All The News That Fits...Our Agenda

Are you old enough to remember when the news and reporting was impartial? Okay, me neither. But are you old enough to remember when at least you thought the press was impartial? I point you to a story from the venerable AP:
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — About 800 “criminals” avoided immigration arrests because Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf alerted the public to the surprise operation, an extraordinarily high number of missed targets, according to a federal official.
Notice the "scare quotes" around "criminals"? University of Sussex has this to say abut that:
Quotation marks used in this way are informally called scare quotes. Scare quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase from which you, the writer, wish to distance yourself because you consider that word or phrase to be odd or inappropriate for some reason.
According to the feds, via the AP, half the people they've arrested in the Bay Area, in addition to immigrations violations, had criminal convictions for "assault, weapons offenses and driving under the influence." In personalizing the story for my local dead tree paper, there was this:
ICE said agents detained at least one Stockton man, from Mexico, who had been convicted for lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14 years old.
Let's recap... the AP puts "scare quotes" around the word criminal, in describing illegal aliens, who are prima facie criminals, but in addition have been, not accused, but convicted of various criminal acts, including assault, weapons offenses, DUI and lewd lascivious acts with a minor, and yet the AP doesn't want to call them criminals without some sort of wiggle room? The use of scare quotes in describing illegal aliens as criminals is editorializing, which belongs on the editorial page, not the lede of what in the olden days, was envisioned to be impartial reporting. This is what you get when you have students at journalism schools telling you they want to change the world.

A Primer on "Common Sense" Gun Laws

First, let me say that I share in the loss and mourn with those who lost loved ones in that terrible Florida school shooting. Some people want to take advantage of those raw emotions to see if they can obtain some political advantage in what really ought to be a time of mourning. But I want you to fully understand that what the anti-gunners mean by "common sense" gun laws is not necessarily what the rest of us call "common sense". The phrase itself, "Common sense gun laws", polls well. I mean, it's obvious, isn't it? Who in their right mind could object to "common sense"? Poll any number of people if you think we should have "common sense gun laws" and you will get a majority, maybe even unanimity!

The gun grabbers then try to use that superficial verbal agreement, since nearly everyone agrees we should have common sense guns laws, then, you should have no problem accepting the ones they're proposing, regardless of how ineffectual they might be, whether or not they solve the problem, and whether or not there are unintended consequences to Constitutional rights, public safety or both, so long as we label them "common sense". There's the bait and switch.

A Democrat, John Dingell, of Michigan said in 1965,
"We now have on the lawbooks of this nation over 20,000 laws governing the sale, distribution and use of firearms.”
I guess it's pretty safe to assume we've added some since then. Yet, for all the "common sense" gun laws already on the books, the people whose ultimate goal is the complete elimination of privately owned firearms (the honest ones will tell you that. Stop laughing!), the anti-gunners want ever increasing restrictions on firearms, the quantity, the quality, the ease of ownership, the cost of ownership, until they have made it too prohibitively expensive or onerous to obtain, and erode the Second Amendment rights of honest, law abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. At least you common ones! We with political clout and wealth will still require our bodyguards to be fully armed!

"But, but..."you might say, "we still have terrible school shootings. We have to do something!!" Aye, and we can. But before we trip down the primrose path of passing new laws, pause a moment and consider what effect new laws will have if they are enforced exactly the same way as the 20,000 plus we already have?

Michael Bloomberg: The Most Trusted Name in Gun Control Statistics

Bloomberg's "Everytown" claims there have been 18 "school shootings" so far in 2018. Among them:

 * a man committed suicide in the parking lot of a school closed for sever months: no students around, no teachers.

 * Someone shot a gun several times in a school parking lot at 8 PM when there students around, no teachers either.

 * Someone shot a BB gun at a school bus students present, no teachers either.

 * One was the accidental discharge of a school police one injured.

 Are you starting to see a pattern here? I understand that in 13 of these 18 school shootings, there were no physical injuries whatsoever to anyone involved. Now, you and I may agree that one school shooting is too many. But, liberal liars like Mike Bloomberg are not doing any favors to a rational discussion of what needs to be done. On the other hand, irrational emotion is vital to their cause of eliminating the private ownership of firearms.

Original Obama Presidential Portrait -Chair on Loan from Bill Clinton Presidential Library