Unfortunately, even the shock of a man gunning down rooms full of first graders was not enough to get us to face up to our problem. And there’s really one man who bears most of the responsibility for that: the head of the NRA Wayne LaPierre. After the Newtown massacre, most Americans believed it was inconceivable that nothing would be done. There was tremendous momentum to start making some necessary changes. But as a recent PBS Frontline documentary called “Gunned Down: The Power of the NRA” put it, LaPierre would have none of it:
NARRATOR: His advisers wanted him to lie low, but LaPierre had a very different idea. Expecting trouble, he hired personal security guards, and headed into Washington.
ROBERT DRAPER, The New York Times Magazine: Without telling anyone, LaPierre himself staged a press conference in Washington, D.C.
NARRATOR: The media gathered. Many expected a chastened and conciliatory LaPierre.
ROBERT DRAPER: I think there was an assumption that, surely, he’s going to throw the gun safety advocates, and for that matter the Newtown parents, some kind of bone.
NARRATOR: But LaPierre had something else in mind.
WAYNE LaPIERRE: The only way — the only way — to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be personally involved and invested in a plan of absolute protection. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
ED O’KEEFE: And he almost immediately goes right back to what they usually say, which is that the answer to this is more guns.
WAYNE LaPIERRE: What if, when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook elementary school last Friday, he’d been confronted by qualified armed security?
SHERYL GAY STOLBERG, The New York Times: His comments are aimed directly at the gun owners of America, to rile them up, to get them behind the NRA’s no holds barred, never say die, you know, no compromise position.
WAYNE LaPIERRE: Our children— we as a society leave them every day utterly defenseless, and the monsters and the predators of the world know it and exploit it.
NARRATOR: In Washington, they said the speech was a political disaster.
PROTESTER: The NRA stop killing our children!
NARRATOR: In New York City, LaPierre was called the craziest man on earth and a gun nut. But those who know LaPierre say the speech was no miscalculation.
PAUL BARRETT: This was not off the cuff. He didn’t lose it. This was very thought out. And they decided on a strategy and they executed the strategy.
JOHN AQUILINO: Because the people that it resonated with gave more money, and this is what you need to do in order to keep that— that tough persona.
PAUL BARRETT: And we’ve got to send the signal that this is not the time to compromise, that Obama is the enemy, and they want to take your guns away. Yes, it’s too bad about the kids, but we are not going to back down.
And that was that.
(The documentary is well worth watching in full if you are unfamiliar with LaPierre’s history with NRA and the dramatic influence this one man has had on our country.)
Maybe Trump will have more clout. But I’ll be surprised.
So now Donald Trump’s campaign has revoked the press credentials of the Washington Post because the paper called him out for suggesting President Obama is somehow complicit in the mass shooting in Orlando. (The Post staff responded with mocking tweets.) Because the president won’t use the words “radical Islamic terrorism” to describe these incidents, Trump implies (as a lot of right wing commentators do) that there is “something going on” with the president. This is the gilded King of Comb Over’s idea of subtlety.
Charlie Pierce had this to say about Obama’s response yesterday:
That is the great blessing of having a president whose big bag of fcks is empty and gathering dust up in the Residence. His great gift in the first place was to be the chillest president who ever lived, and that was when he was trying to find his way out of the mess the last guy left behind.
Do they really still think they can roll him now, when his approval rating is in the mid-50s and their party is about to nominate a vulgar talking yam, and now that the president never will face the voters again? He has developed a great ease with power, and a consummate respect for the damage that power can do, which is the only way to wield it in such a way as to do the least amount of damage to democracy. (Yeah, I know. Drones.) The presumptive Republican presidential nominee couldn’t learn that if you spotted him Marcus Aurelius and three terms in office.
And let me make a final point. For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase “radical Islam.” That’s the key, they tell us — we can’t beat ISIL unless we call them “radical Islamists.” What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction. Since before I was President, I’ve been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism. As President, I have repeatedly called on our Muslim friends and allies at home and around the world to work with us to reject this twisted interpretation of one of the world’s great religions.
There has not been a moment in my seven and a half years as President where we have not been able to pursue a strategy because we didn’t use the label “radical Islam.” Not once has an advisor of mine said, man, if we really use that phrase, we’re going to turn this whole thing around. Not once. So if someone seriously thinks that we don’t know who we’re fighting, if there’s anyone out there who thinks we’re confused about who our enemies are, that would come as a surprise to the thousands of terrorists who we’ve taken off the battlefield.
If the implication is that those of us up here and the thousands of people around the country and around the world who are working to defeat ISIL aren’t taking the fight seriously, that would come as a surprise to those who have spent these last seven and a half years dismantling al Qaeda in the FATA, for example — including the men and women in uniform who put their lives at risk and the Special Forces that I ordered to get bin Laden and are now on the ground in Iraq and in Syria. They know full well who the enemy is. So do the intelligence and law enforcement officers who spend countless hours disrupting plots and protecting all Americans, including politicians who tweet and appear on cable news shows. They know who the nature of the enemy is.
So there’s no magic to the phrase “radical Islam.” It’s a political talking point; it’s not a strategy. And the reason I am careful about how I describe this threat has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism. Groups like ISIL and al Qaeda want to make this war a war between Islam and America, or between Islam and the West. They want to claim that they are the true leaders of over a billion Muslims around the world who reject their crazy notions. They want us to validate them by implying that they speak for those billion-plus people; that they speak for Islam. That’s their propaganda. That’s how they recruit. And if we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims with a broad brush and imply that we are at war with an entire religion — then we’re doing the terrorists’ work for them.
Now, up until this point, this argument about labels has mostly just been partisan rhetoric. And, sadly, we’ve all become accustomed to that kind of partisanship, even when it involves the fight against these extremist groups. And that kind of yapping has not prevented folks across government from doing their jobs, from sacrificing and working really hard to protect the American people.
But we are now seeing how dangerous this kind of mindset and this kind of thinking can be. We’re starting to see where this kind of rhetoric and loose talk and sloppiness about who exactly we’re fighting, where this can lead us. We now have proposals from the presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States to bar all Muslims from emigrating to America. We hear language that singles out immigrants and suggests that entire religious communities are complicit in violence. Where does this stop? The Orlando killer, one of the San Bernardino killers, the Fort Hood killer — they were all U.S. citizens.
Are we going to start treating all Muslim Americans differently? Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance? Are we going to start discriminating against them because of their faith? We’ve heard these suggestions during the course of this campaign. Do Republican officials actually agree with this? Because that’s not the America we want. It doesn’t reflect our democratic ideals. It won’t make us more safe; it will make us less safe — fueling ISIL’s notion that the West hates Muslims, making young Muslims in this country and around the world feel like no matter what they do, they’re going to be under suspicion and under attack. It makes Muslim Americans feel like they’re government is betraying them. It betrays the very values America stands for.
We’ve gone through moments in our history before when we acted out of fear — and we came to regret it. We’ve seen our government mistreat our fellow citizens. And it has been a shameful part of our history.
This is a country founded on basic freedoms, including freedom of religion. We don’t have religious tests here. Our Founders, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights are clear about that. And if we ever abandon those values, we would not only make it a lot easier to radicalize people here and around the world, but we would have betrayed the very things we are trying to protect — the pluralism and the openness, our rule of law, our civil liberties — the very things that make this country great; the very things that make us exceptional. And then the terrorists would have won. And we cannot let that happen. I will not let that happen.
Two weeks ago, I was at the commencement ceremony at the Air Force Academy. And it could not have been more inspiring to see these young people stepping up, dedicated to serve and protect this country. And part of what was inspiring was the incredible diversity of these cadets. We saw cadets, who are straight, applauding classmates who were openly gay. We saw cadets, born here in America, applauding classmates who are immigrants and love this country so much they decided they wanted to be part of our armed forces. We saw cadets and families of all religions applaud cadets who are proud, patriotic Muslim Americans serving their country in uniform, ready to lay their lives on the line to protect you and to protect me. We saw male cadets applauding for female classmates, who can now serve in combat positions. That’s the American military. That’s America — one team, one nation. Those are the values that ISIL is trying to destroy, and we shouldn’t help them do it.
Our diversity and our respect for one another, our drawing on the talents of everybody in this country, our making sure that we are treating everybody fairly — that we’re not judging people on the basis of what faith they are or what race they are, or what ethnicity they are, or what their sexual orientation is — that’s what makes this country great. That’s the spirit we see in Orlando. That’s the unity and resolve that will allow us to defeat ISIL. That’s what will preserve our values and our ideals that define us as Americans. That’s how we’re going to defend this nation, and that’s how we’re going to defend our way of life.
Hillary Clinton’s achievement of becoming the first woman to secure a major party’s presidential nomination is viewed by four in 10 voters as a “historic moment” for the country, according to a new national poll by Morning Consult.
The survey of 1,362 voters, conducted in the days after she claimed the requisite number of delegates, found the sentiment to be stronger among women than men. Only a third (33 percent) of men said Clinton’s achievement was historic, while 42 percent of women shared the view.
Among other things, only 22 percent of Americans said they viewed Clinton’s nomination as a “step forward” for the country, while 18 percent said it left them angry and another 30 percent said it made them frustrated.
About one in 10 voters (12 percent) said Clinton is “the most historic nominee the nation has ever had,” while 30 percent of them said her nomination was “one of the most historic nominations, but not the most historic the nation has ever had.”
Clinton’s nomination had only a small effect on whether someone felt proud. Only 29 percent of voters said it made them more proud and 22 percent said it made them less proud. More than 40 percent of voters said it had no effect on their pride. A quarter of them said it was “not that notable.”
Whatevs. It’s only the first time in American history. What’s historic about that?
Just as wingnuts in general think the words “radical Islamic terrorism” hold some mystical power that will CHANGE EVERYTHING if only they were uttered by the president and Hillary Clinton, for some reason gun nuts also think they can put away all criticism of their fetish for semi-automatic weapons by complaining that people writing about guns are using incorrect technical terms for semi-automatic weapons.
Here’s one:
The anti-gun politimedia wasted no time at all demonizing the most common rifle in the United States as being the real villain of the Islamic terrorist attack on Pulse nightclub in Orlando.
Here’s the thing.
The rifle used by the Islamist terrorist in Orlando was not an AR-15.
The rifle used by the Islamist terrorist in Orlando was instead a Sig Sauer MCX carbine, a modular, multi-caliber (able to swap to different calibers, including 5.56 NATO, 300 BLK, and 7.62×39) rifle system that sometimes utilizes STANAG magazines common to more than 60 different firearms, but otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form.
See, it’s completely different! Except for the semi-automatic weapon part.
Here’s how Wikipedia describes the AR-15:
In 1963, Colt started selling the semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle as the Colt AR-15 for civilian use and the term has been used to refer to semiautomatic-only versions of the rifle since then. Colt continued to use the AR-15 trademark for its semi-automatic variants (AR-15, AR-15A2) which were marketed to civilian and law-enforcement customers. The original AR-15 was a very lightweight weapon, weighing less than 6 pounds with empty magazine. Later heavy-barrel versions of the civilian AR-15 can weigh upwards of 8.5 lb.
Today, the AR-15 and its variations are manufactured by many companies and are popular among civilian shooters and law enforcement forces around the world due to their accuracy and modularity (for more history on the development and evolution of the AR-15 and derivatives see M16 rifle).
The trademark “AR15” or “AR-15” is registered to Colt Industries, which maintains that the term should only be used to refer to their products.
Other AR-15 manufacturers make AR-15 clones marketed under separate designations, although colloquially these are sometimes referred to by the term AR-15.
It’s a colloquial brand name, like Kleenex or Coke. This pedantic nit-pick is just another sign that their greater argument is thin and unconvincing. But it’s all they’ve got. It’s a lethal toy for gun nuts that serves no other purpose than to mow down many human beings very quickly.
This Facebook chat with the New York Times’ Rukmini Callimachi about al Qaeda, ISIS and Lone Wolves is instructive if you’d like to hear an expert’s take on where this terrorism is today. It’s not bin Laden’s extremism anymore.
What if we pushed body armor like the NRA pushes guns?
by Spocko
I’ve marveled before at the multiple strategies the NRA uses to sell more guns. They make money after ever mass shooting. They have created an environment where the answer to any question about guns is more guns It’s clever in its twistedness. It makes sense that Donald Trump is happy to be part of this selling scheme.
I’ve been talking to people at several groups lately about what strategies can be used to make changes in how we tackle the gun problem in our society. I’m looking at multiple ways from legal to financial to cultural. I’ve wanted to know what worked, what didn’t and why.
As part of the exercise I looked at what the NRA did to get where they are today and wondered how a group could do the same, only with a different product, one that could prevent deaths.
What if that group had the same willingness the NRA has shown to use every technique in their bag of tricks to sell more products–no matter the consequences?
I picked a product–body armor. I created a group with three initials, BAA, for the Body Armor Association. What if they sold body armor the way NRA sells guns?
1) Provide easy availability at multiple price points
First they would make bullet proof clothing and helmets as easy to get and as cheap to buy as a handgun. There would be no requirements on people to buy them or laws to block its sale. Restrictions that make sense (like not selling to felons or bigger criminal charges for people who use them in committing a crime) would be dismissed as unnecessary and a hindrance. “People have a right to feel safe, in their home and out in public, their past criminal history shouldn’t infringe on their right to feel safe!”
2) Pay state lawmakers to fix the laws in body armor’s favor on a state by state basis
Currently in the United States it is legal to purchase and possess body armor, apart from a few exceptions: From Safe Guard Armor
In Connecticut, body armor can only be purchased face-to-face, and cannot be purchased online, over the phone, or by mail;
In New York, the ban of body armor for private citizens is being debated;
In some states such as Kentucky, committing a crime while wearing or even possessing body armor is a crime in and of itself;
In Louisiana, it is illegal to wear body armor on school property.
The legislative arm of the group would write bills like ALEC did for the NRA to repealing any laws that put restrictions on the purchase of body armor and open up new markets for body armor. If lawmakers didn’t support the bills, they would not get endorsements and donations would be withheld. This would require money, but buying influence at the state level is surprisingly cheap. Also be positioned as ‘bi-partisan,’ as a a pro-life bill.
3) Make the owning of body armor part of a higher law or ideal, maybe even a right
Like how the NRA uses the 2nd Amendment laws to sell more guns, the Body Armor Association BAA might use the preamble of the constitution as their foundational argument. After all, it is before the 2nd Amendment.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Constitutional scholars and homegrown experts can argue on what it all means. Pay a couple of historians to write some books. The important thing is to “start a conversation” even if you have to jump through some flaming hoops with blindfolds to make the case.
“What part of insure domestic Tranquility don’t people understand? Guy with a gun shoots at you, are you going to feel more tranquil with a vest or without one? Also, note that the Framers used the phrase “provide for the common defense.” If they wanted to provide for the common offensive they would have said so and named it in the document. Remember, the USA was not the aggressor in the war.”
4) Bring religion into the picture
Getting Jesus on board is easy, what with the whole “turn the other cheek” story Matthew 5:38-39. Also, always tie it to sales. “It’s easier to turn the other cheek when wearing this GM-IIIA glass visor mask and ballistic helmet!”
5) No liability for manufacturers, ever.
Laws would be passed so the manufacturers of the clothing were immune from all product liability cases, ever, even if they are defective. Liability lawsuits cost money, it’s cheaper to pay some lawmakers to grant immunity. The manufacturers will show their gratitude to the BAA leaders.
6) Sell body armor into fashion markets for men, women and children
The BAA would enlist the United States Fashion Industry Association to boost sales. Seed money would be given to the industry to make more lightweight, fashionable kevlar clothing for everyday wear.
They would enlist fashion designers to make them look cool. Since styles change every year for adults, people will buy new body armor in multiple styles depending on their mood and activity.
Get celebrities on board!
From left, designer of #BabyYeezy BulletProofVest, unidentified man, unidentified woman one, mother of child model (North West), unidentified woman two. Photo Reuters
Growing children will need new sizes every year. Parents will need to buy new Back To School body armor. This all increases revenue for manufacturers. Here’s North West the son of Kanye West wearing a bulletproof vest designed by his father.
Kim Kardashian’s actual tweet. Look at my little cutie!!!
#DaddysMuse #BabyYeezy
BulletProofVest. Photos Brian Prahl Splash News
The BAA would also accept kickbacks (I mean donations) from the clothing industry for every single item of clothing sold, just like they do with the gun makers.
7) Get the government to buy body armor for all employees
Government unions are powerful. Who is in more danger than a government office worker? New contracts would demand workers get free body armor. Office workers would be required to wear them as part of their job. The body armor would have to meet government specifications. A cost plus model would be implemented for the resellers in the government market.
8) Get the government to pay for school children’s body armor
School board members would be lobbied by BAA to send new requirements to state and federal governments for all children to wear body armor while in school. The BAA would provide the school board with statistics for why it’s necessary. If the government hesitates, the BAA would ask private donors to provide body armor.
What about schools with no sponsors? Schools where parents can’t afford body armor? To put more pressure on the government to provide body armor, start pointing out racial differences. Who needs the body armor more? Rich white suburban kids or “urban” kids?
REMINDER: A part of all profits from government sales goes to BAA for government lobbying, advertising and PR campaigns to sell more body armor and helmets.
9) Absorb attacks from body armor haters
Just like they do for the gun manufacturers, the BAA would also absorb any of the attacks on the body armor makers when a bulletproof vest didn’t work correctly. The focus would always be on user failure, not manufacturer failure.
“The injured party wasn’t wearing the clothing properly. We suggest that everyone wearing body armor attend a BAA class on proper fit and use. Instructors can help users select the vest size and type that are effective for the kind of threat each individual faces”
10) Redefine how people talk about the body armor– direct this to journalists
Start with a popular phrase like bullet proof. Redefine it and use it as a club if it is used generically. A group that redefines a term starts owning it.
Journalists will be constantly corrected via multiple channels, tweets, Facebook, emails and phone calls. Even good old letters to the editors will be enlisted.
“Dear Sirs/ladies: In your recent article “Bullet Proof Vest Saves Child’s Life” you referred to the body armor the child was wearing as “bullet proof.” That is incorrect. Technically the body armor in question should have properly been called bullet resistant. This is just sloppy journalism.
In the future do your homework before throwing out generalizations about body armor.
Complaints in on-line forums would look like this, “Why should I listen to any “journalists” who don’t know the difference between Kevlar 29 and Kevlar Correctional? He probably still thinks we use metal plates instead of UHMWPE for ballistic panels!” The point is to let the journalists know they will hear from you whenever they write about body armor. Good or bad.
11) Change the culture of wearing body armor by appealing to the desired self image of users
One of the most important roles of the Body Armor Association would be to change the image of body armor wearing people. This is part of a broader cultural change. Use of tv and movies is essential.
The NRA has spent decades pushing the idea that masculinity is tied up with using a gun. But there is a difference between pushing it as protection and pushing it for payback, revenge and instant “justice”
Separate someone who is smart about protection from guns and someone who is dumb with a gun.
12) Call people who don’t like body armor sick
People who complain they feel uncomfortable around people wearing bullet resistant vests, would be told they suffer from a made up ailment Vestiphobia
13) Make wearing body armor a duty
Wearing concealed body armor would be pushed as a duty that people accepted as part of being American and protecting one’s family. Since nothing can be done about guns, this is the best step that can be taken.
Fathers would be especially targeted for this tactic. The BAA would would run ads and send letters to fathers appealing to their desire to be protectors.
“We know you would take a bullet for your child, but you can’t stand over her every day. That’s why it’s a man’s duty to protect their child when they aren’t there.
If your child is at a school and was NOT wearing her vest, you failed her! Bullet resistant body armor and helmets must be worn everyday!”
13) Shame people who didn’t wear body armor
After every shooting death and injury, instead of calls for more guns, which would not have stopped the bullets, there would be a call for more bulletproof vests and helmets. People who own bulletproof vest and helmets come forward and shame the victims for failure to wear. “If I was there, wearing my vest, I would have been fine. It’s their own fault they didn’t wear body armor, hopefully this will wake people up and they will start wearing body armor everywhere.”
14) Make wearing body armor routine
Parents would join groups that encouraged them to wear the bullet proof clothing in case of a home invasion. “Brush your teeth, put on your PJs and vest and daddy will come and read you a story.”
Every morning they would dress up their children in kevlar vests and fashionable bulletproof backpacks.
15) Set one group of customers against another for more sales
If sales start flagging, up the ante to get old customers to add more gear or more expensive gear. For example, in states that have started allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons, parents will need to get more than just vests for the children, since their heads are exposed during class.
Lobby school board for more funds to pay for this gap in body armor coverage.
Feeling protected?
The whole idea of a group pushing body armor like the NRA pushes guns might seem ridiculous. “People would never do all that.” But the gun lobby has taken these kind of actions and more. They have changed laws, customs, definitions, attitudes and have created an entire culture. It’s pretty damn impressive and can be disheartening when it appears nothing will ever changes.
But… they are not a force of nature. They do not have supernatural powers.
They are just men and women whose greed has systematically gone about making America this way.
If things don’t change is it because they care more? They are smarter? More ruthless? Better funded? Better organized?
I don’t think so.
There are more of us who can and will work systematically to make changes to reduce gun violence in America. Until that day comes I’m looking into this.
“The left is having a dilemma of major proportions and I think for those of us who disagree with some of their policies, the best thing to do is to sit on the sidelines and let them kill themselves.”
He went there. The liberal terrorist alliance is in trouble because gays were killed and liberals don’t know how to deal with it. Seriously.
Earlier in the program, Robertson went into more detail about what he called “the dilemma of the liberals, the so-called progressives, because they have two favored groups. One, the Muslims. Number two, the homosexuals.”
We’re looking at a favored group by the left, the homosexuals, and that in Islam is punishable by death or imprisonment or some sanction, so what are the left going to do? How are they going to describe it? And they don’t know quite what to do now. The fact that this Islamic gentleman opens fire in a gay nightclub and kills almost 50 homosexuals, that says something and tells the fact that Islam is against homosexuality, so the liberals are going to be scrambling to find some rationale, I think they’re going to have a hard time doing it.
In the meantime, Donald Trump is riding high because he said we should screen these people and he’s absolutely right. We should screen them. So the left is saying, ‘Oh you’re anti-Muslim, you’re racist’ and all this. Suddenly, that part of the narrative doesn’t play too well and they’re stuck as to what to do. But Trump is enjoying a victory.
He added that the issue of homosexuality and the Islamic world is “a murky picture” because Lawrence of Arabia may have spent the night with a sheikh who tried to “perform homosexual acts” on him.
Although terrorism still accounts for a negligible share of all gun deaths in the U.S. — since 1970, fewer than five deaths most years — from 2002 to 2014, 85 percent of people killed by terrorists in the U.S. were killed using guns, according to our analysis.1 Every terrorist attack in the U.S. last year in which someone other than the perpetrator was killed involved guns, according to a preliminary list provided by Erin Miller, who manages the Global Terrorism Database. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the number of people killed by guns in terror attacks in the U.S. has risen, as has the number of terror attacks involving guns.
The attack in Orlando would be the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since Sept. 11, eclipsing the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, in December, which left 14 people dead, and a shooting rampage at the Fort Hood, Texas, military post in 2009, in which 13 people were killed.2 The second-deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. last year was a shooting at a Charleston, South Carolina, church that killed nine people. More people died in the Orlando attack than in all U.S. terrorism attacks using firearms in any single year since at least 1970. (Terrorists killed 44 people in gun attacks in 1973.) …
Experts say the increased use of guns in terror attacks is an alarming trend.Arie Perliger, director of terrorism studies at the U.S. Military Academy, said that U.S. terrorists are turning to guns because since Sept. 11, the federal government has monitored the use of explosives and the trade of materials that can be turned into explosives.3 People on the terrorism watch list aren’t barred from buying guns, by contrast, although such a ban probably wouldn’t have stopped the Charleston or San Bernardino shootings, because the suspects weren’t on the watch list.
Guns are easier for terrorists to work with than explosives “and are less likely to result in a terrorist operation being compromised,” said Jeffrey Simon, a visiting lecturer in the department of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles, and author of the book “Lone Wolf Terrorism: Understanding the Growing Threat.” “That’s particularly appealing to lone wolves. We’ll see more of that in the U.S.”
Guns have become a tool for more U.S. terrorist attacks because the targets have shifted from property to people, Miller, the Global Terrorism Database manager, said. In the 1970s, there were routinely more than 100 terrorist attacks each year, while in some recent years, there have been fewer than 10 terrorist attacks — while the number of deaths hasn’t declined by nearly as much. Miller said the prevailing wisdom about terrorists is that they have changed from wanting to be watched, not to kill, to wanting both to be watched and to kill.
Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign, we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post.
What was the specific coverage that prompted this petulant action?
I am no fan of President Obama, but to show you how dishonest the phony Washington Post is, they wrote, “Donald Trump suggests President Obama was involved with Orlando shooting” as their headline. Sad!
The headline was changed to “Donald Trump seems to connect President Obama to Orlando shooting” but the first one wasn’t inaccurate. It was a story about calls Donald Trump made to various news shows on Monday morning in which he said that many people think President Obama has ulterior motives for failing to stop terrorist attacks and hinted broadly that he may actually be a co-conspirator. He claimed that he was not among them because he thinks President Obama is simply incompetent, weak and foolish. But he made a point of sharing that this was a common view among “people” he knows.
Here are the exact Trump quotes:
“Look, we’re led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind. And the something else in mind — you know, people can’t believe it. People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can’t even mention the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ There’s something going on. It’s inconceivable. There’s something going on.”
He had said in his formal statement on Sunday that President Obama should resign from office because of the Orlando shooting. When asked why he said that later in the interview, this was his answer:
“He doesn’t get it or he gets it better than anybody understands — it’s one or the other, and either one is unacceptable.”
“He’s got something else in mind… he gets it better than anyone understands .. there’s something going on …”
This is the King of the Birthers the man who mainstreamed the looney fringe conspiracy theory that President Obama was a secret Muslim who wasn’t really born in America. He’s been “suggesting” for years that he was some kind of Manchurian candidate. Recall this from 2011:
“Let me tell you, I’m a really smart guy. I was a really good student at the best school in the country. The reason I have a little doubt, just a little, is because he grew up and nobody knew him. If I got the nomination, if I decide to run, you may go back and interview people from my kindergarten. They’ll remember me. Nobody comes forward. Nobody knows who he is until later in his life. It’s very strange. The whole thing is very strange.
This wasn’t true, of course, but that would describe at least 50% of what comes out of his mouth. He has been implying that President Obama is not who he says he is for five years. And two-thirds of his voters believe him.
The other night Trump said something else that also drew the attention of the press. He gleefully proclaimed, “Dwight D. Eisenhower, great guy—you know, he won the Second World War though I think other people had something to do with it, in all fairness. But he was given a lot of credit for winning the Second World War; he runs for president—I beat him.” He was referring to the number of votes he won in the primary failing to account for the fact that there were very few primaries in 1952 and a much smaller total population. But that wasn’t the first time Trump referenced Eisenhower. Throughout the primaries he tied his mass deportation plan to Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback”, calling it a massive success. (It wasn’t.)
So Trump has some fixation with Eisenhower, probably because he’s the president Trump remembers from his childhood and Trump’s “Leave it to Beaver” fantasy 1950s is the era he is trying to recreate for his frustrated white constituency. (Even Trump’s elaborate comb-over is a throwback to the “ducktail” haircut of the time.)
But there might be another reason Trump brings up Eisenhower so often. For all of its image as a period of American social conformity, peace and prosperity, political witch-hunts were very much in fashion. And Trump’s mentor Roy Cohn made his reputation during that era as Senator Joseph McCarthy’s henchman. This article by Michael Kruse in Politico explored their deep relationship:
Roy Cohn, the lurking legal hit man for red-baiting Sen. Joe McCarthy, whose reign of televised intimidation in the 1950s has become synonymous with demagoguery, fear-mongering and character assassination. In the formative years of Donald Trump’s career, when he went from a rich kid working for his real estate-developing father to a top-line dealmaker in his own right, Cohn was one of the most powerful influences and helpful contacts in Trump’s life.
Over a 13-year-period, ending shortly before Cohn’s death in 1986, Cohn brought his say-anything, win-at-all-costs style to all of Trump’s most notable legal and business deals. Interviews with people who knew both men at the time say the relationship ran deeper than that—that Cohn’s philosophy shaped the real estate mogul’s worldview and the belligerent public persona visible in Trump’s presidential campaign.
One can certainly see the echoes of McCarthy in Trump’s comments yesterday. Suggesting that the president is colluding with terrorists (if not worse) is right out of the Roy Cohn playbook.
Cohn and McCarthy weren’t the only one’s however. This particular strain of right wing thought — the idea that the government had been infiltrated by America’s enemies — was held by many people during that era, famously including Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society, who had this to say about the man who won World War II in his book “The Politician”:
My firm belief that Dwight Eisenhower is a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy is based on an accumulation of detailed evidence so extensive and so palpable that it seems to me to put this conviction beyond any reasonable doubt.
According to Rick Perlstein’s history of the early conservative movement “Before the Storm”, upon receiving his advance copy of the book, William F. Buckley wrote Welch a note saying “if you were smart, you’d burn every copy you have. It will do great damage to the conservative cause.” Both Nixon and Goldwater ran from that noxious Eisenhower accusation and it’s not as if they were soft on the commies.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, considering the national mood, Trump’s trip back to the good old days of McCarthyism is catching on. Just as he’s successfully tarred undocumented workers from Mexico as rapists and criminals he’s having some success at tarring real American Muslims (as opposed to the president) as terrorist sympathizers. He made it quite clear in his chilling speech yesterday what he expects going forward:
The Muslim people have to cooperate with law enforcement. They have to turn in the people who they know are bad. And they know it! They have to do and they have to do it forthwith…
As I noted yesterday, Trump has recited his belief that the Muslim community is “covering up” for terrorists for many months. And he has said that he thinks “we need to be tough” including the use of torture and “taking out” the families of terrorist suspects. He certainly seems to think the family of the Orlando killer are guilty of something. So, it’s not hard to guess what the “or else” is in that threat.
Let me go a step further, because remember, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, and Orlando involve American citizens. We’re going to ultimately declare a war on Islamic supremacists and we’re going to say, if you pledge allegiance to ISIS, you are a traitor and you have lost your citizenship. And we’re going take much tougher positions. In the late 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt was faced with Nazi penetration in the United States. We originally created the House Un-American Activities Committee to go after Nazis. We passed several laws in 1938 and 1939 to go after Nazis and we made it illegal to help the Nazis. We’re going to presently have to go take the similar steps here.
The eternally “too clever by half” Gingrich cynically elides the fact that the HUAC may have been instituted to fight Nazis but it was just a little bit better known for what it morphed into after the war when it launched a crusade against Americans accused of being communists, a perfectly legal political affiliation. And we know where that went, don’t we? Blacklists, witch hunts and ruined lives.
McCarthy and the HUAC were congressional abuses. But the presidency is also subject to undemocratic abuse. One of Trump’s other heroes, Richard Nixon, was famous for them. But as this analysis of Trump’s proposals by Robert Kuttner in the American Prospect lays out in chilling detail his approach to the constitution represents an unprecedented threat in our current political environment. He concludes the piece with this:
The founders of our republic devised a complex system of checks and balances as a bulwark against tyranny. But much of our liberty depends on the internalized constitutions of our leaders, their respect for democratic norms and their sense of restraint. When that falters, the latent power of the other two branches of government kicks in—but sometimes it doesn’t. A Trump presidency would likely display neither the self-restraint of a Lincoln or a Roosevelt, nor the institutional checks and balances that ultimately brought down Nixon.
We certainly can’t expect the Republican party to rein him in since they have shown themselves to be completely impotent. The press is flummoxed by his aggression (and in the case of the news network the profits he brings…) So, it looks as though it’s going to be up to the Democrats and the American people to step up and ensure this Putin-loving maniac never sees the inside of the White House.
There’s only one common sense response to Trump’s Putinesque performance yesterday: “at long last sir, have you no decency?”
