rainbow flag #usa #carlifornia #sanfrancisco #gaycommunity #rainbow #flag #sfThis is the seventh in a series of posts I plan about the recent Orlando gay-nightclub shooting, by an American Muslim who appears to have been influenced by ISIS and other violent Islamists. By now my readers will surely know a great deal about this horrific event. The topic of this post is:

Making a Game of the Language of Terror

The FBI just released redacted transcripts of the 911 calls the Orlando shooter made during his massacre (WebCite cached article). The redactions have outraged most folks on the Right, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, as reported by the Daily Beast, among a multitude of other media outlets (cached):

House Speaker Paul Ryan criticized the decision to redact parts of the transcript, likening it to censorship and echoing Donald Trump and other Republicans’ complaint that President Obama would not use the term “radical Islamic terrorism” to describe the attack.

“Selectively editing this transcript is preposterous,” Ryan said. “We know the shooter was a radical Islamist extremist inspired by ISIS. We also know he intentionally targeted the LGBT community. The administration should release the full, unredacted transcript so the public is clear-eyed about who did this, and why.”

It is believed that Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS in the call, but the specific group was removed from the transcript of his original 911 call.

The Right’s sanctimonious fury hinges mainly on the accusation that the Obama administration is being “politically correct,” avoiding providing any connection between the shooter and his religion, Islam. There’s just one tiny little problem with that: The FBI’s transcript itself directly contradicts that contention! Here’s an excerpt from the FBI (emphasis mine):

In these calls, the shooter, who identified himself as an Islamic soldier, told the crisis negotiator that he was the person who pledged his allegiance to [omitted], and told the negotiator to tell America to stop bombing Syria and Iraq and that is why he was “out here right now.”

Did you catch that? I hope so. The FBI itself — and in its own words — explicitly reported the shooter had said he was “an Islamic soldier.” That’s right, folks. The FBI — supposedly hamstrung by its putative effort never to mention Islam in connection with the Pulse nightclub shooting — actually did so; they did it clearly and unambiguously. There’s no doubt about it … it’s there, in their own words.

Looking over what they released, I’d say the FBI redacted mentions specifically of ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh/whatever-the-fuck-you-want-to-call-that-barbaric-brood and its leader, as well as the content of hostage negotiations. It’s pretty easy to see why they’d not want to release the latter; it’d provide people insights into how hostage negotiators work, which they’d obviously prefer weren’t common knowledge. It’s harder to understand the omission of the name of ISIS and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. They seem to want to deprive that primitive horde of recruiting material, however, that ship has already sailed — it’s been widely reported already, based on information the FBI and others have already provided, that the Orlando shooter had professed allegiance to them. ISIS can use any or all of those reports in its recruiting propaganda. The FBI redacting it from the transcript deprives them of nothing.

This move is also consistent with the Obama administration’s unwillingness, overall, to lend too much credence to the Islamist terrorists’ claims that they’re fighting for Islam. They’re trying to avoid tarring and feathering the whole religion. In this case, as I noted, they didn’t entirely remove all of that from the transcript. What’s more, it’s kind of foolish to avoid associating these savages with the religion they follow. To say the butchers are “radical Islamists” is most certainly not the same as saying that all Muslims are murderous radicals. It means only that some of them are. To note that some Muslims are radical isn’t even unique to their religion; pretty much all religions have radical extremist elements. Yes, even the “religion of love,” Christianity!

While this policy is misguided and naïve (as I’ve said often), it’s hardly scandalous. It’s a diplomatic approach, and as such, is a matter of judgement … and that’s a subjective thing. So reasonable minds can and will disagree on such matters. Diplomacy isn’t the same thing as “political correctness,” which is what most of the Right thinks is behind this effort.

In the end, what America’s Religious Right is really after, is ammunition they can use against their religion’s chief rival in the world. Unlike the Obama administration, they truly do wish to tar and feather the entire religion of Islam. They use events like the Orlando massacre to imply — or sometimes state outright — that Islam is an inherently barbaric and violent religion, one that requires all of its adherents to slaughter innocents any time they choose. What they ignore is that their own religion, Christianity, also happens to harbor extremists of its own. When this is pointed out to them, they tend to get their panties in bunches and spew laughable protests like, “But those guys aren’t ‘Real’ Christians,” as though there is such a thing as a “‘Real’ Christian.” (To be clear, there isn’t! To think so is to fall for the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.) In other words … if someone does to their religion what they feel compelled to do to Islam, they refuse to stand for it. That they’d use tactics against others that they don’t want used on them, directly contradicts the teachings of the founder of their own religion, who expounded “the Golden Rule”, and unambiguously forbid them ever to be hypocritical.

Photo credit: Hai Yang, via Flickr.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Orlando Shooting Observations, Part 7

Gospel of Jesus' WifeI blogged about the so-called “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” back when it hit the news four years ago. Since then, tests on the fragment showed it could have come from an actual classical manuscript. As I said both times, whether or not the fragment is “real” doesn’t really present any substantial challenge to anyone’s Christianity. The most it would have told us is that one group of Christians, in 4th century Egypt, thought Jesus had married. That’s all. Nothing more. Even so, traditionalist Christians raged and fumed about it, as though someone had tried to kill them or something. (That would be your Christian martyr complex at work.)

Well, Ariel Sabar of The Atlantic has done some investigating — not on the fragment itself, but into its provenance — and offers compelling evidence it was a hoax (WebCite cached article):

[Harvard professor Karen L.] King has steadfastly honored the current owner’s request for anonymity. But in 2012, she sent me the text of e-mails she’d exchanged with him, after removing his name and identifying details. His account of how he’d come to possess the fragment, I noticed, contained a series of small inconsistencies. At the time, I wasn’t sure what to make of them. But years later, they still gnawed at me.

The American Association of Museums’ Guide to Provenance Research warns that an investigation of an object’s origins “is not unlike detective work”: “One may spend hours, days, or weeks following a trail that leads nowhere.” When I started to dig, however, I uncovered more than I’d ever expected—a warren of secrets and lies that spanned from the industrial districts of Berlin to the swingers scene of southwest Florida, and from the halls of Harvard and the Vatican to the headquarters of the East German Stasi.

Sabar’s revelations are engaging, and I urge you to take the time to read it all. I’ll leave the story as is. The bottom line is that the likely forger was an East German, now living in Florida, who’d studied Egyptian antiquities for a time, and thus was in a position to pull of a hoax of this kind.

Professor King herself, in the wake of this, acknowledges the likelihood she’d been hoaxed (cached):

A Harvard professor who rocked the musty world devoted to studying early Christianity when she presented a tiny swatch of papyrus that referred to Jesus as married now concedes the fragment is probably a fake.

From the very start, she had hedged her bets and suggested it might have been a hoax, but given what she did — i.e. to broadcast it to the world in as public a way as a historian of religion could — belies that. What’s more, her total disinterest in the fragment’s provenance — which normally is of great importance to scholars when reviewing any artifact — suggests she feared it might be a hoax; purposely minimizing her knowledge of it helped her alleviate that fear. In other words, it’s a classic case of Sgt Schultz thinking.

I’m sure conservative Christians who’d been incensed with King’s publication of “the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” back in 2012 are now crowing with glee. Bit I bet they weren’t as happy that the so-called “James ossuary” a number of years ago turned out not to be the “proof” of Jesus’ historicity they’d presumed it was (cached) … so I guess turnabout is fair play, no?

The bottom line is that this was a case of people investing more sentiment into something than it deserved. And I say that not because it ended up being a hoax. I say that because, from the very beginning, and without regard to its genuineness or phoniness, too many people made more of GJW than it deserved. Prof King took it too seriously as “proof” of the existence of some feminist Christian sect, and her critics took it too seriously as well, with their sanctimonious outrage that someone might provide potential evidence that early Christianity wasn’t as uniform — and consistent with the Biblical canon — as they’d like it to have been. People really need to fucking grow the hell up already.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” Probably a Hoax

Rainbow flag on white background - harvey milk plaza, san francisco (2012) (8148105584)This is the sixth in a series of posts I plan about the recent Orlando gay-nightclub shooting, by an American Muslim who appears to have been influenced by ISIS and other violent Islamists. By now my readers will surely know a great deal about this horrific event. The topic of this post is:

Terrorism Isn’t Just an “Islam” Problem

A lot of Americans — especially on the Right — tend to view terrorism, especially when it occurs within the US, as solely the product of Islam. The only terrorists we’ve dealt with, they’d tell you, are Muslims. Thus, as they see it, terrorism an an Islam problem.

This has led to all sorts of idiotic tripe; for instance, Breitbart announced that fierce Religious Rightist Newt Gingrich called for a Congressional inquiry into “Islamic supremacism” (WebCite cached article):

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called Tuesday for the creation of a congressional commission to examine the radical Islamic terrorist threat.

Gingrich said Tuesday in a Facebook video chat:

We can no more afford to have fanatic terrorists at home just because they’re American citizens, be allowed to run around, get organized and kill people, than we can afford to bring in thousands of unvetted and unverified Syrian refugees. So I believe the president is profoundly, fundamentally wrong. I believe the Congress should create a commission on Islamic supremacism and terrorism in the United States. I think we should start looking at serious new laws.…

Gingrich noted that he welcomes the “modern Muslim” who accepts the authority of “secular law” and the reality of “diversity,” but that adherents of Sharia law should be inadmissible to the United States.

Gingrich’s commission would surely resemble the anti-Muslim show-trials Rep. Peter King hosted a few some 5 years ago. Those never went anywhere, since they were never intended to do anything other than allow King and other Neocrusaders to grandstand. Also note the requisite bellyaching about the bogeyman of “shari’a law” in the Newtster’s Neocrusading comments. Perhaps he imagines this investigation somehow will prove his contention, a few years ago, that “radical Islamists” are “secular atheists” and vice versa. (In case you didn’t realize it, that would be a staggering contradiction: “Secular atheists” are non-religious, while “radical Islamists” are exceedingly religious. It’s literally not possible to be both at the same time.)

I’ve said it before and will say it again: Terrorism — both worldwide and in the US — is most assuredly not just an “Islam” problem. It’s a “religious extremist” problem! And extremism can be found within any religion.

The reality of terrorism in the US is that there have been Christian terror attacks in addition to Islamist attacks — not to mention ordinary, mundane, sociopathic attacks.

Many people refuse to believe there is such a thing as Christian terror, but there is! Among the most recent examples of it is the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting, just last November (cached). There was also a guy who shot up Austin TX almost a year and a half ago (cached). There’s also a guy who was indicted for conspiring to kill Muslims in upstate New York (cached). Another guy conspired to kill Muslims and the president using some kind of radiation weapon (cached). And another creep tried to bomb the Kansas clinic that Dr George Tiller had worked at (cached).

Ultimately, any given American is much more likely to be attacked by a criminal with no religious motivation at all, or a Rightist with a potentially Christian motivation, than fall prey to a raging Islamist barbarian.

For Christianists like Newtie, or any other Neocrusaders, to scream and holler about how horrible and violence-prone Islam is, without acknowledging the violent militancy of some of their own co-religionists, is hypocritical. And hypocrisy is something that their own Jesus clearly, explicitly, and unambiguously forbid them ever to engage in. They should clean up their own religion before running around trumpeting about the faults of others. But of course, they will never do so.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Orlando Shooting Observations, Part 6

Rainbow flag - DC Capital Pride parade - 2013-06-08 (8992857356)This is the fifth in a series of posts I plan about the recent Orlando gay-nightclub shooting, by an American Muslim who appears to have been influenced by ISIS and other violent Islamists. By now my readers will surely know a great deal about this horrific event. The topic of this post is:

Militant Christianists Spout Off Like the Hateful Cretins They Are

We all know by now that America’s Christianists are hateful little monsters who simply cannot — and will not — tolerate anything they dislike. They constantly rage and bluster and fume about all sorts of people they think shouldn’t be allowed to exist. A lot of the time they’re able to hide their despicable hatred, but all too often, something triggers them, their sanctimonious fury takes over, and they show their true colors. Talking Points Memo reported on a couple of them doing just that (WebCite cached article):

After 49 people were gunned down in an Orlando gay nightclub in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, pastors in California and Arizona praised the gunman for massacring “perverted predators” and “pedophiles.”

In Sacramento, Pastor Roger Jimenez of Verity Baptist Church said the killer succeeded in making Orlando safer.

“Are you sad that 50 pedophiles were killed today?” Jimenez said in a sermon originally posted on YouTube. “Um no, I think that’s great! I think that helps society. I think Orlando, Florida is a little safer tonight.”

In the sermon, delivered just hours after the rampage on Sunday morning, Jimenez also said, “I wish the government would round them all up, put them up against a wall, put a firing squad in front of them and blow their brains out.”

Tempe, Arizona preacher Steven Anderson also rushed to praise the “good news” that “there are 50 less pedophiles in this world.”

In a video posted online, Anderson, a pastor at Faithful Word Baptist Church, said while he wouldn’t advocate for violence, he said LGBT people should be “executed by a righteous government.”

“The bad news is that a lot of the homos in the bar are still alive, so they’re going to continue to molest children and recruit children into their filthy homosexual lifestyle,” he said, adding the attack would be used to attack Christians and push gun control.

“I’m not sad about it, I’m not gonna cry about it because these 50 people in the gay bar that got shot up were going to die of AIDS and syphilis and whatever else,” he continued. “At least these dangerous, filthy predators are off the streets. I’m just trying to look on the bright side.”

The videos were taken down by Youtube, but Anderson’s has been preserved:

Please note, Jimenez has since doubled down on his remarks and is unrepentant about his hatred for gays (cached).

In addition to these two creatures, longtime Christofascist prick Marion “Pat” Robertson, as Right Wing Watch reports, spewed yet more of his asinine ridiculousness (cached):

Today on “The 700 Club,” televangelist Pat Robertson reacted to the massacre at an Orlando gay club by making the absurd claim that liberal LGBT rights advocates have aligned themselves with radical Islamists and are now reaping what they have sowed.

Robertson said that liberals are facing a “dilemma” because they love both LGBT equality and Islamic extremism, and that it is better for conservatives like himself not to get involved but to instead just watch the two groups kill each other.

“The left is having a dilemma of major proportions and I think for those of us who disagree with some of their policies, the best thing to do is to sit on the sidelines and let them kill themselves,” he said.

Robertson, like Newt Gingrich, incorrectly presumes the American Left is “allied” with, or even includes, militant Islamists. In reality, a lot of Islamists effectively lean in the direction of fascism, and have nothing in common with American Leftists. Moreover, the Left is a secular movement, and Islamists despise secularism above most other things. So they can hardly be viewed as having any connection.

What bothers Robertson is, in all likelihood, Leftists’ determined avoidance of saying or doing anything that might even remotely be viewed as denigrating to Islam or to Muslims. Although this policy is misguided — it purposely ignores the fact that some terrorism, such as the Orlando massacre, is in fact driven by Islam (cached), in the minds of those who carry out these atrocities — that doesn’t mean Islamists are allied with, or part of, the American Left. Far from it! All it means is that they’ve successfully intimidated the Left. Which really, isn’t much of an achievement, since they intimidate pretty much everyone.

Now, with all of this said, it’s easy for moderate and reasonable Christians out there to point out that we’re talking about just 3 people here (Jimenez, Anderson, & Robertson), and they hardly reflect on Christianity as a whole. But let’s be honest: Those moderate Christians will do absolutely nothing about any of them. Each will retain his ministry, or in the case of Robertson, his broadcasting network. None of them will be ousted from their positions, or in any other way punished or disciplined because of what they said. They will, instead, be allowed to rant and rave all they want, however they want, whenever they want.

None of those moderate Christians cares enough to correct any of them … and they will never do so. (No, merely stating disapproval of what these animals said does not, in any way, constitute “correction.” Words are cheap and mean nothing. They’re just a cop-out.) That’s what “the religion of love” stands for. And it’s sickening.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Orlando Shooting Observations, Part 5

rainbow peace warrior flag : harvey milk plaza, castro, san francisco (2013)This is the fourth in a series of posts I plan about the recent Orlando gay-nightclub shooting, by an American Muslim who appears to have been influenced by ISIS and other violent Islamists. By now my readers will surely know a great deal about this horrific event. The topic of this post is:

The FBI Blew It … Again!

I’ve blogged previously about the clusterfuck which is the US anti-terror effort. As I’ve said, it’s mostly all just “security theater,” pointless exercises intended to make people think they’re being kept safe, when in fact, they’re not. White-powder freakouts do nothing for anyone except cause needless anxiety and inconvenience.

You may recall the background of the Boston Marathon bombers. Russian intelligence had found the elder of the two was likely radicalized; they contacted the FBI, which ostensibly “investigated” him, but closed the book without doing anything. He and his brother subsequently carried out a devastating terror attack. Well, as many outlets — including the New York Times — have reported, the Orlando shooter had been on the FBI’s radar too … not just once, but twice (WebCite cached article):

Two years after [the shooter’s divorce], the Federal Bureau of Investigation was called in after reports from [his] co-workers that he, the American-born son of Afghan immigrants, had suggested he may have had terrorist ties. The F.B.I. interviewed him twice, but after surveillance, records checks and witness interviews, agents were unable to verify any terrorist links and closed their investigation.

Then, in 2014, the F.B.I. discovered a possible tie between [the Orlando shooter] and Moner Mohammad Abusalha, who had grown up in nearby Vero Beach and then became the first American suicide bomber in Syria, where he fought with the Nusra Front, a Qaeda-aligned militant group. Again, the F.B.I. closed its inquiry after finding “minimal” contact between the two men.

After the terrorist investigations cleared [the shooter], he maintained both his Florida security-officer license and his job. He also kept his Florida firearms license, and within the last few days he legally purchased a handgun and a “long gun.”

In the cases of both the Boston bomber and the Orlando shooter, the FBI had been handed leads on proverbial silver platters: Others had already done some work (in the case of one, the Russian government; in the latter, his own co-workers) and provided evidence of potential radicalization. And in both cases the FBI went through the motions of “investigating” — whatever that may have entailed. But also, in both cases, the FBI decided nothing was afoot and did nothing. Clearly, however, they were demonstrably wrong — both times. Something was, indeed, afoot with both of these terrorists … even so, the FBI, after looking into them, apparently never noticed any of it.

How could that be? The US has the most pervasive and comprehensive intelligence operation the world has ever known. They have the benefit of laws that permit them warrantless access to information during anti-terror investigations. There are virtually no limits to how deeply they can dive into a person’s life, if that person is suspected of having even a minor connection to terrorism.

Think about this the next time you’re in an airport and are asked to take your belt and shoes off, or if you see a frail 90-year-old lady being wanded by TSA agents. Just think about it. Think about the hurdles they make every American jump through, in the name of keeping us safe from terror … yet, when they actually have evidence someone might be a terrorist, they turn away and do nothing.

Just think about it, and wonder how rational all of this is. I suggest it’s not rational at all. If anything, it’s pointless and maybe even counter-productive (because it gives everyone a sense of security we don’t actually have).

I had expected there to be an investigation into why the FBI never caught onto the elder of the Boston Marathon bombers a few years ago, but that never materialized. So I don’t expect there will be any investigation into how the Orlando shooter squeezed out from under them, either. More’s the pity.

Photo credit: torbakhopper, via Flickr.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Orlando Shooting Observations, Part 4

rainbow flag : pride weekend, castro, san francisco (2014)This is the third in a series of posts I plan about the recent Orlando gay-nightclub shooting, by an American Muslim who appears to have been influenced by ISIS and other violent Islamists. By now my readers will surely know a great deal about this horrific event. The topic of this post is:

The Right Wing Takes Advantage

I just blogged about how some Leftists leapt on this massacre to use it for all the wrong reasons, but even more odious is what a lot of Rightists are doing with it. CNN reports on some of their rhetoric, and some of it is really stupid (WebCite cached article):

Late Sunday afternoon Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said President Barack Obama was far too timid in his White House appearance. Trump issued his first call in the campaign for Obama to step down from the presidency and challenged presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to ratchet up her language about terror threats.

“President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words ‘Radical Islam,'” Trump said in the statement. “For that reason alone, he should step down. If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words ‘Radical Islam’ she should get out of this race for the Presidency.”

I hate to break it to Donald “it’s my own orange hair!” Trump, but the fact that President Obama won’t use the phrase “radical Islam” did not cause this massacre. It just didn’t. I don’t agree with Obama’s refusal to use the phrase; the notion that, if he avoids it, it will pacify Muslims around the world and make them support the US, naïve and foolish. But Trump’s complaint is even more ridiculous.

Fierce Rightist Andrew McCarthy (not the actor!), meanwhile, took to the National Review to pen a vilification of Islam as an inherently and pervasively anti-gay religion (cached):

The mandate that homosexuals be killed is not from ISIS or al-Qaeda. It is from sharia — which draws on Muslim scripture.…

The inspiration for Muslims to brutalize and mass murder gay people does not come from ISIS. It is deeply rooted in Islamic law, affirmed by many of Islam’s most renowned scholars. This is why, wherever sharia is the law, homosexuals are persecuted and killed.

McCarthy claims to be an “expert” on Islam, yet he equates that religion with “shari’a law” apparently without realizing that “shari’a law” is hardly universal within the Muslim world, and where it can be found often varies. So how much of an “expert” on Islam can he really be? Answer: He isn’t one! All he does is cherry-pick his way through Islam, sucking up the bits and pieces that support what he thinks while leaving the rest behind. He just wants Islam wiped off the face of the earth, and is willing to say and do anything he thinks he needs to in order to justify that. Even make it seem as though every Muslim on the planet is required, by his/her religion, to kill every gay they ever come across. Which, of course, is absurd.

What’s more, he conveniently forgets that his own religion, Christianity, has been anti-gay for a very long time.

Photo credit: torbakhopper, via Flickr.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Orlando Shooting Observations, Part 3

Rainbow flag and blue skiesThis is the second in a series of posts I plan about the recent Orlando gay-nightclub shooting, by an American Muslim who appears to have been influenced by ISIS and other violent Islamists. By now my readers will surely know a great deal about this horrific event. The topic of this post is:

The Gun-Law Angle is Misapplied Here

It was inevitable, I suppose, that gun-control advocates (mostly Leftists and Democrats) would jump on this massacre as fuel for their efforts to enact stricter gun controls in the US. CNN, for example, reports on some of their rhetoric (WebCite cached article):

Within hours, the Orlando mass shooting at a gay nightclub set off renewed political debates — with Democrats calling for gun control and Republicans blasting “radical Islamic terrorism.”…

“Congress has become complicit in these murders by its total, unconscionable deafening silence,” [Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut] said in a statement. “This doesn’t have to happen, but this epidemic will continue without end if Congress continues to sit on its hands and do nothing — again.”

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Democratic presidential contender, offered similar comments on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“We should not be selling automatic weapons which are designed to kill people,” Sanders said. “We have got to do everything that we can on top of that to make sure that guns do not fall into the hands of people who should not have them, criminals, people who are mentally ill. So that struggles continues.”

In this case, the shooter was educated in criminal justice, and worked for a security contractor (cached); thus, he was fully licensed to purchase guns, and that wouldn’t have been affected by most gun-control reforms (since his job would have allowed him access to guns even if most of the general population was prevented from getting them).

I’m not particularly sympathetic to Right-wing, NRA-promoted “let’s-go-back-to-the-Wild-West-when-everyone-was-armed-to-the-teeth” propaganda. In fact, their notion that arming everyone, all the time, will eliminate all violent crime, is laughable and asinine. It just doesn’t work that way … and they know it. All I wish to do here is point out that, in this particular case, gun-control reforms would not have mattered and wouldn’t have prevented this massacre. Advocates of gun control need to learn to pick their battles and choose causes that meaningfully support their arguments and their policies. This shooting — unfortunately for them — doesn’t do so.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Orlando Shooting Observations, Part 2