My take on Obama's executive orders on gun rights.

A picture of my CZ-75 PO-7. 

I have a few reactions to Obama's executive orders on gun rights. As a supporter of gun rights I am not happy about it, and if you are looking for someone who isn't biased, look elsewhere. Instead of my normal format I am going directly to the source. Instead of the media I am going to base my comments on the White House press release, which can be found here. I'll break it down, point by point. 

I did not watch Obama's speech. I had attempted to but I had to turn it off because I was so disgusted. For one I don't think Barack Obama cares one bit about the deaths caused by mass shootings. His tears were not genuine, and even if by some small chance they were, it still shows incredible weakness from the man that is supposed to be the leader of the free world. I will be so happy when he is out of office. 

Anyways, here are my reactions to what Obama has proposed:

1. Expansion of background checks through the following:

a. Making sure that anyone who sells guns as a "business" has to use background checks and get a licence. -This basically ends private sales for firearms. No way this survives. Way too vague, and could be interpreted as anyone who sells any firearms whatsoever. 

b. Requiring background checks for legal trusts, corporation or other legal entity. -As far as I am aware nobody has ever used this loophole to get a firearm they used in a crime. Completely stupid.

c. Expansion of background check system including 24/7 checks and more FBI agents for processing purposes. -Actually not a terrible idea. Hopefully this will mean that people will be able to sell firearms 24/7, which could be useful in states where there isn't a waiting period for buying guns. Probably not what Obama intended though. 

2. Larger focus on gun violence:

a. Federal prosecutors are encouraged to enforce gun laws. -I can't analyze this one without knowing what the Attorney General told these federal prosecutors. It sounds like they want to go after illegal gun sellers and people who bypass the background check system. Again, I need more information.    

b. 200 more ATF agents. -ATF is an organization based on regulating things that are legal (with the exception of explosives). They should be broken up, not expanded. 

c. $4 million for tracking illegal online firearm sales. -I haven't been convinced that online sales are a problem. 

d. New ATF rule saying that gun sellers have to report stolen or lost weapons. -Not too horrible but it is very open for abuse. 

e. More outreach for domestic abuse. -Has very little to do with gun violence in any case.

3. Mental health care:

a. $500 million for mental health care. -On the face of it, not a bad thing. But putting it as a part of a gun control executive order means that people that need and/or want help won't get it because they are afraid of losing their guns. I know that I would never go to a doctor for mental issues, even if I was suicidal, because I don't want to lose my guns. That was true before this executive order, but it is even more true now. 

b. People ruled incompetent to handle their social security benefits will no longer be allowed to buy firearms and that data will be put into the background check system. -This will basically ban thousands of veterans from owning firearms. The vast majority of those vets, even those who are mentally ill, are no threat to anyone. The stigma for soldiers getting help for PTSD or depression will be even stronger then it is already. Horrible policy and this needs to be repealed immediately. 

c. Force states to report all information about mental health. -Honestly, I am not sure what this even means, but it sounds like a violation of patient privacy to me. And again, why on earth would anyone want to go to a doctor for mental health issues if it will forever ban you from owning guns?

4. Smart gun technology:

a. Increase research into smart guns and promote their use. -By far the dumbest thing in this executive order. Smart guns are anything but smart. They are incredibly stupid and, quite frankly, dangerous. The whole point of a gun is to have a reliable way to defend yourself. Smart guns are the very opposite of reliable. Even if the technology worked, and right now it doesn't, you are installing a failure point into a weapon that is designed to be used when your life is threatened. Imagine a murder breaking into your house. You only have 10 seconds to get a gun out before he kills you. Having the gun ready and good to go is a much better option then having to put on a bracelet that unlocks your gun which might not even work. And since the guns operate on radio frequencies, it would be trivial for people to jam them, rendering them less then useless. Plus they would be easily modified to remove the smart gun technology, and even if they were stolen, people would just steal the bracelet as well. Criminals would still have guns, while law abiding civilians would be rendered helpless. To recap, smart guns are stupid, and no serious gun owner would want one. For me, I would rather use any ranged weapon over a smart gun. A smart gun might be slightly better then being unarmed, but that is all I am willing to say about it. 

I don't see any of these executive orders lasting for any extended period of time. All of these orders will be challenged in court. The NRA is already getting ready to sue and so will private citizens. It's all academic anyways because the next Republican president, whoever he or she may be, will likely repeal these executive orders as soon as they get voted in... unless their name is Chris Christie. And this set of executive orders practically writes an attack add for the Republican Party. My guess is that Obama just handed the election to the Republicans for 2016. If any good will come from this joke of a president it is that he's ensuring the next one will undo the damage he has caused. 

Shocking New Years Eve attack on women in Cologne, Germany. AFP.

A fireworks display in Cologne, where the attacks occurred. AFP.

Germany is reeling after a mass sexual attack targeting women during a New Years Eve celebration in Cologne. AFP. The German government is condemning the dozens of sexual attacks, allegedly committed by Arab and North African men. Germany's Justice Minster claimed that the attack seemed "coordinated". It is unclear if the Arab and North African men are part of the massive wave of immigrants that have come to Germany in the past year, or if they are older arrivals or even 2nd generation German citizens. Reports say that groups of 20 to 30 men surrounded women and stole from them as well as groping them.

Witnesses and victims describe the violence in this NBC News report. One victim claimed to have been groped at least 100 times while walking 600 feet. Another said that men had circled her and her friend and groped them as well. Overall, at least 90 complaints have been filed for theft and groping. At least one rape was reported as well, with more expected to be reported. 

My Comment:

I am surprised that this story is getting as much coverage as it is. After all, the media does not like to show the dark underside to immigration and the migrant crisis in Europe. Some websites are censoring it though. I have read that Reddit, that supposed bastion of free speech, is banning posts about the attack in their main news subreddits. Still, the mainstream media is at least covering it. That's an improvement I guess, but I am thinking it has more to do with how bad this attack was rather then anything else. Much like the case in Rotherham in the UK, the situation became so bad that it could no longer be ignored. 

I do have to say that the AFP report went out of their way to make it seem like that this has nothing to do with immigration. While it is unclear if the men that carried out these attacks are recent immigrants from the massive wave last year, it is clear that they are Arabs or North Africans. What wave they came from of what generation they are seems irrelevant to me. They are people that weren't from Germany originally and are now acting, quite frankly, monstrous. Though you will never get the German government or the mainstream media to admit it, this attack would almost certainly never happened if Europe hadn't liberalized their immigration policy to the point of irrelevancy. 

Much like the Rotherham case, I think political correctness is a factor here. People are afraid to say that there are regions of the world where sexual assault is not treated the same as it is in America and Europe. Though it is obviously unfair to tar all Muslims as sexual predators, it is true that many of the countries with Muslim majorities have issues with the way they treat women. Women are second class citizens in many Muslim countries, especially the ones that are more devout in their beliefs about Islam. Sexual assault is common in many of these Muslim countries, and the general treatment of women is horrible. It is extremely likely that the perpetrators of this attack were Muslims.

That isn't to say that only Muslim majority countries have a problem with sexual assault compared to Europe and the United States. That's obviously not true. Off the top of my head, India, South Africa and Japan all have their issues as well. But for whatever reason, I think the expatriates from those countries seem to not cause a rise in sexual assaults after they immigrate compared to Muslims. My guess is that they integrate much better then the Muslims do in the European Union. I'm not sure why that is. Some would say it is because of bigotry or racism on the parts of Europeans, some would say it's the fault of Islam, others would say that it is because of poverty. I think the lack of effort by European government for integrating Muslims culturally could be part of it as well. The political left has always been uncomfortable with imposing cultural standards on people from other countries. Perhaps if they showed a little more backbone, this wouldn't have happened? 

I don't know for sure myself, but I do think that the threat of these kinds of attacks is a strong argument against bringing in more refugees to the European Union, separate from the concerns about Islamic terrorism. If the reports are right and these are German citizens that have been in the country for a long time and had a chance to adjust to their new culture, then how are the new arrivals going to act? Sure, not all Muslims are like this but enough of them are that they are causing some very real problems in Europe. And if integration isn't a possibility, and as of right now, it seems like it isn't, why should we let more of them in?

As for the implications of this attack, I think that it is going to make many in Europe angry. Very angry. Terrorism is one thing but I think people tend to have a visceral disgust with sexual assault and rape. As much as feminists like to deny it, most people, men included, are horrified at rape, and the importation of an actual rape culture is going to piss everyone off. People will tolerate a lot of things but they won't tolerate seeing their wives, girlfriends, mothers, sisters and daughters being attacked sexually. I know if someone I knew had been a victim of this attack I would be beside myself with anger. If these kinds of attacks become common, and I have a strong suspicion that they are already more common then what is currently reported in the media, then there will be a backlash, against Muslims and against immigrants. Even the majority who are actually innocent of any wrong doing. And this incident is getting way more coverage then previous incidents involving sexual violence. Only the Rotherham case really compares. People will talk about this case and what they have to say may not bode well for the future of Muslims in Europe. 

There will also be a backlash against the liberal governments that allowed this situation to happen in the first place. Right now people in Europe seem to be afraid of voicing their opinions about the migrant crisis, so it has been largely impossible for right wing parties to gain much ground. If these kinds of sexual attacks continue, or terrorism becomes more common, expect the Overton Window to shift. Given the existence of PEGIDA and the recent success of far right parties in Europe, I think the change is already happening...

I consider the backlash inevitable. What I don't know is how bad it will be and what the implications could be. The worst case scenario is open warfare between Muslims and EU natives, with many on the political left taking the side of the Muslims. That's almost unthinkable, but I also think it is unlikely. But I also think that the status quo can't continue either. I think some kind conflict is brewing. It's possible that the political right in Europe could become more radicalized and more attacks like the one that Anders Breivik carried out in Norway. Once that happens the entire continent becomes locked into a cycle of revenge... And I don't see that ending ever, unless one side or another gets strong enough to wipe everyone else out. That's obviously a grim prediction, but at this point I really don't see how this situation gets better before it gets worse. Way worse... 

ISIS releases an execution video staring a new British terrorist. Reuters.

An ISIS fighter points a pistol at the camera in a screen cap from the video. Reuters.

ISIS has released a new execution video starting a man with a British accent. Reuters. The video shows the deaths of five men accused of being spies for the United Kingdom. It also stars a young boy, no older then five years old. In the video the man, with a clear British accent, threatened UK Prime Minster David Cameron and claimed that ISIS would eventually take over the island nation. The video is similar to previous execution videos that stared another British citizen, Mohammad Emwazi, also known as "Jihadi John". Emwazi was killed by the United States in a drone strike last November. 

My Comment:

I watched the video last night and I have to say it was disturbing. It's nothing ISIS hasn't done before, and they have pulled off much worse videos but it's still a hell of a thing to watch someone die on camera. I don't make a habit of watching these videos, after all, they are horrible, but once in awhile I will, if it is especially newsworthy. I don't think I would watch them if I wasn't writing this blog. On the other hand, I have always felt that it is important to bare witness to evil, even if it is incredibly unpleasant. I do think that everyone should watch at least a few of these videos. It's impossible to have an informed opinion on ISIS unless you see, with your own eyes, what they have done and what they are doing.

 A little more background on the man in the video, based on my impressions. He definitely has a British accent, but to my untrained amateur ears, it sounded like he was speaking English as a second language. When he spoke his native language he was a bit better at speaking but it almost like his English isn't quite up to snuff. He also seemed a lot less confident and skillful as a speaker compared to Jihadi John. My guess is that he was either nervous or he did not have a great command on the English language. It also seemed like he was reading from the equivalent of a teleprompter and did not have his lines memorized. I don't think he was because his eyes did not move, but it's clear that he just isn't that good of a public speaker.

Most of the video was in Arabic (I believe, though I could be wrong) but the parts of the video in English seemed to be a rather pointed criticism of the UK government. The man called out David Cameron by name and also claimed that he was just as sad as previous UK leaders. He also said that it was pathetic that the UK was threatening ISIS with only a few planes. To be honest, I think ISIS may have a point here. It's pretty obvious that the UK isn't all that serious about attacking ISIS and what they are doing now is largely pointless. A few small airstrikes isn't going to hurt ISIS in any meaningful way.

The man also called out Barack Obama, though not directly, and said that the UK is basically the United State's lapdog and that Obama's war against ISIS has failed. Again, he might have a point. The UK joined the war in part to satisfy the United States and it's clear our campaign against ISIS has not won the war. Indeed, the fact that this video was made means that our air war has done little to end the threat. And the man also had a point about how not much has been done to rescue hostages held by ISIS. Though I do think the UK and US governments do care about hostages, there isn't a lot they can do to rescue people held by ISIS. 

One of the more disturbing aspects of the video is the fact that ISIS claims to love death. Indeed, the execution claimed that ISIS loves death as much as the people of UK love life. That's nothing new because many Jihadist groups claim to love death. Even Osama Bin Laden said something similar. It's clear to me that ISIS is, for lack of a better term, a death cult. Their entire society seems to be about death. They are, after all, trying to bring about the end of the world. They have almost nothing in the way of respect for human rights. The fact that they put out what are essentially snuff films for propaganda purposes is more then enough evidence for that. I say, if they love death so much, we should arrange it for them, as fast as possible. The world may not end, but their world should and the sooner it does the better.

About the only merciful thing about this video is that small child that was involved in it did not kill anyone himself. So far that is. The end of the video, where the child is seen calling for the death of "kuffars", unbelievers, seems to be a preview for a new video, so anything is possible at this point. ISIS has a very disturbing history of using children as executioners. Some of the boys are as young as nine or ten years old... I would not put it past them to force that small child to execute someone. I can't imagine how damaging it would be for a child to be forced to kill at such a young age... 

The good news is that Jihadi John proves that the people that make these videos tend to die rather quickly. He was brought to justice via drone strike and the world is a better place without him in it. I am betting that British authorities are going to find out who this new executioner is and once they have his identity his days will be numbered. Finding him will be hard though. In the video he doesn't say his name and he wears a mask, leaving just his eyes and his voice to identify him. Perhaps there is some voice print technology that can identify this man but until then he might be safe. As safe as it gets in the Islamic State that is. There is always a possibility he could just die in an airstrike that wasn't specifically targeting him.

I am guessing that this isn't the last we will see of this man though. ISIS tends to use the same people for these videos and I am thinking they want to promote this man as the next Jihadi John. Emwazi was a pseudo-celebrity for ISIS and his videos were a propaganda coup for them. When he died, it hurt their propaganda operations. This new executioner is, in my opinion, not nearly as skilled as Emwazi was, in terms of public speaking and a poor replacement. When this new man dies, the next man up will likely be even less skilled. ISIS seems to be running out of people to use in their propaganda videos. That can only be good news. 

Saudi Arabia and Iran cut off diplomatic ties over an execution. New York Times.

The Saudi embassy in Tehran burns after protesters set it on fire. New York Times.

Saudi Arabia and Iran have cut off diplomatic ties over Saudi Arabia's execution of a popular Shiite cleric. New York Times. Saudi Arabia executed Sheik Nimir al-Nimir, an outspoken critic of the Saudi Royal family and a figurehead in the countries Shiite minority. In response protesters in Tehran burned the Saudi embassy. Iran did arrest several of the protesters but that was not enough to save diplomatic relations. Defense officials fear that the collapse in diplomatic relations may lead to further escalations in the proxy wars between the two countries. Both countries have sent massive amounts of support and money to both Syria and Yemen. Foreign governments, including the United States, either publicly or privately condemned the execution of al-Nimir. 

My Comment:

Fairly disturbing developments out of the Middle East. Iran and Saudi Arabia were never close and have been enemies for as long as I remember. But at least in the past they were still talking to each other. That is no longer the case and no good is likely to come from this development. With no lines of communication, it is much more likely that any kind of skirmish or incident between the two countries could lead to war. It's not all that likely still, but the chances are slightly better then they used to be. I don't think either side would start a war on purpose, but I think there is a chance the situation could spiral out of control. 

The much more likely proposition is that both Iran and Saudi Arabia increase their spending in the various proxy conflicts going on in the Middle East. I am not too worried about Yemen since there is very little for Iran to do there. Saudi Arabia controls both the airspace and ocean around Yemen so there is little chance of Iran sending troops or even supplies to the Houthi rebels fighting against Saudi Arabia and their Yemeni allies. The war will continue though, but at the same intensity it is at now. Iran can't do anything to stop it, or even much to help the Houthis. 

Syria is much more of an issue. Both sides in that conflict are sending weapons and money to the various militias in the conflict. Iran is supporting Hezbollah and has gone so far as to deploy troops to fight for the Syrian regime. On the Saudi side, they are supplying the so called "secular" rebels and various Jihadi groups. Each side could increase their support for their proxy armies. Iran could deploy more troops and the Saudis could even send in airstrikes. Either action would cause the already bloody war to become much worse then it is now.

There is a lot more at stake then just Syria and Yemen though. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran are battling for the soul of Islam itself. Both sides think that their brand of the religion is the correct one and both sides are doing their best to inflame tensions between Sunni and Shiite Islam. It's the reason I suspect that even if the Syrian and Yemen conflicts ended today, and even if ISIS was utterly destroyed, there would still be conflict in the Middle East. There is just too much bad blood between Shiite and Sunni for conflict to disappear and both Iran and Saudi Arabia are determined to make it worse. I don't even think it matters which side "wins" at this point... 

Which makes me think that this was a deliberate attempt by the Saudi's to increase tensions. Sure, I get the argument that they were just dealing with a dissident. But there were other ways of dealing with him instead of just murdering him. They knew what kind of impact that the execution would have and knew that Iran and Shiite Muslims in general would be furious about it. They wanted it to happen.

Why? Well, for one they hate Shiite Muslims. That much is obvious. But in addition to that, Saudi Arabia is losing millions of dollars due to low oil prices. Most of that is the fault of the Saudis, who want to destroy the US oil industry. At least that was the plan. The problem is that the wars in Yemen and Syria are breaking the budget. It's possible they bit off more then they could chew in those war and now they need to increase oil prices to stay in the black. I can't prove that theory, but I think it might be true. 

Finally, I can't understand why we are still allied with Saudi Arabia. They obviously don't value human life that America has. Here, if you criticize the government or the President, you don't get punished at all, unless you threaten violence. In Saudi Arabia they execute you. They treat women and minorities terribly, and are partially responsible for all the chaos in the Middle East right now. They were involved in the creation of al-Qaeda and even ISIS, and still support radical militias in Syria. They are waging economic warfare on our oil industry, doing everything in their power to knock them  out of business. In short, the Saudi Arabians are not our friends and we should seriously reconsider our relationship with them... 

ISIS terrorist attack possibly disrupted in Munich, Germany, and Rochester, New York. Reuters.

A German police officer at a train station in Munich. Reuters. 

A credible threat of a terrorist attack in Munich, Germany, appears to have been either disrupted or not real in the first place. Reuters. Germany revived the tip shortly before midnight on New Year's Eve. The target was two train stations in Munich, which German authorities evacuated. No terrorist attack actually occurred. German officials are not completely sure if the threat was genuine. The plot was said to involve as many as 7 suicide bombers, and the information came from French intelligence services. Europe has had several terror threats and scares since the Paris attacks that killed 130 people. In Belgium, the New Year's Eve fireworks were canceled due to terror threats and in another tip, Vienna warned of many possible terror attacks throughout Europe. 

In the United States, a man was arrested for plotting an attack in Rochester, New York. The man arrested in that plot was in communication with ISIS. The man had plotted to attack a New Year's Eve celebration at a restaurant and bar. He had bought knives and ammonia  and had plans to make a pressure cooker bomb. He also wanted to take hostages. After the arrest, Rochester canceled it's plan for fireworks. 

My Comment:

It sounds like we were extremely lucky to avoid a terrorist attack last night. Fortunately, none of these plots came to fruition. Though it is far from clear how serious the situation in Germany, or the rest of Europe for that matter, it is clear that the attempted attack in Rochester, New York could have been very bad. Though it was clear that the attack was by an amateur, had he pulled of off, people could have died. It doesn't sound like he was able to actually make a pressure cooker bomb but he was able to purchase some knives. He could have cut some people. 

It's clear that the potential attack in Munich was the more serious threat, even though the certainty about it seems a lot less likely. If ISIS had 5 to 7 suicide bombers they could utterly destroyed those train stations, which could have killed dozens of people. Maybe even hundreds. The fact that Germany was able to react to it so quickly might have reduced casualties, but even then, some people would have died if the terrorists had attacked.

Which brings up the question. Why didn't they? Obviously Germany took the threat seriously, but absolutely nothing happened. I think there are a couple of possibilities. The first is that the threat wasn't valid in the first place. It is possible that whoever heard of the attack was hearing about possible plans, not set in stone plans. I could have been that the train station on New Years Eve was just one of many possible targets, but they couldn't take the chance that it was just an option. It's even possible that the threat was just big talk from wannabe terrorists that actually didn't have anywhere near the equipment, money or weapons to pull off such an attack. 

Another possibility was the attack was a deliberate misinformation campaign from ISIS. I wouldn't put it past them to send out false information to European intelligence officials through a double agent. The benefits of doing so are obvious. For one thing, Germany had to waste time and resources reacting to the threat. They also will inspire terror and fear in the German population at no cost to themselves. ISIS could also use the threat as a distraction so they can attack elsewhere. 

Finally, it's possible the threat was very real and for whatever reason, the terrorists pulled out at the last second. It is very possible that once they figured out that Germany was responding to the attack and pulling people out of the target area, they may have decided to call off the attack. Why hit them when they know you are coming? You won't kill as many people and there's a good chance that the German authorities could kill you before you pull the attack off. Perhaps they decided to wait for another day? 

I think all three possibilities are at least plausible, though I am hoping that it is the first option and not either of the other options. The second option means that ISIS has an effective counter intelligence system up and running and they are effectively feeding intelligence services false information. The third, and most threatening, is that the attack was called off and may still occur with a different target or tactic being used. I think that the first option is most likely, but any of them are possible... 

No matter what though, both the incident in New York and the possible attack in Germany shows how ISIS is so much different then al-Qaeda is when it comes to tactics. Al-Qaeda always tried to pull of major terrorist attacks on tourist attacks and in major cities. Munich probably qualifies on both counts but Rochester, New York does not. And in both cases, the targets were not major tourist attractions, but normal places. Train stations and bars are not what you think of when you think of potential terrorist targets. Al-Qaeda would have tried to hit an airplane or try to attack a major celebration, and would have most likely failed. With these softer targets, ISIS has a better chance of pulling something off. 

And it is smart for ISIS to hit places like that. In the past, if civilians want to avoid being a victim of a terrorist attack, they could just avoid flying or staying away from huge events like the ball drop in New York. But if ISIS just hits some random bar in upstate New York, then it means they can hit anywhere at anytime. That's very disturbing and is probably even more effective in spreading terror then hitting something like the New Year's Eve celebration in New York City. 

No matter what though, I am glad that none of these attacks came to happen. A major terrorist attack in Munich and a more minor one in New York would have not been a good way to start the year. At least last year we had a week before the first major terror attack, the Charlie Hebdo shootings in France. Speaking of which, it's just sad how that both the San Bernardio and 2nd Paris attacks overshadowed the Charlie Hebdo attacks...  Hopefully, we will last longer this year then we did last year without a terrorist attack...