FBI concludes Orlando shooter not gay

[KeithKSR]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-gay-fbi-20160623-snap-story.html

The FBI strikes down the theory espoused by some liberals who do not wish to acknowledge the real reason behind the attack.

[Doc]

I thought the "real reason" was because he had a gun

[kingcat]

The investigation has not been completed. The term "so far" is used over and over in that article.
Also with regard to knocking down the testimony of the disguised "Miguel", the writer says investigators don't believe his testimony "according to one senior law enforcement official with access to the investigation"
That is not the official word from the FBI who continue to investigate.

Personally, it makes no difference to me what the result is, but this is not much more than an opinion piece
The article continues to say..

It is possible that Mateen might have had communications on cellphones or other electronic equipment that have not been recovered by investigators in the wake of the shooting.

Some of those who have claimed to be in contact with Mateen before the shooting continue to insist that the gunman seen in the photos released after the shooting is the same man who visited the nightclub before the shooting.

Kevin West, 29, a Navy veteran and Pulse regular, said Mateen messaged him on Jack’d and also said he recognized him entering the club on the night of the shooting. After the attack, West turned his phone and app passwords over to police and FBI investigators. He said Mateen didn’t reveal his name, but he recognized him from the photo Mateen had posted on the app, which matched one of the gunman released after the shooting.

On Thursday, he dismissed federal investigators’ doubts.

“No one is lying about him being on there,” West said of the gay apps, adding that “once you have the app and delete your profile, it’s gone.”

I do agree that this is journalistic propaganda.

[CitizenBBN]

If you think this wasn't an act of terrorism you're ignoring how modern terrorism works.

was he also gay or had issues with gays and was conflicted when his father an others we know he followed called for their death yet he may have been gay?? Well yeah, that's certainly possible, but it only proves the point.

Look, no sane person is going to strap a bomb to his back and go blow up a cafe, or grab a gun and go murder innocent people. for decades by definition terror movements of radical Islam and others have recruited people who are desperate, lost, confused or flat nuts to do their bidding.

What ISIS has done, along with other willing "imams" and others even based in the US, is spew this hate and evil in the hopes of finding recruits. It's no different than how white supremacists or other hate groups work, putting out their nonsense and attracting disaffected people who are over the edge.

So they found one. They did NOT direct him specifically, but they no doubt inspired him, along with a huge help from his father who is also nuts and a Taliban supporter.

If he is maybe that's why he fixated on that part of their message, but it was the very conflict created by this radical Islamic movement and the hate it preaches that caused the episode. But that's irrelevant to what we DO about it. B/c this isn't about telling parents to support their kids even if they come out, this is about shutting down the hate and evil and propaganda of the radical ISlamist movement, whether it ensnares a muslim man who is gay or someone who is just a lost soul.

They are getting normal white, Christian westerners to fly to Turkey and join ISIS, as well as getting Muslims to do so and to kill others in the name of this "faith". Stop that, b/c that's the threat.

what the FBI will find is that he may have had issues, but that he in the end was a man whose father supports the Taliban, who followed Imams in the US who call for the death of gays as well as many other people, who was disturbed and eventually became unhinged, and that people like his 2nd wife knew about it and did nothing.

[kingcat]

If you think this wasn't an act of terrorism you're ignoring how modern terrorism works.



Pitch it back in my lap you old debater..I don't mind. ;)

Fact is, I never said that at all did I?.
I honestly don't know...and at this point neither does the FBI. I do know that what is important is for the families of these young people to see justice served and to not be used for political purposes by anyone.
Maybe he was both an Islamic extremist and gay. But for this article (using an unnamed source) to portray that the investigation was over and the man is not gay nor influenced by psychological issues related to it (if they did), is just as self serving and wrong as any other
. At the very least it was presented incorrectly here in this forum.

I maintain that, after reading the article, the FBI HAS NOT concluded that the Orlando shooter was not gay.

And I do believe he was a self inspired terrorist with personal issues. Whatever he is, I don't like it nor take any joy in it re-enforcing some political ideology or talking point

[kingcat]

I do want to add that I have been completely out of the loop for the last few days. There may be other reports that say the FBI investigation has concluded.

I studied this article however and disagree with your summation of the same.

[CitizenBBN]

I studied this article however and disagree with your summation of the same.

In fact I agree w you, I don't think the FBI has concluded he's not gay, and never intended to infer otherwise so I'm sorry if I did. My point is that he can be the gayest man on Earth and it's still an act of terrorism. That fact only explains why he picked this particular target, but it doesn't change the fact that it was a terrorist act that is being specifically engineered by design by our enemies.

I really wasn't directing the "you" in my post at you, just the general you.

I do think it's interesting they haven't found any supporting evidence of his gay lifestyle to date, but it's not conclusive till they are done.

But I still see it as completely beside the point. If this was NOT an act of terrorism then neither was the shooting in San Bernadino, neither was the Boston bombing, etc. They are all exactly the same in their circumstances, only the details of where the anger was directed are different.

NONE Of them were specifically directed by some foreign leader, some spy handler who controlled them with secret communications. That is the face of modern terrorism. It's not supposed to be directed. ISIS is sending out well financed operatives to build terror cells that coordinate attacks, mostly in Europe, but they are also using modern marketing and social media to simply inspire individuals to go commit acts of terror in their name.

It's brilliant really. There's no way to find the operative b/c there isn't one. They are just finding disaffected lost souls on the internet and feeding them hate and a target for their despair.

But if we don't call that "terrorism" we're making a huge mistake in how we combat it. B/c we need to deal with their message, and if we just call this a hate crime of a confused gay man, or a gun issue, we totally miss the trigger that helped push him over the edge, the same one that has done it multiple times to others and will absolutely do it again.

So when we talk about what to "do", we can either start sending the FBI undercover to every gay bar in the country and try to find the people struggling with their status, or we can engage ISIS and its minions and try to shut down this message.

The alternative from the Left would be like trying to battle a neo-nazi movement by hanging out in poor white neighborhoods versus going after the organization doing the recruiting. It's utter nonsense.

ISIS has a specific, sophisticated, financed strategy to attract and inspire exactly this kind of person to do horrible things so they can take credit. We ignore that at our peril, and to their endless delight.

The fact that this one was having issues with gay people (and maybe it was b/c he was gay with a father who is calling for them to be murdered in the name of his god), and that the guy in San Bernadino may have had issues with his co-workers, or that the Boston bomber may have just been upset about family things, is in the end missing the point.

Narrowing down the suspect list by looking at every person struggling with their sexuality or their coworkers is a fruitless path, better to focus on who is consuming the ISIS inspired hate from social media as well as attending these radical mosques and speeches.

[kingcat]

I believe it impossible to fight terror in a free society.
And that the only way to prevent some attacks is by not giving them the publicity they desire.

Even Serial killers are suspected to be just that, yet are often not labeled such until there is no choice. Heck, to release all the info would destroy an investigation. And the gut reaction would be for the public to shoot first and then ask questions. Neighbors would eventually kill or injure each other.
And the more impact the more appealing it is to the killer.

The same applies here.

But as either side politicizes it to support an agenda, whether it be gun control or to further political aspirations and agendas, they in fact reward the entities who would take the credit.

Both sides do this, and it is a direct result of the corporate promoted division in this country to maintain the two party system, a left and a right, etc..
Neither side is right, and both sides complicit.

The only path to victory is for the misdirected attacks to stop...and polarization of the American public does not allow this. We have already lost this war and have only distinct and un American paths left as options to "peace and safety".

This is in fact a civil cold war. Our indignant response can't be aimed at an adjective with no country or land, so we in our naivety, aim it at each other. Mission accomplished.

When you sacrifice freedom for peace and safety, that's what you have. 9/11 accomplished that by the response of those in power at the time. United we could find our way back, but neither side wants this..now, .not even down to the voters themselves.

We're being grossly outsmarted and misled as a people, both sides. And it's not the government doing it.

[CitizenBBN]

I believe it impossible to fight terror in a free society.
And that the only way to prevent some attacks is by not giving them the publicity they desire.


Well then we're doomed. B/c the chance of 49 people being murdered or the Boston marathon being bombed not making the news is pretty slim in a free society as well. :)

Of course we can fight terrorism. Hell, we know who the organizers are abroad and where they are, and we knew when their movement was in its infancy till now. We just did nothing about it.

I know you think we're all just sheep who really agree and we're turned against each other by some bigger force, but sadly I doubt it's the case.

I do think politicians on both sides foment the us versus them attitude for their own gain on a daily basis, and it does exacerbate the situation, and without it we could manage a lot more compromise, but it's also true that there are real and fundamental differences in how people want this nation to continue forward in history. We disagree fundamentally on the goals, the very reasons for our existence and our future.

For example, the fools over at Black Lives Matter have used this to argue that the real cause is capitalism and white supremacy. Seriously, they claim it's not radical Islam, but (like our President) they believe if not for Western imperialism and white domination that the rest of the world would all live in peace and happiness.

It's utter twaddle, which as you argue is used to turn people against each other. There I agree with you, but it's also still true that a lot of people in the US actually believe that nonsense, whereas a lot of us don't, and those differing views are so fundamentally opposed that just having the politicians go away won't solve everything.

I am very curious who is to blame if it's not government, since most of this is driven by politics and the desire to control the government. Is Big Business and Big Labor in on it? Yes, but that's all still politics.

The real answer is Libertarianism. All these groups are vying for power and influence, and will always do so as long as it can be done. The only answer is to NOT have that concentration of power at all, then there's simply nothing to fight over.

And it's ALL about government, b/c that's the power. Wall Street didn't give Hillary millions (or Bush or anyone else) b/c of her great speaking skills, it's bc they are buying access and influence, and they and all the others give generously to both sides in order to stay in power. But that's not a failure of capitalism, that's government not allowing capitalism to work. In capitalism there would be so few laws governing those markets that there would be no gain to spending money in washington b/c they'd do nothing to protect those companies from competition, and that's what they want.

Eliminate the concentration of power and most of this goes away. That was the brilliance of the Founder's design, and it's what we have long forgotten is the key to maintaining that freedom.

[kingcat]

When we were not daily influenced by Murdock and other corporate and political moguls this nation as a whole was patient and slow to pass judgement. Now we rush to attack our own at the very first opportunity because we are told to do so.
And no matter the severity of our accusations, if we are proven wrong there is no remorse and certainly no being held accountable.
So in an election year we now actually seem to run as hard as we can to the trough of biased media slop to get our supply of rhetorical half truths and lies. And are not ashamed to do so.

It wasn't like that when we grew up. This is all fairly new to our once great country and more reminiscent of how Nazi Germany was explained to me back in my school days..

Did President Bush and Dick Cheney orchestrate 9/11?..was Bill Clinton involved in a murder and subsequent cover up? Was John Kerry A traitor to his country or war hero as his subordinates verified. Was McCain actually a POW?
Or was President Obama a citizen of this country? .and on and on.. Questions certainly not directed at you but used to make a general point. The media, and especially those that serve one political party, usually cannot be believed. And until we hold such people accountable in some way, you are correct.
We have willingly lost the war against those who would subvert our freedom and way of life.

I'm fairly sure there are also good people involved with black lives matter and many other such organizations. And I have 100% confidence our president, at heart, is not the black militant, terrorist friendly, evil tyrant many like to portray him to be. Such generalities and often unfounded accusations are acceptable support for political talking points and debate.
And they certainly leave no room for any other perspective to be expressed. Thus the divisions are irreversible...job well done.

And I believe such sweeping and irrational judgement of what people feel and think, as groups and as individuals are the root of the problem.

[CitizenBBN]

I don't think Obama is a militant or supporter of terrorism. That's absurd.

But he most definitely is an American apologist, a person who believes this isn't a nation that is exceptional but rather a nation that is deeply flawed and the root cause of many of the world's ills. He has said so more than once. so has his wife for that matter. And hes' far from alone, most of the extreme left holds that view.

Murdoch isn't engineering anything, he's filling gap in the market. There are still a lot of conservatives in this land who are sick to death of the media bias that pervades the networks, Fox has stepped in to be the voice of the other side. Is it divisive? Only in that the division already exists and he's marketing to it.

Yes id' prefer all the channels be more "fair and balanced", but that seems unlikely, and in fact that's been the case throughout American history. Newspapers have long had their own political bent, long endorsing candidates and being slanted in their reporting. Fox versus NBC/CNN is no different than a century of the Washington Post v the Washington Times or a bunch of other examples.

Nothing there has changed a bit. If anything it's better than it was a century ago, when yellow journalism was at far more of a peak and men like Hurst controlled the message. Murdoch is nothing new at all, and his influence is far less than a man like Hurst b/c there are so many more avenues now for information.

It's arguable the Spanish American war was instigated in large part by the media. The influence of corporate media today isn't any greater now then it was then. Or any more biased.

Heck, the Federalist Acts were instituted when the nation was just born directly to deal with exactly the same thing, trying to suppress the media who was opposed to the Federalist point of view. This aspect of American life has been going on a long time.

[kingcat]

Murdoch isn't engineering anything, he's filling gap in the market. There are still a lot of conservatives in this land who are sick to death of the media bias that pervades the networks, Fox has stepped in to be the voice of the other side. Is it divisive? Only in that the division already exists and he's marketing to it.



Nothing there has changed a bit. If anything it's better than it was a century ago, when yellow journalism was at far more of a peak and men like Hurst controlled the message. Murdoch is nothing new at all, and his influence is far less than a man like Hurst b/c there are so many more avenues now for information.

It's arguable the Spanish American war was instigated in large part by the media. The influence of corporate media today isn't any greater now then it was then. Or any more biased.

Heck, the Federalist Acts were instituted when the nation was just born directly to deal with exactly the same thing, trying to suppress the media who was opposed to the Federalist point of view. This aspect of American life has been going on a long time.

On this we'll have to agree to disagree. I find it obviously an unprecedented phenomenon.

[KeithKSR]

Another article, without the author's interpretation: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/284786-fbi-said-to-find-no-evidence-that-orlando-shooter-was-gay

If Mateen had a profile on one of those gay apps the FBI would have found some evidence of an electronic footprint. Nothing is ever completely deleted. Given the info that he was scouting out Disney World for a possible attack it seems more likely he was seeking a target where he could get the Paris type of impact.

[KeithKSR]

On this we'll have to agree to disagree. I find it obviously an unprecedented phenomenon.

That was before the Dems went so far left and began attacking anyone who disagreed with them by calling them racist, xenophobes, etc.

[CitizenBBN]

On this we'll have to agree to disagree. I find it obviously an unprecedented phenomenon.

I think we're at one of the higher points of dissension, but my point is that has ebbed and flowed many times over American history.

we also agree that all parties involved use everything they can to play politics and rile up their interest groups.

I also think a majority of Americans are all pretty close on their politics, and are otherwise divided by parties and groups. where we may disagree (I really don't know) is I think that majority is a basically Libertarian.

But there is, even with all that agreement, a LOT of disagreement that is not created by smoke and mirrors but by a fundamentally different set of goals.

Obama for example is an adherent of social justice. The problem is that social justice is by definition at odds with those who believe individual liberty is paramount. There is no way to reconcile the two fully. You can reach some compromises, like having a social safety net mixed in with free markets, but in the end the two are charting very different paths and its impossible to truly put social justice first and reach a long term compromise with liberty, just as you cannot put liberty first and meet the full goals of social justice.

[dan_bgblue]

One thing, if not the most important thing, about the mess we find ourselves in is that there are multiple opinions about every contentious point that faces us, and all sides try to out shout the other sides on all of them. This causes the citizens to take sides and when they adopt a side they scotch their feet and forget about what built this country, allowed all sides to have their say, and find room for compromise to arrive at a a common opinion and outcome.

[kingcat]

One thing, if not the most important thing, about the mess we find ourselves in is that there are multiple opinions about every contentious point that faces us, and all sides try to out shout the other sides on all of them. This causes the citizens to take sides and when they adopt a side they scotch their feet and forget about what built this country, allowed all sides to have their say, and find room for compromise to arrive at a a common opinion and outcome.

That's an important observation. And could have saved me a lot of typing.

[Doc]

Its interesting that a Muslim man goes into a gay club where he shoots dozens of people and it takes the government weeks to determine why (gay man shooting gays, or gun violence or anything but terrorism by a radical religious sect that has vowed to kill the infidels)

but

a white kid goes into a black church in SC and shoots a bunch of people and it takes the government about 1 hour to determine its a hate crime against blacks.

When you have that type of discrepancy, is it any wonder why folks react in the manner they do?

[Catonahottinroof]

As if this mattered. He stated on his 911 calls we were bombing his brothers (in Afghanistan).
He picked a soft target that gained him maximum exposure and the government still can't concede the real reason why.

[Darrell KSR]

Its interesting that a Muslim man goes into a gay club where he shoots dozens of people and it takes the government weeks to determine why (gay man shooting gays, or gun violence or anything but terrorism by a radical religious sect that has vowed to kill the infidels)

but

a white kid goes into a black church in SC and shoots a bunch of people and it takes the government about 1 hour to determine its a hate crime against blacks.

When you have that type of discrepancy, is it any wonder why folks react in the manner they do?

That's a great point.

[CitizenBBN]

Its interesting that a Muslim man goes into a gay club where he shoots dozens of people and it takes the government weeks to determine why (gay man shooting gays, or gun violence or anything but terrorism by a radical religious sect that has vowed to kill the infidels)

but

a white kid goes into a black church in SC and shoots a bunch of people and it takes the government about 1 hour to determine its a hate crime against blacks.

When you have that type of discrepancy, is it any wonder why folks react in the manner they do?

Great analogy.

To me to extend it in the SC case it would be like spending weeks discussing WHY he felt like he did, what drove him to it, whether he was abused or what made him turn to being a racist, etc.

Same with Orlando. I don't doubt there's stuff in his past and life that made him disaffected and ripe for radicalization, in fact I'd say it goes without saying that people who are radicalized have deep issues, and maybe him being gay was part of why he chose this particular target over Downtown Disney, but it's all just a nuanced bit of psychology about how terrorism works and recruits. It doesn't change the fact that it was terrorism.

This is all a debate about what DROVE him to become a terrorist, not whether or not he was one.

[kingcat]

the discrepancy could be explained by the type investigation which ensues in each unique situation. Just a guess.

It's possible the government might want to mislead any possible terrorist cell and try to bait them a bit.
I do find it hard to believe it's a democratic conspiracy and the government's investigation into the nightclub is a total farce.

Maybe I'm off base however and the two investigations would be handled the same. I know little about it myself.

[KeithKSR]

the discrepancy could be explained by the type investigation which ensues in each unique situation. Just a guess.

It's possible the government might want to mislead any possible terrorist cell and try to bait them a bit.
I do find it hard to believe it's a democratic conspiracy and the government's investigation into the nightclub is a total farce.

Maybe I'm off base however and the two investigations would be handled the same. I know little about it myself.

In Orlando you have 911 recordings where the perp tells exactly why he is attacking unarmed citizens. It doesn't take much of an investigation to determine he was acting on behalf of radical Islam in this instance.

[KeithKSR]

Its interesting that a Muslim man goes into a gay club where he shoots dozens of people and it takes the government weeks to determine why (gay man shooting gays, or gun violence or anything but terrorism by a radical religious sect that has vowed to kill the infidels)

but

a white kid goes into a black church in SC and shoots a bunch of people and it takes the government about 1 hour to determine its a hate crime against blacks.

When you have that type of discrepancy, is it any wonder why folks react in the manner they do?

It's caused by active avoidance by the Obama administration to pin it on radical Islam.

[kingcat]

Granted, Doc likely knows if the investigation is being manipulated or proceeding inappropriately. My bad.

[Doc]

the discrepancy could be explained by the type investigation which ensues in each unique situation. Just a guess.

It's possible the government might want to mislead any possible terrorist cell and try to bait them a bit.
I do find it hard to believe it's a democratic conspiracy and the government's investigation into the nightclub is a total farce.

Maybe I'm off base however and the two investigations would be handled the same. I know little about it myself.

Not a democratic conspiracy but rather a making the story fit the narative. Whether it Travon Martin or Henry Gates (beer summit), the administration will make it racial because racial inequity is a big part of their agenda. Likewise part of their agenda is not blame radical Islamic fanatics hence they deal with those incidents that involve Muslims in a different manner. I mean when Nidal Hassen shot up Fort Hood while screaming Allah Akbar, has the administration ever blamed any aspect of the Muslim religion? But a white cop in Ferguson, Missouri who shoots Micheal Brown while he is grabbing the officers gun is immediately described as a racial incident without any investigation. To me, that just seems inconsistant

[Doc]

Granted, Doc likely knows if the investigation is being manipulated or proceeding inappropriately. My bad.

I'm not sure if that was a smart ass remark or not, but in actually it is an accurate statement. Certainly nothing bad about having an opinion or expressing that opinion

[kingcat]

I'm not sure if that was a smart ass remark or not, but in actually it is an accurate statement. Certainly nothing bad about having an opinion or expressing that opinion

Not at all Doc. You know me better,

It's just that I understand your position and respect your feelings on the matter because of it.

Much more than any news report.

[suncat05]

Was the killer gay? Well, to quote a current POTUS candidate, 'at this point, what difference, if any, does it really make?'................if the guy was gay, well, okay. And if he wasn't gay, well, that's okay too. Whatever his true sexual preference was, it truly does not matter. Not in the least.
What does make a difference is the fact that he murdered a lot of innocent people for no good reason, and was talking to police dispatchers while he was doing it, claiming he was doing it in the name of his hateful deity and in the name of ISIS. And then we find out that this was a totally premeditated attack, and there was at least one other person who actually knew it was going to happen and yet did nothing to warn anyone of what was coming.
But the bone of contention is whether or not the dude was gay? Right! And this is what happens when you don't and won't call an act of terrorism what it really is, facts notwithstanding, of course.
The FBI & DHS & the POTUS and whoever else is involved are not doing their jobs, which is mandated by the Constitution to protect all American citizens from all enemies foreign & domestic. 1)it was a terrorist attack, and it is not more complicated than that, and 2)our government doesn't care and isn't going to do anything aside from throwing out unrelated talking points to lead us to believe that they're actually doing something when in fact anyone involved in this government entity could care less about protecting America.

[kingcat]

Not a democratic conspiracy but rather a making the story fit the narative. Whether it Travon Martin or Henry Gates (beer summit), the administration will make it racial because racial inequity is a big part of their agenda. Likewise part of their agenda is not blame radical Islamic fanatics hence they deal with those incidents that involve Muslims in a different manner. I mean when Nidal Hassen shot up Fort Hood while screaming Allah Akbar, has the administration ever blamed any aspect of the Muslim religion? But a white cop in Ferguson, Missouri who shoots Micheal Brown while he is grabbing the officers gun is immediately described as a racial incident without any investigation. To me, that just seems inconsistant

I have assumed all along that a part of the strategy for combating Islamic fundamentalists was to tread lightly on the Muslim religion and show as much rhetorical restraint as possible in hopes of fighting terror from within the religion as a whole.
I believe that is a sound strategy, although I may be incorrect in that assessment.

That is a war, whereas race issues are not. It can be no surprise that it is handled differently .

Yet I think what helps makes it suspicious, to those who are on high alert for any such variance (being politically motivated), is that for the first time ever we have a President who is Black. That is a natural occurrence however since he is not a conservative and there is a civil war going on between the two prominent political entities in our nation.

That war is sponsored by cable news media.

[kingcat]

Just so everyone knows, I am not one who believed this was not motivated by the guys religion. I believe it was. The only reason I am here is to point out that the investigation was not over and there is no definitive answer to the guys sexual preference.

And as in the case of Travon Martin the admin has no problem speaking up quickly on perceived hate crimes be it racial or ones sexual orientation. I find a consistency both there, and also in how the war on terror is being handled.

We may not all agree with it but it is consistent. The government does not want to inspire copycats who have no direct involvement with terrorist groups, by legitimizing things like the Orlando bombing as successful attacks from a foreign enemy. If it can be avoided.

[Doc]

Not at all Doc. You know me better,

It's just that I understand your position and respect your feelings on the matter because of it.

Much more than any news report.

No problem. I misread then. My interpretation took me by surprise because it's not what I expected

[Doc]

Just so everyone knows, I am not one who believed this was not motivated by the guys religion. I believe it was. The only reason I am here is to point out that the investigation was not over and there is no definitive answer to the guys sexual preference.

And as in the case of Travon Martin the admin has no problem speaking up quickly on perceived hate crimes be it racial or ones sexual orientation. I find a consistency both there, and also in how the war on terror is being handled.

We may not all agree with it but it is consistent. The government does not want to inspire copycats who have no direct involvement with terrorist groups, by legitimizing things like the Orlando bombing as successful attacks from a foreign enemy. If it can be avoided.

Its anything but consistent. When a white person (or perceived white person in the case of George Zimmerman) has an act of violence upon an African American there is an ABSOLUTE RUSH to pin it one racial grounds. A college professor refuses to comply with the request of law enforcement in Cambridge Mass-its racial because the professor is black. Its not because the police are doing their job. A criminal in Ferguson MO attempts to take an officers gun and in the process gets shot, its because he is black, not because the he is a criminal attempting to get the gun. In the Travon Martin case, kid is shot because he is black. No other reason. All these were the administrations position within hours to days of the event. Yet when a Muslim commits a murder of any magnitude they look for any reason other than religion. An Army Colonel shoots up people in Fort Hood while yelling "Praise to God" in Arabic and its not a radical religious act. 4 Americans get murdered in our consulate in Bengahzi and its not a radical religious act but rather due to a video. So no, there is no consistency.

As for spawning copycats, if that is the purpose, ITS NOT WORKING!!! IMO what is says is the administration believes the American public is a bunch of idiots who will believe whatever they spin. Granted, some will but I hope most are smart enough to realize that despite the administrations claim, there have been terrorists attacks on the USA in the last 7 years.

[suncat05]

And once again, Doc is a rational, intelligent and articulate voice of reason.

[kingcat]

I do see a consistency. Instead of a racial incident, Orlando was because of sexual orientation, to some extent at least, and a similar "rush" to make that claim. For whatever reason.

And the hesitancy to claim terrorist activity, again for whatever reason, has been consistent.

Do I agree with handling terrorist activity in such a way? I don't know the motivation for it although I'm sure it exists. it may be a whacky reason, but it's not because our president is a terrorist sympathizer.

I think most here agree, that would not be a reasonable view

[Doc]

I do see a consistency. Instead of a racial incident, Orlando was because of sexual orientation, to some extent at least, and a similar "rush" to make that claim. For whatever reason.

And the hesitancy to claim terrorist activity, again for whatever reason, has been consistent.

Do I agree with handling terrorist activity in such a way? I don't know the motivation for it although I'm sure it exists. it may be a whacky reason, but it's not because our president is a terrorist sympathizer.

I think most here agree, that would not be a reasonable view

Don't believe most reasonable people believe Obama is a terrorist sympathizer. I personally believe it's not his highest priority. As an example, yesterday following the bombing in Turkey he gives a news conference were he spends 90 secs on that event the goes to "a lighter note" and talks about global warming. Some might say that he talked about the bombing first!.

But I also believe there are two additional factors in play. First is his legacy. He has no desire to have a "terrorist attack" take place on American soil while he is president. Being able to claim that no such events occurred is a big feather in his cap and a measure of his success. Instead we call it "gun violence" or "workplace violence" then pin it on the opposition as obstructing his gun policy. Politically it's a win:win situation. Of course because you don't call it a terrorist attack doesn't mean it wasn't one and most Americans realise this.

Second is the concern for stereotyping all Muslims as evil or terrorist. IMO this gives very little credit to the intelligence of the people of this country. However I do understand the sentiment but there is a huge caveat. He does not seem to share the same concern for stereotyping of whites. He never has an issue or concern when it comes to white on black events and will use them to further his agenda. IMO the actions of the administration have led to the deaths of several police officers because of their willingness to throw police offices and white ones in particular under the bus. Are their bad police officers? Yes. Are there white racial bigots? Yes. And are there radical Muslims? Yes. But this administration is quick to identify 2 of the 3 but has a great aversion to recognize one of them. That is inconsistent

[KeithKSR]

Obama has an innate bias when it comes to Muslims. He attended primary school in Jakarta with Muslims, studied the Koran in Koranic studies classes, attended a Mosque, etc. Prior to going to the school in Jakarta he attended a Catholic school in first through third grades, where his registration information indicates he was of the Muslim Faith.

I think Obama feels that attaching the radical Islam tag to these terrorists somehow denigrates much more peaceful Muslims. On the other hand he says he is a practicing Christian, but had no qualms blaming current Christians for the Crusades; not to mention lambasting Americans over Bibles and guns during the '08 campaign.

[Doc]

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j145/ksrdoc/MCBB%20present/list_zpsqnsng7da.jpg

[suncat05]

He may not be a terrorist sympathizer, but there is no doubt from my perspective that he is squarely in the "Muslim sympathizer" corner 100% of the time. And his actions over the last 7+ years do nothing to make me believe anything else.
And he doesn't see or share our American values because he spent most of his younger formative years living in other countries and being indoctrinated in their belief systems. And while that isn't necessarily a bad thing, his overall world view opposes an American world view more often than not. Throw in that all of his familial contacts were either Communist/socialist in nature, and the fact that his maternal grandfather introduced him to an avowed Communist to be "mentored" in his teenage years, it then becomes very easy to see 'why' he acts the way he does and says the things he says.
He may be an American by birth, but his view of the world is not American in any form. I will be glad when this guy is no longer in office and lecturing Americans about what our values are. This guy doesn't know what "real American values" really are.

[KeithKSR]

What seems lost on the media when touting a large number of these terrorists are Americans is that their parents were immigrants and the families did not assimilate.

[CitizenBBN]

What seems lost on the media when touting a large number of these terrorists are Americans is that their parents were immigrants and the families did not assimilate.

This last one certainly didnt'. Dad is a vocal supporter of the Afghani Taliban and considers himself a leader in absentia in that country. So not only did they not assimilate, he's also crazy.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

This guy doesn't know what "real American values" really are.

What ARE "real American values"?

I was born, raised and schooled in Kentucky, lived the past 20 years in Chicago, and I think Obama has a firm grasp of what "real American values" are, at least what I consider to be so.

My view of American values, are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of ethnicity, religion or viewpoints. All people are created equal and deserve equal rights. We should strive to help those less fortunate and to empathize with those aren't so fortunate.

Obama embodies all of that.

[CitizenBBN]

What ARE "real American values"?

I was born, raised and schooled in Kentucky, lived the past 20 years in Chicago, and I think Obama has a firm grasp of what "real American values" are, at least what I consider to be so.

My view of American values, are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of ethnicity, religion or viewpoints. All people are created equal and deserve equal rights. We should strive to help those less fortunate and to empathize with those aren't so fortunate.

Obama embodies all of that.

Except for the liberty part, or the pursuit of happiness part (which is really pursuit of property but both are about pursuing one's own path in life which he clearly doesn't care for), and the part about including all viewpoints.

Obama is a true believer in social justice, and social justice is mutually exclusive with individual liberty.

he's also an American Apologist, who sees America in largely negative terms both domestically and in our foreign affairs.

"American values" do include liberty, specifically individual liberty. Obama doesn't even want to give you the liberty to manage your own health, much less anything else. The last thing he's for is liberty, b/c liberty leads to differences in economic outcomes and social justice is all about leveling those outcomes. "You didn't build that" is a wonderful glimpse into his view of the VERY American value of entrepreneurism. He sees it as just another exploitation of the workers, b/c anyone who rises to wealth must have done so through exploitation, not through their own ability and hard work.

They also include self reliance, a big part of liberty. he's actually proud of addicting millions of americans to the Government Teet of welfare and food stamps, and has done nothing to actually help anyone BECOME self reliant and successful on their own, building a better life for themselves. All he's done is make people more comfortable in their poverty and addiction.

then there is the part about "helping those less fortunate". Go tell that to the people of Iraq and Syria and Libya who he let go to complete hell through inability to follow another American value: peace through strength.

A core American value is in fact American Exceptionalism, that we are gifted with a unique place in history and a unique responsibility. we don't always live up to it, but it is the goal to which we strive. Obama believes we're no different from anyone else, and in fact worse in many respects, which is why the drive to transform us into just another nation of the rule of men and governments instead of the pursuit of our own liberty and life without interference.

I agree with your basic summary of our values, at least the words. But what those words MEAN can be twisted many ways, the same way social justice adherents twist "liberty" to focus on equality of outcome.

But Obama doesn't truly understand those words, and to the extent he does he disagrees with them. His equal respect for "all viewpoints" was shown to be false when he talked about fools like us "clinging to our guns and religion". Not exactly the words of man who values all viewpoints are they?

I know none of this will persuade you, or anyone else, and that the nation is likely lost. All good things must come to an end, but I plan on going down with the ship proclaiming the truth of our Great Experiment no matter how many have lost perspective on the road we are traveling as a people.

[kingcat]

One statement of opinion and then I'll back out of this thread for good. It's just too daunting of a task to word things in ways that don't offend our conservative readers which dominate this forum.

I believe that without many social programs, like food stamps and social security the country would have crumbled long ago. When wealth turns to power, power seeks more wealth, and the long term result is never freedom unless there is revolution and a redistribution of wealth.

'Trickle down' is still the myth it always was.

[badrose]

One statement of opinion and then I'll back out of this thread for good. It's just too daunting of a task to word things in ways that don't offend our conservative readers which dominate this forum.

I believe that without many social programs, like food stamps and social security the country would have crumbled long ago. When wealth turns to power, power seeks more wealth, and the long term result is never freedom unless there is revolution and a redistribution of wealth.

'Trickle down' is still the myth it always was.

Isn't that Hillary in a nutshell, (except for the redistribution part)? Redistribution ensures a status quo at the lowest level in society.

[suncat05]

CBBN sees this in the same light I do, and I concur with his thoughts, and I agree with his last statement too.
It is my right to make my own choices in my life. It is my right to live as I choose to live. And if God is willing, perhaps I'll get to die in my sleep at home in my bed with my wife beside me. MY CHOICE.
I don't believe in the bullyang you call "social justice". All that is is an excuse for people to not work and strive towards their own independence, to accept whatever the damn government allows them to have, and that in turn locks them into a life of poverty with no choices as to how to get out.
I'm not going to be a slave. Ever. And when they try to make me live like that, I will go off the reservation. And shame on them if they're stupid enough to try and reel me in.

[CitizenBBN]

One statement of opinion and then I'll back out of this thread for good. It's just too daunting of a task to word things in ways that don't offend our conservative readers which dominate this forum.

I believe that without many social programs, like food stamps and social security the country would have crumbled long ago. When wealth turns to power, power seeks more wealth, and the long term result is never freedom unless there is revolution and a redistribution of wealth.

'Trickle down' is still the myth it always was.

Social programs are fine when they are used as originally intended as a helping hand to lift people up. I'm all for them in that capacity.

But they've been turned into nothing more than the mechanism of creating a permanent underclass. When six generations are now seen in public housing we know we've failed, but the stunning outcome is that the left doesn't see if as failure but now argues is some kind of unique culture to be preserved.

Yes we need food stamps, but when the program explodes we should see it as a failure to provide jobs and education and opportunity, as a warning sign people are stuck and suffering.

Obama and his ilk see it as success. Bc the idea they are strangling the economy and preventing prosperity and creating and maintaining generational poverty is beyond their understanding.

They're doomimg millions to a life of dependence and poverty.

[KeithKSR]

One statement of opinion and then I'll back out of this thread for good. It's just too daunting of a task to word things in ways that don't offend our conservative readers which dominate this forum.

I believe that without many social programs, like food stamps and social security the country would have crumbled long ago. When wealth turns to power, power seeks more wealth, and the long term result is never freedom unless there is revolution and a redistribution of wealth.

'Trickle down' is still the myth it always was.

That is communist doctrine, American values definitely do not reflect communist doctrine.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Except for the liberty part, or the pursuit of happiness part (which is really pursuit of property but both are about pursuing one's own path in life which he clearly doesn't care for), and the part about including all viewpoints.

Obama is a true believer in social justice, and social justice is mutually exclusive with individual liberty.

he's also an American Apologist, who sees America in largely negative terms both domestically and in our foreign affairs.

"American values" do include liberty, specifically individual liberty. Obama doesn't even want to give you the liberty to manage your own health, much less anything else. The last thing he's for is liberty, b/c liberty leads to differences in economic outcomes and social justice is all about leveling those outcomes. "You didn't build that" is a wonderful glimpse into his view of the VERY American value of entrepreneurism. He sees it as just another exploitation of the workers, b/c anyone who rises to wealth must have done so through exploitation, not through their own ability and hard work.

They also include self reliance, a big part of liberty. he's actually proud of addicting millions of americans to the Government Teet of welfare and food stamps, and has done nothing to actually help anyone BECOME self reliant and successful on their own, building a better life for themselves. All he's done is make people more comfortable in their poverty and addiction.

then there is the part about "helping those less fortunate". Go tell that to the people of Iraq and Syria and Libya who he let go to complete hell through inability to follow another American value: peace through strength.

A core American value is in fact American Exceptionalism, that we are gifted with a unique place in history and a unique responsibility. we don't always live up to it, but it is the goal to which we strive. Obama believes we're no different from anyone else, and in fact worse in many respects, which is why the drive to transform us into just another nation of the rule of men and governments instead of the pursuit of our own liberty and life without interference.

I agree with your basic summary of our values, at least the words. But what those words MEAN can be twisted many ways, the same way social justice adherents twist "liberty" to focus on equality of outcome.

But Obama doesn't truly understand those words, and to the extent he does he disagrees with them. His equal respect for "all viewpoints" was shown to be false when he talked about fools like us "clinging to our guns and religion". Not exactly the words of man who values all viewpoints are they?

I know none of this will persuade you, or anyone else, and that the nation is likely lost. All good things must come to an end, but I plan on going down with the ship proclaiming the truth of our Great Experiment no matter how many have lost perspective on the road we are traveling as a people.

You're right. I vehemently disagree with everything that you said. That's your opinion, though, and that's fine. I can list bullet after bullet of evidence to show flaws in your theory, but I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or persuade.

I asked a simple question what are American values.

Honestly, whether I agree with one's political leanings or ideologies, I have never thought that someone seeking the office of President hasn't had a true love of America and it's values, that is until Trump.

I think what Obama has done that has really upset so many people, and what has brought Trump to such a popularity, is that he's given a voice to people that have not had one, or at least not one that has been loud enough, and that there's a perception that those voices should be louder than the voices that have dominated the history of our nation, and those people feel anywhere from slighted to hated.

What it says to me, and what the true definition of "Make America Great Again", is that we are only a great nation when those that have historically had the power, the voice are the ones that are in control. Where minority voice and rights are once again silenced.

So, this is basically what I'm seeking. What are these American values? What Makes America Great Again? I keep asking these questions to different groups and it all comes back to the same thing.

[CitizenBBN]

I laid out exactly what defines American Values from the standpoint of the founding of the nation and the reasons' we aren't part of the United Kingdom.

what voice has Obama given to anyone? Seriously, what action has he taken that has given a voice or power or anything to anyone different? The battle over bathroom use and wedding cakes? that's all he's got to show for it?

I laid out exactly why many dislike Obama's direction and vision of this nation, and it has nothing to do with who has power, and everything to do with the subversion of individual liberty and the free market in the name of the equality of outcomes as defined by the social justice school of thought.

If Obama had actually managed to help anyone in the last 8 years I'd see the reason for defending him, but since he hasn't I'm somewhat befuddled. Has he expanded economic opportunities for the poor? Nope, there are now more small businesses closing than opening for the first time in recorded American history. Has he expanded jobs? nope, the welfare roles there to help people who aren't working are more full than ever. Has he made us safer? Not even close.

So what he heck has he done? Obamacare hasn't gotten more care for people than we already had with the already expanding roles of Medicare and Medicaid, he's done nothing more on that front than even Bush II and the GOP did when they expanded it the last time.

What makes America great? Free minds and free markets. That means individual liberty, the end of the politically correct neo-Nazis who want conformance b/c they know best how everyone should live their lives, the reduction of the endless government red tape that is strangling the last of our nation's economy. Let's start with those things, that's more than can be accomplished anyway.

[kingcat]

That is communist doctrine, American values definitely do not reflect communist doctrine.

That's not a communist doctrine at all. I've heard it said before however.
Still, those two words only apply as a simplistic corporate battle cry to avoid dealing with the average joes and the poor in this country.

It's not relative to our nation at all. When our votes don't count, free speech is trampled on, and our religious freedoms are suppressed, then it may apply.

Freedom is only achieved if everyone benefits from it. And my point is not that the government needs to redistribute wealth, it's that it historically does so on it's own one way or the other.

Incorporating social benefits into a democratic system is not only the Christian thing to do, it is also the only way to maintain freedom for everyone without suppressing liberty. This country has adapted over its short life span to care for it's citizens.

If the people need to eat, you bust open the storehouse doors and let them.
Those are real Biblical values. The love of money however, is the root of all evil...and causes voluntary blindness to that fact.

I should have added to my earlier comment (below)..

When wealth turns to power, power seeks more wealth, and the long term result is never freedom unless there is revolution and a redistribution of wealth, or the suppression of civil liberty.
Social programs within a free society are the key to avoiding that inevitable fact.

[badrose]

The Bible is full of verses regarding slothfulness and work.

Ecclesiastes 9:9b-10 “in your toil at which you toil under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.”

Colossians 3:23-24 “Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ.”

Proverbs 12:11 “Whoever works his land will have plenty of bread, but he who follows worthless pursuits lacks sense.”

Second Thessalonians 3:10-12 “For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.”

“Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ” (Colossians 3:23-24).

(Proverbs 12:24) Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in forced labor.

I worked for a company that allowed me to volunteer for a Lunch Buddy program at a local elementary school for unfortunate kids. I ended up with two kids in kindergarten, one of which was his mother's 7th. She was 27. He was a beautiful child, sweet, could run like a deer, and his teeth were rotted to the gums. His mother's income was based on her number of kids. You can guess where her money came from. You know good and well there are thousands and thousands just like her.

I have more to say here but I gotta get ready for work.

[kingcat]

The abuse of social programs and charitable giving is a major problem we all agree. But charity doesn't stop because of it. It is it's own reward.
And there are many programs I disagree with and fail to see the logic in. I'm certain there is an argument for and against such programs, but the wrong people are doing the arguing.

Ask the poor, the hungry, and the people who pay their taxes leaving them with $250 or 300.00 a week to live on.

I know many poor people and grew up poor myself. They work harder by far on average than the wealthy and middle class. And still need help.
Babys floating in the bathwater so to speak.

Education is the key to avoiding poverty and struggle in most cases, although unforeseen thing's happen to people at inopportune times in their lives. Life is not an even road with equal and shared opportunities. That's what we must remember.

I do believe that except for the elderly and disabled, people should be required to attempt escaping their situation.
But on the other hand, monitoring each case individually might be more expensive than the various social programs themselves. I dunno'

One other thought. It seems to me there is a problem in this country with the definition of work which must be eventually addressed. Sweat and physical strain is not of proper value or respected anymore unless you are a millionaire athlete. Non physical jobs are on average better paying.
And then carrots that are being grabbed up by those who often have never worked a real job in their life are paraded in front of the country every day by TV and in print.
The only chance of grabbing their own carrot is by winning the lottery. And ten bucks an hour don't go very far these days.
That's the reality much of the nation faces each day when they wake. So when they hit a rough spot in life, they deserve help from the greatest and most charitable nation to ever grace this planet. They need a safety net and our government via tax dollars should and does supply that.
Hard work and sweat made this country great but is honestly looked down upon anymore.

And when a man leaves a woman with three or four children for whatever reason, if he can't be forced to make it right, we must help that family even more than we are. If not, they will make poor decisions trying to survive and/or improve their situation. And those poor decisions will cost the government even more in the long run.

It's terribly expensive being the most caring and giving nation this earth has ever seen. But the caring heart of America IS our strength. I hope we never lose that. God gave us plenty because of it.

[KeithKSR]

The government "safety net" is a corrupt institution that lines the pockets of the bureaucrats.

[Doc]

The thing I love (sarcasm) is the idea that consevatives or republicans don't support socials programs. Between that and our undeniable desire to destroy the environment, we really are heartless dispickable pig. Heck, why don't we kill some babies too-- oh sorry, that's what democrats do.

What I'm tired of is the effort to recruit people into the government teat at my expense. But rather than help people, their idea is to support them. That's what make me mad. They (government in general) has made it beneficial to be unemployed where it isn't a safety net. When people don't look for jobs or turn them down because.living off uncle Sam is more benefical, then their is a problem. When the unemployed look at any job as a stigma, there is a problem.

[kingcat]

The thing I love (sarcasm) is the idea that consevatives or republicans don't support socials programs. Between that and our undeniable desire to destroy the environment, we really are heartless dispickable pig. Heck, why don't we kill some babies too-- oh sorry, that's what democrats do.

What I'm tired of is the effort to recruit people into the government teat at my expense. But rather than help people, their idea is to support them. That's what make me mad. They (government in general) has made it beneficial to be unemployed where it isn't a safety net. When people don't look for jobs or turn them down because.living off uncle Sam is more benefical, then their is a problem. When the unemployed look at any job as a stigma, there is a problem.

Nothing I disagree with there Doc. And I have no such ideas, yet I am left seemingly defending those programs. Ands I don't understands why??
http://www.math.pitt.edu/~bard/bardware/popeye/popeye_half.gif

Just try stating a fact about the inherent dangers of a free market society that totally ignores the poor being doomed and then be labeled as touting a communist line. ( And I did understand Keith's point wasn't intended to offend)

There are huge problems within and without the system, and many who exploit and abuse such social initiatives. Political affiliations have little to do with it.

It's the state of society as a whole to look out for #1 no matter who or what it hurts