"Inexplicably and Abhorrently, We Have Decided to Live with Periodic Human Sacrifices."

59 views
Skip to first unread message

herman

unread,
Aug 12, 2019, 8:52:11 PM8/12/19
to Political Euwetopia
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/opinion/sunday/trump-picture-baby-el-paso.html?fallback=0&recId=1PLbRsKeE67j3XR1JkZVteop7BP&locked=0&geoContinent=NA&geoRegion=OH&recAlloc=top_conversion&geoCountry=US&blockId=most-popular&imp_id=244260608&action=click&module=trending&pgtype=Article&region=Footer

One of the most totemic pictures of the Obama era was a White House photo showing the president bowing to let a 5-year-old black boy touch his hair.

As Jackie Calmes reported in The Times, the boy, the son of a departing National Security Council staffer, had shyly told Barack Obama, “I want to know if my hair is just like yours.”

“Touch it, dude!” the president instructed the child.

It was a moment that summed up all the giddy dreams about race and modernity and a gleaming American future that propelled a freshman senator with an exotic name into office.

Now, one of the most totemic pictures of the Trump era has been tweeted by Melania from the El Paso hospital visited by the first couple amid the blood-dimmed tide of back-to-back gun massacres in Texas and Dayton.

The first lady is holding 2-month-old Paul Anchondo, whose parents, Jordan and Andre, died shielding him from a shooter who confessed to the police that he drove from his home in Allen, Tex., to El Paso to kill Mexicans with an AK-47-style rifle. A manifesto he posted on 8chan, an online forum that’s a haven for white nationalists, stated that he wanted to stop the “Hispanic invasion of Texas.”

President Trump, standing next to Melania and the baby in the picture, is grinning and giving a thumbs-up.

The infant’s uncle, Tito Anchondo, told reporters that he brought Paul to the hospital to meet Trump, while other victims refused to do so, because he wanted to tell the president about the pain of the family. His slain brother, he said, was a Trump supporter. He told The Washington Post that he felt consoled by Trump.

But still, there is something sickening about the photo. The picture of Obama with a child was luminous with hope and idealism. The one of Trump with a child was dark with pain and shattered ideals.

Devoid of empathy and humanity, Trump is mugging with an infant who will never know his parents. They were shot by a psychopath whose views echoed Trump’s dangerous and vile rants painting people with darker skin — like the baby’s father — as the enemy, an infestation and invasion aiming to take something away from real Americans. It is the same slimy chum thrown out by other Republicans, only more brutally direct and not limited to campaign season.

Even as we absorbed the grotesque image from the hospital, we had to watch the heart-rending footage of Hispanic children sobbing and stranded in Mississippi because their parents, many working at a chicken processing plant, had been rounded up by ICE.

The Post featured a disturbing headline on Monday about a new study: “Risk of Premature Birth Increased for Latinas After Trump’s Election.” The story said, “Researchers have begun to identify correlations between Trump’s election and worsening cardiovascular health, sleep problems, anxiety and stress, especially among Latinos in the United States.”

The shining city on a hill is an ugly pile of rubble.

Even on this most tragic of weeks for so many families, Trump was obsessing on himself, on his crowd size compared with Beto, and on whether he was getting enough obeisance from Ohio pols.

It defies one’s faith in the good sense and decency of America that we cannot stop the deluge of shooting rampages — even at a time of unprecedented weakness for the N.R.A. and the loathsome Wayne LaPierre, with the gun lobby awash in coup attempts and corruption.

Gun control has the aspect of an intractable problem when it is anything but. Inexplicably and abhorrently, we have decided to live with periodic human sacrifices. That became clear in 2012 in Newtown after the slaughter of the “beautiful babies,” as Joe Biden called the dead first graders. If that didn’t shock the soul enough to act, what could?

We’ve heard Trump talk about talking sense into N.R.A. officials three times now, during the 2016 campaign and after the Parkland shooting and again Friday after his sympathy calls in Dayton and El Paso. The first two times, he caved to the N.R.A. quickly.

Yet temperamentally, Nixon-to-China, Trump is suited to that job. Even though he’s a belligerent, he’s not so enamored of war and guns. “My sons love hunting,” he once tweeted. “I don’t.” He’s no gun nut; he’s a former Democrat from New York who likes to golf.

If he wanted to lead a crusade to get real background checks — or even a ban on assault weapons, which he said in a 2000 book that he favored — he would be formidable.

There is some movement now because the Republicans are scared — not of the shooters but of suburban voters.

For the most part, Republicans are gun owners and Democrats aren’t. But Republican voters are more supportive of common-sense gun control than elected members, who are wallowing with the swamp creatures at the N.R.A.

Mitch McConnell, Dr. No, won’t want to do anything; his spokesman was backing away on Friday. That same day, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, John Barrasso, pumped the brakes on possible inroads, background checks and red-flag laws.

If the president and Republicans come up with anything at all, it will be a remedy just marginal enough to give themselves cover, denying Democrats a powerful campaign issue.

Moscow Mitch and Dreadful Donald will keep talking compromise and hope that things settle down by September, when Congress gets back.

But point-blank: Our Republican leaders are cowards.

We shouldn’t let things die down. Because people keep dying.

herman

unread,
Aug 12, 2019, 10:17:42 PM8/12/19
to Political Euwetopia

President Barack Obama in 2009 bent over so the son of a departing staff member could feel his hair.

President Barack Obama in 2009 bent over so the son of a departing staff member could feel his hair.
CreditPete Souza/The White House

Lobo

unread,
Aug 12, 2019, 11:02:08 PM8/12/19
to Political Euwetopia
<<Even on this most tragic of weeks for so many families, Trump was obsessing on himself, on his crowd size compared with Beto, and on whether he was getting enough obeisance from Ohio pols.>>

Between that and the grinning thumbs-up, even Trump actually managed to surprise me (for a very short moment) with his absolutely complete lack of empathy and sense of propriety, and his total inability to think or talk about anything but himself, and how great he is.

He really is one sick individual...



On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 8:52:11 PM UTC-4, herman wrote:

herman

unread,
Aug 12, 2019, 11:13:04 PM8/12/19
to political...@googlegroups.com
I know what you mean.

That grin was macabre.  But that thumbs-up......it's either "How absolutely STUPENDOUS am I?  Beat this, Obama!" or it's "Wow, killing more Hispanics, another MAGA victory for USA!!"

Even our stalwart trumpsters on the board don't seem to be able to come up with an explanation for the thumbs-up.



On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 11:02:08 PM UTC-4, Lobo wrote:
<<Even on this most tragic of weeks for so many families, Trump was obsessing on himself, on his crowd size compared with Beto, and on whether he was getting enough obeisance from Ohio pols.>>

Between that and the grinning thumbs-up, even Trump actually managed to surprise me (for a very short moment) with his absolutely complete lack of empathy and sense of propriety, and his total inability to think or talk about anything but himself, and how great he is.

He really is one sick individual...


 Melania Trump holding the 2-month-old son of Jordan and Andre Anchondo, who were among 22 people killed in a mass shooting in El Paso. Posing with her and President Trump were members of the Anchondo family.

Navy

unread,
Aug 13, 2019, 6:12:01 AM8/13/19
to Political Euwetopia
IT's just too bad we an't convince the nutjobs that do mass killings to be specific in their killings....

PirateLT

unread,
Aug 13, 2019, 11:06:50 AM8/13/19
to Political Euwetopia
Perhaps cut down on the rhetoric from leaders, and limit guns.  A 21 year old should not be able to buy an assault rifle.

Navy

unread,
Aug 13, 2019, 1:10:57 PM8/13/19
to political...@googlegroups.com
I actually agree with you on both of these points. ( the rhetoric and the 21 year olds maybe not needing to be able to own an assault rifle.


But the left will NEVER waste a  massacre ... The bloodier the better for their political theater.

plainolamerican

unread,
Aug 13, 2019, 1:43:48 PM8/13/19
to Political Euwetopia
A 21 year old should not be able to buy an assault rifle.
---
opinion noted.
everyone has a right to defend themselves. I would say it's our first human right.

PirateLT

unread,
Aug 13, 2019, 2:16:23 PM8/13/19
to Political Euwetopia
You don't need an AK-47 to defend yourself.

Irie

unread,
Aug 13, 2019, 2:30:26 PM8/13/19
to Political Euwetopia
You decide the tool that you want, and I will decide mine.

plainolamerican

unread,
Aug 13, 2019, 2:46:15 PM8/13/19
to Political Euwetopia
You don't need an AK-47 to defend yourself.
---
under certain circumstances it might be the best tool for the job.

PirateLT

unread,
Aug 13, 2019, 2:47:49 PM8/13/19
to Political Euwetopia
What kind of enemies do you have at age 21?  Sell it when their frontal lobe is more developed.  25.  Shit you cannot rent a car until you are 25.

herman

unread,
Aug 13, 2019, 6:58:31 PM8/13/19
to Political Euwetopia
<<< You don't need an AK-47 to defend yourself. >>>

Bingo.

PirateLT

unread,
Aug 13, 2019, 7:01:12 PM8/13/19
to Political Euwetopia
Are you over the age of 25?

plainolamerican

unread,
Aug 14, 2019, 11:24:26 AM8/14/19
to Political Euwetopia
<<< You don't need an AK-47 to defend yourself. >>>

Bingo.
---
that would depend on the weapons your enemy owns.

PirateLT

unread,
Aug 14, 2019, 11:42:25 AM8/14/19
to Political Euwetopia
You must have some serious enemies

plainolamerican

unread,
Aug 14, 2019, 12:08:22 PM8/14/19
to political...@googlegroups.com
wrong again.

I don't have dangerous enemies with automatic weapons so I don't need an AK-47.

PirateLT

unread,
Aug 14, 2019, 12:09:21 PM8/14/19
to Political Euwetopia
Cool. I would say most people under the age of 25 don't need one either.


On Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 10:08:22 AM UTC-6, plainolamerican wrote:
wrong again.

I don't have dangerous enemies so I don't need an AK-47.

plainolamerican

unread,
Aug 14, 2019, 12:11:44 PM8/14/19
to Political Euwetopia
 I would say most people under the age of 25 don't need one either.
---
Considering the number of well armed conservative republicans I disagree.

PirateLT

unread,
Aug 14, 2019, 12:12:40 PM8/14/19
to Political Euwetopia
It is usually them that are shooting people up. Hence my point let us restrict it.

plainolamerican

unread,
Aug 14, 2019, 12:15:46 PM8/14/19
to Political Euwetopia
let us restrict it.
---
do you think that conservative republicans are going to give up their automatic weapons?

PirateLT

unread,
Aug 14, 2019, 12:16:42 PM8/14/19
to Political Euwetopia
I don't think people under 25 should have them. 

Lobo

unread,
Aug 14, 2019, 2:18:32 PM8/14/19
to Political Euwetopia
I know I could use a few SAMs -- especially for those Deep State UFOs disguised as helicopters that keep circling my house -- some grenade launchers, a Schwarzenegger-Special gun or two to deter Jehovah's Witnesses from my front door, and maybe a small tactical nuke for my next door neighbor (again, just for deterrence, mind you).

They're all "arms", after all. And I don't see any wording in the 2nd Amendment that limits the kind of arms I can keep and bear in my one-person "well-regulated militia"...

Irie

unread,
Aug 14, 2019, 2:26:57 PM8/14/19
to Political Euwetopia
How many conservative republicans do you think own "automatic weapons"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pittalum

unread,
Aug 14, 2019, 2:35:26 PM8/14/19
to Political Euwetopia
A better question might be, how many automatic weapon owners are conservative republicans...

plainolamerican

unread,
Aug 14, 2019, 2:36:39 PM8/14/19
to Political Euwetopia
How many conservative republicans do you think own "automatic weapons"?
---
way more than liberal democrats.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required owners of fully automatic guns to register the weapons with the federal government. Since 1986, Congress has forbidden gunmakers from producing fully automatic weapons for the civilian market, leaving machine gun aficionados to collect older models, and then register them. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, there are roughly 638,000 machine guns in circulation in the United States, a number that includes both assault rifles like the M16 and more novel products, like the Uzi submachine gun.

But most laws regulating “assault weapons” use a broader definition that some experts say is overly broad. California, Washington, D.C., New York, and five other states have regulations that typically apply to any magazine-fed, semiautomatic rifle that incorporates other design features, which can include a second grip to stabilize the weapon while firing, a rack for mounting accessories, or a muzzle that suppresses the explosive flash of each discharged round. Many of these accessories are mostly for aesthetics, to evoke a combat or “tactical” vibe.

We’re going to use the broader definition of assault weapons here, because it covers the guns that have become familiar to Americans in the last two decades.

STAY INFORMED

Subscribe to receive The Trace’s newsletters on important gun news and analysis.

One of the most cited estimates of the number of assault-style rifles produced comes from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the gun industry’s largest trade group. The NSSF does not use the term “assault rifle,” but tracks the production of “modern sporting rifles,” which typically refers to semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15. According to a 2015 report by the trade group, roughly one in 10 guns produced each year is a modern sporting rifle. In raw numbers, American gunmakers produced and imported 8.5 million such rifles between 1990 and 2012, and about one and two million annually every year since.

Do the math and it works out to between 15 and 20 million modern sporting rifles now in circulation. (An important note: The NSSF report includes weapons produced for law enforcement.)  

Scholars who have researched American gun ownership treat the industry’s estimates with some skepticism. “The NSSF gave no methodology,” noted Aaron Karp, a lecturer at Old Dominion University who studies the international small arms trade. “None of these numbers are great.”

And it’s important to put the NSSF estimate in context. Americans have purchased almost as many assault rifles as they have Nintendo Switch video game consoles, or copies of the book How To Win Friends And Influence People— successful products that are nonetheless nowhere near household items.

Nonetheless, according to CNN, the AR-15 is now perhaps the most popular single model of rifle in the country. And the overall number of assault-style weapons in the United States is not just an academic matter: the constitutionality of gun bans rests on their historic popularity.

SUPPORT OUR WORK

Help us tell the story of America’s gun violence crisis.

BECOME A MEMBER

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns. Justice Antonin Scalia used his majority opinion to lay out a threshold for the regulation of firearms, arguing that the government cannot prohibit guns “in common use.” Longstanding firearm restrictions like the National Firearms Act are therefore okay, because they do not affect weapons owned by a large number of people.

Last year, an appellate court used the logic Scalia deployed in Heller to rule that modern assault rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47 are also not protected by the Second Amendment, because the weapons are not “in common use.”  The decision upheld Maryland’s assault weapons law. Attorneys for the state noted that such guns comprise only 3 percent of the total civilian arsenal of approximately 310 million firearms, citing a 2012 Congressional Research Service report.  

Unsurprisingly, conservative judges have disagreed. Years before his nomination to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh argued in a 2010 dissent to a case brought before the D.C. Court of Appeals that longstanding bans on machine guns only apply to fully automatic weapons never widely used by civilians.

Assessing these bans based on their brief history, however, obscures a key fact: When legislatures first restricted the guns, few civilians owned them. Americans only started buying assault weapons in large numbers after the federal assault weapon ban expired in 2004. That year, there were only about 100,000 made by American manufacturers. Production skyrocketed after Barack Obama won the 2008 election, when domestic gunmakers manufactured almost 500,000 such weapons, and then again following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. In 2013, the gun industry pumped out nearly two million assault-style rifles.

Bans on assault weapons may not be “longstanding” in the eyes of conservatives like Kavanaugh. But civilian ownership of assault weapons is also a recent phenomenon.

Irie

unread,
Aug 14, 2019, 10:26:54 PM8/14/19
to Political Euwetopia
The best question would be, how many "conservative republicans" who legally own "automatic weapons" have engaged in murder sprees?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages