Thursday, May 07, 2015

My take on the Garland, TX terrorist attack.

I've previously discussed that situation in a policy perspective.  But the question remains: what about the organizers and attendees: do they bear "responsibility" for the attack?

Many who know better certainly appear to think so.

Here's the thing: the First Amendment is one of those things that many who use it whip out when they need it, but who then seem to forget all about it as they, effectively, propose withholding it's use from those with whom they disagree.

In this instance, I agree with the organizer, Pam Geller, in holding her event.

SHE was not the proximate cause of this attack.  It was NOT specifically foreseeable anymore than the Hindenburg crash was foreseeable. 

The proximate cause was jihadi scum who wanted to act in ways that allow them to exert some level of control over how the implementation of the First Amendment actually occurs in this country.

Many of the babbling heads seem mystified by the whole thing.  Some TV lawyers have condemned the event more than the attackers.

But here's what was positive that was accomplished, save for the removal of two scumbag thugs from the gene pool.

For many who have not seen it, lived it, experienced it or been in the Middle East, the entire concept of terrorism is a nebulous, academic idea that never goes beyond the scope of impact of a war movie.  I've seen government where no First Amendment exists:  Communist East Germany and Saudi Arabia.  I know it well.

Most folks, for example, watching such a movie rarely connect the dots between what they're watching on the screen and any such activity ever involving them personally.

The Garland jihadi attack provided the public service of again raising awareness that Obama's failed policies have actually brought these attacks home to our shores.

That innocents everywhere are subject to slaughter by muslims.  That Christians and others are being slaughtered by the thousands even as I type this.

For many, this attack is a needed reminder that scum this country are "negotiating" with... and the lowlifes who feel free to take advantage of our freedoms, only do so to the extent they can use those very freedoms to kill us.

No one uses the First Amendment more than I.  This blog derives zero income from any source... ever... and is, for the most part, put here for my amusement and database more than anything else.  It is a complete expression of what I'm thinking about the issues.

No one is forced to read what I write here and GOD knows no one is forced to read it.  Causing the simplest of rules to be implemented:  don't like it?

Don't read it.

And those who would proclaim that Geller or myself, because I share her view of jihadi scum, should somehow have our rights abridged because they don't "like" what I'm writing or saying can feel equally free to go pound sand.

When I see these pogues on TV blather that Geller or those who share her view are somehow wrong or irresponsible for exercising a right that they use every professional second of their day without a second thought, it makes me nauseous.

In THIS country, Geller and the rest of the group were not the irresponsible ones.  Those who would slaughter them for expressing these viewpoints were and are the irresponsible ones... and they paid for it.

What these clowns like VanSusteren and MacCallum and the others on this allegedly conservative network are doing is providing the scum who would slaughter with mitigation for their acts... providing some level of excuse or justification for what they're trying to do to us.

And to me, that is far more dangerous and obsequious to those who would destroy us than anything Geller has done here.

So, I'll be exercising my First Amendment right to ignore these clowns and their ilk and never watch them on TV again.

After all, if they're so cavalierly willing to toss the First Amendment under the bus by lying about it, then what other misinformation are they promulgating?

No comments: