President "honors" San Bernardino Victims

[Tony k]

Does anybody else find this as troubling as I do? I agree with the president's decision to fly the flag at half-staff out of respect for those killed and wounded in San Bernardino, but I object to calling them "victims of gun violence."

We don't yet know their motive, but the FBI is probing the perpetrators for ties to terrorism, and the evidence presented in the media indicates this is some thing other than workplace violence. It's akin to calling the people who died in the September 11, 2001 attacks "victims of airplane violence" while the towers were still crumbling.

Other than speaking out against this rhetoric, is there any form of activism one can do that would be effective?

Emphasis added:

Quote:

HONORING THE VICTIMS OF THE ATTACK IN SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA

- - - - - - -

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

As a mark of respect for the victims of gun violence perpetrated on December 2, 2015, in San Bernardino, California, by the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby order that the flag of the United States shall be flown at half-staff at the White House and upon all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval stations, and on all naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions through December 7, 2015. I also direct that the flag shall be flown at half-staff for the same length of time at all United States embassies, legations, consular offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military facilities and naval vessels and stations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this third day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand fifteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fortieth.



BARACK OBAMA

 

[Walkalong]

He's pushing his gun control agenda, what do you expect him to say.

What are you going to do about it? Write your congress persons? Donate to the NRA, email politicians? All of the above?

 

[Tony k]

I addition to exercising my 1A rights to express my objections, I'll probably donate to NRA and the Oregon Firearms Federation. Just a few bucks.

When I saw this, I shared it with a left-leaning co-worker. Even she agreed it was a bit "off the mark," (her words).


















i

 

[22-rimfire]

Does anybody else find this as troubling as I do? I agree with the president's decision to fly the flag at half-staff out of respect for those killed and wounded in San Bernardino, but I object to calling them "victims of gun violence."

We don't yet know their motive, but the FBI is probing the perpetrators for ties to terrorism, and the evidence presented in the media indicates this is some thing other than workplace violence. It's akin to calling the people who died in the September 11, 2001 attacks "victims of airplane violence" while the towers were still crumbling.

Other than speaking out against this rhetoric, is there any form of activism one can do that would be effective?

Our President doesn't want to face the fact that radical Islamic extremists are to blame. Everything is an agenda to this man.

Give to the NRA. But honestly, I don't see general gun control legislation seeing much support from most Republicans and many Democrats.

 

[ColoradoShooter77]

It took him a week to drop the flag to half staff after military service men and women were killed in Tennessee.

It takes him 48 hours in this instance.

That dichotomy is pathetic.

 

[sequins]

Lowering the flag to half mast every time anything happens diminishes the gesture. When I was in middle school I remember asking my father why the flags were low, now a half mast flag doesn't even draw my eye. It is always sad when someone dies but I really think lowering flags everywhere should be reserved for really really special occasions not just every sad death.

 

[Grumulkin]

Does anybody else find this as troubling as I do? I agree with the president's decision to fly the flag at half-staff out of respect for those killed and wounded in San Bernardino, but I object to calling them "victims of gun violence."

Yea, no talk about victims of Muslim violence.

Interestingly, banning importation of certain guns and making certain guns illegal will supposedly work while limiting Muslim immigration won't work.

 

[stonecutter2]

Lowering the flag to half mast every time anything happens diminishes the gesture. When I was in middle school I remember asking my father why the flags were low, now a half mast flag doesn't even draw my eye. It is always sad when someone dies but I really think lowering flags everywhere should be reserved for really really special occasions not just every sad death.

I'm feeling the same way. It's like we're a country perpetually in mourning. Combined with state lowerings for service members who die, it's like the flag is always half staff...and I also find myself feeling like the gesture is becoming less meaningful.

 

[Artofgolf]

He's pushing his gun control agenda, what do you expect him to say....

It's expected by now, as that seems to be his default position when any gun-related incident occurs.

Our President doesn't want to face the fact that radical Islamic extremists are to blame....

http://www.wsj.com/articles/islamic...rters-1449317122?cb=logged0.48628845904022455

Excerpt from this morning's WSJ article: "The Federal Bureau of Investigation said Friday it was investigating the shooting as a terrorist act.

FBI Director James Comey said the couple had shown signs of adopting radical ideas and “potential inspiration by foreign terrorist organizations.”

Ms. Malik posted a message on Facebook pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Islamic State, Mr. Comey said."

Thankfully, Director Comey has the cojones to call it for what it is - a terrorist act.

 

[CajunBass]

Lowering the flag to half mast every time anything happens diminishes the gesture. When I was in middle school I remember asking my father why the flags were low, now a half mast flag doesn't even draw my eye. It is always sad when someone dies but I really think lowering flags everywhere should be reserved for really really special occasions not just every sad death.

I'm feeling the same way. It's like we're a country perpetually in mourning. Combined with state lowerings for service members who die, it's like the flag is always half staff...and I also find myself feeling like the gesture is becoming less meaningful.

Amen to this.

I have long suspected that a lot of "mass shootings" have some ties to terrorism. It doesn't take much of a stretch to think that terrorists would seek out and exploit every disgruntled, and borderline person they can get wind of and in some way, shape or form encourage them to the things they do.

Once is an accident, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.

 

[xXxplosive]

IMO, Mr. Trump is correct....."There's something going on here with him we don't know about."

 

[Onward Allusion]

My wife who is a rabid-armed-liberal thought it was out of touch to associate this terrorism event with gun control. Me on the other hand have a few choice words that I can't use on this family friendly forum.

 

[22-rimfire]

IMO, Mr. Trump is correct....."There's something going on here with him we don't know about."

There has been something going on with this man since day one. I always say you elect the person and their history/tendencies not the the election rhetoric. He will go down historically as a worse president than Jimmy Carter.

 

[buck460XVR]

I work at the local High School. Since the school year started, it seems we have flown the flag at half mast more than I can ever remember before. This is for both Federal proclamations and the State. Seems to be an almost daily thing anymore. This time the flag will be down till sunset the 7th, not just for the victims of San Bernardino, but also in remembrance of Pearl Harbor.

The victims in San Bernardino are victims of violence and their attackers used firearms. Whatever you want to call it, it's a tragedy. While we should be honoring those that lost their lives and giving sympathy to those that lost family and loved ones, many see it as a good time to make political statements about the use of semantics in regard to an attempt to honor the victims. Not a whole lot of respect there. Lefties first response to this was "more gun control is needed", while those on the right screamed, "terrorists disguised as refugees!". Folks criticize the left for using tragedies like this to advance this own agenda, but then out of the other side of their mouths they use the tragedy to push theirs. This is not about politics, but respect for lives lost. Give it a break.....and when you see the flag down, try to think of who it's for and why, not how someone worded it.

 

[Onmilo]

I guess in Obummers eyes had the terrorists blown the people up they would have been victims of bomb violence...

 

[hso]

They were victims of terrorists not politicized "gun violence". That's offensive.

 

[buck460XVR]

They were victims of terrorists not politicized "gun violence". That's offensive.

What's offensive to me is that 14 folks were killed and 21 others injured, much more so than how folks on both sides want to politicize it. But you are correct, the latter is pretty lame. What is offensive to me also is how folks instantly want to politicize this and other tragedies while at the same time ignoring the victims. Like they don't matter. Why is it that the use of "gun violence" is more of a tragedy to folks here than those 35 victims?

Seems to me both sides are heartlessly using victims of these types of tragedies. Folks on both sides began shooting their mouths off as soon as the news hit the media. Neither side had a clue, but both were beating their chests as to who's fault it was, without a clue as to if there was a fault, other than two crazies with guns that just wanted to kill somebody. Good thing folks here don't live in glass houses.

 

[yokel]

El Presidente's gesture was profoundly moving and deeply cynical.

He’s not about to try building consensus on "gun violence" among people of good faith. He’ll take the same approach he’s taken throughout his presidency: He’ll delegitimize opponents of his sweeping agenda as irrational, self-interested enemies of decency and progress.

 

[barnbwt]

"It took him a week to drop the flag to half staff after military service men and women were killed in Tennessee.

It takes him 48 hours in this instance.

That dichotomy is pathetic."
The president has said repeatedly he more or less expects to lose servicemen on his watch; I think he believes occasional attacks on them or botched military ops resulting in casualties are not something out of the ordinary or deserving of special recognition. Like how flags are rarely dropped nationwide for officers killed in the line of duty. Supposedly that's why he refuses to deploy forces where they might actually do good work for our overseas friends or claims; he believes it is akin to sending them to slaughter (i.e. he is so incompetent a commander he is hesitant to commit his forces, for the risk involved in his judgment). I won't go so far as some, to claim he believes on certain level they deserve to be imperiled.

"El Presidente's gesture was profoundly moving and deeply cynical."
I think the phrase is 'profoundly cynical,' which at first seems like an oxymoron. It is profound to realize how utterly attendant he is to his agenda and narrative; even truly shocking events like a domestic or foriegn terror incursion do not cause him to deviate. Fort Hood was not pushed for gun control very hard, because there was Obamacare to be passed. Likewise, the day after the SCOTUS case affirming gay marriage, his entire purpose for being shifting abruptly to gun control, the next item on the checklist. None of these pursuits of his are important enough to usurp each other, and that's the most cynical part about it. It's also not just the president with this incredible capacity for adherence to a script regardless of reality, but the entire press corps and progressive movement that invented him from whole cloth in the first place (the shift from incessant coverage of gay marriage to gun control has been extremely stark and well-coordinated)

TCB

 

[Tony k]

...this incredible capacity for adherence to a script regardless of reality...

That's what it is! Those are the words I was looking for.

Maybe I have a romanticized idea of the past, but it seems to me that when external forces threatened us or outright attacked us, it would galvanize and unite us as a nation. This time it's different. The president has chosen to stick to the script and spin this to fit his checklist. One of the adverse results is that we as a nation seem to be reacting with increased divisiveness and finger pointing. With his partisan BS, the president has made it more difficult for Americans to put aside our differences in times when it really counts.

 

[yokel]

It's really such a shame that an agenda gets put above the needs and security of a people and, even worse, the one who does so blames others for the failure.

 

[druryj]

They were victims of terrorists not politicized "gun violence". That's offensive.

Yes, it is offensive.

 

[taliv]

Seems to me both sides are heartlessly using victims of these types of tragedies. Folks on both sides began shooting their mouths off as soon as the news hit the media. Neither side had a clue, but both were beating their chests as to who's fault it was, without a clue as to if there was a fault, other than two crazies with guns that just wanted to kill somebody. Good thing folks here don't live in glass houses.
_

to be fair, one side (reporters) in the absence of facts was making gross, inappropriate speculation impugning the other side from the very beginning. They even trotted out various political figures, hillary, obama etc in the first hours, long before any facts were known, to call for gun control.

the other side cannot afford to let the easily swayed public hear the first side's message uncontested. especially when the senate is going to vote on gun control bills the day after. so as inhumane and crass as it is, it's better than losing our rights.

 

[Swing]

They were victims of terrorists not politicized "gun violence". That's offensive.

Yes, yes it is. Deeply so.

 

[TimSr]

While I object to lowering the flag every time some street thug is shot by police, I do think that in this case, it IS appropriate since this was an act of war for a foreign entity on victims who were targeted for being Americans.

The tragedy is the idiocy in complaining these foreign sponsors guerillas used "weapons of war", and proposing disarmament of those under attack while failing to acknowledge that they have declared and been fighting a war against us.

After the Ft Hood "workplace violence" terror attack, my greatest fear was that the terrorists' would figure out their most chaotic weapon of terror would be mass shootings, as our government "solution" would always be to disarm the public. Every time Obama opens his mouth, the terrorists cheer.