PCG Reacts to Massacre in Orlando

PCG's first article about the massacre in Orlando was by Callum Wood (Major Terrorist Attack Strikes America, June 13, 2016.)

Islamist rampage at homosexual club in Orlando, Florida, marks the most devastating terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11.

Reports indicate that the gunman was a disturbed, misanthropic person who hated a lot of people.

America suffered its worst mass shooting in the nation’s history and the worst terrorist attack since 9/11 this weekend. In the early hours of June 12, a jihadist killed 49 people and injured at least 53 others at a homosexual nightclub in Orlando, Florida. The gunman, identified as 29-year-old Omar Mateen, entered the club armed with a high-powered AR-15 assault rifle and a handgun. Some sources allege he was also armed with a suicide vest. The ensuing standoff lasted until around 5 a.m., at which time Mateen was killed in a shootout with police.

The gunman is referred to as a "jihadist". The massacre is labeled an "Islamist rampage". It is so recent and yet this author presumes to write with certainty in presenting this massacre in such a way. So far all the evidence seems to indicate this massacre was the work of just one man.

Before beginning his attack, Mateen had called the 911 emergency service to pledge his allegiance to Islamic State leader Abu Bakar al-Baghdadi. It wasn’t long after the attack that the Islamic State used Amaq news agency to claim responsibility for the shooting.

It is now known that this phone call was a bizarre, contradictory pledge to several armed groups, some of whom are vehemently opposed to each other.

Mateen, an American citizen who lived in Port St. Lucie, Florida, held an associates degree in criminal justice and worked as a security guard for a company called G4S. In 2006, he registered as a member of the Florida Democratic Party. But the normal appearance was a facade for his radical Islamic ideology.

PCG leans far to the right. No wonder they would make it an issue that he was registered as a member of the Democratic Party. And how does the author know that he even had a "radical Islamic ideology"? For all we know he was a bitter, angry man who made that phone call in an attempt to make himself look more intimidating.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation labeled Mateen “a person of interest” in 2013 and 2014. The investigation was canceled after the FBI failed to find evidence that would warrant further investigation. Mateen was also known for domestic violence, having allegedly assaulted his former wife on a number of occasions.

And that would indicate that the gunman had personal violent tendencies. Was he really an operative for some terrorist group based overseas or a violent man who tried to wrap himself around the mantle of some group to make himself look more intimidating?

United States President Barack Obama weighed in on the attack. The president offered condolences and prayers for the victims, as well as his gratitude to the responders. He gave an overview of the attack to-date, and although he stopped short of mentioning Islam, Mr. Obama said the shooting was “an act of terror and an act of hate.” The president also used the opportunity to advocate tougher gun-control: “This massacre is … a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be.”

President Obama is seemingly chided for not mentioning Islam. Is it not proper to wait for a fuller picture to be made clear before making a statement?

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms said that Mateen legally purchased two weapons within the last week.

Would it not be a good idea to make it harder for that to happen?

Both presidential candidates released statements. Donald Trump focused on radical Islam, while Hillary Clinton backed President Obama by not mentioning Islam and instead focused on gun control. Clinton stated that the attack “reminds us once more that weapons of war have no place on our streets.”

So she chooses to view it differently from how PCG wants to view that massacre. What a surprise.

The gunman attacked a gay bar. Many of the victims were gay. One would think if the PCG leadership were presenting this as some sort of jihadist Islamist attack they would express sympathy for the victims. Instead the victims who have so recently been taken away from us are presented in this article as strange and weird.

The attacks also came during the Islamic month of Ramadan, occurring just two weeks shy of the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling to legalize same-sex “marriage.” It also occurred during “Pride Month,” on a weekend when a number of U.S. cities were hosting homosexual-pride festivals. ...

The first victims of the Orlando shooting have already been named. Among them are drag queens and promoters of a homosexual cruise company. Many more victims are yet to be identified, as investigators continue the grisly task.

PCG has a long history of vilifying and condemning homosexuals and transgender people. And even after such a frightful massacre as this PCG's leaders seem intent on maintaining their hostile attitude against them.

*******

This article was quickly followed by another by Andrew Müller. (Has the Islamic State Infiltrated U.S. Homeland Security?, June 13, 2016.)

Müller likes to speculate that the federal government has been infiltrated by some nefarious organization. Before he said it was the Communists that had influenced America.

This weekend’s mass shooting was a direct result of government officials turning a blind eye to Islamic extremism.

It is a common trope in Islamophobia to link Muslims (simplistically stereotyped as terrorists) with the left. Even though the US government has done so much in fighting insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq this article chooses to portray the government as "turning a blind eye".

A man affiliated with the Islamic State murdered 49 people at a homosexual nightclub in Orlando, Florida, over the weekend.

He actually made one phone claiming allegiance to several groups, some of whom hate each other.

Federal officials are working hard to downplay Mateen’s connection to the Islamic State, and even harder to downplay his links to a subcontractor of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

What a venomous accusation this is. So much remains to be investigated and this article would have us believe that some sort of cover up is underway by the federal government.

Instead, U.S. President Barack Obama is using this mass shooting as yet another excuse to push his gun control agenda. The problem with this “solution” is that the Obama administration’s proposed gun control policies would only be effective in keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Müller negatively characterizes President Obama's response as merely an "excuse". Why does he refuse to extend any good faith to President Obama? Why does he refuse to posit the possibility that President Obama may be sincere?

Gun control advocates say that killings like this would be more rare if the federal government could expand its power to ban more people from owning guns, or if it could ban the existence of entire classes of guns. Americans concerned about their civil liberties say that the gun-control agenda destroys the Second Amendment’s restraint on federal power, allowing an already massive and oppressive federal government to become even more massive and even more oppressive.

He talks as if having nine million AR-15s in circulation throughout the United States is not much of a problem. Any one could all too easily use any one of these weapons to inflict the kind of harm that recently occurred in Orlando.

He then brings up the Fast and Furious scandal and makes the following outlandish accusation.

It’s starting to look like the government is fine with giving assault weapons to drug cartel operatives and agents of the Islamic State as long as law-abiding citizens are denied them.

What a venomous accusation to claim the federal government is "giving assault weapons to ... agents of the Islamic State". But it is common trope of Islamophobia to demonize the left as well for supposedly being sympathetic to extremist Muslims.

One commenter seems to have been taken in by that statement.

This quote from your article gets the hairs on the back of my neck to stand at attention. Why not our government or its citizens. “It’s starting to look like the government is fine with giving assault weapons to drug cartel operatives and agents of the Islamic State as long as law-abiding citizens are denied them”

PCG constantly scare mongers about many things. Müller in particular seems inclined to make outlandish accusations of this sort. This has the effect of keeping their followers fixated on problems from outside PCG and thus they devote less attention to the problems among themselves.