting in US history, committed (see above) by a self-defined soldier of Allah, the Senate chose to vote on laws that would have made it more difficult for Americans to defend themselves. (Please remember, it already is illegal for criminals to possess firearms, as it is illegal to shoot someone; two things that don’t seem to impede criminals very much.) The Orlando shooter somehow skated around many “red flags” that should have brought him arrest, detention, termination of employment or loss of his freedom to possess a firearm. The FBI was investigating the mosque he attended until 2009, when the Obama administration brought it to a halt. Yet no Senate votes on measures that would change the way the FBI does investigations. Perhaps the “most popular” of the proposals in the Senate had to do with restricting firearms possession for those on “no fly” or “terrorist watch lists.” The shooter should have been on those lists, but he was not, so, if we may use the words, “What difference does it make?” (Note: at one time he was on the Terrorist Screening Database, but had been removed, so this measure would not have prevented the Orlando shooting.)
One way to tell the difference between a Progressive liberal and a conservative is that the liberal sees the gun as the problem and the conservative sees its abuser as the problem. As we said after the September 11 attack: a stick of dynamite in the hands of a five-year old girl is less of a threat than a hatpin in the hands of a terrorist. We should be less worried with the weapon than when it is wielded by a bad person.