Assuming your tolerance for President Obama lecturing you on the evils of Donald Trump and the NRA is as big as mine, this has been a very depressing week for you. It’s truly baffling that a terrorist attack by a Jihadi loser on a gay bar in Orlando within hours got turned into a vehicle to lambast conservatives and push gun control, but such are the crazy times in which we now live. If you were wondering whether it was you who’s going nuts here or the entire world around you, rest assured it’s the latter.
There are a couple of obvious points to be made, of the kind that many of us instinctively know to be true but that are nevertheless suppressed by the avalanche of political correctness being dumped all over us by the media and political establishments. Propaganda and intimidation can be very powerful tools.
First, lost in all the outrage over greedy Wall Street bankers and racist Republican fear mongers selling scary looking military-grade weapons to five-year-old kids in the streets without a permit, is the fact that something very similar to the Orlando shooting occurred just seven months ago in Paris, that infamous Second Amendment bastion of Europe. A hundred and thirty people died in coordinated attacks in and around that city, the vast majority of them by bullets. Back then our social media feeds were flooded with vacuous hashtags and profile pictures in support of the victims, by the way, a fate which we were thankfully spared in the wake of Orlando for some reason. Either we’re all getting immune to the terror or people just care less about knuckle-dragging Americans than they did about those French victims, but we do have the distinct advantage of not having to see that pathetic clown play John Lennon’s “Imagine” on his piano this time around.
But I digress. With strict gun laws in place in almost every European nation, where did the Paris attackers get their weapons? Well, from the Balkan region, which is connected to Western Europe through a series of borders the protection of which is virtually non-existent, as the current influx of millions of “refugees” from Africa and the Middle East into Europe is painfully illustrating. Time Magazine explained it to you after the attacks, in an article that looks like it was written by somebody who’s never been within five miles of a gun. As the authors wrote, the November 13 attacks weren’t the only ones in 2015. The French also had the Charlie Hebdo massacre back in January, and foiled attacks in April and August of the same year. “Assault weapons” were used or about to be used in all of them.
And then we’ve had plenty of mass murder by other means as well. In recent years, bombs went off in Boston and Brussels, to name just a few examples. Just the other day, another adherent to the religion of peace knifed a police officer and his girlfriend to death in France. And a few years back in the Netherlands, a lunatic without any obvious motive got real creative and drove his car into a crowd at high speed right in front of the Dutch royal family, killing himself and seven innocent bystanders (though no royals).
We can go on and on, but it should be pretty obvious to any observer that we could repeal the Second Amendment tomorrow, have all guns in the United States confiscated by the end of the year, and still see atrocities like this happening in 2017, regardless of the perp’s motive. If you think Kalashnikovs can’t be found in Latin America and our border with Mexico is secure enough to keep them out of the U.S. anyway, you might be in for a nasty surprise. This kind of mass murder unfortunately seems to be a dark but inevitable part of Western societies these days, for reasons that have nothing to do with guns or the Second Amendment. The only result of stricter gun control would be to leave completely harmless citizens yet more vulnerable to it.
If gun control or the lack thereof doesn’t seem to have any effect on whether these attacks happen or not, a common denominator in all too many of them seems to be a certain religion whose name starts with an “I” and ends on “slam”. Your Commander in Chief and his allies, though, seem to be more scared of white supremacist groups, Christians and conservatives (one and the same in their twisted view) in our country than of Islamic radicalism. And so, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper won the hearts and minds of angry liberals all over America by interviewing Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi in the wake of the Orlando attack and accusing her in her face of being a hypocrite who fought gay marriage one day and stood by the Orlando victims the next. Clearly disinterested in his journalistic duty of finding and exposing the facts about the shooting, Cooper prefers to spend his time trashing the 69% of Floridians who voted to define marriage as a union between a man and woman in that state’s constitution.
This inability to name the elephant in the room is beyond baffling. If you thought the Islamic extremists got their inspiration from Ted Cruz and Antonin Scalia, there are some gays in Iran and Saudi Arabia who’ve got news for you—if they’ll live to tell their story, that is. In any case, it’s entirely possible to principally oppose same-sex marriage and at the same time be appalled by the slaughter of fifty gays at the hand of a religious lunatic, though you wouldn’t learn this from watching the liberal ayatollahs over at CNN.
Struggling with the term “radical Islam”, Obama pondered: “What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change?” He then continued: “Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.” Well, neither does trashing innocent citizens, the NRA and Donald Trump within just hours of a horrendous act of Islamic terrorism. In general it helps to have a clear definition of the enemy you’re fighting and a solid view of the things that motivate him. Hint: the writings of Barry Goldwater aren’t among them.
I am no friend of Donald Trump’s. Being a conservative who values virtues like humility and monogamy, I think Trump fails on those personal fronts while at the same time being another liberal who flaps out whatever pops up in his head on too many subjects and has cozied up to the Clintons a few too many times in the past. So there you have it. At the same time, however, it cannot be denied that The Donald has struck a cord with many voters and ended up where he ended up precisely because of his stance on immigration. The same thing has been happening all over Europe. Mass immigration is the defining issue of our time, it’s fundamentally altering our societies, and politicians of established parties have no answers whatsoever to the problem that are satisfactory to a majority of voters.
In case you thought you had been sucked into some parallel universe in which you were the only one who thought Trump made sense when he called for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration, it turns out that fifty percent of American voters agree with you, including as much as 34% of Democrats. But these people’s voices are drowned in the cacophony of manufactured outrage on the left, and/or they’re being shamed into silence.
Nevertheless, if there was a provision in the Constitution that says Congress shall pass no laws abridging the immigration of non-citizens from Muslim countries, we must have all missed it. No foreigner has a constitutional right to enter our country; We as a nation get to determine who is eligible and who is not. We have no moral or legal obligation to allow anybody to enter, let alone seek residence here. With Europe currently being swamped by millions of people, the vast majority of whom aren’t even from Syria or any war zone but sheer fortune seekers from all over the map, it should be clear by now that this is not a hypothetical issue. The point is not that we blame these people for wanting to better their lives, nor that there’s a terrorist hiding in every Muslim. But their numbers are so vast and overwhelming that their presence will change our countries for good if we don’t put a stop to the flow soon. And yes, within the vast ranks of refugees inevitably another Omar Mateen will slip through the net. Indeed, German authorities are warning us of exactly that scenario.
“In my study of communist societies,” the venerable Theodore Dalrymple once wrote, “I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity.” I think we’ve now reached this point in the West as well. All this Orwellian newspeak by the American left about the NRA and “assault weapons”, and its silence on Islam, are as humiliating as they are infuriating to millions and millions of people.
Keeping that in mind, is it really that hard to imagine why Trump has such an appeal among so many voters? If the principle holds true that one must be on to something if the left weeps and wails about it, this week has been a very instructive case study. And it means that Donald Trump is probably right.