In the real world, people actually take a few minutes to review proposed legislation instead of blindly accepting the opinion of someone else – and broadcasting that third-party description on your TV program. I guess Bill O’Reilly does not live in the real world.
By request since everyone is asking for it!
After the media’s breathless run up to the election of Pope Francis, it seems that they taken upon themselves the task of scrutinizing his past. They are examining everything from his childhood, his education, his role in resisting the Argentinian military dictatorship’s “Dirty War” back in the late seventies through early eighties. One story from the Huffington Post exemplifies this (MSNBC is also showing its concern):
The election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio as the new Pope Francis brought joy to Argentina, but has also cast a spotlight on the religious leader’s dark past, scarred by allegations of collaborating in the case of two Jesuits who were kidnapped by the country’s military dictatorship for five months in 1976. One of them accused Bergoglio — then his superior at the Society of Jesus — of being behind his abduction.
Now, while I am glad to see that the press actually has the capability to dig into a person’s past, where was all this curiosity and zeal was (and is) when Øbama, our “lord and savior” (according to that great pundit, Jamie Foxx, anyway), was being “vetted”? If anything, the press was strangely (or typically, depending on your viewpoint) incurious and silent on president’s background, and remains so to this day.
Why is the background of the Pope, who is powerful in his own right, but really has little effect many of the U.S.’s citizens, subject to such intense scrutiny, but the background of the president, who directly affects every single one of us (including the church, as evidenced by new Øbamacare rules for Catholic institutions), not the subject of comparable levels of microexamination? For that matter, one might ask why was the background of newcomer Sarah Palin the object of such passionate “journalism”? Of course, these questions are rhetorical; the answer is clear.
As Mr. Spock would say, it is “fascinating”.
Don’t forget that prior to the pope’s election, there was much talk about how the new Pope, whoever he might be, will deal with the recent sex scandals that occurred in the church and how the church will deal with its policies on homosexuality. It is beyond amazing to me that they could issue these observations when the pederasty problem in the church appears to originate with the homosexuals that have joined the clergy. Obviously, it isn’t politically “correct” to note this Gordian Knot.
Similarly, the media has been running with stories incorporating the meme of the “Stained glass ceiling”, and pontificating (pun intended) about the church’s “inflexibility” on things like women priests potentially leading to it becoming “inconsequential” in the world.
Consider this: if the church is becoming so “inconsequential”, why would Biden, Pelosi and DeLauro attend the investiture of the new Pope? If the church is so rigid and inflexible, why would they allow this trio of abortion enthusiasts to receive Holy Communion? If the position of the church on the role of women in the clergy is so egregious, when can we expect the stories to commence on the role of women in Islam? Given the parameters the press uses for the Roman Catholic church, shouldn’t Islam likewise be in danger of becoming inconsequential? When will our crack reporters tackle this?
Clearly, the hypocrisy and liberal bias of the press with respect to the Church compared to that of Øbama is palpable. Maybe it is time the press remembers that the Church, any church, is based on faith, is equally protected by the First Amendment, and if you don’t like the tenets of the church you are in, perhaps you should find another that fits your needs, rather than forcing the church to change to suit you.
Why do I keep demanding retractions and corrections from media outlets? I’m giving up, they won’t listen and even if they do correct the error they make the exact same error in the future. Journalists don’t know everything, editors are supposed to know more, but the profession is being dumbed-down day-by-day.
Where are all the protests? Oh yeah, this is an Obama World where the current administration is not bothered by the media or liberal protest outfits as they continue or greatly expand policies of past administrations that were highly ridiculed at the time.
A recent radio ad from Milwaukee Counties Sheriff David Clarke suggests people should not depend on law enforcement to be there right when you might need them. The NBC Today show freaked out a bit concerning the suggestion to arm yourself. Read more
When President Obama was said “we do skeet shooting all the time,” there was skepticism across the board from just about everyone. Why won’t the Executive Branch just suck it up, come out and let the American public know Obama tried it once and did not like it?
Last night, Ben Shapiro – editor-at-large of of the Breitbart.com group – took on CNN’s Piers Morgan on the gun control issue. Morgan really is a bully, refusing to have any sort of meaningful discussion with Shapiro, but that was not unexpected. I have not seen Shapiro in this type of role before, and I think he did a pretty good job.
Piers Morgan has been peddling his mantra of the U.S. being the “wild west” in terms of gun violence, and continues to make the point that the U.S. has a relatively high number of gun related deaths compared to Great Britain (GB). In literal numbers, yes, the U.S., with its Second Amendment, and roughly six fold greater population (316 million in the U.S. vs. about 51 million in England excluding Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland; about 60 million with them included), demonstrates a higher level of gun related deaths, about 210 to 30,364, adjusted for population in 2009. Of course, with a virtually complete gun ban, one wonders how those gun related deaths occurred at all, given that GB is a relatively small island with a fifth of the U.S. population and no open borders. But I digress.
Let’s use the liberal’s own logic to examine this: has disarming the population of GB made their citizens safer? According to a Gallup poll taken in 2006 (the most recent they have on the subject), the overall crime rate is lower in the U.S. than GB (or Canada). Of course, the public perception is that crime is on the increase has risen, despite sharp declines in U.S. violent crime rates. It is my considered opinion that the overly sensational coverage of crime by the media is responsible for this.
Actually, in GB, since 1997, when the Labour Party took control and the Firearms Act of 1997 was enacted, effectively disarming the British public, there has been a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offenses. As a historical note, this bill passed as a result of the “Snowdrop Petition” that was generated as a result of 16 children being shot in Dunblane. Sound familiar? As Rahm Emmanuel put it:
You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
As a result of “doing things they couldn’t do before”, British citizens have no means of defending themselves against gangs of knife wielding thugs, and even if they did, the government is in the practice of prosecuting the victim, not the perpetrator. Criminals see gun free zones, or countries in this case, as welcome mats. Places where people can defend themselves, not so much. To pop the liberal balloon that says more guns equals more crime, if you actually look at the statistics, in GB and Chicago, after similar gun bans, homicides continued to increase (with a bit of a spike in GB after 1997, coincidentally), while in places like Washington DC, Florida and Texas, when right to carry laws became effective, murder rates continued a sharp decline or actually increased the decline. Where is all the “wild west” gun play that liberals like Piers Morgan pontificate about? Where it has always been: in their minds. That and Hollywood.
The figure that really counts in this discussion, and is rarely if ever used by the media, is the rate of violent crime per 100K people. In GB, this important figure is over 2000/100K, while in the U.S., the rate is 466/100K. That’s right, less than one quarter of the British number. Now honestly, given the facts, where would you feel safer walking on a dark street at night, GB or the U.S.? If an assailant is in front of you with a baseball bat, demanding your money, will you feel better that he doesn’t have a gun? Want to bet that a major contributor to our significantly lower rate of violent crime compared to GB is because we still have the right to defend ourselves with a weapon?
Where do we turn to find a historically based, sound defense of the Second Amendment and the right to arm oneself in self defense? Oddly enough, Pravda, which has become a more reliable news source than most of our self proclaimed “important” media. In an article published shortly after the Newtown murders, one Stanislav Mushin commented as follows:
For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or homemade bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or “talking to them”, it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.
The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?
From his lips to a politician’s deaf ear. Deranged or fanatical people will always find a way to vent their violence on innocents; they just are less inclined to do so when the innocents can defend themselves. Let’s not repeat Britain’s mistakes.
Last but not least, maybe the only people we need to fear with guns are the very people that publicly rail against gun ownership. Case in point: on CNN Piers Morgan and his liberal peanut gallery “joked” about shooting talk show host Alex Jones, who cleaned Morgan’s clock on a gun ownership debate on a previous night. Now why would they feel the need to “joke” in the very vernacular that would get a conservative roundly criticized (along with the requisite accusations of being crazy)? To demonstrate that this is the common thought among liberals, just look at the Twitter comments that follow the video in that piece. See any peaceniks, or do you see near sociopathic commentary by drooling, slack jawed, liberal anti gun nuts? Why are the self appointed guardians of the public peace so violent?
Liberal, heal thyself.
The title of this post may sound a bit harsh, but I don’t mean it to be. I’m trying to ensure this post gets noticed and might result in a written response from the former Connecticut governor concerning his opinion on 30-round, and other high-capacity magazines for rifles and pistols. Read more