That Must Be Some Search

It has been more than a day since the shooting started in San Bernadino.  By now, things have become pretty clear.  We know that the shooters were a devout Moslem and his similarly devout Moslem wife.  We know that this couple were prepared with a large batch of pipe bombs that they built at home, thousands of rounds of ammunition, multiple guns, and military style gear.  We know that Syed Farook, the husband, spent time on the internet watching videos and visiting other sites posted by ISIS and other Islamic terror groups.  We know that when they went into the holiday party and began shooting, Farook and his wife left behind pipe bombs that fortunately failed to detonate.  And we know that according to neighbors, Farook moved into his home a few months back and since then he frequently met at night in his garage with many other Middle Eastern looking men, the same garage where a search turned up the bomb making materials.  In summary, we know that based upon all of this evidence, Farook and his wife were radical Islamic terrorists.

So why is it that the media refuses to accept the obvious?  I just heard radio news reports from CBS about how police are "searching for a motive" in the shootings.  That seemed bizarre to me, so I looked on line and found that at Yahoo News, the story line is that there is a possibility that the shooters might have "some connection" with "terrorism", but that police were still searching for more information.  There's more stories like that in the media, but ARE THEY KIDDING?? 

I do not want the police or the media to jump to conclusions in these situations, but we're well past the point where anyone could accuse police of doing that.  Farook is an Islamic terrorist; we need to admit that and get on with the search for those other men who came to his house to build bombs.

We also need to get serious about combatting the terror threat here at home.  In Washington today, Josh Earnest, the presidential spokesman, actually told reporters that president Obama believes that passing stronger gun control legislation would reduce terrorism.  You really cannot make this stuff up.  Earnest really said this.  It's sad that the USA faces such a serious and growing threat and we have an ideologically driven moron in the White House.

UPDATE:  CNN is now reporting:  “Farook was in touch over the phone and via social media with more than one international terrorism subject.”  Even so, they are still searching for a motive.

 

Jumping to Conclusions

Right now, we know that Sayeed Farook and his wife shot up a holiday party in San Bernadino yesterday.  The victims were co-workers of Farook's.  Farook used pistols and rifles (or "long guns" as the initial reports put it) for their attack.  More people died in this attack than in any event in the USA since the shooting in Newtown, CT.

The initial response to the shooting was predictable.  There was a massive police presence at the scene.  The survivors in the building were carefully brought to safety by the police, and the wounded were taken to hospitals.  A massive investigation was started with involvement of not just police, but also the FBI and ATF.  Then there was the other part of the initial response.  Within an hour of the attack and before we were even certain that it had ended, president Obama issued another call for gun control legislation through CBS News.  Hillary Clinton tweeted out her comments:  also a call for gun control.  Various Republicans called for prayers for the victims and they were mocked and blasted by Democrats and many in media for asking God's help at that moment.  The New York Daily News used the headline "God Isn't Fixing This".  But it was not just the media.  My own senator, Chris Murphy, let loose with a tirade against the meaninglessness of good wishes and prayer for the victims and their families.  Murphy also called for gun control, and that was still at a point when we did not even know the name of the perpetrators of the attack.  So without knowing anything about the attack other than the location and that there were dead who were shot, the media and the Democrats were issuing the standard calls for gun control.  They are devotees of Rahm Emanuel's dictim:  "Never let a crisis go to waste."  We got gun control and attacks on Republicans.  For Democrats, that's like hitting the Daily Double.

Then more facts came in.  In the next twelve hours we learned:  1) The attackers wore body armor and had military gear on.  2) The police got a tip and checked out the home of Sayeed Farook and saw the black SUV that the attackers had used to flee the scene.  3) The SUV started driving away from the home and the police gave chase.  As the police followed the SUV, the attackers opened fire on police.  During the ensuing shoot out on the highway, both attackers were killed.  4) Examination of the home of Sayeed Farook and also of the SUV revealed that Farook had a bag filled with bombs and had a bomb factory in his home.  5) Bombs were also found and removed by the bomb squad from the location of the initial attack where so many were shot.

What all this means is that the attack by Farook and his wife was premeditated.  One does not build multiple pipe bombs, don body armor and gather large amounts of weapons an other ammunition in fifteen minutes because of some slight at work.  It tooks weeks or months for Farook and wife to get all this stuff prepared.  So we have a man described by his father as a "devout Moslem" and his wife who prepared for a long time to carry out attacks with bombs and guns.  It's radical Islamic terrorism.  It's not "workplace violence".

I'm looking for the retraction by president Obama, Hillary Clinton or even a moron like Chris Murphy of their portrayals of the attack as just another bit of gun violence that can be cured by gun control.  There is no retraction. 

We need to stop jumping to conclusions as these events unfold.  The truth is that gun control legislation would not have made any difference in this attack.  Farook was an American citizen with no known connection to terrorism.  He had none of the characteristics that might have prevented him from purchasing guns.  In other words, Farook was a home-grown terrorist who could have gotten guns even with the "common sense gun safety laws" that Obama is always talking about.

Last week, we had the shooting at Planned Parenthood in Colorado.  There too, we watched the same people jump to conclusions about the motives of the shooter.  Even today we still are not sure of what those motives were.

If we are ever to stop these attacks from recurring, we need to give up preconceived ideas about what is actually happening.  Obama, Clinton and the Democrat/media cabal need to realize that not everything fits into their gun control matrix that they use in every shooting no matter the circumstances. 

 

How Do You Top This?

Here are two paragraphs from CNN that should not be missed by any American:

President Barack Obama's former top military intelligence official said Tuesday that the White House ignored reports prefacing the rise of ISIS in 2011 and 2012 because they did not fit its re-election "narrative."

 

"I think that they did not meet a narrative the White House needed. And I'll be very candid with you, they just didn't," retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead."

 

So the head of the DIA says that Obama got intelligence that warned of ISIS in 2011 and 2012 and that because of Obama's political needs, the intelligence was ignored.  Obama put his own interests over those of the USA.

 

These are the most damning words I can imagine about president Obama.

 

And while we are at it, let's not forget that at that very time, Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and certainly got the same intelligence reports.  She had to go along with the decision to cover up the truth.

 

They both suck.

 

 

Watching the Liberal Coalition Crumble

I keep seeing stories in the mainstream media about the schisms in the GOP.  There are very few mentions, however, of the schisms among the Democrats.  The reality, however, is that the splits among Democrats are more significant than those among the GOP.  Consider these:

In Chicago, there are large protests from African Americans against the city's liberal Democrat establishment.  After all, it was Mayor Emanuel who either actively suppressed the video of a young black man being shot 16 times by a policeman or sat by while others suppressed it.  That video could easily have derailed Emanuel's run for re-election last year.  The Democrat establishment of Chicago took the African American community for granted and the community knows it.  Something similar happened in Baltimore where the wholly Democrat establishment in City Hall let a bad situation get totally out of hand.  Throw in similar events in other cities run by the Democrats and you get an upwelling of anger against the liberal Democrat establishment in the black community.  This may not lead many black voters to switch to the GOP, but it could have many stay home in 2016.

The union members who are supposedly staunchly Democrat, are swinging away from many of the ultra progressive PC positions of the university based liberalism on campus.  The campus crew want to release more convicts from prison, for example.  That is not a view shared by most of the rest of the Democrats. 

Then there is the split over the proper strategy for dealing with ISIS.  Hillary Clinton just said that she cannot foresee any situation in which American troops would be sent to Iraq or Syria to fight ISIS.  That, of course, is not even the stance taken by president Obama who is now sending more troops to add to the thousands already there.  If there were a terror attack here in the USA like the one in Paris (let's pray not), the split between the "no troops ever" Democrats to whom Hillary was pandering and the others would grow dramatically.

There are many other splits among the Democrats.  Think of the anti-coal environmental groups and the coal miners in KY and WV.

The point is that for all the demography is destiny nonsense pushed by the left, the Democrat coalition is near the point of breaking up.  When it happens, the pundits will tell us how they saw it coming, but for now, they are surely quiet.

 

Chaos Reigns; Confusion Rules; It Must Be the Democrats

In short order today, America was treated to a bizarre series of moves and statements by president Obama and the Obamacrats.  Likely Obamacrat nominee Hillary Clinton gets special mention for her part in the confusion as well.  Here's what happened:

1.  Secretary of Defense Ash Carter told Congress that the USA would be sending additional special operations troops to Iraq to help the ground forces fighting ISIS.  Also this morning, Hillary Clinton told Charley Rose on CBS that she agreed with Obama that there should be no US ground forces in Iraq or Syria and she could foresee no circumstances that would change that view.  Let's stop there.  The Obama administration announces that more combat troops will go to Iraq to join the thousands of other American troops there already, but Hillary says she AGREES with Obama that no such troops should be there.  If I didn't know better, I would guess that either Hillary or Carter was high at the time of making the statement.

2.  In France, Obama stated that he did not expect Russia to change its strategy in Syria any time soon, but added that sooner or later Putin would realize that he was stuck in a quagmire and would reverse course.  Obama did not complain that Russia has been busy bombing America's allies in the fight against ISIS in Syria; indeed, Obama did not even mention this.  Obama also said nothing about the dispatch of additional US troops to Iraq.  He had so little emotional involvement in the subject that he could have been an announcer at a golf match.

3.  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Congress this morning that ISIS has not been contained.  Two weeks ago, Obama said exactly the opposite.  Which is it?

In all this mess, not once has anyone explained why America keeps sending more troops but announcing that we have no combat troops (even though we have troops engaged in combat in Syria and Iraq).  Nor does anyone explain why the escalation by the USA keeps being done in small numbers.  Supposedly, American military doctrine after Vietnam calls for the quick use of massive force to win clear victories.  Obama, however, is engaged in a stagnant course of escalation that will allow ISIS the time to adapt and respond to the additional troops.

I would say that Obama does not want to win the fight against ISIS, but that is too simplistic.  No, the reality is that Obama does not want to engage in the fight against ISIS, but he is being forced to do so by public pressure.

I keep waiting for Obama or another member of his party to come forward with a coherent explanation of America's policy in dealing with ISIS.  I don't expect to agree with all of such a policy.  Nevertheless, it is not too much for the American people to expect some sort of a rational policy from our president and his party.  All we are getting, however, is total incoherence.

 

Watching the Media Prepare the Field

There was a shift in the talking points coming from the Clinton campaign over the Thanksgiving holiday.  No one announced it, but the evidence is clear in the mainstream media.

First of all, the Clintonistas are worried about a possible indictment of Hillary.  More precisely, they are worried that the FBI will report that there is a basis for an indictment.  Whether or not the Department of Justice actually indicts Hillary is up to the Attorney General, so there is less worry there for the Clintonistas.  Because of this worry, the campaign is having the mainstream media prepare the field for their defense.  In the last three days, I have seen three different articles that refer to James Comey, the director of the FBI, as a Republican.  Comey is, indeed, a Republican, although he was appointed director of the FBI by president Obama.  These references to Comey's party are quite unusual.  In the entire time Comey has been the head of the FBI, I have never seen any other articles that mention Comey's political affiliations, but now there are three in three days.  Comey has always been known as an apolitical man who fights for justice and follows the requirements of the law precisely.  So why are there suddenly references to Comey's party?  The answer is Hillary's defense.  You see, if the FBI reports that there is a basis to indict Hillary Clinton, the Clinton campaign wants to be able to claim that Comey is just carrying out a political hit even though there is no real evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary.  If people think of Comey as a Republican, that line of defense becomes easier to use successfully.

Second, the Clinton campaign is also worried that the sagging economy will damage Hillary since she is calling for following the Obama economic prescription.  Hillary is the "more of the same" candidate when it comes to the economy.  As a result, since last Friday I have also seen numerous articles in the mainstream media which discuss how the expected interest rate rise by the Federal Reserve could be a major mistake that will stop America's strong economic growth.  This story line is ridiculous.  America is not achieving strong economic growth or anything close to that.  Further, an increase of one quarter of one percent by the Fed, as expected, is something that will have little if any effect on growth.  Nevertheless, the Clintonistas are spreading the story that the fault in the economy lies not with the failed policies of Obama which Clinton wants to continue, but rather with the tiny interest rate rise that the Fed supposedly wants to undertake.   The media is preparing the public to accept the argument from Hillary that her policies will work fine and that the problem is with the Fed.

The coordinated effort in the media makes one wonder if Ezra Klein has brought back the "journo-list", that secret website where liberals in the media went to agree how to coordinate their stories to help the Democrats.

 

The Silver Lining

Former long time New York Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted of criminal fraud in federal court.  It's about time!  According to the verdict, Silver ran the Assembly so as to maximize his own personal gain.  The leader of the New York State Senate is also about to go on trial.  That just leaves one member of the triumvirate that ran New York as the next target.  The third man, of course, is governor Andrew Cuomo.  We may possibly see Silver flip on Cuomo in order to get a more lenient sentence.  That would truly be the silver lining to this whole situation.