By: Brent Parrish
“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.”
—Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Feb. 8, 2009
More and more details are leaking out regarding the recent atrocity in San Bernardino, California. According to CNN, Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, traveled to Saudi Arabia for nine days, possibly for the Hajj. Officials told CNN he traveled again to Saudi Arabia in 2015, where he most likely met his wife, Tasheen Malik. Farook’s family claim the couple met on a dating website. It appears Syed Farook went to Saudi Arabia to meet her. Tasheen Malik traveled to the U.S. on a “fiancée visa” (K-1 visa). After her arrival in the States she was granted legal permanent residence (i.e. granted “green card”). They were married for two years. Tasheen Malik, 27, was the mother of six-month-old child. The couple left the child with the grandmother on the morning of the atrocity, saying they had to go to a doctor’s appointment.
Syed Rizwan Farook — one-half of the couple behind the San Bernardino shooting massacre — was apparently radicalized and in touch with people being investigated by the FBI for international terrorism, law enforcement officials said Thursday.
Farook’s apparent radicalization contributed to his role in the mass shooting, with his wife Tashfeen Malik, of 14 people on Wednesday during a holiday party for the San Bernardino County health department, where Farook worked, sources said.
Still, it wasn’t necessarily the only driver behind the carnage as workplace grievances may have also played a role. President Barack Obama hinted as much Thursday when he said that the attackers may have had “mixed motives.”
Farook traveled to Saudi Arabia for several weeks in 2013 on the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca that Muslims are required to take at least once in their lifetime, which didn’t raise red flags, said two government officials. It was during this trip that he met Malik, a native of Pakistan who came to the United States on a “fiancée visa” and later became a lawful permanent resident.
Syed Farook was born in Chicago, the son of Pakistani immigrants. The family later moved to Riverside, California, according to the Los Angeles Times.
CBS News reported, “Tashfeen Malik passed DHS counterterrorism screening as part of her vetting for K-1 visa.” As a result, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) are demanding the Obama White House hand over the immigration records of the jihadi couple responsible for the slaughter in San Bernardino.
The Daily Caller reported:
Farook reportedly had contact with known terrorists in the Middle East. He has also traveled to the Middle East and to Pakistan multiple times. It has also been reported that Farook viewed ISIS propaganda online. Investigators found a heavy arsenal of guns, ammunition and pipe bombs at their house in Redlands, Cal.
Apparently, Farook spent more of his free time at the mosque memorizing the Qu’ran.
At around 11 A.M. Wednesday, the killer couple entered the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino and opened fire, murdering 14 people and wounding 21 others. One San Bernardino police officer described the murder scene as “unspeakable carnage.”
Following an afternoon car chase, the butchers were killed in a firefight with police. Both “suspects were heavily armed and wearing tactical attire, and they had an arsenal of ammunition and pipe bombs in their Redlands home,” according to the Los Angeles Times.
Authorities believe there may be a “deeper terror matrix” behind the attacks.
So what has been the response from the Obama Administration and the rabid Left in the wake of the carnage in San Bernardino? “
Well, it goes something like this. “Save your stupid, worthless thoughts and prayers” and “act now on gun control.”
Oh, but the despicable Daily News, et al., didn’t stop there. They decided to double-down on their misplaced hate and vile rhetoric by attempting to blame the NRA (yeah, imagine that) for the mass-murder—namely, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.
Huh. To my knowledge, Mr. LaPierre has never murdered innocent people en masse, unlike the other beasts pictured on the above Daily News cover. But that never stopped the unhinged Left from trying to engage in the time-honored tactic of “admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter-accusations.”
Of course, as is always the case, prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Martin O’Malley and Barack Obama, ad nauseum, instantly called for more “gun control.” Never mind the pesky little fact that California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country—such as all sales of firearms must be done through a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) with a background check, 10-day waiting periods on all gun purchases, both handguns and rifles must be registered through the state, a firearm safety certificate required for all firearms purchase or transfers, two forms of ID to prove residency on all firearm sales, handguns must be unloaded and locked in a container during transport, a so-called “assault weapons” ban, 10-round magazine limits, magazine buttons, etc.. (By the way, the last time I checked, pipe bombs were illegal, too.)
And like some broken record that runs ad infinitum, the dems and their media cohorts continue to bark about closing the thoroughly debunked “gun show loophole.” THERE IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE! For the fiftieth-billion time … you must pass a background check before purchasing a firearm at a gun show. Is that too hard for the gun-grabbers to understand? Of course not! Remember, facts don’t matter with this crowd. All that matters for those who want nothing more than to grind the Bill of Rights into dust is trying to dupe enough of the “masses” in order to forward their diabolical agenda of disarming law-abiding American citizens. It’s that simple. Period.
The “gun loophole” is a strawman argument, and serves absolutely no purpose but to wield power over lawful gun owners. The vast majority of individual sellers at gun shows are FFL dealers—meaning, they have to do background checks on everyone who purchases a firearm. EVERYONE! That’s federal law. And the small minority who are not FFL dealers? They still have to follow state law. Most states require buyers and sellers to swap information, along with conceal-carry permits (CCW) and driver’s license (DL) information for all private transactions.
As far as purchasing firearms online, I have personal experience. I bought a gun online and had to pick it up at my FFL dealer. I was still required to pass a background check, despite the fact that I have a legal permit to carry in my state.
But, remember, the facts don’t matter. Take, for example, the president’s favorite line these days: “mass shootings only happen in the United States.” Obama actually made this discredited claim yet again in Paris recently, just days after the horrific mass slaughter of some 130-plus people by jihadists. Well, Obama is just plain wrong. Mass shootings do happen elsewhere in the “civilized world,” and more often.
A CDC study proved that guns saves more innocent lives than take them. But that doesn’t stop the anti-gunners from continuing to spew falsified or skewed statistics to support their eternal and infernal stomp-fest on the Second Amendment.
For example, in the LA Times article on Obama’s latest threat to take executive action on the “gun loophole,” the ill-informed “journalist” reported “40% of guns are bought through background checks.” This is a bogus statistic. It’s based off a 1994 telephone poll of less than 300 people, just one year after the NICS background database system was implemented. Not what one could call a “scientific poll.” The author of the article also glosses over the fact that the guns were purchased legally under California laws, which already requires all gun transfers go through a FFL dealer with full background checks. The Oregon (UCC) killer’s guns were also purchased legally in California.
Another example of bogus statistics being employed in the war against individual rights includes an activists’ count of mass shootings repeated by a number of mainstream media outlets.
Many national news outlets shared mass shooting statistics derived from an anti-gun subsection of the social media site Reddit on Tuesday despite the fact that those numbers clash with a related official standard cited by the FBI.
The New York Times, the Washington Post, Boston Globe, CBS News, MSNBC, and Newsday all claimed that the shooting in San Bernardino, California was the 355th mass shooting this year. The number was also shared on cable news during coverage of the shooting. The figure is derived from a group of activists who run a “subreddit” named “Guns Are Cool.”
The “Guns are Cool” site describes a mass shooting as any event where four or more people, including the shooter, are injured. This is a looser criteria than the FBI definition of mass murder, which it describes “as a number of murders (four or more) occurring during the same incident, with no distinctive time period between the murders.”
Under the FBI standard only 21 of the 355 shootings identified by the anti-gun group qualify as mass murder with a firearm.
Democrats and leftists are also insinuating the Republicans won’t even deny weapons to individuals on terrorist watch lists. Never mind the fact that the administration and their sycophants cannot even define “terrorism.” But I digress. The fact of the matter is the watch lists are secret. Once a person is placed on a watch list, it can prove practically impossible to be removed in case of error. There have been numerous incidents of people being put on the watch list who did not belong, from four-year-olds to the late Sen. Teddy Kennedy (five times). Even lefty rags—Mother Jones, DailyKos, Huffington Post—and far-left organizations like the ACLU (at least, in the past) have provided ample coverage of why this a bad thing. During a time when the administration cannot even bring themselves to utter the phrase “Islamic terrorism,” they are more than happy to label tea partiers and conservatives “terrorists” and “extremists.” It should be obvious why such a proposal causes a great deal of consternation for many American citizens.
Despite the facts, the Democrats proposed two “gun control” measures in response to the San Bernardino massacre, but the Senate shot them down.
True gunsense prevailed today in the senate as two gun control proposals were voted down:
The Senate on Thursday voted down two gun control proposals put forward by Democrats in response to this week’s deadly shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., in a series of votes that highlighted the intractable party divide over how to respond to gun violence.
The Senate rejected a measure from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to expand background checks for guns purchased online and at gun shows on a 48 to 50 vote and an amendment from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to prevent individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms on a 45 to 54 vote. The amendments were offered to an Obamacare repeal package currently being debated in the Senate and they needed 60 votes to be adopted.
Now come on, folks … you didn’t really think that would be the end of it, did you?
No, not at all. President Obama immediately reacted to the failed gun proposals in the Senate by threatening to take executive action to close the fictitious “gun loophole.” It’s painfully obvious that Obama could care less about the will of the people, or his oath.
Under the U.S. Constitution, the president of the United States has three main responsibilities:
- Defend, protect and preserve the U.S. Constitution.
- Enforce the laws Congress has written.
- Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military during time of war.
Barack H. Obama has taken it upon himself to enforce or ignore the law as he sees fit. For example, amending and reinterpreting the Affordable Healthcare Act (aka Obamacare), or ignoring federal immigration law in relation to so-called “sanctuary cities,” or implementing “executive amnesty,” and so on.
Immediately following the UCC murders, Barack Obama took to the podium to unapologetically politicize the atrocity in an effort to push for yet more “gun control,” citing Australia as a model example on how to effectively deal with “gun violence.” Why Australia? Because Australia created a gun registry, then confiscated all guns. Ironically, the very next day a 15-year-old jihadi shouting “Allahu akhbar” shot and killed an Australian police officer in Sydney, before being shot dead himself. At around the same time, 50 people were stabbed to death in China—a country that heavily regulates gun ownership.
Just hours prior to the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris, Obama stated that ISIS was “contained.” And on the very day of the massacre in San Bernardino, our hapless president reassured the nation that the nation is “safe” from any terrorist attacks.
While this president has been more than willing to supply arms to so-called “Syrian rebels”—arms that have fallen into the hands of the likes of Jubhat al-Nusra, Islamic Front, ISIS, and so on, in Syria—or walking guns across the border into Mexico (see Operation Fast and Furious) that led to the deaths of two U.S. border patrolmen and countless Mexicans, he and his ilk appear hellbent on disarming the American populace. At the very least, Obama and crew obviously want to greatly curtail the ability of the citizenry to bear arms, as is their God-given right under the Second Amendment.
At a time when Islamic terrorism is clearly on the rise, Obama’s answer is to implement draconian measures to fight so-called “climate change,” and to fling wide-open our borders so thousands and thousands of illegal immigrants can flood into the United States completely unvetted, and then go immediately onto the government dole. He’s released thousands of violent offenders, and he’s helped facilitate Iran in producing a nuclear weapon.
While our feckless leader demands expanded background checks for law-abiding Americans, he refuses to even release background information on Syrian refugees to the States and their governors. How about an executive action on background checks for all illegal aliens and Syrian refugees?
How very inappropriate and infuriating it is to ask law-abiding citizens to give more and more of their freedoms away, while our president and his ilk remain utterly lawless, allowing the importation of holy war (i.e. jihad) into our country. If Obama would act on facts rather than ideology, he might make some progress protecting us from this jihadist scourge. As it is, he is only continuing his Marxist/socialist agenda, leaving Americans to swing in the wind. This is not a about right or left. It is about self-preservation—survival. The Second Amendment and the right to self-defense is not just a conservative platform; it is an unalienable right granted to all Americans … and it “shall not be infringed” by anybody!
Too bad we didn’t insist on better background checks for presidential candidates in 2008. President Obama, please consider taking the most important executive action of all … signing your letter of resignation.