"Liberals insist we disarm ourselves and rely upon government to keep us safe; while simultaneously advocating for and enacting policies which make the world a more dangerous place to live." David Risselada
My reaction to the latest shooting was probably similar to many people's; a tense anticipation to Obama's call for more gun control, and the fear that it could have been retaliation against Planned Parenthood and their brutal practice of selling baby body parts. That would have been a liberal's dream come true. An actual right wing conservative going on a murder spree would have provided the needed justification for why conservative Christians are labeled as potential extremists. It turns out however, that our "Dear" shooter was just another in a long line of liberal whackos taking out their frustrations with society and feelings of self-hatred on everybody else. You see, Mr. Dear self identifies as a woman and is not registered with any political party, so the leftwing narrative of a disgruntled Republican nut job going off has once again, been proven false. It must be real frustrating for the left to know that real right wing Christians are not committing acts of terror that they can blame on us. Liberals would love to say that that the so called hateful speech concerning the exposed practices at planned parenthood are responsible for the shooting. If this is the case then wouldn't the same be true for Obama's rhetoric concerning Islam and Black Lives Matter? I'm sorry, but the left can't have it both ways.
President Barack Hussein Obama is an apologist for radical Islam who has stated on several occasions that the west's offensive language and intolerance is responsible for the violent behavior and hate fueled attacks committed by the Islamic State. If the shooter had attacked Planned Parenthood in retaliation for selling baby body parts, would it not, according to this logic, be somewhat excusable as well? John Kerry even justified the Charlie Hebdo attacks using this reasoning. He said that there was at least a rationale for the shooting based on the idea that the cartoon was offensive toward the Prophet Mohammed. Hillary Clinton blamed an alleged anti-Islamic video for the Benghazi attacks because it too was offensive. Well, what if the shooter had found Planned Parenthoods indifference towards the life of innocent baby's offensive? What if white America is offended by being called racist continually by Democrats, when we all know that it was the Democrat party that is responsible for this country's tainted past when it comes to racism? Would we then be justified in the type of violence committed by ISIS? If you follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion the answer would obviously be yes. Apparently, violence is justified when people take offense to things that hurt their little feelings, or else it is when being governed by leftist radicals anyway. They use the pretense of offense to launch their social activism in their efforts to transform America from a nation of rugged individualism to collectivism. This is what is occurring in our universities today. Black Lives Matter activists are begging for segregation on the pretense that they are oppressed, and in fact, in danger because of white privilege. It does not get any more absurd than that, and yet, here we are.
President Obama, along with Al Sharpton and Eric Holder also took the same approach to the violence we witnessed in Ferguson Mo. and Baltimore in response to the deaths of Freddie Gray and Michael Brown. Barack Obama would have us believe that police are systematically targeting black people for extermination and that Jim Crow type segregation laws are still alive and well. It even came to light that George Soros funded the racially motivated protests in order to stir up civil unrest. Private property was damaged and local businesses were burned to the ground in these protests, and instead of holding these people accountable, President Obama once again blamed American society for being too racist. What if we took offense to these lies and the fact that we are called terrorists even though we don't burn cities to the ground? What if we found it offensive that George Soros is funding these events in an attempt to transform our nation? We all know that more white people are killed by police than blacks, so do we get to go on a rampage and burn down a city because we are being oppressed by lies and dehumanized in the process? Of course not, nor would we even want to. Our universities are justifying black on white racism under the guise of "white privilege" and truthfully, this contributes to the unruly behavior and misguided narrative that all whites are racist. It is in fact, quite offensive. Please show me where racist, bigoted white people are targeting blacks in response to being treated like a bunch of racists?
Looking at the facts at hand I would argue that it is Barack Obama's failure to hold people accountable for their behavior and his justification of violence based on "offensive and intolerable language" that is the most responsible for the atrocities we have been witnessing, even if it had been a right wing conservative that had shot up Planned Parenthood. Barack Obama has taught the world, through his divisive tongue, that violence is justified when offense is taken to intolerance. That is how he has handled radical Islam by blaming it on free speech and videos, and justifying the burning of cities, and murder of police officers, because black people allegedly still live in a racist America. You see, Obama and other followers of the radical community organizer, Saul Alinsky, believe that the ends justify the means and that there isn't any true moral principles which exist in the world. In fact when it came to morality and principles Alinsky said this in Rules for Radicals:
To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles. The real arena is corrupt and bloody. Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off against his father in the politics of when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life.
It doesn't matter to them what damage they cause or who gets hurt, or who loses loved ones. All they care about is their desired ends, even if they can't exactly describe what they are. As I wrote in my last article, they simply want to destroy the existing society and obtain mass amounts of power. They operate on the premise that corrupting themselves somehow proves they have a superior morality, yet their superior morality prevents them from gaining a little hindsight and looking at the damage they are causing. To believe that a better, more perfect world can emerge from corruption and telling lies is to believe in a system run by Satan and not by God. This of course is why Saul Alinsky wrote the following dedication in Rules for Radicals"
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.
Lest we forget an over the shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins-or which is which) the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom-Lucifer.