“Who are ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”
That Chico Marx line from the Marx Brothers’ “Duck Soup” could well sum up President Barack Obama’s reaction to the slaughter of innocents.
Before the shock of a radical Muslim attack that killed 14 people at a Christmas party in San Bernardino wore off, Obama was blaming guns despite what the killers had to say: They swore allegiance to ISIS.
“Just after the shooting began, Malik went on Facebook and pledged her allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the emir of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, the militant group that says it has established a caliphate in Syria and Iraq, according to law enforcement officials. A Facebook official confirmed the posting, speaking on the condition of anonymity due to the ongoing investigation.”
– The Washington Post; December 4, 2015
Straight from the horse’s mouth, as we used to say.
But never mind what the radicalized Islamists told us. Here’s what the president wanted to talk about.
Not only was San Bernardino all about guns and the end of due process to the president, Attorney General Loretta Lynch carried his message even further. Lynch saw fit to stifle free speech. Is there something about the Bill of Rights this administration hates?
In the middle of his murder spree inside the Pulse nightclub, Omar Mateen couldn’t wait to tell us why he was bent on killing as many Americans as possible. So he called 911.
When it was announced that Mateen made the call, the Obama administration’s first reaction was to try to block the public from seeing his true motives. The “most transparent administration,” as the president likes to tout, finally relented to political and media pressure. Like the massacre in San Bernardino, Obama would rather the terrorist’s motives for killing 49 people remain unknown.
Here is Mateen’s response when the police dispatcher had asked for his name: “My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.” Sound familiar?
Faster than a speeding bullet, Obama blamed guns. Once again, sound familiar?
To admit Mateen’s act was ISIS inspired, a group he once called the “JV squad,” wasn’t politically palatable for the president.
Admitting that adherence to the principles of radical Islam was at the root of the worst terror attack on the United States since 9/11, destroys Obama’s ISIS narrative.
And now we come to Dallas. For the past eight years, Obama’s surrogates like Black Lives Matter and Al Sharpton have been telling black people the police are the enemy. Police deaths are up this year. Is it a coincidence?
In New York, attendees of a Black Lives Matters march chanted for “dead cops.”
Why did Micah Johnson shoot 12 police officers and two civilians? He wanted to “kill white people, especially white officers.”
Finally, under the intense weight of a narrative he helped create, Obama tried to dial it back.
But the damage has already been done in so many ways.
The cynical use of the Ferguson fantasy as well as the use of people of color being shot by police as political hammers have served only to divide the nation along hard racial lines. Especially when those stories don’t turn out to be what’s been pushed.
Yet, in an election year, dead cops and ISIS inspired attacks are not a good narrative for the president’s legacy.
So Obama goes back to old, reliable, “The guns made him do it.”
Radical Islam and race relations are both important subjects the nation must discuss. Both will be uncomfortable conversations for each side if an honest talk is to take place. The president’s insistence on seeing these issues through his preferred political lens is dangerous and non- productive.
Three times now, murderers have told the nation why they committed the atrocities they did. And three times Barack Obama has asked, “Who are ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”
© 2016 carlgottliebdotnet
carlgottliebdotnet 
Time to talk about Wilhelm Reich a bit, seeing as how germane to the truth regarding our dear Prez Reich’s POV is.
For Reich, there were three “social characters”: the liberal, who approaches things from a superficial intellect; the conservative, who approaches things from feeling (values deeply held- not emotion); the “emotional plague” character.
It looks to me that Obama is sympathetic to the “emotional plague” characters as he is an extreme liberal unable to adequately respond to the aggression of others. I am not saying he is a plague character himself… This is the definition of “plague character”:
“It is a necessity of certain individuals, instead of working out their own problems, to set themselves up as the standards of normality and to make their environment, and everyone in it, conform to their own inadequacy….most people have some emotional plague in them; we are familiar enough with the unfeeling mother who cannot stand healthy functioning and proceeds to mold her infant in her own image. Cruelty, criminality, nasty gossip, resentment of others good fortune, all are examples of plague behavior, behavior not just unhealthy but destructive of the health of others. We can say that to the degree that individual tries to tear down other people to control their lives he is functioning as a plague character.”
Emotional plague characters include extremists of all kinds, but, in today’s world, Islamists and Marxists foot the bill most often. Reich speaks of the two fascist types, Red, as in communism, and Black, as in Blackshirts, as in the SS.
This next brief description of the liberal character is pure Obama and the liberals of both parties. I consider GOPe to be modern liberals, for the most part. When Reich says “modern” liberals, means liberals who have strayed too far from balance and become agents of control to express their own sickness. They are at war with their natural complements, the conservatives. Because of this, there is no way to balance progress with necessary fidelity to what was good about the past.
“On the liberal side, where core contact has been lost, the individual must defend himself more urgently against any breakthrough of aggression.
>Here it is: “He brings in the intellect as his bulwark of defense, developing an ideology of humanitarianism (a reaction formation) and a desire for more and more central control to protect him from his own catastrophe: at the same time, the liberal becomes increasingly immobilized functionally until he lacks any aggression; he tries to substitute talk for action and reacts to aggression with appeasement. Finally, this defense also falls and the middle layer does break through giving rise to the communist (red fascist). But even here the intellectual defense, no longer effective, continues outwardly to pretend that nothing has happened, denying the brutality and insisting on the humanitarian goals.”
Reich’s followers speak of “intellectual blindness”, a kind of latter-day hysteria in which the person truly cannot “see” the necessary interpretation of events.
A great example would be the recent testimony by the FBI head who, in fear, could not “see” the necessary inference that Hillary was guilty. The MSM is full of this on a daily basis.
This is the most dangerous aspect, this loss of capacity to infer intent and make the necessary and rational value judgment, a moral judgment. It destroys the basis of society. We don’t share reality anymore. They are at war with us by the proxy of this activity.
LikeLike
This is really an amazing analysis. You need to start writing more.
LikeLike