Trying to Comprehend Liberal Reactions to Las Vegas

A liberal Facebook “friend” thought it would be funny to post this extremely tasteless attempt at a joke:

Imagine being in a hotel room and having to listen to 3 days of country music…

I didn’t bother trying to hide my disgust at his callous remark. However, I wasn’t terribly surprised to discover that’s what this particular friend thought might be amusing, in the aftermath of the worst mass shooting in American history. This same person had deliberately attracted my attention by coming to my Facebook wall to propose that the solution to the massacre in Las Vegas was “gun control.” His comment irritated me because it has become the mantra and theme of liberal politics, and I know it just isn’t true.

As this Washington Post editorial explains, gun control is not the solution — not when the problem is that someone wants to commit mass murder. If guns are illegal, the mass murderer will just use illegal guns. Or bombs. Or a truck.

Naturally, as I realized that as liberals were trying to provoke me, I needed to consider the source. Even though we’ve never met in person or even spoken to each other on the phone, I happened to know this particular person isn’t an American citizen. His politics are liberal, and he’s an atheist. All three of those factors helped form the toxic output from his mind.

Usually, I try to cut this particular guy a little slack because he’s an atheist with whom I can sometimes have a halfway decent conversation, but when the joke is at the expense of 58 victims dead so far, with over 500 more people wounded, I could find nothing to laugh about.

Well, except maybe the guy who was probably drunk and caught on camera making an obscene gesture known as “flipping the bird” in the direction of the shooter provided a brief moment of levity in an otherwise grim, very depressing story.

Usually, when my liberal friends post something on Facebook that annoys me, I’ll just change the subject to an interest we might share in common. Like music, for example. But not today. I wasn’t in the mood to be a conduit used to spread partisan liberal political talking points on social media, but reinforcements were on the way.

Several others that matched the same basic profile (liberal, atheist, and a foreigner, not an American citizen) swooped in like vultures ready to feast on raw emotions. One person even had the audacity to suggest that we have no right to complain about gun violence after 28 children had been murdered at Sandy Hook elementary school, and yet no new gun laws were passed. The problem with that argument is that Adam Lanza was mentally ill, and the guns used in the crime didn’t belong to him. I believe that’s about when I asked these people if any of them had even a shred of human decency. I politely asked them to take their conversation somewhere else, before I really lost my temper. I was sad, appalled, and growing more angry by the minute. Disturbingly, these people are not isolated exceptions. The lame stream media and Democrat politicians were insisting that this is no time to score political points, as they feverishly tried to score a political point.

A vice president for CBS was deservedly fired the day after the Las Vegas massacre (the most horrific case of terrorism since 9/11) for announcing on social media that she felt absolutely no sympathy for the victims, because they were probably Republicans who voted for Donald Trump. Does this woman lack even a shred of human decency? How could anyone think of celebrating, gloating, or taunting their perceived political enemy at one of the darkest moments in modern American history?

In his effort to twist the story narrative to a conversation about gun control,  CNN reporter Jeff Zeleny speculated the victims probably were Trump supporters for some strange reason, as if their political preferences might have factored in the attack, or in the response from the President. He seemed to be implying the President would naturally care more about the crowd in Las Vegas than the people in Puerto Rico suffering from hurricane damage, presumably because the people in Las Vegas probably voted for him.

Hillary Clinton felt the need to go on Twitter and lecture Americans that we should put politics aside while our nation mourns…for a moment that apparently lasted all of about two seconds.

With her very next tweet, Hillary blamed the deaths in Las Vegas on the NRA, even trying to make some weird connection between the massacre and the political debate over “silencers” (technically known as sound suppressors), even though gunshots can clearly be heard on audio recordings of the attack. The problem was that people initially mistook the popping sounds for firecrackers going off during a loud concert.

There have been no reports of the assassin using a sound suppressor, but we all know that won’t stop a politician from trying to score a political point or push an agenda. It should, but it never does. As we continue to seek knowledge of the killer’s potential motives for this heinous crime, perhaps we should learn about situations where the unthinkable didn’t happen — what could possibly explain the so-called Miracle at Cokeville?

The killers in that horrific incident built a bomb, planning to deliberately murder every child in the school. The bomb exploded, as they intended.

Yet inexplicably, only the killers died. The murders at Sandy Hook would have paled in comparison to Cokeville, had the plan succeeded to wipe out an entire generation in a small rural community with a homemade weapon of mass destruction. But not many know the story of Cokeville, because the children were somehow spared by a miracle.

The atheists perpetually struggle with the problem of theodicy, which begs the question, why God allows evil in this world? I don’t know if mine is the right answer, but my reply is always “free will.”

In my opinion, the second greatest gift we have from God, after the gift of life itself, is the gift of free will. We are not slaves. We aren’t forced to conform to God’s will. We are free to choose between good and evil.

The real question is, why do so many humans choose to commit despicable acts of virtually incomprehensible evil? The real problem isn’t that an evil or insane person managed to get a gun. The problem is that an evil person wants to commit evil deeds. A gun itself isn’t inherently evil, no more than a knife or a hammer is evil. It all depends on how the gun, knife, or hammer is used.

The only real and permanent solution to this problem is to beg for God’s forgiveness, ask for His mercy, and resist temptation to become evil ourselves. We can’t pretend that evil doesn’t exist anymore, because it keeps getting prevalent every day.

This reminds me of the infamous quote from longtime Democrat political operative (and current major of Chicago) Rahm Emanuel:

“You never want a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that, is that it’s an opportunity to do things that you did not think you could do before.”

Maybe you shouldn’t do them because it’s wrong to just do as you please.

LOL! HuffPo Editor Wants Liberals To Stop Being ‘Polite’ And Start ‘Raising Hell’

Michaelangelo Signorile wants liberals to “stop being polite and immediately start raising hell.” That’s what the HuffPo “Queer Voices” editor wrote Thursday.

It’s time to move beyond polite protests within specified boundaries. It’s time to escalate the expression of our outrage and our anger in a massive way.


Does he mean polite like in Berkeley? Or polite like at Trump’s inauguration?

Does he mean boundaries like public streets, or does he mean liberals should swarm Republican lawmaker town halls and public appearances? Like Rep. Tom McArthur? They were so polite.

Or Rep. Andy Harris. Or the centrally-organized mob that “shouted, screeched and heckled” during the opening prayer at Sen. Bill Cassidy‘s town hall.

Protesters have been disrupting GOP town halls across the nation, causing enough ruckus that many GOP lawmakers are skipping their own regularly scheduled town hall meetings to avoid facing the agitators.

They also showed up to boo God at Rep. Dave Brat‘s town hall just this week.

I guess that’s still too polite for Signorile. What he really wants is for all liberals to galvanize like he remembers from 30 years ago, when ACT UP brought AIDS to the forefront.

There were many die-ins, and many sit-ins, and traffic was stopped over and over again in cities across America. We were called every name in the book, but there was so much at risk and we had little to lose. ACT UP persevered and changed the course of history, a story that has been told many times in recent years.

Funny, but I was around in the 80s and 90s and don’t remember ACT UP being able to overthrow President Reagan or Bush 41. Sure, they made news, and certainly, AIDS was a problem that needed to be addressed, but trying to equate President Trump with AIDS awareness is a more than a bit of a stretch.

What Signorile really wants is mass civil disobedience. But honestly, people just don’t care enough. Even liberals are content to simply post on Facebook or tweet their discontent. Only the hard core unemployed, students, or professional agitators actually have time to march. Everyone else is too busy working and living their lives.

It’s really laughable that liberals believe (a) that they’re being polite, and (b) that their juvenile anarchist stupidity makes any difference at all. If liberals wanted the America they purport to want (and it’s not clear at all anyone wants that dystopian nightmare), they should have run better candidates than the criminal-minded Hillary Clinton and loopy Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Why Hate On Ivanka?

When Senator Edward Kennedy, patron saint of Chappaquiddick, was done savaging Robert Bork during his Supreme Court nomination hearings back in 1987, he happened to run into Bork’s wife in a Capitol Hill hallway.  Undoubtedly hoping to defuse an awkward moment, Kennedy said to her, “Mrs. Bork, you must be so tired.  It’s a very difficult time, I know.  I hope you understand it’s nothing personal.”

Demonizing Mrs. Bork’s husband, holding him up to the country as a man who would set civil rights back a generation, and deliberately making him an object to be despised:  this, in Kennedy’s view, was nothing personal.  I imagine that having been on the receiving end, Mrs. Bork felt a bit differently–but with that, Kennedy excused character assassination as just another political tactic, an effective one as it turned out.

Ironically, it may have also been a rare moment of honesty on Kennedy’s part.  Buried deep within his non-apology apology to Mrs. Bork was the implication that the campaign against her husband was a carefully crafted ploy, meant to stir up hatred against a man who could not otherwise be stopped on the merits.  But Kennedy wasn’t ginning up hatred for Bork amongst his Senate colleagues–they were far too cynical and sophisticated for that.  The hate was meant for the activists, who then turned it loose on the rubes in the Democrat base.  After all, nothing rallies the troops like giving them a common enemy.

Fast forward to 2017.  That Donald Trump is the object of the left’s scorn is no surprise–he is, after all, the single greatest threat to Obama the Light Giver’s legacy of America Last-ism.  But what’s with all the hate focused on Ivanka Trump?  By all accounts, she’s been a lifelong Democrat, and spent a lot of time on the campaign trail talking about child care, equal pay for women and other issues that the feminist left purports to care about.  She has been a businesswoman and an entrepreneur, a person who would otherwise be held up as a feminist icon.  So what’s with the boycotts of Ivanka’s clothing line, or the nasty responses to a cute Instagram picture of her taking a phone call at the White House while holding her cute-as-a-button baby boy?  Sure, the left hates Donald Trump–but why should Ivanka be held responsible for her father’s actions?

A lot of conservative publications have held this up as yet another example of feminist hypocrisy–and while this is true, it’s important not to treat the hypocrisy as incidental.  Like Teddy Kennedy’s attack on Robert Bork, the Ivanka hate is being cultivated very carefully by activists who are attempting to block her father at every turn.  The line of thinking is really quite simple:  Ivanka is beautiful, personable, and aligns with feminists on a lot of issues–and that makes her a threat.  If people who are left-of-center were allowed to like her, they might dislike her father less.  After all, if he raised a daughter like Ivanka, he couldn’t be all bad, could he?

The hardcore left can’t have that, obviously, because the abject hate is the one thing that keeps the whole house of cards from tumbling down.  If wounding Ivanka–or her husband, or even her kids–keeps it propped up, the left is fully prepared to do just that.  That’s why arguments about hypocrisy won’t change a thing:  these people know full well they’re hypocrites, they just don’t care.  To them, politics is war.  And in war, there are casualties.

But, like Teddy said, it’s nothing personal.