After Wednesday’s horrific attack in San Bernardino, Democratic Party leadership practically tripped over their underwear rushing to call for gun control. But the Democratic Party’s latest obsession with eroding constitutional rights has little to do with gun control. More likely they were repeating what they did after Benghazi, when the administration covered up an untimely act of terror with an obscure YouTube Mohammed video. I would suggest that the Democrats are now trying to divert the public away from their weak stance on the terrorist threat to America with a gun control “sleight of hand.”
Less than twenty-four hours after the attack, President Obama was urging Congress to bar gun purchases by people on no-fly lists. Putting aside for a moment often people are often put on the no-fly list incorrectly, and the unconstitutional nature of such a legislation as it ignores the 5th Amendment’s guarantee of due process, this demand has no relationship to what happened in San Bernardino. Actually “no relationship” isn’t descriptive enough, it isn’t even on the same planet.
- The two terrorists Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik weren’t on the no-fly list, in fact they weren’t even on the terrorist watch list which is a totally different register.
- They obtained their guns illegally, so gun laws wouldn’t have stopped them from securing their their weapons. And as Sen. Barbara Boxer strangely bragged about the day after the blood bath California has very strict gun laws.
- The Farook’s had an armory -sized cache of bullets (5000+ rounds), again gun legislation wouldn’t have prevented this cache.
- Police authorities called their garage an IED factory, they had built twelve pipe pipe bombs and remote detonators (supposedly they learned how to make the bombs/detonators via an online al Qaeda magazine). Gun legislation does not prevent the building of pipe bombs.
While I fiercely disagree with most of what President Obama and the Democratic Party proposes the vast majority of them are misguided but not stupid. They must understand that gun control legislation would not have stopped terrorist attacks such as the one in San Bernardino.
So what’s behind the subterfuge? I would suggest that just like the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks, Obama’s team decided it would be politically inconvenient to allow the public to focus on the radical Islamic terror aspects of the attack.
Generally, when the country focuses on national security issues it helps the Republican Party. The past few weeks the nation’s been embroiled in a debate about radical Islamic terrorism and the extremist left-wing Democrats such as the president have been out matched in the discussion despite the mainstream media’s best attempts.
The day of the Paris attacks Obama spoke about ISIL being contained (something that some of his military and national security advisers have publicly disagreed with). After the news that some of the Paris attackers were ISIL members posing as Syrian refuges, Obama and his party began to lose the debate about bringing Syrian refugees to the U.S. And while they continue to brand opponents to the move as Islamophobic, Americans seem to be worried about terrorist infiltrators and that this president doesn’t take the terrorist threat seriously enough.
Compounding this worry was when, on his way to the Paris climate conference just days after Islamic terrorists killed 130 people in the French city, Obama declared that it was climate change not terrorism that is our greatest threat.
In the case of San Bernardino rather than deny terrorism totally as they did with Benghazi (Obama admitted that terrorism might be involved) they are directing the public toward gun control. Their misdirection began immediately because they suspected Islamist terrorism from the start.
While the FBI didn’t publicly announce that San Bernardino gunman Syed Rizwan Farook may have been radicalized until late Wednesday, President Obama surely knew much earlier. The FBI does not go public with information as it happens (and rightly so), but with horrors such as Wednesday the president’s told right away (at least should be).
Other Democrats probably knew almost as early it didn’t take a major leap of faith to suspect the blood bath was terrorist related. At the initial press conference, San Bernardino police Chief Burguan said the attackers acted as if they were on a mission. They entered the building wearing masks, dressed in tactical gear, carrying “long guns,” which were not hand guns, and opened fire. Syed Rizwan Farook’s name was well known almost immediately after the massacre (at least to those of us listening to the San Bernardino Police radio). It would have been wrong at the time for reporters to publicly label the slaughter as Islamic terrorism, the fact that one shooter had a Muslim name, and combined with the police chief’s description pointed toward terrorism. And unless their staffs were goofing off –politicians on both sides certainly knew the score.
Except for the Benghazi misdirection, not of the above can be proven today. But the president and his party has spent much of the past seven years deflecting blame, not just in the case of the Benghazi attack. Americans have often been treated to explanations such as it’s Bush’s fault, it’s the tea party’s fault, the GOP is lying about Obamacare, Netanyahu made up the concerns about Iran, etc., etc., and so on. Is it that much of a leap to believe they are doing the same thing now by blaming San Bernardino on the “lack” of reasonable gun laws instead of terrorism?