As the Media Insists That It's Illegal To Shoot Missiles at Foreign Terrorist Drug Boats, They Also Claim That It's Okay to Shoot National Guardsmen If You Object to Their Presence

At some point, the left will have the shooting war they crave.

Charles C.W. Cooke:

Responding to the news that a crazed asylee from Afghanistan had shot two National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., the New Yorker's Jane Mayer concluded that the attack was "so tragic" and "so unnecessary," before proceeding to identify the real culprit of the abomination: President Donald J. Trump. "These poor guardsmen," wrote Mayer, "should never have been deployed."

In this ugly asseveration, Mayer was swiftly joined by a bunch of other political commentators, each more desperate than the last to train their fire on the current occupant of the White House. In The Atlantic, Juliette Kayyem wrote that "there are costs to performatively deploying members of the military, one of which is the risk of endangering them." On Twitter, the author John Pavlovitz explicitly proposed that "Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth are culpable for endangering the National Guard by putting them in harm's way." Not to be outdone, MS NOW's Ken Dilanian followed this path to its revolting terminus by suggesting that the guardsmen were "walking around with uniforms in an American city," that "there are some Americans that might object to that," and "so, apparently, this shooting has happened."

As with Charlie Kirk: The victims brought their murders at the hands of leftists upon themselves.

I'm sorry . . . what? In what possible universe could that be an appropriate response? Washington, D.C., is a federal city over which the federal government has plenary control. If, as has been the case this year, the federal government decides that it is necessary to deploy federal agents to enforce the law, it is permitted to do so without the expectation that those agents will be murdered. Certainly, the American social contract has become more complicated over time than it was back in 1787, but at no point has it come to tolerate the proposition that officials who have been sent to keep the peace should expect to be gunned down by assassins if their deployment is disapproved of by the progressive intellectual class. Politically, one can believe that Donald Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard was a good one, a bad one, or a middling one and that postulate will not change one whit. Whether they are there to pick up trash, fight an alien invasion, or solely to smile for foreign tourists, there is no circumstance in which killing them is appropriate.

Meanwhile, ABC "News" under George Sloppadopoulos and the Gay Model says that the Motive May Never Be Known, but right now we can confidently say that he shot those National Guardsmen not because he is a foreign Islamic terrorist and not becuase he was programmed to kill by a traitor media that justifies the murders of its opponents, but because... of Trump's economy.

He was feeling financial stress you guys.

posted by Ace at 04:30 PM

| Access Comments