Omar Mateen's Pledge of Allegiance
Did you recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school? Did Omar Mateen? As an apparently restless young kid in elementary school in St. Lucie County, Florida?
Francis Bellamy was part of a campaign in 1891 to place a flag before every schoolhouse in America and “install into the minds of our American youth, a love for their country and the principles on which it was founded.” It competed with Admiral Balch’s earlier and folksier pledge and then superseded it from 1923 onward. In 1954, the words “under God” were officially added, but had already been part of local recitations of the pledge from at least the late 40’s.
Omar Mateen's personal psychological profile will continue to be gnawed at by various experts and advocates of one cause or another. But that he willingly embraced violent terrorism cannot be disputed. And that he embraced a violent terrorist creed that has repeatedly declared itself at war with America cannot be disputed.
Thanks to an outcry by many - including Speaker Ryan - the DOJ has now relented, and released the uncensored (isn't redacted a nice neutral-sounding term?) transcript of at least one of Omar Mateen's cellphone calls to 911 - made during his attack on Pulse, the gay nightclub in Orlando.
To the operator's twice questioning him on his name, (What's your name? then: Ok, What's your name?), Omar Mateen answered as follows:
My name is I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.
I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, may God protect him (Arabic), on behalf of the Islamic State.
Omar Mateen willfully and consciously shredded the American flag by ripping the words "I pledge allegiance" from the fertile soil of North America and strapping them like an explosive vest to the leader of the Islamic State. As explicit as the most hate-filled flag burning act, but as diffuse as the deeply symbolic power of the Pledge of Allegiance itself. Like a sort of Satanic Mass, if you will. A hate filled exegesis that only an exorcism of violent death, rained down on the innocent civilians in Orlando, could satisfy. Pure evil.
Was Omar Mateen complex, troubled, conflicted? Almost certainly. So what? He embraced an evil calling. He was, and shall ever be, a terrorist, who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.
Posted by Keeley at June 20, 2016 7:28 PM
TOO SOON! TAKE THIS CRAP POST DOWN!!!!!!!!
Releasing the un edited transcript is not helpful to the democrats and their agenda, because it puts the focus back where it belongs. The real threat is radical Islamic terrorist, which thanks to our gov’t and political correctness is now right here in our country. The gun issue was just a distraction, they hoped would take the focus away from Islamic terrorists right here in our back yard. They believed they could use the still warm bodies in the Orlando massacre as a tool to force their anti gun agenda. It didn’t work.
This president and his lead from behind policies on anything that actually mattered have left our once strong country in a smoldering heap. He can’t be gone quick enough. We need ISIS out of the oval office.
If you belong to ISIS, or if you are mentally ill, or just harbor a huge grudge against blacks or Planned Parenthood, and you want to buy the terrorist weapon of choice, an AR-15, the Republicans want you to know that is totally ok! Absolutely fine! You have a RIGHT to buy the means to slaughter large numbers of strangers! Just go online, or to a gun show, or buy it through a newspaper ad. No background checks, no waiting. Why, you can be shooting up a church or gay night club this very day!
phx8, you can even stage mock defense scenarios in your own home using your precious AR-15. Pretending fake intruders are coming in at you so that you have to run around your home firing an imaginary round into imaginary bad guys. What fun, huh?
Never mind that President Obama has destroyed more terrorists than any previous president. He’s Muslim I tells ya’. When the leading candidate for Republicans is a “birther”, this is what you get. Fantasy and fallacy all rolled into one neat insane package of mistrust and misinformation.
I must agree with my liberal pals phx8 and Speaks. Bombs are so much more civilized and effective in mass murders than some silly gun.
I find it interesting that my dem/lib/soc friends wish to discuss gun control rather than Islamic terrorism.
“Never mind that President Obama has destroyed more terrorists than any previous president. He’s Muslim I tells ya’. When the leading candidate for Republicans is a “birther”, this is what you get. Fantasy and fallacy all rolled into one neat insane package of mistrust and misinformation.”
In a nutshell.
“… my dem/lib/soc friends wish to discuss gun control rather than Islamic terrorism.”
That is because gun control is the best way to control Islamic terrorism in this country. Attacks are not coming from hijacked airliners or bombs or immigrants slipping into the country or complicated plots. They are coming from lone wolves and the mentally ill and racists and homophobes- essentially any deranged person who wants to buy an AR-15. Detecting such people before they attack is extremely difficult. All that can be done is to watch the internet and be vigilant for people uttering bizarre threats. The last line of defense is to stop them from obtaining their weapon of choice.
“That is because gun control is the best way to control Islamic terrorism in this country.”
Yes because it worked so well in France. Actually that would be to stop allowing this flood of un vetted un assimilated immigrants into this country. That’s funny though. You must really knock em dead at “open mic nite”. Lol
“The last line of defense is to stop them from obtaining their weapon of choice.”
Yes…like an airplane or a pressure cooker.
I made this comment in the blue column but believe it has relevance in this post as well:
It seems some would interpret concern as fear. These two words are not synonymous. Some of us have a concern for a homophobic person with latent homosexual tendencies and a professed revulsion of our social norms in obtaining a high powered weapon. Some of us have a concern for someone with avowed latent mistrust of any authority of our government that also have access to high powered weapons. This concern is not an expression of fear as much as it is a revulsion that these individuals cannot get the help needed for them to be productive contributors to our societal needs. It is unfortunate that we have been unable to identify and help these individuals. Expressions of the need to obviate the ability of said individuals to obtain high powered weapons only seem to drive these individuals into a hyper sense of fear that someone is going to deter them from obtaining the high powered weapons that then allow them to feel safe. It is our duty as citizens to attempt to address this problem and we will continue to do so in any way possible.
One addition in this comment would be that just because we cannot stop all attempts to subvert our way of life in this country does not mean that we should not attempt to use any methods to stop the subversion some would use. This has always been the case in our nation of laws and will continue to be so. Legislation that can help stop any individual from using weapons to accomplish a desired subversion of our or way of life should be considered and enacted if possible.
” Legislation that can help stop any individual from using weapons to accomplish a desired subversion of our or way of life should be considered and enacted if possible.”
Posted by: Speak4all at June 22, 2016 9:45 AM
Typical Liberal response. Use government power to curtail the rights of law-abiding Americans in an attempt to control terrorism once again proving that they can’t chew gum and walk at the same time.
Liberals claim there is a defect in the Second Amendment that; if corrected, will make us all safe from terrorism.
We are a nation of laws and have been for very many years. The 2nd Amendment will be re-written some day as it is an inadequate wording of the best method to legislate gun ownership in the 21st century and beyond.
What is typical is your boorish and outlandish accusations in the face of some people seeking to find some way forward from a difficult position.
I for one am extremely tired of your “liberals this”, “liberals that” pronouncements and would ridicule them if I did not have to stoop to your level to accomplish that.
Very pleased that Speakie is willing to crawl out of his dark place and call our Constitution flawed when it comes to the Second Amendment. He fails to explain the flaw, but insists that he and his libbie buddies have the fix.
He calls me boorish for suggesting Libbies want to use government power to take rights away from law-abiding citizen and then confirms that this is exactly what they wish to do.
Poor Speaks…conflicted and confused.
The flaw is the insufficient 17th century wording when applied to the weaponry and militias of the 21st century and beyond, as I stated.
I can call you boorish but I do not seek to impede your ability to support the views that you wish to. You on the other hand would only like to silence any disagreement with your views by using provocative and demeaning statements. Your wont to have intelligent discourse regarding postings here has always been suspect.
One thing I have learned in our discussions, satisfaction is unattainable in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Poor Speaks…he can’t even pull off a “put down”. He’s the self-admitted “unarmed man”.
Please expound on this flaw you find in the Second Amendment as no one on WB understands what you mean.
OK, I’ll try. The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The phrase to keep and bear Arms was written with the knowledge of Arms being that of the 18th century, muskets and cannons. This has changed, we now know that there are Arms created that are capable of inflicting harm that would have been unbeknownst to any of the people of the 18th century. The other phrase, A well regulated Militia, was prior to there being a standing Army that handled external and internal political disputes through the US Army/Navy/Marines/Air Force for external and our National Guard for internal. The people of the 18th century could not have known the military power that is available today.
Now if you can comment without attempting to insult me or my opinion I would attempt a discourse regarding this contention. However your previous comments in this thread alone does not give me confidence that you will be able to do that.
“no one on WB understands what you mean” I see so since you don’t understand no one can? I don’t think that is correct, while not everyone would agree with my contention I have seen many comments regarding the 2nd Amendment’s inability to address the needs of today’s society.
Speak4all, you say the 2nd amendment is inadequately written. I say it is precisely written.
You say it only pertains to 18th century situations. I say it is so precisely written it pertains to 18th century situations, 21st century situations, as well as situations in the future.
I think what is confusing you is the concept of freedom. I think you see it as government free to rule over it’s subjects. Therefore, a law must be written by government to define any instance that presents itself.
I think true freedom is epitomized in the 2nd amendment. It is broad enough to encompass every aspect of free men and weapons without the burden of micromanaging every facet of weapons ownership.
It is reasonable for us to insist weapons not be available to people who are dangerous to others. Contrary to what you believe, the federal government is not equipped to perform that function on an individual level. Therefore the federal government will take the default stance, such as yours, that denies weapons possession from everyone while hoping to deny the dangerous.
Your idea to re-write the 2nd amendment will only result in a document much larger and much more complex than can be managed by the federal government. Your solution could only be achieved by wording the amendment to include a clause that gives the government the ability to write law after law in a whack-a-mole attempt to achieve a goal that is unobtainable. What you are hoping for, Speak4all, is a repeal of the 2nd amendment and confiscation of all weapons. This, sir, is not possible because this approach on it’s most basic level requires weapons to be available to you, (the person confiscating the weapon) and not to others. That is contradictory to what you want to achieve, and also hypocritical.
There was no National Guard when the 2nd amendment was ratified. Weapons then included all weapons of the day. They did not define “arms” as muskets and cannons. They did not word the 2nd saying the right to bear muskets and cannon shall not be infringed. You are putting words into the mouths of our founding fathers for your own purpose.
WW, and that would be your contention which I do not intend to dissuade you from. You are correct though I would like to see the 2nd Amendment repealed and replaced. I have no idea what the replacement should look like however I expect that the representatives we send to Congress should attempt to do their jobs and use their resources to best determine how to, just as was done in the 18th century. And yes it will take more laws, I have no doubt. You seem to have a fear of that and I can respect that but that does not mean I need to hold the same fear of our laws that you do. I can disagree with your contention but I do not need to belittle that in order to do so. I hope you can do the same.
You support the 2nd Amendment because it is vague, I don’t support it for the very same reason, it is too vague.
But the Arms available in the 18th century differ wildly from those available today. I did not say that they said muskets and cannons only but merely implied that those were the Arms known about at that time.
Exactly, they did not try to quantify arms, they included arms known about at that time. That still applies.
My point is this. A never ending parade of laws regulating this gun and that clip and this ammo and that holster and this stock and that sight won’t stop someone from killing someone else.
I can understand why you think I would belittle your position. This time it’s not the case. I would like to think I could point out how extreme it is without your taking offense. I will say you’ve finally answered a question I’ve been asking for a very long time. “What does your ending look like? What is your idea of utopia? You’ve answered that by saying you support the repeal and replacement? of the 2nd amendment. You have my respect for actually saying it. I do think it is extreme.
As far as laws not stopping killing I will refer to a previous comment I made in this thread. Just because we cannot stop all attempts to subvert our way of life in this country does not mean that we should not attempt to use any methods to stop the subversion some would use.
Repealing and replacing the 2nd Amendment is not my idea of utopia but it would help us to better deal with the threats that we all experience due to gun violence, I would hope.
Repealing the 2nd amendment IS subverting our way of life in this country, Speak4all! Don’t you get that?
History is replete with countries who have given up their arms and their governments have wreaked havoc. Repealing the 2nd amendment would not only expose us to the terrorist, but also foreign armies, criminals, and politicians, the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot(sp). Do you actually believe it couldn’t happen here?
Gun Laws, Immigration Laws, If we don’t enforce the Laws already on the books, Why make new ones???
There was no National Guard when the 2nd amendment was ratified.
Nor was there a standing army Weary. IMHO the right to keep and bear arms was to be used against countries attacking our country not against each other. The intent of the the 2nd amendment has been violated by laws abiding citizens on numerous occasions. The militia has been usurped by a standing army. Of course the SCOTUS has seen it differently over the years and has upheld the rights under the 2nd amendment despite all the changes time has brought to our country.
Weapons then included all weapons of the day.
Of course it did, all weapons of the time, but using your logic that would include rocket launchers and atomic bombs today right? Yet the right to bear arms doesn’t include rocket launchers and atomic bombs nor full automatic weapons for that matter.
The 2nd amendment was ratified after Shays rebellion which as we know was put down by a private militia. So one has to wonder just how conservatives would think the 2nd amendment is meant to allow citizens to bear arms against the government. But with all the silly arguments put forth to defend the right to bear arms it is of little wonder this one is used.
The fact is we have a problem in this country and the misuse of firearms is the cause of the problem. Suggesting we use the laws on the books is as silly a line of reasoning as we have seen from you guys IMHO Weary. If the current laws worked,which they don’t because they are not a deterrent , we wouldn’t need additional laws to solve the problem. The preferred conservative method of dealing with the problem is to arm most people in a continued arms race for the bigger more powerful weapon. This hasn’t worked either as they killings have continued over the past decade.
My point is we no longer have law abiding citizens in this country we have anger and fear replacing good judgement and sense in our law abiding citizens. How do we stop the violence in the police and the people of this country if we continue to allow weapons of mass destruction to be so readily available to the angry and fearful? The whole law abiding citizen line is just so much crap as well Weary. Hell the Orlando bozo was a “law abiding citizen” up to the point in time he started shooting up the club.
My suggesting, as I have espoused lately here on WB, is to go back to the beginning. Get rid of the standing military and the arms race of the militaries of the world. Arm and train our citizens and form militias with each member of our society arming themselves, at their own cost(just as the founding fathers did), as they see fit. Only those in prison and mental institutions would not be allowed the right to be armed. Private militias would be called up to defend us, using the tanks,ships,air planes,grenades, rocket launchers etc. each militia has bought on their own. Sort of a free market solution to the problem.
Of course it doesn’t stop the angry and fearful from getting weapons but it does allow for return fire before the situation escalates into a mass murder.
The right to bear arms dates back to the English revolution to guard against tyranny. Guess what, they were guarding against the tyranny of their own government.
Personal weapons were used to gain our own independence. Guess what, they were used against our own government.
Why do you think that type of scenario can’t happen again?
I’m also really tired of the asinine argument that to give permission to own a semi-automatic weapon is the same as allowing someone to own a nuclear bomb. How retarded is that? Do you really think I’m going to give up my weapons because the alternative is my neighbor owning a nuclear weapon? The notion is preposterous.
I support manifest destiny. I don’t support world domination or global government. We can come to a compromise by bringing our troops home to protect our country’s borders, instead of trying to conquer the world. We can influence foreign governments with trade instead of force, just as T. Jefferson envisioned.
“My point is we no longer have law abiding citizens in this country we have anger and fear replacing good judgement and sense in our law abiding citizens.”
That is an outrageous statement j2. Please give just one example of “law abiding citizens” being a danger or threat to anyone by acting in anger or fear.
Listen to your tin-pot president and wanna-be president Shillary if you want to understand the politicizing of anger and fear. The most recent example of this is with the vote on BREXIT. Both of these skunks tried to get the British population afraid to exercise their best judgement by threatening trade relations with the US.
My Liberal and Socialist Pals don’t get it. Criminals, Tyrants, and Dictators prefer unarmed citizens. Why is that?
Weary, prior to the revolution it wasn’t our government. We had no say in our government it was the divine right of kings to rule as they saw fit. They appointed leaders in the colonies. We declared our independence from the crown and the crown sent troops over to force the divine right he had to rule over the people.
I’m also really tired of the asinine argument that to give permission to own a semi-automatic weapon is the same as allowing someone to own a nuclear bomb.
What I said was ” Yet the right to bear arms doesn’t include rocket launchers and atomic bombs nor full automatic weapons for that matter.”
I didn’t make the argument you are suggesting Weary. In fact just the opposite, conservatives contend the 2nd amendment is an inalienable right, given by the creator not a government or a person. You contend the 2nd amendment included any weapon of the day and I concurred.
Yet Congress severely restricted the ownership of machine guns and sawed off shotguns because in part of the St.Valentines day massacre. The SCOTUS has ruled, in the past, that full auto weapons were not included as part of the inalienable right to bear arms based upon the deaths inflicted by these weapons.
Now that we find the country in the grip of the gun nuts, who like a little boy with a new toy cannot stop themselves from killing others, it is well past time to do something. The question is what. De-escalate the arms race? Tax the bejesus out of the assault weapons? Ban them outright? Australia has proven banning guns will work. We have proven we can restrict certain types of weapons without violating the constitutional rights of “law abiding citizens”.
Of course that may lead to even more deaths as conservatives may decide to strike out at government for what they perceive to be a violation of their rights. Unfortunately we cannot continue on the way we are. So unless you guys can come up with something workable I may have to side with the dems on some outright ban. My only other option is to jump into the arms race myself… gotta go I’ll have to finish this later.
Assault weapons were banned after WWII. The left should be honest and say what they mean. True, rocket launchers and atomic weapons are banned. So are assault weapons. What is the left trying to ban? They call it an assault weapon, but it’s not. They say they can ban rocket launchers, now they want to ban rifles that look like assault weapons. What’s written in the law isn’t assault weapons because they’re already banned. Later on they’ll claim they want to ban semi-automatic pistols. They’ll claim they can because they’ve already banned semi-automatic rifles.
It’s a slippery slope we’ve seen all too often with the left. They never give up, they take and take.