If nothing else, the current gun control debate rocking the legislative branches in DC and liberal state capitals - including Springfield - illustrates beautifully the importance of having a devoted press on hand to preach your party's daily spin as if it was some new-found gospel discovered on ancient scrolls from the Dead Sea. This cultish and completely incurious adoration that America's mainstream media offers the progressivist elites in the Democrat party is a terribly valuable assault weapon against the obstacles associated with constitutionally protected freedom. If it is within your party's means to harness the bias of our free press, I highly recommend you do so. It really saves a lot of effort over the long haul when you want to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.
You see what I mean. With the willing accomplices of the MSM blocking and tackling for our current crop of anti-gun Democrats, the party barely has to break a sweat in selling its big-government solutions to the general public. All that heavy lifting comes as part of the package when your party monopolizes the channels of communication – you know, give or take a Fox News or two. It's such a bargain. Dems don't have to bother with expending precious energy to present any actual truth…which can be such a weighty burden for a party that likes to stay on the move. It doesn't have to be truthful and it doesn't have to convince individuals that it is trying to be truthful. The press simply has to assure Americans that we are surrounded by a supermajority of voters who accept that the Left is being truthful and we're off to the races. When in doubt, just keep restating emotionally charged arguments designed to move society toward self-castigation and that alone shall be enough to twist over two hundred years of parliamentary tradition into a pretzel.
If the press hasn't sounded the alarm then all must be right with the world. Their sales pitch almost reflexively persuades Americans that less freedom is a good thing and they usually begin freedom's requiem thusly: "It's for the children."
That one nauseatingly formulaic tug at our heart strings is supposed to make it utterly impossible for the average conservative to oppose any cockamamie and convoluted piece of legislation that the Left can devise. If we clash with their proposals in any way then we are anti-child, which leads us to conversely accept that the Democrats must be pro-child…although, that might come as a surprise to the 3,600 children who will die in a liberally sacramental abortion this week, but that's neither here nor there.
Great example - Vice President Joe Biden by order of President Obama now heads up a commission on gun safety and ownership, and he is requiring the National Rifle Association to defend the Second Amendment to victims of gun violence so that Biden can make an educated assessment of America's need for tougher gun control laws. This is happening because children were slaughtered by a lunatic at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December. The moment represents for the Democrats a tipping point in our history where we are ready to prefer personal safety over personal liberty as our nation's number one priority.
The willing accomplices in the press then move into action to assert that if you won't agree to this governmental encroachment upon your individual freedom then you probably hate kids…as if one leap in logic naturally follows another in sequential fashion.
The punch line if you choose to recognize it is that Joe Biden gets to recommend how much liberty that the government will decide to grant us. If that reality alone does not act as performance art of the most farcical order, then I just don't know what does. Break that statement down into manageable pieces for a moment. Really think about how much madness and complete incongruity we are expected to endure because the press won't do its job and point out the ironies and inconsistencies in this situation. But if we can save one child then I suppose the solutions to the murder of innocents need not be rational and if that means placing the whole flipping country into strait jackets to protect us from psychotic narcissists then so be it.
Joe Biden, who can't even be trusted to attend a swearing in ceremony for a US Senator without sexually harassing her, who can't make a simple stump speech without offending, insulting or misstating yes – that Joe Biden is going to assess what form your Second Amendment rights should take. Joe Biden is now the appointed arbiter of constitutional liberties and he does so by order of Barack Obama who not so very long ago said of the American people, "It's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Rather than point out the utter absurdity of either of these two men being impartial or attentive to Second Amendment guarantees as their oaths of office demand, the press instead sells the meme that President Obama may not need to bother waiting for Congress to act but might rightly block Second Amendment protections through executive order. And once again, this "it's good to be king" moment has been brought to you by our negligent media which believes that the Democrats believe that if we save one child then we have saved the world. One child, mind you. Not 3,600. And permit me to spell that sarcasm out for you so that we are all on the same page. Democrats do not care about children or they would oppose the holocaust that occurs ala Planned Parenthood every day.
So then I was thrilled to hear the pundits who swore up and down that such an outrageous act would never occur at the hands of Barack Obama, that the President of the United States would never act so unilaterally to solve America's supposed gun addiction. Oh…now, now. Let's not be reactionary here. That scenario is so unlikely because the American people would never tolerate it.
Really? They wouldn't? Tell me exactly who would stop Barack Obama from repealing the Second Amendment with the stroke of a pen. Seriously. What? We've got checks and balances to prevent that from happening? Like which ones?
Congress? Congress can't even oppose this man during a simple budget process because it's too hard to stand up for the civil liberties of millionaires who are apparently less than human with half the rights of the rest of us for holding the intolerable distinction of having succeeded. Congress couldn't stop health care reform because protecting American liberty was too controversial when giving away other people's money is so much more appealing. Best leave it for SCOTUS to sort out. How on earth can Congress be expected to stop an event such as the repeal of the Second Amendment which slips in popularity with each news cycle when quite literally the lives of children are at stake?
Well then, how about the Supreme Court? You mean like the courts upheld personal liberty during the healthcare debate? Like they have protected religious freedom? Like they secured private property rights? When at minimum four out of nine…maybe more… Supreme Court Justices believe that the constitutions of other nations ought to be given equal consideration when deciding American law; I wouldn't hold your breath for any outcome that is skewed toward American sensibilities. How provincial.
Who's left then? The free press whose job it is to audit and fact-check the actions of our government and educate the public when the government oversteps its constitutional limits? A well-educated electorate that will cry foul when everyone else fails keep the promises of liberty?
Our constitutionally protected freedoms are only as tangible as the integrity of the people who swear to uphold them and the citizenry that understands how precarious those freedoms are when balanced against an unrestrained government. How can a people who care so little for life or liberty offer any hope to the world whatsoever? And if there is no hope then what kind of hell are we leaving the children that we are all looking to save?