Marz's reactions to tragedy in San Bernardino
And now for Ron Marz's responses to the week's tragedy, which are about what you could expect - he has used a violent crime alternately as an excuse for gun control advocacy, and to attack conservatives. For example, he said:
Nope, this is the situation any poor education system has decreed we live in, because they have no interest in teaching students why violence is wrong. This is also the situation that results from "cultural sensitivity" that hinders the ability to combat violent ideologies effectively.
Marz should be ashamed of himself for lack of interest in condemning any ideology that promotes murderous rampages. He also doesn't seem particularly concerned about the neighbor of the jihadists who purportedly bought the weapons used in the assault.
It was just an insult to laws that were meant to defend people's safety. Quit trying to fool anybody.
He couldn't bring himself to admit we have a jihad problem. The same kind of tragedy that's poisoned Europe, and which jelly spined politicians won't do anything to stop.
Again, there goes an ignoramus spouting off ditherings meant for himself. He must've written that as a vindictive reaction to his own hopes that it would be a right-winger, after every leftarded narrative was refuted. Just who are these people he speaks of? From what I can tell, he means conservatives in the USA, and not Islamofascists overseas. It's also extremely offensive how he implies everyone's "smugly pleased". *Ahem* NOBODY with half a brain is even remotely pleased whenever there's a bloodbath anywhere, and it makes no difference what the ideological background of the criminals is. What matters is that whoever the perpetrators of a violent crime were, they did something repulsive that goes throughly against human values.
How about some conservative websites? Maybe some milbloggers?
For Marz, it's lamenting all the way-too-easy scapegoats, because he's little more than a coward himself.
Marz has only demonstrated with all this how hermetically sealed off he is to what repellent ideologies are like.
He goes on to respond to a Rolling Stone story about a TV channel advertising guns, saying:
The answer is more self-defense, including in Europe. Oh, and interesting how he, like Dan Slott, is using Rolling Stone as a source of recommended news, after the offensive cover story they ran dedicated to one of the Boston marathon bombers. He just demonstrates yet again why he'd be better off refraining from these kind political issues.
Mass shooting in San Bernardino, VA. This is the country the NRA has decreed we live in. https://t.co/Rxr2hXMqwx— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 2, 2015Nope, this is the situation any poor education system has decreed we live in, because they have no interest in teaching students why violence is wrong. This is also the situation that results from "cultural sensitivity" that hinders the ability to combat violent ideologies effectively.
L.A. Times story indicates shooting is at Inland Regional Center, which "provides services to disabled people and others in need." My God.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 2, 2015I remain ashamed that my country is too cowardly and too greedy to do anything about its gun problem. #SanBernadino— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 2, 2015Marz should be ashamed of himself for lack of interest in condemning any ideology that promotes murderous rampages. He also doesn't seem particularly concerned about the neighbor of the jihadists who purportedly bought the weapons used in the assault.
Apparently, some people thought my previous tweet was an invitation to assert their precious Second Amendment Rights.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 2, 2015It was just an insult to laws that were meant to defend people's safety. Quit trying to fool anybody.
Guy just explained to me that we REALLY don't have a gun problem because ... well, I dunno, because I blocked him before I finished reading.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 2, 2015He couldn't bring himself to admit we have a jihad problem. The same kind of tragedy that's poisoned Europe, and which jelly spined politicians won't do anything to stop.
Twitter indicates there are many, many people who seem smugly pleased the terrorists have Muslim names.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 3, 2015So many wearing their ignorance as badge of honor. That, more than anything, depresses me.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 3, 2015Again, there goes an ignoramus spouting off ditherings meant for himself. He must've written that as a vindictive reaction to his own hopes that it would be a right-winger, after every leftarded narrative was refuted. Just who are these people he speaks of? From what I can tell, he means conservatives in the USA, and not Islamofascists overseas. It's also extremely offensive how he implies everyone's "smugly pleased". *Ahem* NOBODY with half a brain is even remotely pleased whenever there's a bloodbath anywhere, and it makes no difference what the ideological background of the criminals is. What matters is that whoever the perpetrators of a violent crime were, they did something repulsive that goes throughly against human values.
Impossible to use Twitter to find updating news on terrorist attack, thanks to hyper-partisan hyperventilating. Suggestion for good info?— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 3, 2015How about some conservative websites? Maybe some milbloggers?
Right after Sandy Hook, the country was mostly united in outrage and grief. Now, it's mostly petty bickering and scoring political points.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 3, 2015For Marz, it's lamenting all the way-too-easy scapegoats, because he's little more than a coward himself.
It's a sad indication of how numbed to and accepting of mass shootings we've become. Part of the daily fabric of America now.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 3, 2015Marz has only demonstrated with all this how hermetically sealed off he is to what repellent ideologies are like.
He goes on to respond to a Rolling Stone story about a TV channel advertising guns, saying:
See? The answer is ALWAYS more guns. https://t.co/Tmm4rMqGvz— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 3, 2015The answer is more self-defense, including in Europe. Oh, and interesting how he, like Dan Slott, is using Rolling Stone as a source of recommended news, after the offensive cover story they ran dedicated to one of the Boston marathon bombers. He just demonstrates yet again why he'd be better off refraining from these kind political issues.
Labels: Europe and Asia, islam and jihad, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, politics, violence
Garland, Texas: Jihadists attack an art contest. Armed cops stop them cold. The only casualties are the attackers. The media still ridicule the idea that armed good guys can stop armed bad guys. They also blame the intended victims for provoking the terrorists.
Paris: ISIS terrorists murder unarmed victims. Rep. Jan Schakowski (D-IL) says it shows the need for "sensible gun laws" in the USA. (Did ISIS buy their weapons in Texas or Florida?) One day earlier, Obama said that ISIS was "contained." (But he wants to admit thousands of Syrian "refugees" into the US. If ISIS is "contained," why are there refugees fleeing from it? And once Russia obliterates ISIS, what is Obama going to use as an excuse for importing "refugees"?)
BTW, Obama always says "ISIL," not ISIS. He considers Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and "Palestine" to be the Levant, i.e., Israel has no right to exist.
Hillary says that terrorism has "nothing whatsoever" to do with Islam. John Kerry says that terrorism has "nothing to do with Islam, and everything to do with abuse, psychopathism, criminality...you name it." (As long as you don't name it Islam or Muslim extremism.) Bernie Sanders blames terrorism on climate change.
Mali: terrorists murder unarmed victims. They spare the hostages who can quote the Koran, and execute those who can't.
Colorado: a lone weirdo, with no known affiliations to any organizations, shoots victims at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Before any facts are known, the media start speculating about the Tea Party, Christians, Republicans, talk radio, etc., etc.
San Bernardino: Jihadists murder unarmed victims, in a designated gun-free zone, in a state with strict gun laws. One of them recently visited the Middle East. Another was from the Middle East, and came to the US, sailing through the screening process and obtaining a visa. The media claim that the motives are "unclear," and warn against rushing to judgment. Marz, Slott, and the rest of the Left blame the NRA.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch calls the San Bernardino massacre a "wonderful opportunity" to push for more anti-gun legislation. Three weeks after the Paris massacre, Obama says that mass shootings never happen in civilized countries other than the US.
Senator Barbara Boxer says that California's "sensible" gun laws work, and that the state's crime rate has been declining for years. (The US crime rate has been declining nation-wide for years, and it has declined more in states with open carry and "shall issue" CCW policies.) Meanwhile, Obama cites the San Bernardino tragedy as proof that existing gun laws are inadequate, and that we need more anti-gun laws. Which is it?
Syed Farook's neighbor noticed his suspicious behavior, but was afraid to call the authorities, for fear of being called racist or Islamophobic. Considering that AG Lynch said (after the SB tragedy) that her #1 priority was protecting Muslims from a backlash, the neighbor's fear was understandable. He probably would have been railroaded to federal prison for a hate crime.
Maybe better vetting for immigrants would have kept Tashfoon Malik out of the US. But Obama wants to import more and more Muslim migrants, and anyone who suggests more careful screening for immigrants is accused of racism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, yadda yadda yadda.
And maybe better surveillance of suspicious activity would have caught Farooq sooner. But Obama has, in effect, ordered the FBI and Homeland Security not to spy on Muslims since 2011. Meanwhile, the IRS targets Jewish charities.
Obama and his minions (including Marz and Slott) are desperately chanting the "NRA, NRA, NRA" mantra to divert attention from the administration's failed policies, and from the dhimmitude and political correctness that contributed to the terrorist attacks.
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:01 PM
Jihadists murder unarmed victims in a designated gun-free zone, in a state with strict gun control laws. One of the killers had visited the Middle East. Another was from the Middle East, and was able to get through the existing immigration process. The Obama administration's own officials admit that they cannot adequately vet all immigrants. Also, the killers were not on the No-Fly List, or any other terrorist watch list.
A neighbor had noticed their suspicious behavior, but was afraid to report it to the police, for fear of being labeled a racist or an Islamophobe.
The administration's response:
1. Demand more anti-gun laws. Including a bill to prevent the sale of guns to anyone on the No-Fly List. Which would NOT include Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik.
2. Admit more and more Muslim immigrants from the Middle East. (And hurl accusations of racism at anyone who suggests temporarily suspending immigration until we work out better vetting procedures.)
3. The attorney general promises to "take action" if anyone says anything that might "raise the mantle" of anti-Muslim sentiment.
Welcome to Bizarro World.
Posted by
Anonymous |
2:03 PM