Share This Article with a Friend!

Outsiders vs. Insiders: How the media sold an octogenarian woman as the voice of today’s kids

In what contorted universe would a filthy-rich 84 year-old California Democrat senator be deemed to embody the hopes and aspirations of today's youth?

When it comes to confiscating America’s firearms the media tries to make it seem as though feeble old Sen. Dianne Feinstein sits at a table in a school cafeteria somewhere snap chatting on her smart phone right DiFi and gunsalongside kids with braces on their teeth and voices cracking from adolescence.

DiFi is the new face of hipsters and the cool teen crowd. Sign her up for the prom queen ballot.

It’s been over a month since the heinous Nikolas Cruz-perpetrated mass murder in Florida and Democrats appear to be losing grip on their signature emotional flytrap – so they’re taking to the op-ed pages in hopes of keeping the raging fires of youthful outrage burning bright.

Feinstein wrote the other day at USA Today, “We’ve heard passionate pleas in recent weeks from students who survived a massacre and lost their friends and teachers. Through their pain, with Wednesday’s National School Walkout and in many other ways, this generation of students growing up with active-shooter drills is demanding that lawmakers take action to reform gun laws.

“Unfortunately, there’s a lot of misleading information about reasonable measures to ensure gun safety, and it distracts from the fundamental issue at hand: the safety of our children, communities, schools and businesses...

“I’m hopeful that the groundswell of activism we’ve seen in the wake of the shooting in Parkland, Fla., will see results. The American people have always stood on the side of gun safety, and now they’re making it clear that lawmakers who don’t back these commonsense proposals to save lives will face consequences.”

Consequences? Like what, being kicked out office for defending constitutional rights? Or being chastised for disagreeing with the popularly ignorant notion that guns (instead of people) kill in the ever-evolving court of public opinion?

Feinstein’s op-ed contains a basic summation and regurgitation of all the monotonous gun control arguments we’ve been force-fed for decades – such as, the (so-called) “assault weapons” ban worked to curb mass shootings in the 90’s; “assault weapons” are designed only to kill people; high-capacity magazines are only useful for running up the body count; law enforcement can’t get to a scene fast enough to take out a wacko like at Sandy Hook and teachers shouldn’t be armed because they’re not the police, etc…

Nowhere does DiFi acknowledge the reality that current laws aren’t even being enforced by authorities, or government’s unwillingness to act in cases like Florida shooter Cruz (where the warning signs were so prevalent and obvious that he practically etched “I’m going to shoot up a school” on his forehead) ended in disaster.

New York City Islamic immigrant terrorist Sayfullo Saipov killed eight last October with a rented Home Depot truck. Why aren’t America’s children upset about trucks? Many of Saipov’s victims were on bikes (and henceforth would’ve been hard to shoot with an AR-15 or any gun), so can’t we argue trucks are just as dangerous as guns?

Let’s not forget Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh rented a Ryder truck to murder at random 168 people (and wound nearly 700 others) in 1995. “Military-style” rifles were nowhere in sight in the deadliest of all mass killings. The fact firearms weren’t used in McVeigh’s case proves or disproves nothing other than the fact souls who are predisposed to kill will find a way to do it. Why trample on the rights of law abiding gun owners now in hopes of limiting damage inflicted by some future nutcase?

But perhaps Feinstein’s most overt op-ed lie was her dissing on the oft-mentioned notion that “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” citing the armed Orlando Pulse Nightclub’s security guard’s inability to stop the Islam motivated terrorist (Omar Mateen) from snuffing out almost fifty lives.

Feinstein contends an armed security guard or a teacher is no match against a motivated gunman with an AR-15. Seeing as government authorities repeatedly failed to engage well-armed shooters with their “peashooter” handguns we’ll never really know. How many of these mass shootings counted an armed onsite law enforcement officer or security guard among the dead? Were they on the losing end of an engagement with a shooter? (None that I can recall.)

Or has there ever been a teacher with a concealed carry weapon who challenged a murderer in mid-rampage? Have any armed teachers been counted among the dead? Wouldn’t they be treated as heroes rather than mere victims who acted passively (or died while shielding students) while a shooter took their lives with nary a whimper?

Hooray for “gun free” zones. They’ve worked swimmingly, haven’t they?

Meanwhile there are hundreds if not thousands of documented cases of individuals with concealed carry permits saving lives by confronting a would-be mass murderer. Where’s Feinstein on this uncomfortable (for them) bit of truth?

Democrats rue letting a good crisis go to waste and Feinstein and her type are losing no time in using children as props to thrust the gun control lobby’s cause forward. Taking president Trump’s ill-spoken words on the subject to the extreme Feinstein even claims the Republican president has now converted to the secular cult of gun-grabbing.

We don’t know for sure what Trump really believes after the cameras leave the room and the voices of reason get in his ear, but it is strange how the president seems to have such open contempt for the notion of due process. It could be he doesn’t trust the government to act responsibly in keeping track of dangerous individuals.

Some suggest Trump’s due process ignorance isn’t just confined to the gun issue. Donovan Wilson wrote at the Washington Examiner, “The president’s contempt for due process should not come as a surprise. Trump regularly makes overtures to tyrants and dictators. Recently, he expressed admiration for the Philippines which executes drug dealers without a trial. ‘You know the Chinese and Filipinos don’t have a drug problem. They just kill them,’ he said...

“Trump is slow-walking the nation toward an imperial presidency, endangering our civil rights and national interests. We are not without hope, though. The president has the attention span of a 12-year-old, and the courts are keeping the administration in check.

“As Americans, we cannot take for granted Trump’s perilous path. His efforts to ‘Make America Great Again,’ will dismantle the American dream. Everything that so many remarkable Americans built will fall, in the ashes of the American ideal is a nation twisted by Trump’s ego and dictatorial tactics.”

The Examiner didn’t supply biographical information on Wilson but he sounds like your standard Democrat and card-carrying member of the Trump resistance. What Trump said in reference to due process deserves serious comment but when you claim the duly elected president of the United States has the attention span of a tween you probably have serious stability issues of your own – or at the very least you’re not a very good judge of character.

From having closely observed Trump since he announced his run for president (almost three years ago) it’s evident that one, he doesn’t think about processes the same way academics do and two, he favors results over inertia and endless debate. In other words it’s a good thing Trump never ran for Congress or a legislative body because he’d go crazy with the endless “rules” and notice requirements. Trump is used to picking up the phone and directing someone to do something – and then having it done.

Is that the makings of a dictator? Hardly. If that were the case then everyone’s a petty tyrant.

Perhaps Trump isn’t a great believer in due process because he’s been a litigant in too many lawsuits (frivolous and otherwise) and has no respect for the legal profession; or maybe he equates due process with bureaucratic inefficiency. It’s highly doubtful Trump’s “take the guns first” comment signals naked contempt for the Constitution or the Founding Fathers.

Trump is a doer who cares about the ends more than the means; he understands how the system works but doesn’t care for it. On the gun issue he’s bowing to his populist notion of trying to do something to solve a problem. Even if the Democrats were somehow able to pass a bill like Feinstein describes – and Trump signs it – the courts could very well strike it down as violating a number of constitutional provisions.

And then we’d be back at square one.

This whole back-and-forth proves Democrats and liberals aren’t interested in preserving and protecting life as much as they’re searching for ways to harm Trump and Republicans politically. If they truly cared about life there would be more outrage from Democrats concerning the abortion issue – specifically the sickening notion of terminating the lives of babies found to have Downs Syndrome in utero.

Liberal columnist Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post recently penned a shockingly arrogant column claiming not only would she have aborted a child if it was found to have Downs Syndrome, she’d defend the decision as popularly sanctioned. Marcus says polls back her up.

It shows a shocking lack of morals to feel authorized to do wrong just because it’s viewed as socially acceptable. Ben Shapiro wrote at National Review, “…It is not merely selfish to murder an unborn child for the crime of having a low IQ. It’s monstrous. But such monstrosity becomes common when we believe that others have signed off on our vice. [Ruth] Marcus keeps emphasizing the fact that others believe as she does...

“Evil lives among us. It’s in our own hearts…we can all become Marcus’s abortionists. All it takes is an ounce of social approval and a heap of righteous indignation. Human beings are self-absorbed things; we’d rather pull the switch on an innocent than inconvenience ourselves. Until we recognize our own frailties, we’re always in danger of slipping back into the moral morass.”

I disagree with Shapiro -- conservatives recognize those frailties; conservatives defend innocent unborn life just as we stand up for the God-given rights to protect our persons and families with firearms. As the recent gun control debate revealed conservatives favor due process for those wishing to exercise their rights to purchase a gun.

And conservatives believe unborn babies have a right to life regardless of their prenatal medical determinations. The subject is perhaps best addressed at another time but for those couples who don’t want to go through the “inconvenience” of raising a child with special needs there are options (such as adoption) that don’t involve killing the baby.

None of these life or death issues are easy and often there are good arguments on both sides. It’s just plain arrogance on behalf of liberals like Dianne Feinstein to claim there are no reasonable alternatives to banning “assault weapons”. Political decisions have consequences indeed.

Share this