Another Saturday, another Amazon reminder

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s that time. Again.

Christmas, Chanukah, and whatever other holiday might suit your diverse fancies are all coming up sooner than you think. For example, Chanukah begins at sundown tomorrow night.

So I’m encouraging you to feel their hot panting breaths on your neck, and to solve all your gift-giving dilemmas by turning to that online colossus, Amazon.

And if you use those widgets on my right sidebar to click through for all your Amazon purchases (now and at any other time of year) you will also be giving a small but still not insignificant gift to neo-neocon (it adds up, folks), and all without spending any extra money yourself. What could be more wonderful?

I thank you all in advance. And I’ll be bumping this up and/or re-posting it every now and then until Christmas.

[NOTE: In case you have ad blocker or something of that sort, and the Amazon widgets don’t show up on your computer, go here. You can also click on any Amazon book link within a post and anything you order during that click-through gets credited to me. I believe it’s true even for things you put in your cart but don’t order till a bit later, although there’s a time limit on how long they can be there and still get credited when ordered (I’m not sure what that limit is, though, so best to order sooner rather than later).]

I feel very confident that the vetting of the Syrian refugees will go well, don’t you?

The New Neo Posted on by

First, we have the vetting of San Bernardino terrorist Tashfeen Malik, who came to this country in July 2014 on a fiance visa. Previously she had lived in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two countries that keep modern records to which we have some access—certainly more access to any records that might be in Syria. And yet:

Malik came to the U.S. on what is known as a “fianc锝 visa, which allows an American fiancé to petition for his or her partner’s temporary entry before marriage. For the visa application, the address she listed in her Pakistani hometown, ABC News discovered today, does not exist. Malik received a her Green Card this summer, U.S. officials said…

The official close to the Saudi Arabian government said that Saudi intelligence officials did not have her on any of their watch lists and she did not appear to have any link to extremists in the region. Neither Malik or Farook were on the FBI’s radar in the U.S., officials said.

People who apply to come to this country from countries in sensitive areas—and Malik would have qualified for that designation—are subject to intense vetting not unlike that which refugees undergo, involving multiple layers of security checks plus personal interviews. And yet apparently the vetters didn’t seem to consider it necessary to check out her hometown address to see if it was valid. Also, the Saudis appear to have had nothing on her. Nor did anyone manage to uncover the fact that Malik also had links to the infamous radical Red Mosque in Islamabad.

Then, a little over a year after entering this country, Malik is involved in the worst terrorist attack in the US since 9/11.

Nice going, vetters. We trust you implicitly to thoroughly vet our new Syrian refugees. Bring them on!

[NOTE: Malik of the fiance visa and the Syrian refugees are one thing. But her husband Syed Farook didn’t have to be vetted; he was born and raised here. That’s another thing. Which is more frightening?]

Here’s the speech Obama made today addressing the San Bernardino attacks

The New Neo Posted on by

President Obama used his regular weekly address to discuss the San Bernardino shootings, which now have been categorized—although not by Obama—as the worst terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11.

He offered very tepid stuff in terms of the terrorist connection, as one might expect. The speech began with praise for the police and rescuers and sympathy for the victims and families (and prayers; notify the Daily News that the president has gone off the reservation). But when Obama starts discussing the causes of the attack, he defers to the investigators—although those very investigators have now said they are investigating it as a terrorist attack. All he has to say about that is the following:

It is entirely possible that these two attackers were radicalized to commit this act of terror. And if so, it would underscore a threat we’ve been focused on for years””the danger of people succumbing to violent extremist ideologies. We know that ISIL and other terrorist groups are actively encouraging people””around the world and in our country””to commit terrible acts of violence, often times as lone wolf actors. And even as we work to prevent attacks, all of us””government, law enforcement, communities, faith leaders””need to work together to prevent people from falling victim to these hateful ideologies.

Let’s take that sentence by sentence.

It is entirely possible that these two attackers were radicalized to commit this act of terror.

“Possible” is a word with very little meaning, that sounds as though it means more than it does. “Possible” merely means that something has not been absolutely ruled out and that it’s therefore not impossible. The possibility can be .0001% or 99.9999% or anything in-between. “Entirely” possible is another one of those phrases that gives the impression of being stronger than it is. It doesn’t really tell you whether it’s likely or not (if the speaker meant “likely” he’d have said it). It just means it is really really really possible.

And if so, it would underscore a threat we’ve been focused on for years””the danger of people succumbing to violent extremist ideologies.

Nothing to do with Islam so far; just the generalized “extremist ideologies” such as white supremacy, which no doubt Obama had fervently wished this attack had been motivated by the minute he heard about the shooting. Another “violent extremist ideology” among so many.

We know that ISIL and other terrorist groups are actively encouraging people””around the world and in our country””to commit terrible acts of violence, often times as lone wolf actors.

The first—and only—mention of the fact that ISIS (which he continues to call ISIL) has sophisticated propaganda with a wide reach, urging its supporters to violence and mayhem worldwide in the name of (shhh, don’t mention it except hidden in that first “I” of the acronym “ISIL”) Islam.

And even as we work to prevent attacks, all of us””government, law enforcement, communities, faith leaders””need to work together to prevent people from falling victim to these hateful ideologies.

Generic boilerplate—how, pray tell? How? By being the weak horse?

Then Obama segues to gun control, his favorite topic these days. Even though this crime occurred in California, land of strict gun control, and even though he can’t quite figure out a single suggestion that would have made a particle of difference here, he still harps on gun control as some general way to prevent these things.

Obama ends with:

We are strong. And we are resilient. And we will not be terrorized.

He thinks by saying it, he can make it so. That’s the way his life has worked. Words got him where he is. But his actions (and/or lack thereof) have made us much less safe, less strong, less resilient, and more vulnerable to the terrorists here and abroad. And the terrorists are well aware of it.

[ADDENDUM: Reminded by a comment from “Ann,” I want to point out that there are actually three phrases in Obama’s speech that suggest lack of agency by the perpetrators. One is “were radicalized,” the second is “succumbing,” and the third is “falling victim to.” That last phrase in particular conjures up the idea of the perpetrators as fellow victims rather than voluntary, knowing, aware actors who are responsible for their own choices and their own deeds.]

Senate repeals Obamacare and defunds Planned Parenthood

The New Neo Posted on by

Yes, this happened today, too:

By voting to nullify Obamacare — the signature domestic accomplishment of the Obama administration — GOP congressional leaders fulfilled a longtime pledge to voters and rank-and-file members to get a repeal to President Barack Obama’s desk, even though he will veto it.

Republican leaders also want to send an unmistakable message to voters: If you elect a GOP president next year and keep the them in charge of Congress, Obamacare will go.

Those conservatives who have come to hate the GOP won’t believe this is anything but meaningless theater. I happen to disagree, and I agree with Jeff Sessions here:

“It demonstrates that if you have a president prepared to support health care reform, it could pass next time,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, a vocal critic of the Affordable Care Act who insisted this was not a show vote just because the President will veto the bill. “If this vote occurred after the next presidential election, instead of vetoing it the President would sign it. This would force a bipartisan reevaluation of health care in America and put us in a position to make major changes.”

You might ask: why now? Why is it that this was finally done, when previous efforts have come to naught? I don’t know the answer, but here’s the “how” it was done:

While the House and Senate have voted scores of times to repeal portions of Obamacare, this was the first time they are using a special tool known as “budget reconciliation” that allow the measure to clear the Senate with just 51 votes instead of the 60 votes typically required for major legislation. That higher threshold has allowed Democrats to block all past repeal efforts.

By steering these two hot-button issues into the reconciliation bill, Republican leaders also steered them away from a separate must-pass government funding bill Congress is dealing with now known as the omnibus. Had those controversial issues been included in that bill, it would have made even harder to pass before the December 11 deadline when the government could shut down.

If it was the House, I’d say perhaps it’s connected with the departure of Boehner and the installation of Ryan. But since it’s the Senate, I’m really not sure. I think it should have been done long ago, when it might have helped conservatives start trusting Republicans (a teeny bit, anyway) to do what they say they will do. As for the veto, I don’t see any way around that, and I don’t see that there ever will be while Obama is in office unless a lot of Democrats turn on him, which I don’t think has a chance of happening.

News roundup on San Bernardino

The New Neo Posted on by

There are an extraordinary number of big news items today today connected with San Bernardino, so I’m going to do what I seldom do—list some of them.

(1) Work acquaintances of Syed Farook describe him. It’s chilling, not because he was so scary, but because there really seem to have been few or no signs of anything amiss.

(2) The FBI has now officially declared the San Bernardino case to be a terror investigation. It seems to me, however, that in some ways this is still being treated as an ordinary criminal case in terms of what’s happening to the residence of the perpetrators:

On whether law enforcement is troubled that media were allowed into the assailants’ home by a property manager: “We executed a search warrant on that apartment. And last night, we turned that over back to the residents [property manager]. Once the residents have the apartment and we’re not in it anymore, we don’t control it. We did leave a list of items seized that I know some people have, and they’re asking, ‘Why did we give that?’ We have to give that out by law. Any time we execute a lawful search warrant, we have to leave, for the residence, a list that lists all of the items seized during that search warrant.”

“Once we turned that location back over to the occupants of that residence, or once we boarded up [and left], anyone who goes in at that point, that’s got nothing to do with us.”

Here is a description of the very disturbing state of affairs. This was the largest terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 in terms of loss of life, and the media is allowed to ransack the perpetrators home and contaminate potential evidence 2 days later? How can the FBI know they are finished there?

(3) Farook’s bride and fellow-terrorist Tashfeen Malik came to this country in July of 2014 on a so-called “fiance” visa. This is the process that was involved:

Federal officials maintain they have a very effective, rigorous screening process in place for people from countries with links to jihadist movement.

The entire review process can take anywhere from five to eight months, after which the files get handed over to the U.S. State Department for another thorough look at the couple’s personal histories.

Once the couple clears this hurdle, the fiance-in-question is called in for an in-person interview with U.S. embassy staff in their residing country. Questions like “How did you two meet?” are asked, though this process varies from country to country.

Finally, if they’ve made it through these steps, the visa is granted. Travel tickets are purchased. The couple gets married.

Malik and Farooq married the month after her arrival and she eventually became a lawful permanent resident.

If this sounds familiar, it should. It’s not unlike that which is used to vet the Syrian refugees who will be coming from refugee camps, although this takes a somewhat shorter amount of time. Clearly, the process failed us with Malik. ISIS being ISIS, there’s no question that this route could be used to get someone, man or woman, into the country.

(4) Farook’s brother-in-law Farhan and Farhan’s wife, Farook’s sister Saira, had this to say:

Farhan said he felt an obligation to address the victims on the night of the shooting.

“I wanted to go there and talk to the victims, people who were hurt… So I love this country, I love the people,” Farhan said. “And I felt responsible to go and tell this to the people.”

“Do you think your brother deserves to be forgiven?” Begnaud asked Saira.

“That’s a hard question,” she said. “I don’t even know if I would forgive him. Just because of what he did.”

Farhan said, right now, he could not forgive Farook.

“With what he did, no. What he did to his own family, to his daughter, to our family, to the innocent people there — no. I wouldn’t forgive him,” Farhan said.

(5) When asked if stronger background checks would have prevented the San Bernardino attack, Josh Earnest answers “of course not.” That was followed by this:

The exchange became tense as Karl followed up: “But the president made these comments specifically when asked about this shooting. So I’m wondering why he kind of immediate fell back to Congress needs to pass more gun legislation.”

“Because the president is determined to ensure that these kinds of incidents of mass shootings aren’t considered routine, and he’s determined to press Congress at every turn to take steps ”“” Earnest said before being interrupted.

“But you just acknowledged that his proposal wouldn’t have done anything to prevent this incident,” Karl said.

Earnest sternly said, ”Jon we are talking about future incidents.”

Sure. Future incidents that won’t be prevented, either.

Nice timing, Loretta Lynch

The New Neo Posted on by

[UPDATE: If you want to watch/listen to the relevant part of Lynch’s remarks, go here.]

Violent threats against Muslims are Loretta Lynch’s biggest fear as a prosecutor:

With terrorist attacks in Paris and a shooting spree in California prompting alarm on the part of many Americans, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Thursday that her “greatest fear” is that expressions of anti-Muslim sentiment will lead to attacks on Muslims in the U.S.

“The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence,” Lynch told a dinner hosted by a Muslim civil rights organization. “My message to not just the Muslim community but to the entire American community is: we cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on.”

During her remarks to the Muslim Advocates dinner, Lynch did not address the mass shooting at an office party in San Bernardino, Calif. Wednesday in which 14 people were killed.

The dinner at which she made the remarks occurred yesterday. The shootings occurred early on Wednesday. Lynch also “said she was troubled by legislative proposals to cut off the admission of refugees from Syria and other countries considered prone to Islamic radicalism.”

Here is Lynch’s earlier statement on the San Bernardino shootings.

[ADDENDUM: In Lynch’s statement about San Bernardino, she ends with this:

Because we’re at the point where these issues have come together really like never before in law enforcement thought and in our nation’s history and it gives us a wonderful opportunity and a wonderful moment to really make significant change.”

The word “wonderful” is particularly troubling in this context. Also note the old Rahm Emanuel saying: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”]

[ADDENDUM II: Commenter “Ann” informs me that the quote on which I was relying in the first “ADDENDUM” to this post was actually a misleading truncated quote. Loretta Lynch did not say that the terrorist attack on Wednesday was a “wonderful opportunity” to address certain things. The longer quote was the following, and the context was a previously-scheduled meeting on the topic of “Incarceration and Poverty.” So my guess is that the “wonderful opportunity” remarks were related not to the terrorist attacks, but to the original purpose of the conference:

But I do want to express not only my deepest condolences, but I also ask that you join me in standing with our colleagues, our friends, our partners in San Bernardino who are suffering with this, and add all of our thoughts and prayers to them at this time; along with them and also the brave public safety officials who have put themselves in harm’s way to stop this assault and to save others. So I thank you, Ms. Jarrett, for that moment of silence and I thank all of you for your continued support as we move forward with this investigation.

Now of course, today’s announcement is of a matter really of equal seriousness, but of long-standing concern. I’m really pleased to be able to be here today. I’m actually thrilled that this event is being held here today, now, at this time. We’re at a point where these issues have come together really like never before in law enforcement thought and in our nation’s history. And it gives us a wonderful opportunity and a wonderful moment to really make significant change.

So I’d say that, although the body of the post stands, the first ADDENDUM should be discarded.]

[ADDENDUM III: Of course innocent Muslims residing in this country should be defended against crimes, violent or otherwise. It is certainly a valid concern. But, as in the months after 9/11, the number of such attacks is relatively low and the majority seem to be offenses such as vandalism and “intimidation” rather than serious violence to the person. That a backlash against Muslims would be Loretta Lynch’s greatest fear at this point is a troubling priority.

By the way, the latest FBI report on so-called “hate crime” statistics in the US found that Jews are the most frequent targets. In 2014, for example (the most recent year for which I could find more detailed information), the numbers on religiously-motivated hate crimes were as follows, as reported by the FBI:

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,092 offenses reported by law enforcement [in 2014]. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-biased offenses showed:

58.2 percent were anti-Jewish.

16.3 percent were anti-Islamic (Muslim).

6.1 percent were anti-Catholic.

4.7 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.

2.6 percent were anti-Protestant.

1.2 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

11.0 percent were anti-other (unspecified) religion

The Jewish population of the US is estimated to be about 2.2%. The Muslim population of the US is difficult to know and estimates differ, but in 2010 it was thought to be approximately .9%. Although it is logical to assume it is somewhat larger now, even if we use that 2010 figure it appears that Jews are still proportionately more likely than Muslims to be the victims of actions motivated by hatred of their religion.]

Sepsis: the killer you probably know almost nothing about

The New Neo Posted on by

I knew very little about sepsis until a dear friend of mine came down with it.

I knew the word. But I thought it meant some sort of nasty infection, and my knowledge was very vague, involving the archaic term “blood poisoning.” I have a vivid memory of the first time I ever heard that expression. When I was a young child my grandmother, who’d been born in 1884, told me the story of Calvin Coolidge’s son, who had once gotten a blister from playing tennis and then got blood poisoning and quickly died.

Needless to say, this made a deep impression on me. My guess is that my grandmother wanted to make sure I washed any boo-boos and put some mecurochrome on them.

It turns out the Calvin Coolidge Jr. story my grandmother told me was correct, as you can see from this article that tells the tale of what happened. But the author demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the situation when he writes this, and then goes on to indicate that antibiotics would have been the answer:

Deaths from sepsis unfortunately were quite common in Coolidge’s time. Ordinary wounds, accidents, and childbirth were all ways in which bacteria could get into one’s normally sterile blood. Patients presenting with fever, low blood pressure, and an obvious site or cause of infection could be diagnosed with relative ease, but the treatment options available were minimal, and the mortality rates were high.

Actually, deaths from sepsis unfortunately are quite common in our time, too. Sepsis develops with lightening speed in situations in which the patient often isn’t even aware of the location of the infection. Certainly, even today a blister such as the one Coolidge’s son had is not usually treated with antibiotics, or effective antibiotics; we don’t need to take antibiotics for every small scrape or scratch (most of which will never be infected), and some bacteria are drug-resistant (sepsis can sometimes follow fungal, parasitic, or viral problems, too, but that’s not as common).

But even more importantly, that last sentence of the quote is still true: “Patients presenting with fever, low blood pressure, and an obvious site or cause of infection could be diagnosed with relative ease, but the treatment options available were minimal, and the mortality rates were high.” Patients with those symptoms could and should be diagnosed, but the diagnosis is sometimes missed. But even a prompt “sepsis” diagnosis of a patient with those symptoms might not save that person because by the time a patient has low blood pressure, something called septic shock is probably setting in, and multiple organ failure can occur within hours, even with the most heroic efforts known to modern medicine. Antibiotics and other medications are poured into the patient, and very often a coma is induced and a respirator connected and dialysis is commenced, but it’s often to no avail.

How many people get sepsis these days, and how many people die of it? A lot of them:

A common and devastating condition, sepsis has significant healthcare implications worldwide. An estimated 1 million cases occur in the United States annually, causing more deaths than prostate cancer, breast cancer, and HIV/AIDS combined. The combined economic toll approaches $17 billion.

Devastating and common indeed, and insidious in its onset, and the public is relatively unaware of its existence. It’s difficult to recognize in its early stages, when intervention matters most, and with astoundingly high mortality as it quickly progresses (and I’m talking about a matter of a day or two or even just hours) into something systemic and lethal. And survivors ordinarily have a slow and agonizing recovery with many complications.

Severe sepsis occurs when a patient with documented sepsis goes on to develop acute organ dysfunction with hypoperfusion and tissue hypoxemia. The most commonly affected organs are the kidneys, lungs, heart, and blood vessels. In some cases, neurologic or hepatic dysfunction may be the primary organ dysfunction.

Finally, the patient may develop septic shock (also called distributive shock) from volume loss in the core circulation and poor circulatory support. Typically, septic shock causes a life-threatening blood pressure drop, reduced urine output, and body temperature changes””late signs of inadequate tissue oxygenation. Unless detected and treated early, it can spiral quickly into multisystem failure and death. Severe sepsis is the most common cause of death among patients in noncoronary critical care units.

I don’t want to scare you, but I feel the need to alert you. Sepsis is “increasing in frequency, expensive to treat, and lethal, with an associated rate of death as high as 70%.”

Actually, higher if you have certain signs of multiple organ failure (which my friend has).

The problem is not actually the infection itself. The more destructive problems involve the normal inflammatory reaction to infection, reactions which then careen madly and precipitously out of control:

Normally, when bacteria or other microbes enter the human body, the immune system efficiently destroys the invaders. In sepsis the immune system goes into overdrive, and the chemicals it releases into the blood to combat the infection trigger widespread inflammation that can ravage the entire body…

In a classic systemic infection, such as a strep throat, the body’s immune response is self-limiting: the immune forces are marshaled, the battle is fought, and the army retires. Sepsis begins like a typical infection, and often it presents initially with the signs of a classic systemic infection””fever, tachycardia, tachypnea, and an elevated white blood cell count. However, in sepsis the natural checks and balances have failed. Instead of tapering off and disappearing, the inflammatory forces spread beyond the infected region.

And the body effectively and quite efficiently destroys itself. Time is of the essence. For every hour of delay in treatment, mortality rates increase 8%. Sepsis is more common in the old and debilitated, but by no means limited to them. Young people can get it, healthy people can get it, active people can get it. Recognize those signs: the person feels bad, usually has a fever but not always, has a rapid heartbeat and respiration rate, sometimes trouble breathing, and often reduced urine output. Get to a good hospital immediately. This is an enormous and critical emergency.

Why make the distinction “self-radicalized” for terrorists?

The New Neo Posted on by

This caught my eye:

A law enforcement official said it appeared that Wednesday’s attack — which left 14 people dead and 21 wounded before the two attackers, Malik and her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, were killed in a shootout with police — may have been inspired by ISIS. But none of the officials said that ISIS directed or ordered the attack.

“This is looking more and more like self-radicalization,” a law enforcement official said.

It’s a distinction that sounds like it means more than it does. After all, ISIS recruits through its propaganda, and has an enormous online presence that the killers are reported to have tapped into. ISIS has long encouraged so-called “lone wolf” attacks on soldiers and infidel civilians in Western countries—see this, this, and this, for example. The latter article contains this from over a year ago:

The post is titled “To the Lone Wolves in America: How to Make a Bomb in Your Kitchen, to Create Scenes of Horror in Tourist Spots and Other Targets.” It includes bomb-making instructions and a list of ingredients, even how to pack it with shrapnel, WCBS 880’s Rich Lamb reported…

The post on the ISIS message board detailed how to use Christmas tree lights, bleach, sugar, matches, and clocks to build homemade bombs in America.

A similar explosives recipe was used in the Boston Marathon bombing in April 2013. The ISIS post includes instructions for pressure-cooker bombs like the ones used in Boston.

For well over a year, ISIS has been explicitly urging lone wolf attacks. That is one of the main ways the group seems to function in Western countries, rather than relying merely on tight, officially and centrally organized and directed cells. The former type of terrorist seems to be called “self-radicalized” as opposed to the latter, and apparently more-old-fashioned, type. The former type is actually more dangerous rather than less, because its inspiration does not rely on direct contact with the source, and therefore can potentially and easily reach the many many millions of Muslims in the Western world (and the over a billion that includes the Muslim world, because ISIS wishes to take over that world, as well). Even if it inspires only a small percentage, that’s still a huge group that can wreak enormous havoc.

If the term “self-radicalized” is meant in part to soothe us, it certainly ought to fail. Perhaps it merely means that authorities aren’t necessarily looking for others in a local San Bernardino cell, but that wouldn’t make much sense, either, considering the extraordinary amount of firepower the terrorists had amassed and how expensive it would be. That would seem to indicates a lengthy period of planning and help from others.

The Atlantic states what all liberals know

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m picking on this article that appeared a few days ago in The Altantic not because it’s unusual but because it demonstrates a phenomenon that’s so common these days.

The piece piece is entitled “The Fragile French Republic: The country’s politics are beset by a unique anxiety that the entire system could collapse. Why?” In it the author, Scott Sayare, attempts to describe and explain France’s reaction to the Friday the 13th attacks. In the first paragraph, he offers the following claim, announced as though it expresses something so self-evident that the author assumes all of his discerning readers (and they all are discerning) must already know it to be true:

Among Parisians, one senses a quiet resolve to fall back into routines and social habits, not only because they must, but because they should, and can””because the so-called Islamic State is not, of course, an existential threat to Paris or to France, unless the French choose to give themselves over to hysteria, and to treat it as if it were.

Sayare goes on to describe the government’s action as at odds with this more confident stance, describing government as being “particularly alarmist,” as wel as “notably bellicose and notably heedless of civil rights.” Interesting that he terms the people’s alleged complacency as being based on a factual assessment of the dangers represented by ISIS to France, and the government’s reaction as “alarmist.” Although he concedes that there’s a possibility the government might be in possession of more information than the people, and therefore that their relative bellicosity might be warranted, he doesn’t give it much weight unless the government were to reveal its intelligence on this. And it’s here that Sayare writes what I’ve read in site after liberal site:

Perhaps these choices were truly necessary; unfortunately, unless the government chooses to reveal the intelligence information that motivated them, there will be no way to know. What is certain, however, is that such responses are of precisely the sort the Islamic State sought to provoke.

Whatever hard line is taken by those fighting ISIS, either verbally, domestically, or on foreign shores, is considered to be “precisely the sort the Islamic State sought to provoke.” To back up this claim, he quotes a “political scientist and specialist in jihadist thought.” Well, then, it must be so, and of course we can’t defend ourselves if it’s what ISIS wants.

But let me just say that nearly everything is precisely the sort of thing the Islamic State seeks to provoke. Action vs. inaction; anger vs. appeasement; hardline vs. tolerance; there’s really almost nothing that can’t be labeled an aim of ISIS. Our task should be to fight them and destroy them before they grow any larger. And if Sayare doesn’t think they threaten the stability of France—and if he thinks the current response mounted by France has been “notably bellicose”—then he has his head buried firmly in the desert sand.

The left not only uses the San Bernardino attacks to shill for gun control, but to criticize prayer

The New Neo Posted on by

The left’s approach is now two-pronged.

To the old “never let a mass murder opportunity go to waste in promoting gun control even though it wouldn’t have prevented it” method we can add the new, agreed-on “we act in effective ways, Republicans just stupidly pray.”

White House hopefuls on the Democratic side of the aisle called for stricter gun laws in the wake of the shooting in San Bernardino that left at least 14 dead.

But after yet another mass shooting in America, GOP presidential contenders were conspicuously silent on the issue of gun control.

Instead, the Republicans were preaching about prayer…The GOP presidential wannabes all followed the tired script.

Of course, “tired scripts” are in the eye of the beholder. Just yesterday, before the San Bernardino shootings, I wrote about how Obama and the left use every mass murder as an opportunity to immediately call for gun control no matter what the circumstances.

No matter that their proposals would rarely if ever have prevented the murders under consideration, or murder in general.

No matter that the states where these things happen often already have very strict gun control laws (as does California).

No matter that their campaign against the police has fostered increases in murder in general, particularly in black areas of large Democratic cities.

No matter that the left is pushing the entry of more and more illegal immigrants, who are responsible for quite a bit of crime (see this).

No matter that mass murderers frequently target places where anti-gun sentiment has resulted in gun-free zones and sitting-duck targets.

No matter that Obama’s abandonment of Iraq has fostered the rise of ISIS and increased Islamic terrorism around the world.

No matter that, as in the case of yesterday’s murders and perhaps others, neighbors or acquaintances who see suspicious behavior on the part of Democrat-favored minorities sometimes are reluctant to report it for fear of being labeled bigots.

No matter, also, that Republicans do in fact have action-oriented solutions on crime. That they happen to be first offering the time-honored response of prayers for victims and their families, as well as for the police, is not only human decency (a decency which Democrats, too, used to respect), but a response to the fact that (a) we don’t know all the facts of San Bernardino yet, so to opine now is to propagandize, something the left has already been doing; and (b) Republicans would be criticized harshly if they used these murders as an immediate call for implementing their action solutions, as they sometimes have in the past.

The left is purposely pretending to misunderstand what prayer is about. Or maybe many of them really do misunderstand. Prayer is not a substitute for action. It is a response that focuses—in the initial days after a tragedy when not that much is known of the facts, and the families of victims are still reeling from the shock and grief—on ways to deal with that shock and grief. Prayer appeals to the deity to help those people in their hour of need, to give them strength and courage and comfort. It is in a separate category from politics or political action—at least, it used to be, until the left got as open about its anti-religion agenda as it has become during the Obama years.

So, what are the action-oriented suggestions of the right that the left either mocks, criticizes, or ignores? More concealed carry, more armed citizens of the responsible gun owner type, fewer gun-free zones where murderers and terrorists know they can find defenseless “soft” targets. Of course, we all know what happens when the right makes those suggestions in the wake of mass murders. They are criticized as being both disrespectful to the victims and making the problem worse, even though there’s no evidence of that. The only “action” solution the Democrats want is gun control, even though they have never demonstrated exactly why their proposals would effectively prevent more mass murders.

Oh, and then there’s the issue of who these particular murderers were. Farook found his wife and partner-in-crime Malik in Saudi Arabia after meeting her online, but Farook himself was born in this country. He is 28 years old, which means he was born around 1987. I’ve read a number of pieces about the killers and their backgrounds, but curiously enough—although I finally found one that said the families are Sunni Muslims of Pakistani origin— I have yet to hear a word about when his parents (or grandparents) might have arrived here, and under what program. Was it, for example, the controversial H-1B visa program? What about the mosque Farook attended (he self-described as religious, and his family describes him that way too)? Was it known for radicalism, and was Farook perhaps radicalized there? Should we be keeping closer tabs on radical mosques that are used for recruitment?

Do Democrats really believe that some new gun law would have stopped Farook and his spouse from committing mass murder? I don’t think so. It is easy to get guns in extra-legal ways. There was nothing in the perpetrators’ backgrounds—no mental illness or criminal history, for example—that could have flagged their legal purchases of guns, either, even if new laws were passed to tighten the criteria. They had also rigged remote-controlled bombs in the meeting room where the murders occurred. The particular weapons they used are hardly the only way to commit mass murder.

Where there’s a will, there’s a way. These people clearly had the will. They were going to find a way.