Good Morning, Columbus!
So glad you came!
1 Yesterday, on “Face the Nation,” Senator Diane Feinstein was continuing the Democratic Party’s latest use of a gun tragedy to see if the American public can be frightened, shamed, deceived or panicked into giving up one of the core individual rights guaranteed by our Constitution. The host asked her whether there were any proposed regulations that would have stopped Stephen Paddock or someone like him from committing mass murder.
Her answer, “No.”
Well there you have it, right? This tragedy has nothing to do with honest, good faith gun reform, and everything to do with the anti-gun left wanting to begin eroding the Second Amendment, until the right of law-abiding citizens to arm themselves to the extent they believe is necessary shrinks to insignificance.
I salute the Senator in one respect: at least she’s honest about the fact that the use of the Vegas Strip shooting by the anti-gun left is entirely cynical and exploitative. Contrast her blunt “no’ with the demagoguery of her fellow Congressional Democrat, civil rights icon John Lewis. (The news media always describes him that way, because “race-baiting, hyper-partisan hack John Lewis” would offend African-Americans.). As I discussed earlier, Lewis erupted last week with this call to no-arms:
“The American people will not stand to see hundreds and thousands of their fellow citizens mowed down because the lack of action on the part of the Congress…We have to do something…The time is always right to do what is right. We waited too long. How many more people will die? Would it be a few hundred? A few thousand? Several thousand? We have to act. We cannot wait.”
The complete Feinstein-Lewis thought, then: “The American people will not stand to see hundreds and thousands of their fellow citizens mowed down because of the lack of action on the part of the Congress to pass laws that would do nothing to stop their fellow citizens from being mowed down in a massacre like the one we are demanding action in response to!”
In one of the many threads following the Vegas Strip shooting, commenter Charles Green asked me,
“Let me ask my basic question again: are there any constructive suggestions (hopefully a tad beyond outlawing bump stocks) that can be offered by the principled defenders of the Second Amendment to find common ground? Any? I for one am all ears.”
I actually began an entire post to respond to Charles’ suggestion. It started with the central problem that has been created by the increasingly shrill, emotion-based and dishonest strategy of the anti-gun Left: principled defenders of the Second Amendment no longer trust gun reform advocates’ insistence that they support the Second Amendment. In my reply to Charles, I compared the current impasse to that between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel demands that Palestinian authorities and Hamas agree that Israel has a right to exist as a condition precedent to any substantive compromise. This is completely reasonable; in fact, not insisting on such a concession would be reckless and foolish. Thus I began thinking about how gun control advocates could convince principled defenders of the Second Amendment that their real purpose wasn’t to ultimately void the Second Amendment. And then it hit me when I heard Feinstein: I have sock drawers to organize. Why am I wasting my time on this futile exercise? Yes, I believe Charles is genuine in his respect for the right while seeking rational safety measures, but the party and ideology he supports are not. Only one kind of “gun control” would even theoretically stop massacres by people like Paddock: allowing the government to control all guns. That’s what Feinstein was inadvertently admitting, that’s what Lewis was really saying, that’s what the news media that floods the pubic with partisan propaganda on behalf of their party believe, and that’s what their party’s base wants them to do as soon as they acquire sufficient power.
That’s what we have learned from Stephen Paddock and the Left’s response to his rampage.
2. A brief note on Sen. Feinstein: last week she all but confirmed that she will be running for re-election to another six-term in 2018. She is 84!
Anyone who remembers the sickening sight of shriveled nonagenarian Senator Strom Thurmond hunched over, barely able to communicate, while allegedly listening to testimony in Senate committee hearings should gag at Feinstein’s selfishness, arrogance, and disrespect for her constituencies and for the integrity of our government. No ethical public servant, elected official or judge should ask to continue in office past the point where reasonable people know that decline, illness and death are likely or even inevitable. No ethical citizen should support an elected official who does. Feinstein isn’t the only member of Congress in this position, but she’s the only one currently about to ask voters to accept the fantasy that a 90-year-old Senator can do the job better than multiple available candidates who are less than 25 years from the retirement age.
Her embarrassing reluctance to give up power and celebrity is a vivid illustration of how power corrupts. If California voters shrug and elect her anyway, they have been corrupted too.
3. Tennessee’s GOP Senator Bob Corker, having announced that he won’t be running for re-election, is now openly exchanging personal insults with the President on social media and in the press. Yes, yes, the President “started it” with a typical barrage of insulting tweets that are his trademarked abuse of his position and the office: that doesn’t excuse Corker’s unethical conduct in responding in kind.
I also know I am not the first to point out that Corker’s comments about Trump’s unmannerly and unprofessional proclivities ring especially hollow from a Republican leader who early on endorsed the candidacy of a man whose deficits of character, ability and temperament were already well-known and thoroughly documented.
4. Self-indicting and Embarrassingly Obtuse Comment of the Week came from 49ers safety Eric Reid after Vice-President Mile Pence made a show of leaving the 49ers- Indianapolis Colts NFL game yesterday after twenty of the San Francisco players “took a knee” during the National Anthem. Reid, one of the kneelers, told the press:
“My honest reaction – does anybody know the last time he’s been to a football game . With that being said, he tweeted out a 3-year-old photo of him at a Colts game, so with the information I have, the last time he was at a Colts game was three years ago. So this looks like a PR stunt to me. He knew our team had the most players protest. He knew that we were probably going to do it again. This is what systemic oppression looks like. A man with power comes to the game, tweets a couple of things out, and leave the game with an attempt to thwart our efforts. Based on the information I have, that’s the assumption I’ve made.”
- Of course it was a PR stunt, and a brilliant one.
I hate to break it to you, Eric, but you’ve lost. The protest is an incoherent joke, as your comments prove. The protesting players have only succeeded in harming the NFL and the source of their own livelihood, and still can’t even agree on who or what they are protesting.
- Wait…one of the players who has been grandstanding on behalf of Black Lives Matters…or something— before nationally televised football games is offended that a politician would engage in a grandstanding PR stunt in response to their grandstanding PR stunt? What do you even call this kind of complaint, besides brain-meltingly stupid?
Here’s the funny part, Eric, you moron. The Vice President’s stunt associates himself with the Anthem, the flag and the United States, and aligns you and your brain-damaged pals against them. You know how well Pence would do if he suited up and tried to play football on your field? That’s exactly how well you are doing playing on his.
- The highlight of Reid’s metaphorical leg stuffed down his own throat up to the thigh is this, though: “This is what systemic oppression looks like.” Now we know that the players who think they are protesting “systemic oppression” have no clue what systemic oppression is. Nobody has to like, respect, listen to, watch or be quiet about somebody else’s protest, and just because a group of millionaire African-American athletes want to play Tommie Smith and John Carlos in front of what they mistakenly think is a captive audience doesn’t make it “oppressive” for that audience to say, “No thanks.”