The man, Seddique Mateen, tried to avoid being noticed. Hillary, of course, had words of sympathy for the families of the victims. A reporter noticed him, and he just said "We've been cooperating with the federal government, and that's about it. Thank you." Later, elsewhere, another reporter got a few more words from him: "Hillary Clinton is good for United States versus Donald Trump, who has no solutions," and "I... wish that my son joined the Army and fought ISIS. That would be much better." He dodged a question about whether the Clinton campaign knew he was attending the rally: "It's a Democratic party, so everyone can join."
Asks the NYT on its front page, leading to an article about "wanton violence by deranged attackers — whether in Nice or in Orlando, Fla." that "are swiftly judged to be the work of terrorists."
These judgments occur even when there is little immediate evidence that the attackers had direct ties to terrorist groups and when they do not fit a classic definition of terrorists as those who use violence to advance a political agenda.
“A lot of this stuff is at the fringes of what we would historically think of as terrorism,” said Daniel Benjamin, a former State Department coordinator for counterterrorism and a professor at Dartmouth College. But, he said, “the Islamic State and jihadism has become a kind of refuge for some unstable people who are at the end of their rope and decide they can redeem their screwed-up lives” by dying in the name of a cause....
“If there is a mass killing and there is a Muslim involved, all of a sudden it is by definition terrorism,” he said.
There's nothing in this article about the shooting of police in Dallas and Baton Rouge, but I wonder if the editors saw a need to make the point in the article to get out in front of thought processes that may lead people to begin to think of Black Lives Matters as a terrorist movement.
Madmen are acting alone and only haphazardly related to a movement they may have felt inspired by and wanted to seem to be part of.
Note that Clinton lost ground on all of these important matters, and she's below Trump on what may be the 2 most important things — the economy and terrorism. Trump picked up 3 points on terrorism while Clinton lost 5 in this survey that was taken after the Orlando massacre.
I wonder what, specifically, people think about when they hear "foreign policy." That's the one place where she's dominating, perhaps because of her experience as Secretary of State. People can picture her doing foreign policy. Trump not so much.
There are a few other issues in this section of the poll: women's equality (69/26), women's rights (70/23), nominating Supreme Court justices (53/39), trade with other countries (50/45), gun policy 43/50, gay rights (62/27).
IN THE COMMENTS: eric said:
Btw, sticking with my theory that each poll needs to be compared against itself, the last CNN poll had Clinton at +13. This current one has her at +5. What's happened that has caused her to lose 8 points?
I just got email from something called the "Conservative Campaign" saying: "A series of new polls show Hillary Clinton with a growing lead, including a new Monmouth poll out today showing her up by 8%." But the previous Monmouth poll had her up by 10.
"This banter continued through texts and phone calls for several months. My last conversation with Omar was by phone in mid-May. He called me while he was at the beach with his son to tell me about a vacation he’d taken with his father to Orlando the previous weekend. He’d been impressed by the local mosque. What happened next is well-known. We’re still in shock. We’re totally against what he did, and we feel the deepest sadness for the victims and their families. If you don’t agree with someone, you don’t have the right to kill them. We are taught to be kind to all of God’s creation. Islam is very strict about killing: Even in war – to say nothing of peace – you cannot harm women, children, the elderly, the sick, clergymen, or even plants. You can’t mutilate dead bodies. You can’t destroy buildings, especially churches or temples. You can’t force anyone to accept Islam. 'If anyone slew one person, it would be as if he killed the whole of humanity,' says the Koran."
Loretta Lynch, speaking this morning on ABC's "This Week," where the moderator, John Karl, is very much helping her keep the focus on gun control and off ISIS and Islamic extremism.
ADDED: Lynch also appeared on "Meet the Press," where she said that the government will be releasing partial transcripts of Mateen's negotiations with law enforcement. Asked what's being left out — why only partial transcripts? — Lynch said: "What we're not going to do is further proclaim this individual's allegiance to terrorist groups and further his propaganda."
AND: When questioned about gun control, Lynch spoke of adhering to "due process and the current workings of law." The current workings of the law... what a phrase! What does it mean? I, a law professor, think it means: We'll meet the standards the courts impose, but we're part of the process of defining those standards, and if we can get a bill through Congress, we expect the courts to interpret the Due Process and the Second Amendment in a suitably responsive manner.
"I understand the sentiment behind them and 1st Amendment rights, but it’s a bad message.... I hope it’s just people venting that they could do this, and I’m hoping their calmness will take over. It’s our job to keep you safe.... I understand that people want to fight back after Orlando... But there are ways to do that without a gun."
Said Capt. Holly Perez of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department West Hollywood Station.
"[T]he best way to shoot back is to enact serious change to our gun policy.... We need an outright ban on all assault weapons and better protections to keep all guns away from bad people."
Said David Cooley, who owns the Abbey Food & Bar, which the L.A. Times calls "a well-known gay lounge" (and long-time readers of this blog may remember as the location of a meet-up with commenters in 2008).
I agree that it would be great to "keep all guns away from bad people," but where do you draw the good/bad line when it comes to human beings, how could the government figure out who goes on which side of that line, and how do you ensure that the government's process isn't an intrusion worse than any incremental improvement that could be achieved?
Here's the flag. Let's analyze it:
"Shoot back" refers to self-defense, and — despite Perez's "I’m hoping their calmness will take over" — it could be interpreted as already calm. The rattlesnake in the original Gadsden flag said "Don't tread on me." That is, I'm prepared to respond to an attack. Is there not calmness in knowing you are prepared?
Here's how the hashtag looks on Twitter. And that got me to this:
A street artist in Los Angeles who said he is a spokesman for the group responsible for the posters spoke exclusively to PJ Media on Thursday. Sabo, who was behind the tattooed "Blacklisted and Lovin' It" Ted Cruz posters that appeared in Hollywood back in 2014, said... "it's important that people know that this image came out of the gay community"... "Continuing to deny where the threat is coming from will not help keep this community safe.... The gay community needs to realize that the police are there to respond, not protect.... It is all of our responsibilities to be able to protect ourselves and our families. We can not do that if our elected officials disarm us"....
"And ISIS became what it is today thanks to Barack Obama’s failures, utter failures, by pulling everybody out of Iraq, thinking that conflicts end just because we leave. So the responsibility for it lies with President Barack Obama and his failed policies. Directly responsible because he pulled everybody out of Iraq. I predicted at the time that ISIS would go unchecked and there would be attacks on the United States of America. It’s a matter of record. So he is directly responsible."
It sounds like something Trump might say, but I don't think Trump would have backed down when there was criticism. Obviously, there would be criticism — outraged, furious criticism. You had to know that. But McCain, upon hearing the criticism claims he "misspoke." He puts out a written statement:
"I misspoke... I did not mean to imply that the President was personally responsible. I was referring to President Obama’s national security decisions, not the President himself."
Is the President not responsible for his decisions? Or is he responsible for his decisions, and his decisions are responsible, and he is not his decisions? You'd think when putting out a written statement to set things right, you'd be careful about your words and try to make sense.
The reaction is what you'd expect. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said:
"I have a lot of respect for John McCain, he's an American war hero. But frankly that statement sounded a lot more like Donald Trump than John McCain and I wish he would just retract it in its entirety."
That's why Trump doesn't retract at all. Everyone's going to be tempted to talk like Trump, but I don't see how you do it, stir up the excitement, and then put out an "I misspoke" statement that tries to say the same thing in a softer, gentler fashion. You'll just be pushed until you take it back altogether.
Also: "Eighty-four percent (84%) of blacks support Clinton, while Trump holds modest leads among whites and other minority voters...." So Trump leads among Hispanic people?
While roughly 70% of Republicans would prefer Trump in both scenarios, even more Democrats say they’d prefer Clinton for a beer or a meal. But voters not affiliated with either major party would prefer Trump in both cases - for a beer 50% to 25% and for dinner 46% to 27%.
Well, yesterday, Hillary said: "For starters, it is long past time for the Saudis, the Qataris, the Kuwaitis and others to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations. And they should stop supporting radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path toward extremism."
Obama gave a post-Orlando speech today, but he didn't mention the Saudis. (I'll put up a separate post on that speech.)
That phrase, according to political scientists who study conspiracy theories, is characteristic of politicians who seek to exploit the psychology of suspicion and cynicism to win votes.
The idea that people in positions of power or influence are conspiring to conceal sinister truths from the public can be inherently appealing, because it helps make sense of tragedy and satisfies the human need for certainty and order. Yet politicians hoping to take advantage of these tendencies must rely on vague and suggestive statements, since any specific accusation could be easily disproved.
"He's leaving it to the audience to piece together what he's saying," said Joseph Uscinski, a political scientist at the University of Miami, in a recent interview.... Uscinski noted that Trump has used the tactic throughout his campaign to gain support by appealing to voters' fears and cynicism. "The one thing that’s remained absolutely consistent is his penchant for conspiracy theorizing," Uscinski said.
Yeah, there's something going on there with Trump saying there's something going on there. I'm prompted to try to piece together what scary, sinister plans Trump may be conspiring to conceal. So many layers!
“Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign, we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post,” read a post on Trump’s Facebook page.
Another post said, “I am no fan of President Obama, but to show you how dishonest the phony Washington Post is, they wrote, ‘Donald Trump suggests President Obama was involved with Orlando shooting’ as their headline. Sad!”
Trump was referring to an article that posted online Monday morning that was headlined, “Donald Trump seems to connect President Obama to Orlando shooting.” The article was the most-read on The Post’s website at the time. Its original headline, which Trump accurately cited in his Facebook post, was changed about 90 minutes later. The newspaper changed it on its own, before Trump’s complaint.
What was the original headline?
ADDED: The original headline — included in the blocked quote — was "Donald Trump suggests President Obama was involved with Orlando shooting." Sorry for leaving that question at the end of this post. I had meant to delete it. What a crazy, embarrassing headline! But "The newspaper changed it on its own, before Trump’s complaint." There's some low-level self-praise!
IN THE COMMENTS: rhhardin — known for his gnomic comments — gets off a string of gems:
1. "What was the original headline?"/More Mush from the Wimp.
"Mr. Mateen checked on the bodies around him, Orlando said. At one point, Orlando switched positions and played dead, and he felt something poking him. He believed it was the gunman, checking to see if he was dead.... Orlando said he never looked Mr. Mateen in the eye, but recalled his calm voice. At one point, after noticing that some of the hostages in the bathroom were texting, the gunman ordered them to surrender their phones. He spoke again, according to Orlando, asking the hostages, 'Are you guys black?' He said, "I don’t have an issue with the blacks,"' Orlando said...."
I'm watching the Trump speech first, but I'll get to this and have something to say.
ADDED: She began in a storytelling, empathetic, and vaguely religious mode, speaking of the people who died and the need for prayer. Then she transitioned to policy with Trump-like statements about the need to be strong. ["Now we have to steel our resolve and respond... We must attack [terrorism] with clear eyes, steady hands, unwavering determination and pride in our country and our values."] The policy itself seemed interesting, but her audience messed up the value of it by cheering to great excess when she got to gun control. ["I believe weapons of war have no place on our streets."] And the big question I had about all those policy ideas was: Why hasn't the Obama administration done these things and isn't she connected to those failures?
I didn't like that she called Mateen "a madman." People with mental illness can be dangerous, but what basis is there for characterizing an Islamist terrorist as a "madman" (other than to set up an argument for gun control)?
It seems to me that the terrorist has deep belief in an ideology and has decided to use violence. I think true mental illness is a disability, and those with disabilities deserve respect and care (even as we need to protect ourselves from danger).
And religious devotion is also serious and can lead people to do some very terrible things, but it is not insanity, even when the particular ideas seem foolish or evil. There's a lot of religion out there in the world, and it's just too easy to say that the kind of religion we're seeing in Islamic terrorists isn't real religion but madness.
Just as some nonreligious ideas are dangerous and evil, some religious ideas are dangerous and evil. And we can say that without inserting this extra step of pretending it's not religion but madness. That's the failure to speak clearly that Trump was talking about in his speech today. I think this blurring is done out of a fear of criticizing or alienating other Muslims. That is a choice to be unclear, to cushion the harshness, and Hillary is making that choice.
She also used disease and poison as a metaphor (as if better health care might be the answer)
The Orlando terrorist may be dead, but the virus that poisoned his mind remains very much alive.... The threat is metastasizing. We face a twisted ideology and poisoned psychology that inspires the so-called ‘lone wolves’....
But these are human beings with thinking minds who are embracing particular ideas (ideas that spur them to terrible action). Of course, ideas are "viral." We use that metaphor all the time, for good and bad ideas. But the person who comes to believe something isn't sick like someone with cancer or a fever. You can get lost inside your metaphors.
ADDED: "We need to respond to this attack on America as one united people, with force, purpose, and determination. But the current politically correct response cripples our ability to talk and to think and act clearly. We're not acting clearly. We're not talking clearly. We've got problems. If we don't get tough, and if we don't get tough, and fast, we're not going to have our country anymore. There will be nothing, absolutely nothing left."
AND: He won't say the killer's name. He also says "Afghan" as the name of the country, Afghanistan. And, oddly, he pronounced "Orlando," Or-lahn-do. [CORRECTION: Looking at the written script, I think he was saying "born an Afghan," not "born in Afghan," so it would not be a mistake. And he does also say "Orlando," with the normal pronunciation many times. His enunciation slips when he's reading a speech.]
ALSO: "We have a dysfunctional immigration system," he says after questioning why the man's father was allowed to immigrate.
PLUS: Here's the full text of the speech. I wanted to excerpt what he said about religion. Hillary, in her speech today, presented the terrorists' version of Islam as madness, mental disease, and as I said in my post above, this is disrespectful and unfair to the unfortunate people who suffer from mental illness, and it is also unrealistic about the nature of the human mind, which, even when healthy, thinks and believes all sorts of things that are not true and not nice. You're not going to somehow cure people of their bad ideas. Trump wants to exclude people who have the wrong ideas:
We cannot continue to allow thousands upon thousands of people to pour into our country, many of whom have the same thought process as this savage killer. Many of the principles of Radical Islam are incompatible with Western values and institutions. Radical Islam is anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-American. I refuse to allow America to become a place where gay people, Christian people, and Jewish people, are the targets of persecution and intimidation by Radical Islamic preachers of hate and violence....
We have to screen applicants to know whether they are affiliated with, or support, radical groups and beliefs. We have to control the amount of future immigration into this country to prevent large pockets of radicalization from forming inside America....
[U]nder the Clinton plan, you’d be admitting hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East with no system to vet them, or to prevent the radicalization of their children. The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why she believes immigration from these dangerous countries should be increased without any effective system to screen who we are bringing in. The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why we should admit anyone into our country who supports violence of any kind against gay and lesbian Americans....
Yes, there are many radicalized people already inside our country as a result of the poor policies of the past. But the whole point is that it will be much, much easier to deal with our current problem if we don’t keep on bringing in people who add to the problem.... This shooter in Orlando was the child of an immigrant father who supported one of the most repressive regimes on Earth. Why would we admit people who support violent hatred?
Hillary Clinton can never claim to be a friend of the gay community as long as she continues to support immigration policies that bring Islamic extremists to our country who suppress women, gays and anyone who doesn’t share their views.... Why does Hillary Clinton want to bring people here—in vast numbers—who reject our values?
Ask yourself, who is really the friend of women and the LGBT community, Donald Trump with his actions, or Hillary Clinton with her words? Clinton wants to allow Radical Islamic terrorists to pour into our country—they enslave women, and murder gays. I don’t want them in our country. Immigration is a privilege, and we should not let anyone into this country who doesn’t support our communities – all of our communities.
That's some strong support for gay people! It sounds as though Catholics might have trouble meeting his standard.
MORE: In the comments, I'm seeing some questioning of my last sentence there — "It sounds as though Catholics might have trouble meeting his standard." But I'm interpreting Trump's words, the actual text, as spoken. He said: "Immigration is a privilege, and we should not let anyone into this country who doesn’t support our communities – all of our communities." That is, to earn the privilege of immigration, you must support all of our communities, including the gay community. He's not limiting his exclusion to those who believe that gay people should be killed. He's saying you need to support gay people. I'm sure many religious Christians will say that he might not mean to include those of us with a love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin approach, but I don't hear that reservation in his words. I hope he is pressed on this question, and I would love to see Trump outdo Clinton in wholehearted acceptance and love for gay people and their freedom to openly love according to their heart's desire.
"In a video posted to Facebook shortly after midnight, Seddique Mateen... called the shooting 'tragic' but said his son was 'a good son and an educated son.' He said his son shouldn’t have carried out the massacre because 'God himself will punish those involved in homosexuality.' 'I don’t know what caused him to shoot last night... No radicalism, no... He doesn’t have a beard even. . . . I don’t think religion or Islam had anything to do with this.'"
From a Washington Post article titled "Orlando gunman 'cool and calm' during nightclub standoff with police," which also deals with the question of why the police waited so long — while living victims were bleeding — to storm the building. If the answer is that the man was calm, I really don't get it. First of all, there had been so many gunshots, and people were wounded who might have been saved. Second, he identified himself as a devotee of ISIS. When have such people ever stopped in the middle of a massacre? He wasn't a madman to be talked down. He was cool and calm.
I see that the mayor of Orlando, Buddy Dyer (D), said: "We’re dealing with something we never imagined and is unimaginable." Why didn't they imagine it?! It's absolutely imaginable. It's even happened before. Is he just saying he didn't think his city would be the next one? That's absurd. Every city should imagine that it could have an incident like this. And wasn't there an imam in Orlando, speaking in public just last April, saying gay people should be killed (out of "compassion")?
Said Lin-Manuel Miranda, on winning the first of many awards for "Hamilton" at the Tonys last night.
In the ensuing poem he discussed his love for his wife, the Orlando shootings, and theater as a haven of tolerance and inclusivity — all in perfect iambic pentameter, through sobs. "The show is proof that history remembers," he said. "We live in times when hate and fear seem stronger. We rise and fall in light from dying embers, remembrances that hope and love last longer."
I was watching (and he made me cry):
What a lovely man. Never leave that wife. He must know.
(It's just by chance that this post on a man named Miranda follows my post on the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court case named Miranda.)
Here's a bit about Lin-Manuel Miranda's wife, Vanessa Nadal:
1. She is an Attorney Who Graduated From Fordham... 2. Before Going to Law School, She Was a Working Scientist... 3. She and Miranda Went to High School Together, But They Didn’t Connect Until Later...
Two months later, at a big crowded party, he didn’t exactly say, “I love you” but almost. “At some point, we met up for a kiss and he said, ‘You love me,’ ” she recalled. “I was like: ‘How presumptuous!’ I was a little angry but I couldn’t deny it.”...
4. They Got Married in 2010... 5. She Gave Birth to Their First Child, Sebastian, in 2014....
That's my question, as I'm trying to read the NYT article with the infuriating headline, "Omar Mateen: From Early Promise to F.B.I. Surveillance." As if the FBI's investigation skewed him from a path to a successful American life!
He earned an associate degree in criminal justice technology in 2006. A year later, he was hired by one of the world’s premier private security companies, G4S. And then, in 2009, he got married and bought a home.
As if these things might not be chosen by someone with evil plans.
Soon, though, signs of troubles emerged. His wife, an immigrant from Uzbekistan, divorced him in 2011, after he abused her.
The desire to sympathize with this man is — for some insane reason — so strong that an abused woman is made the active party. She divorced him. He experienced "troubles."
Two years after that, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was called in after reports from Mr. Mateen’s 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.
That's all very blandly put, but I want more! Why did the FBI fail? What were the reports and what other reports of other terrorist sleepers are processed bureaucratically and left to continue undisturbed until the day they decide to wake up and open fire in a crowded nightclub?
Then, in 2014, the F.B.I. discovered a possible tie between Mr. Mateen 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 Mr. Mateen, he maintained both his Florida security-officer license and his job....
A second investigation! And still nothing! Again, it is amazing — maddening — to think of all the Omar Mateens out there and known to the FBI and nothing is being done to stop them.
"If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words 'Radical Islam' she should get out of this race for the Presidency. If we do not get tough and smart real fast, we are not going to have a country anymore. Because our leaders are weak, I said this was going to happen – and it is only going to get worse. I am trying to save lives and prevent the next terrorist attack. We can't afford to be politically correct anymore."
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
संदेश
