Perhaps you’ve noticed the difference in how they were being reported.
For the second time this week gunfire was heard where it was least expected. The first, was within a Planned Parenthood building. The second, somewhere offering support to people with disabilities.
When PP was the focal point of the attack, what was the rhetoric?
I remember hearing the phrase “Christian Terrorist” more than once, even though I have so far read nothing about Dear’s religious beliefs. Blame was placed upon “discredited” videos that talked about Planned Parenthood profiting from the sale of baby parts. (The phrase “baby parts” naturally featured prominently among many headlines, despite the police describing him as rambling incoherently.)
The President of the United States himself weighed in with his concern about the “incendiary rhetoric” of the pro-life message, telling his audience it was important to stop terrorist attackers ‘wherever they are’ including the US.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, POTUS finally identified a terrorist. Unless, perhaps, he only found a whackjob with a mean streak. But I digress.
Fast forward to San Bernardino. A Christmas party gets shot up by two suspects, later gunned down by police and positively identified. Fourteen innocents were killed and seventeen were injured.
Where are those people who cried “Christian Terrorist” or even “terrorist attackers” now? (I’m looking at YOU, POTUS.) Where are those knee-jerk accusations of “terrorist” now?
What do we know about the attackers in the second instance?
The deceased female shooter came from the Middle East. (Saudi Arabia, as the reports say.) The deceased male shooter was reported by his father to be devoutly Muslim. He was American-born, had a child, and was employed by the county as an “environmental specialist” (police report’s words) where he reportedly earned about $53K a year, or nearly $80k after benefits. (There goes that disgruntled poverty excuse.)
When Planned Parenthood is threatened, paint the attacker in the colors of the Right (deservedly or no) without delay, so you can politicize it and blame the ENTIRE political Right for one man’s actions. There’s your narrative, and your Alinsky bully-tactic.
When a Christmas party is shot up by someone described by his own FATHER as a devout Muslim, together with someone from Saudi Arabia (look up Wahabbism, that virulent strain of Islam), we can know EXACTLY who to blame: it’s the NRA.
Wait, what?? No possible talk about Islam, or Terror, or orchestrated attacks. (Forget those celebratory ISIS tweets, nothing to see there.) Nope this is domestic. Definitely. Let’s call it “workplace violence”.
Islam — that beautiful religion — bears no responsibility for “incendiary rhetoric”. The proper solution to this is limiting access to guns. Even if Islam were implicated, they have only hijacked Islam, used it wrongly, and should not be considered indicative of Islam as a whole. (Sure would have been nice to have those same disclaimers when you were busily defaming pro-lifers and Christians.)
I wonder if the Obama administration will be praying five times a day that none of their misplaced Fast and Furious guns show up among the shooters’ possessions. Because, you know… gun control is a priority, and that would be bad for The Narrative.