Forget Breivik, America’s the Real Cause of the Norway Massacre
You just knew it had to happen. In retrospect, it’s really only surprising that it took as long as it did. Combine a knee-jerk blame-America-first attitude with rabid anti-gun politics and opportunism and what other conclusion can be reached? It was obviously America and our lax gun laws that were the real causes of Norway massacre…
Breivik reportedly told investigators that he’d legally purchased 30-round magazines for his Ruger Mini-14 by mail from the states. Which was just the news gleeful gun-grabber Rep. Carolyn McCarthy needed:
QUOTE
“There should be a lot of shame,” she told POLITICO. “We’re sending a death warrant to other parts of the world. … Unfortunately now, internationally, it’s known that you can get here, buy your guns, buy your large magazines, and you’re not going to have any problem.” McCarthy said eliminating high-capacity clips like those used in the Norway and Arizona shootings should be a matter of moral outrage.
“I don’t understand why people can’t have common sense,” she said. “Large magazines do not need to be part of it. The large manufacturers, they should even take a moral point of view in not selling them to ordinary citizens through the gun stores. The police and military can still use them.But I just morally think they should not look to sell them to the average citizen.”
“It is bad enough that our lax laws gun cause death and destruction in the streets of our own country but we must now face the fact that our domestic arms bazaar is attracting foreign terrorists and criminals,” said Josh Horwitz, the executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “What will it take for Congress to wake up and take action?”
McCarthy’s never been above picking up a bloody shirt and proudly waiving it if it helps her anti-gun agenda. It doesn’t matter if that shirt was worn by Norwegian children, Gabrielle Giffords or her own husband and son. And Dennis Hennigan, acting head of the Brady Campaign certainly was glad to jump aboard Maloney’s moral outrage express:
QUOTE
“It now appears that not even Norwegian children at a youth camp are safe from the battlefield firepower so easily available in America,” he said. “Large-capacity assault clips(WTF is an assault clip, GOD this woman is dumb as a bag of hammers) are instruments of mass killing, yet federal law leaves them completely unregulated.”
So it’s evidently America’s fault that a determined psychopath in another country decided to kill as many people he could. We must also to blame for the restrictive gun laws in Norway that prevented anyone on that island from defending themselves with a firearm. And we’re certainly the reason that it took the local police an hour to respond in any way. America must also be blamed, because Norway didn't have laws in place that didn't allow importation of "so-called high capacity mags" Oh, the burden we bear.
-------------- *SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS / MOLON LABE / Se Defendendo memoria of cado frater ,Semper fidelis *The object of war is NOT to DIE for YOUR Country, but to make the OTHER BASTARD DIE for HIS...Patton My Constitutional Rights trump your dead.
And now for a little levity on the subject--from Ann Coulter!
QUOTE
NEW YORK TIMES READER KILLS DOZENS IN NORWAY July 27, 2011
The New York Times wasted no time in jumping to conclusions about Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian who staged two deadly attacks in Oslo last weekend, claiming in the first two paragraphs of one story that he was a "gun-loving," "right-wing," "fundamentalist Christian," opposed to "multiculturalism."
It may as well have thrown in "Fox News-watching" and "global warming skeptic."
This was a big departure from the Times' conclusion-resisting coverage of the Fort Hood shooting suspect, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. Despite reports that Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar!" as he gunned down his fellow soldiers at a military medical facility in 2009, only one of seven Times articles on Hasan so much as mentioned that he was a Muslim.
Of course, that story ran one year after Hasan's arrest, so by then, I suppose, the cat was out of the bag.
In fact, however, Americans who jumped to conclusions about Hasan were right and New York Times reporters who jumped to conclusions about Breivik were wrong.
True, in one lone entry on Breivik's gaseous 1,500-page manifesto, "2083: A European Declaration of Independence," he calls himself "Christian." But unfortunately he also uses a great number of other words to describe himself, and these other words make clear that he does not mean "Christian" as most Americans understand the term. (Incidentally, he also cites The New York Times more than a half-dozen times.)
Had anyone at the Times actually read Breivik's manifesto, they would have seen that he uses the word "Christian" as a handy moniker to mean "European, non-Islamic" -- not a religious Christian or even a vague monotheist. In fact, at several points in his manifesto, Breivik stresses that he has a beef with Christians for their soft-heartedness. (I suppose that's why the Times is never worried about a "Christian backlash.")
A casual perusal of Breivik's manifesto clearly shows that he uses the word "Christian" similarly to the way some Jewish New Yorkers use it to mean "non-Jewish." In this usage, Christopher Hitchens and Madalyn Murray O'Hair are "Christians."
I told a Jewish gal trying to set me up with one of her friends once that he had to be Christian, and she exclaimed that she had the perfect guy: a secular Muslim atheist. (This was the least-popular option on the '60s board game Dream Date, by the way).
Breivik is very clear that you don't even have to believe in God to join his movement, saying in a self-interview:
Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?
A: As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus.
He goes on to say that a "Christian fundamentalist theocracy" is "everything we DO NOT want," and a "secular European society" is "what we DO want."
"It is enough," Breivik says, "that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist." That statement doesn't even make sense in America.
At the one and only meeting of Breivik's "Knights Templar" in London in 2002, there were nine attendees, three of whom he describes as "Christian atheists" and one as a "Christian agnostic." (Another dozen people mistook it for a Renaissance Faire and were turned away.)
Breivik clearly explains that his "Knights Templar" is "not a religious organization but rather a Christian 'culturalist' military order." He even calls on the "European Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu community" to join his fight against "the Islamization of Europe."
He doesn't believe in Christianity or want anyone else to, but apparently supports celebrating Christmas simply to annoy Muslims.
Breivik says he is "not an excessively religious man," brags that he is "first and foremost a man of logic," calls himself "economically liberal" and reveres Darwinism.
But Times reporters had their "Eureka!" moment as soon as they heard Breivik used the word "Christian" someplace to identify himself. No one at the Times bothered to read Breivik's manifesto to see that he doesn't use the term the way the rest of us do. That might have interfered with the paper's obsessive Christian-bashing.
Other famous killers dubbed conservative Christians by the Times include Timothy McVeigh and Jared Loughner.
McVeigh was a pot-smoking atheist who said, "Science is my religion."
Similarly, Breivik says in his manifesto that "it is essential that science take an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings" –- a statement that would be incomprehensible to all the real scientists, such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, Newton, Mendel, Pasteur, Planck, Einstein and Pauli, all of whom believed the whole purpose of science was to understand God.
The Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, was lyingly described by the Times as a pro-life fanatic. Not only did more honest news outlets, such as ABC News, report exactly the opposite -- for example, how Loughner alarmed his classmates by laughing about an aborted baby in class -- but Loughner's friends described him as "left wing," "a political radical," "quite liberal" and "a pothead." Another said Loughner's mother was Jewish.
The only reason Timothy McVeigh has gone down in history as a right-wing Christian and Jared Loughner has not -- despite herculean efforts by much of the mainstream media to convince us otherwise -- is that by January 2011 when Loughner went on his murder spree, conservatives had enough media outlets to reveal the truth.
As explained in the smash best-seller "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America," the liberal rule is: Any criminal act committed by a white man with a gun is a right-wing, Christian conspiracy, whereas any criminal act committed by a nonwhite is the government violating someone's civil liberties.
It's too bad Breivik wasn't a Muslim extremist open about his Jihadist views, because I hear the Army is looking for a new psychiatrist down at Fort Hood.
-------------- "If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
And now for a little levity on the subject--from Ann Coulter!
Attached Image
-------------- Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
Libbie obviously believes the NY Slimes--despite its history of falsifying stories and its mastery of spin.
From Coulter--
QUOTE
In fact, however, Americans who jumped to conclusions about Hasan were right and New York Times reporters who jumped to conclusions about Breivik were wrong.
True, in one lone entry on Breivik's gaseous 1,500-page manifesto, "2083: A European Declaration of Independence," he calls himself "Christian." But unfortunately he also uses a great number of other words to describe himself, and these other words make clear that he does not mean "Christian" as most Americans understand the term. (Incidentally, he also cites The New York Times more than a half-dozen times.)
Had anyone at the Times actually read Breivik's manifesto, they would have seen that he uses the word "Christian" as a handy moniker to mean "European, non-Islamic" -- not a religious Christian or even a vague monotheist. In fact, at several points in his manifesto, Breivik stresses that he has a beef with Christians for their soft-heartedness. (I suppose that's why the Times is never worried about a "Christian backlash.")
A casual perusal of Breivik's manifesto clearly shows that he uses the word "Christian" similarly to the way some Jewish New Yorkers use it to mean "non-Jewish." In this usage, Christopher Hitchens and Madalyn Murray O'Hair are "Christians."
I told a Jewish gal trying to set me up with one of her friends once that he had to be Christian, and she exclaimed that she had the perfect guy: a secular Muslim atheist. (This was the least-popular option on the '60s board game Dream Date, by the way). Breivik is very clear that you don't even have to believe in God to join his movement, saying in a self-interview:
Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?
A: As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus.
He goes on to say that a "Christian fundamentalist theocracy" is "everything we DO NOT want," and a "secular European society" is "what we DO want."
"It is enough," Breivik says, "that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist." That statement doesn't even make sense in America.
At the one and only meeting of Breivik's "Knights Templar" in London in 2002, there were nine attendees, three of whom he describes as "Christian atheists" and one as a "Christian agnostic." (Another dozen people mistook it for a Renaissance Faire and were turned away.)
Breivik clearly explains that his "Knights Templar" is "not a religious organization but rather a Christian 'culturalist' military order." He even calls on the "European Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu community" to join his fight against "the Islamization of Europe."
He doesn't believe in Christianity or want anyone else to, but apparently supports celebrating Christmas simply to annoy Muslims.
Breivik says he is "not an excessively religious man," brags that he is "first and foremost a man of logic," calls himself "economically liberal" and reveres Darwinism. But Times reporters had their "Eureka!" moment as soon as they heard Breivik used the word "Christian" someplace to identify himself. No one at the Times bothered to read Breivik's manifesto to see that he doesn't use the term the way the rest of us do. That might have interfered with the paper's obsessive Christian-bashing.
Similarly, Breivik says in his manifesto that "it is essential that science take an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings" –- a statement that would be incomprehensible to all the real scientists, such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, Newton, Mendel, Pasteur, Planck, Einstein and Pauli, all of whom believed the whole purpose of science was to understand God.
She captures HIS OWN WORDS--and the Slimes took the ONLY reference out of 1500 pages to label him "Christian."
That's the whole point of the title of her piece--based on the number of references, he SHOULD be labeled a "NYTimes Reader"--after all, the shooter reference the TIMES SIX TIMES!
Coulter has made a very successful career out of mocking liberals and their institutions with their own words. Fortunately for her, it's EASY.
-------------- "If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
I think I'll stick with the well known facts published by many news organizations that say he's a right wing Christian.
Unable to discern news from commentary? How can he be labelled a Christian when he states he has no relationship with Jesus Christ? Because of his fascination with the Knights Templar? Even then, his vision hallucination of an initiation ceremony has no cross, only a skull, sword and candle.
He gives no indication of being a Christian other than using the word as a vision of the crusades. A more correct indication of his theology would be of Norse mythology.
Attached Image
-------------- Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
How can he be labelled a Christian when he states he has no relationship with Jesus Christ? Because of his fascination with the Knights Templar? Even then, his 