When Women Shoot Up Planned Parenthood

[Joe Cooper]

Never mind the fact that she had a scraggly beard and carried herself as
a sort of haggard version of the Uni-bomber, the woman who shot up
Planned Parenthood is a very progressive—progressive.

So progressive that she must have felt completely abused when the snobs
at Planned Parenthood Colorado Springs—a place that knows a ton about how
to kill innocent people—refused to perform an abortion on her so she went
nuts.

Of course thats all conjecture, just like President Obama was expressing
when talking about, “the man being armed with an assault weapon” and
later “a weapon of war being wielded by someone who has no business
having them.” (Maybe he parked his tank out back?)

And here I thought Obama was totally pro-transgender.

Yes as it turns out Robert Lewis Dear officially identified as “female”
according to local records, and another thing, he was not a Republican.

Of course none of that kept the Washington Post from immediately issuing
a “news” piece quoting officials in the Planned Parenthood community
inferring that some right wing Christian was behind the odd assault and
the tragic consequences.

However hours after the incident had concluded the Washington Post—in the
fine print—admits that neither the Planned Parenthood staff, nor the law
enforcement personnel of Colorado Springs know what the goal of the gun-
woman was.

The Washington Post however didn’t hesitate in inferring a connection
between the debate of this last year—based almost exclusively on footage
of Planned Parenthood personnel admitting candidly that they carve up
babies’ bodies and get the highest price for the parts most in demand.
Yes in the mind of the Washington Post’s writers this trans-gendered
“woman’s” issues that drove her to attack a campus police officer and two
civilians was indeed connected to the outing of the violent purveyors of
death and it’s “after market” parts’ business.

Of course this gun-woman is awful at accomplishing her objectives,
because as the Washington Post reports, way, way, way, way buried in the
story—all of the Planned Parenthood personnel were safe and accounted
for.

By the way, did the Campus Police Officer have a sidearm? Has a campus
rent-a-cop ever been given a sidearm? Did anyone inside the building have
one?

The answer is pretty clear, “Of course they didn’t.”

If they (or the policeman, or anyone else) had actually been armed, the
likelihood that she would’ve killed three people goes down dramatically.

Calls were not returned from the Campus office at the time of this
writing, so it’s a hunch that the officer wasn’t armed. Sort of like the
hunch that President Obama put out as fact that the gun-woman was loaded
for bear to the gill with “weapons of war.” (What did he have anyway?
Rocket launchers, tanks, and anti-aircraft missiles?) And that means the
“obvious” solution is to take away law-abiding gun holders’ guns. This
must be done especially if they are owned by those ever “unstable” long-
married suburban men—especially if they do something “really” subversive
like attend church regularly.

Figuring the she-gunner was beginning some sort of white-christian-terror
attack (because those are a thing and evidently happen) the Washington
Post picked up a phone and called New York City to see how they were
responding. To which the city fed the trolls when they told them, "the
police department had deployed response vehicles to Planned Parenthood
locations throughout the city out of 'an abundance of caution.’”

(#facepalm—only in a DeBlasio era…)

So how do we make sense out of the tragedy?

The President’s choice—which just out of habit and statistic almost
always seem 100% wrong by now—was to make a statement and call for the
removal of guns from the law abiding population. In other words he
pretended to be angry, said some very stern things, and headed to tee
time. (It’s worked really well in his fight against ISIS… right?)

But here are just a few ideas that might have actually prevented this:

1. Planned Parenthood not disallowing the gun-woman’s abortion. (Oops —
conjecture again, sorry.)

2. Perhaps a serious look at the emotional distress “transgendering”
causes individuals.

3. Perhaps greater attention to mental illness.

4. Perhaps greater initial accountability in the society by clearing more
open carry and conceal carry municipalities and states.

5. Perhaps listening to the Police Chief of Washington DC when she told
60 Minutes last week that they best way to prevent injury and death in an
active shooter scenario is to take out the shooter.

6. Perhaps arming campus cops.

7. Perhaps more aggressive police training that does not wait for nearly
five hours before the police get a response from the shooter. (He
evidently came right out after they yelled at him through the wall.)

But why take any immediate, common sense, steps to prevent such an attack
where an unarmed population is caught as a sitting duck by a bad, bad,
bad, transgender woman (who most likely got her hands on guns whether she
was truly mentally stable enough to have them or not?)

By all means Mr. President run right out, fume indignancy, bark some
talking points about assault weapons, and condemn “right wing” and
Christian gun owners—when none of those points are valid as it relates to
the scenario.

When you have the Washington Post inventing narrative, underlying
motivations, feigned responses, and misdirecting their readers—my guess
is you can get away with quite a lot.

Source: http://bit.ly/1HxMIEd

--
Obama Nine Hours Before Paris Terror Attack: "We've Contained ISIS"

"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who aren’t and to impose their will on those who
didn’t ask for it." (Derek Hunter)

"Liberals never argue with one another over substance; their only dispute
is how to prevent the public from figuring out what they really
believe." (Ann Coulter)