The Shooting in Oregon: The Left Immediately Says: “How Can We Exploit This Atrocity For Our Political Benefit?”


— Oh, and this is an “NPR Watch” feature too — 

It’s exactly how the left immediately reacted to 9/11: How can we exploit this for our political benefit? It’s how they react to anything.

So, there’s another shooting. This time in Oregon at Umpqua Community College. And, as expected, America’s left reacts in exactly the same perfectly knee-jerk, cold, cruel, calculating, self-obsessed, political way as always.

The left immediately does whatever it can to exploit any atrocity for political advantage, in support of its prime directives: (1) Obtain power. (2) Keep, consolidate and obtain more power.

They immediately deploy whatever means necessary — mainly lies, distortions and fabrications — to use the atrocity for their own advantage. They did it with 9/11, why would we expect them to do anything else in reaction to this particular atrocity?


I was listening to National Public Radio on the way in to work this morning, as is my wont. It was their fake news program called “Morning Edition.” Listening to NPR’s fake news programs is my way to keep up on how the hard-left thinks. The left, and NPR, take the fictions, distortions, omissions — the fakery — of their fake news very, very seriously.

So, of course, NPR came up with their usual stock of knee-jerk, uninformed, and manipulative propaganda:

  • “Oregon officials are searching for a motive,” they said. No mention of the fact that apparently accurate reports are that the guy was out hunting Christians and hated organized religion.
  • “Oh why, oh why… don’t we just have stricter gun laws?!?” NPR reported that President Obama said it. VP Biden said the same thing.
  • Further on in the feature, we heard: “Ten times more people are killed by gun violence in America each year than were killed on 9/11.”

A quick reaction to that one: Oh, really? More than 37,000 die in gun violence each year? I don’t think so! No, the number is closer to 10,000 and driven mainly by gang violence. Gangs are filled with people who simply ignore any gun laws, or any other laws, you might enact. Furthermore, gang members are in inner-cities, controlled for decades by the American left. You could make a far more rational case that any gun laws you would enact should outlaw gun ownership by anyone on the left.

  • Same NPR station on the same event, and again on what they call a “news show”: “We have one of these things (mass shootings) every week…” and off he went on a rant about getting more gun control. That “one every week” whopper passed uncorrected by anyone. Once or twice a year, maybe? Yes, yes, yes…one of them is precisely one too many, but when you allow lunatics to have firearms legally, pray tell, just what do you expect?

Some more quick reactions:

  • About the shooter’s motive: who cares? Who is ever going to “understand” the motives of a lunatic — except another lunatic?  There’s really only one thing to understand: the guy was crazy. A lunatic finds his motive wherever he chooses. A lunatic will seize on whatever excuse is then at the top of his warped mind when he decides to act on his lunacy.
  • Yeah… “let’s get stricter gun laws.” Let’s disarm the population in the face of the thousands of ISIS goons that President Obama has allowed into the country over the Southern border. There’s a great plan! I’m sure that the ISIS goons will be absolutely sure to observe our “stricter gun laws” when they sneak into the country. You and I both can imagine slope-headed, slack-jawed ISIS goon Abdul el-Cameljumper al-Suleiman getting across the border to kill him some Americans, and the first thing out of his lips are: “Let’s go find out what the local regulations are about gun ownership. We wouldn’t want to be out of compliance” Yeah. Okay.
  • Stricter gun laws? Wouldn’t it have been nice if one of those teachers or students had had a gun with him that day and just freakin’ taken out the lunatic? It’s just as wearying to have to pose that perfectly obvious rhetorical question each time there is such a thing, as it is to witness these times when some heavily-armed lunatic mows down unarmed or worse, disarmed people.
  • You know what? I’ll bet that if you reported just as heavily on those times where some lunatic gets taken down before he can begin a rampage — it happens you know — you just might get rid of these incidents almost entirely. If the kook realizes that when he tries something as in Oregon, there’s a good chance he’ll simply end up dead, without any notoriety whatsoever, except for being an idiot, you just might eliminate that particular motivation from the top of his whackadoodle noggin.
  • How about if schools around the country were to announce that they’re hiring armed security? Whether they actually do it or not. Might that deter some of these publicity-hungry, bloodthirsty lunatics? I’ll bet it would. I know, I know… the logistics are daunting. First of all, the lefty parents would all be up in arms and would make sure that it became loudly, publicly and widely known that they ultimately were not going to hire armed security. However, it seems as if it could work in some places. Heck, maybe you could prevent some lunatics from acting out just by announcing that “you’re studying the idea of hiring armed security!

Brief Digression: I know a guy who does not own a dog, but who has a “Beware of Dog” sign posted conspicuously in his yard anyway. I know another guy who has several cameras placed very visibly around the outside of his house. None of the cameras work…they’re just the outer casings that he bought on E-Bay for five bucks. However, he tells me that he is the only one in his neighborhood who has never experienced either a break-in, or a theft of property or vandalism or some such. He’s thinking of setting up a security consulting firm to sell and set up these things on the broader market. End of Brief Digression

  • That brings us to the real tragedy: Some time not long before the atrocity, the top guy at Umpqua Community College had considered hiring an armed security guard for the campus. He rejected the idea, on the grounds that such a thing would make for a “less safe climate” at the school, or some such horsehockey. It’s not unreasonable to speculate that the shooter had read about, or heard about, that very same refusal to hire armed security; that he had then chosen that particular school, confident that he’d meet with no armed resistance until it was much, much too late.
  • Just heard a good point on television: “Who stopped this guy? A cop with a gun.” Kind of answers my rhetorical question. What if there’d been a kid or a teacher with a gun — or an armed security guard — at the freakin’ beginning of the shooter’s rampage…?
  • A simple truth: If you could somehow manage to keep guns out of the hands of the American left, then you would empty the cities of guns, and the homicide rate, and gun violence rate, would plummet through the floor. Otherwise stated: the people prone to committing violence against other people, using a gun, are almost never members of any Republican or Conservative core constituencies. That’ll be worth repeating… over and over and over and over again.
  • Still otherwise stated: The right is about gun ownership in order to protect the people from gun-bearers, who are nearly all members of, or sympathizers of … the left. A significant portion of the left — gangs, criminals, racists, thugs, goons, muslims, etc — are all about gun ownership for themselves only, and so that they can do violence to others who, they hope, do not own any guns.
  • About the frequency of these things: they’re rare, very rare, and becoming less frequent. However, the media cover these increasingly rare incidents ever more hysterically, thereby giving the mistaken impression that they’re happening more frequently. Note that well. That’s how it always goes with these horrific incidents that the left politicizes in order to advance an agenda; in this case: the disarming of America.
  • Just heard on television: apparently the shooter had been diagnosed crazy, and had been in various parts of the mental health system much of his life. He was discharged (presumably under negative circumstances) from the army after a mere thirty days. He attended a high school for those with mental health issues. And yet, he purchased his firearms legally. Gee, I wonder which political tendency has been insisting that the only gun laws you need are those that would keep firearms out of the hands of crazy people.
  • I wouldn’t politicize this at all, except that Obama claims it’s the right thing to do. Okay, then let’s repeat it: if you could find a way to keep guns out of the hands of anyone who votes for, or sympathizes with the American left (aka: crazy people 🙂 ), the violent crime rate would plummet. Through the floor. Because, yep, you guessed it, the Oregon shooter(2), like all mass murderers, did not fit the profile of Republican or a Conservative. Again.

— xPraetorius

Notes


(1) – Let’s be clear about the real definition of “politicize.” To “politicize” something is to exploit it dishonestly, solely for political benefit, regardless of the facts, truth, the real implications, or the reality of the thing being politicized. To politicize something is not to act in a noble manner at all, but rather to react in a self-interested manner, to benefit yourself or your agenda.

However, as soon as the left politicizes something like the Oregon shooting, it is irresponsible not to react in the same way. If you don’t, then you leave to the left the framing of the narrative about the incident being politicized.

We on the right have always done that. We’ve held our political fire waiting for the left — who owns the communications vehicles of America — to open fire. In that way, we’ve always claimed a moral high-ground that nobody in America, apparently, cares about. The left fights really dirty. Not to respond in kind is to be perfectly irresponsible. It’s the future of America — therefore of the world as well — that’s at stake.

(2) – I’m okay with never giving the shooter’s name. That does two good things: (1) gives no notoriety whatsoever to the shooter, and (2) potentially spares the shooter’s family unnecessary pain and humiliation. They’ll have plenty of that as it is, just knowing what they know.

 

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “The Shooting in Oregon: The Left Immediately Says: “How Can We Exploit This Atrocity For Our Political Benefit?”

  1. Good stuff here, no, great stuff here, and notable emphasis where needed. Nice.

    Can’t really add anything other than to mention the obvious lack of taste and respect for grieving families. How so?

    Well, when tragedies like this happen, there are many unanswered questions. There were parents who had no clue if their family was dead or alive, missing or hiding.

    Some students probably did not have i.d, so there had to be patience in identifying positively. Maybe there was a twin, maybe someone was holding the wallet of a friend whose id was wrong. A thousand different things, and here you have the president grabbing the microphone in the midst of a lack of light. Poor taste to say the least.

    The media should have refused to cover him.

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s