Total Exoneration—Russian Collusion and Other Media Lies Exposed

For over two years CNN and the rest of the corporate media pushed the Russian collusion narrative. They used this to undermine Trump’s presidency and to gain seats in the midterms with a seemingly never-ending stream of speculation, literally hundreds of stories suggesting his guilt and, in the end, Robert Mueller’s team found nothing at all.

The entire collusion narrative, from start to finish, was fake news. There was never a shred of evidence to support this conspiracy theory, it was something concocted during the campaign by Christopher Steele, a foreign agent, and in collusion with never-Trumpers desperate to discredit the rising Republican candidate by any means possible. The false claims of the “Steele dossier” were used as justification for the Obama administration spying on their political opponent.

This is an outrageous attempt to subvert the democratic process that makes the Watergate scandal during the Nixon administration look like child’s play by comparison. Think about it, a false report by a foreign agent was used as a means to gain access to the Trump campaign and, not only that, but it was also used to feed xenophobic hysteria that put us at a greatly increased risk of war with another nuclear power.

This is not simply confirmation bias run amok, this is a deliberate effort to deceive the American public, a coup attempt against our President, and the traitors who are responsible need to face criminal charges. It is one thing for a political campaign to lie. It is quite another for a Presidential administration to weaponize the entire Justice Department (and the IRS before that) against their opposition and launch a years-long investigation, at great expense to taxpayers, for the sole purpose of hurting Trump’s political brand.

It is the biggest scandal in United States history and yet the corporate media is still pretending that Trump is somehow the problem here and not them or the Democrats they shill for…

Enough is enough!

Trump needs to drop the hammer down hard on this or we will lose the Republic and anything left of our greatness. We need to know who was paid for what, who conspired with who, and go all the way to the top. A message must be sent to those in the government (and their media accomplices) who may be tempted to pull this kind of stunt again. It is past time to turn the tables on these sanctimonious “deep state” screwballs and hold them accountable for their dangerous and destabilizing deception.

The Corporate Media Cannot Be Trusted

For months we have heard that Trump said that neo-Nazis are “fine people” in his remarks following the Charlottesville protests. This was used as evidence that the President is a racist and a bad person. However, we now find that the reality is quite different than what has been reported. Steve Cortez, exposes this lie in an article, “Trump Didn’t Call Neo-Nazis ‘Fine People’ Here’s Proof.,” where he goes through the transcript and shows where Trump clearly says the opposite. Trump, in reality, said that neo-Nazis and white nationalists should be “condemned totally” and yet the media commentators (and Democrat politicians) continue to lie about this.

Adding to the corporate left’s credibility woes, the leadership of Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has been accused (by some within their ranks) of being sexist and racist themselves. This same organization, that regularly accuses Christian conservatives (falsely) of being hateful, is given censorship power by tech giants like PayPal and Google. The SPLC lost a $3.375 million dollar defamation lawsuit for slapping an “extremist” label on the Quilliam Foundation and are also being sued by “Proud Boys” Gavin McGinnis for their “hate group” categorization of that organization. It is unbelievable that this group of hard left hypocrites is given any authority to regulate speech online.

The past couple of months have presented all the reason one should ever need to be skeptical of any narrative put out by the corporate media establishment. These organizations, if trustworthy at one point, have become shameless propagandists for the far left. They still, while fact-checking Trump’s jokes and comparing him to Nixon, allow Obama to get away with claiming his administration was “scandal free” despite the growing body of evidence that strongly suggests the criminal malfeasance of his administration. We should be asking ourselves, if they nearly got away with impeaching an innocent President over a foreign agent’s fabrications, how many times have they done this sort of thing and not been caught?

The Democrats have done terrible damage to race relations in this country with their lies and misleading stories. They have regularly fed minority fears by their misrepresentation of fact—by painting a false picture of young men engaged in criminal behavior as sterling representatives of their entire race—by running with unhelpful anecdotes that put one race against another—and generally neglecting important context in their pursuit of agenda.

For example, remember all those women given mocking names like Southpark Susan, Permit Patty, BBQ Becky, Cornerstone Cathy, Golf Cart Gail for their ignorant comments in videos? One would be led to believe that this sort of thing only happens to black folks given the skewed coverage. However, who hasn’t encountered a nosy neighbor, a meddlesome crank or a suspicious and belligerent drunk? Is there a reason why we are only hearing these stories when it is white against black?

Meanwhile, the list of hate hoaxes grows longer day by day and the corporate media, eagerly reporting the false allegations at the onset, barely offers a retraction (let alone an apology) when the wild claims turn out to be fake news. The same media that took Jesse Smollett’s fake hate as Gospel truth for weeks despite the obvious smell test fail of a couple Trump supporters waiting to ambush some no-name actor on a cold Chicago night or recklessly portrayed innocent smiling school boys from Covington Catholic as racist villains when they were truly the victims, that mercilessly attacked an honorable Judge Kavanaugh on the basis of politically motivated accusations, suddenly loses their collective voices when Virginia’s entire Democratic leadership is exposed as either wearing blackface or as a potential rapist.

Somehow Democrats and the left are always excused. Jussie Smollett unapologetically deceived the Chicago police. His tale of being attacked adding to an existing mischaracterization and prejudice against Trump’s base. Meanwhile, Trump associates, basically entrapped, are sent to serve real-time for their poor accounting in private meetings with FBI investigators, have their homes raided, etc.

How is it even possible that Elizabeth Warren is still a viable candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination given her fraudulent claims of Native American ancestry, but…?

How can Hillary Clinton get away with taking $400,000 from the Russians, destroying her personal devices, deleting 33,000 emails and lying to Congress, but Trump exhaustively investigated for two years over a phony dossier?

There needs to be a day of reckoning or it will only get worse. Things have been too lopsided for too long, it is doing real damage to this nation and the American people must stand up against this while they still can. These leftist elites must be held accountable. They must be soundly defeated at the ballot box, criminally charged and sentenced the same as anyone else, we must ridicule their bad ideas and never ever take them at their word.

Democrat politicians and their corporate media propagandists have “cried wolf” too many times and can’t be trusted. We should doubt everything that comes from them and assume that it is blown out of proportion or a complete fabrication. They must be questioned on everything, we can’t believe them or their cronies on things like climate change, we cannot afford to accept their word on anything that could benefit their radical leftist agenda.

The “Shockingly Racist” Accusation and the Underlying Violence of Leftist Political Agenda

The headline, “San Francisco Giants owner denounces shockingly racist political ad after partially funding it through super PAC,” tells the reader what to think before getting the actual content of the political ad that features two women speaking about Kavanaugh and due process.

The article is disinformation and an attempt to discredit the attempt to woo minority voters from the Democrats. Instead of focusing on the content of the ad, a point about presumption of innocence and due process (something extremely relevant to the black community), the Yahoo Sports writer starts with those denouncing the alleged racism.

This is how the left operates. They take an ad about things relevant to black voters, denounce it as “shockingly racist” without ever making a good case why it is racist, target a prominent person or organization that can be linked to the ad and then get their reaction. Of course the target simply reacts, wants to distance themselves from a nasty accusation of racism, and denounces the alleged racism in an attempt to get the media spotlight off of themselves. If the target doesn’t go along with the racist propaganda narrative they will be further smeared and shamed until they comply with the demands shouted at them.

But going back for a second look to the substance of the ad and the ironic allegation of racism. The point of the ad is that anyone can make an uncorroborated allegation. Black men have often been targets of false accusations and have every reason to be completely in favor of conservative ideals like presumption of innocence and due process. The presentation of this content was typical of political ads and featured two women, presumably black women in the South, speaking about the safety of their own husbands, fathers and sons.

The only thing shocking about this is that now the leftist media, that spent years railing against black men being killed by police and featuring stories of frightened black mothers telling their boys to be fearful, now calls their own tactics racist. I guess we should confront them in restaurants, elevators or wherever they are and demand that they apologize for their racism? I mean, if it is racist when a perceived injustice is used as a conservative argument then why is it not also racist when used by the left to advance their own political agenda?

The truth is, there is a difference. The left always presumes the guilt of their political opponents. In their view every conservative is a bad person who needs to be exposed and thus they are justified in their smear campaign. To a political activist guilt or innocence is not decided by evidence, but it is determined by what side a person respresents and what agenda is served. That is why it is quickly labeled as racist when a conservative makes a legitimate point about due process and yet not racist to demean a black man, like Kanye West, for having his own opinions different from their own.

It goes beyond mere hypocrisy for the left to accuse conservatives of racism while themselves attacking a successful black businessman, as a “token negro” who “doesn’t read” and “minstrel shows” references, for talking to Trump. It is not hypocrisy because it is actually true to what they are, the left is about gaining control by any means possible. When fear and intimidation do not work to keep us silent they turn to false allegations of racism and, simultaneously, actual racism to crush minorities who dare to challenge or even think differently than them.

I’ll never forget being called a racist for my principled opposition to the Affordable Care Act. Apparently, because Obama was biracial, every word spoken against his leftist big-government policies was automatically racist. The media successful used that narrative to disparage millions of Americans, who opppsed the bank bailouts of both Obama and Bush, and made up the “Tea Party” movement. They stigmatized this opposition to their agenda, like they do with political correctness in general, yet the people still speak at the ballot box and voted for Trump in protest.

This fact, incidentally, is why the left supports illegal immigration. It isn’t because they are less xenophobic either (look at the “red scare” Russian collision conspiracy narrative or attacks on Melina’s accent, for example), but because they know that their political agenda will be better served by introducing a whole new bloc of dependent voters, who they will control through fear and manipulation.

For the left it is about their own access to power and control via government, not compassion and actually caring about people. That is why they are equal opportunity in destroying their political opposition through accusations. And, finally, when that doesn’t work, like it didn’t work with Trump, they will become increasingly violent and try to control us with physical violence.

We should not be intimidated. We should not join them in denouncing those falsely accused or worry about our reputation and apologizing on cue. There are more of us, more of all races who value liberty, free thought and due process, than there are of them. We need to free ourselves of their controlling tactics.

From Salem To Emmett Till To Brett Kavanaugh—Why We Must Always Stand Up Against Moral Outrage Mobs

Emmett Till was brutally murdered for allegedly groping and otherwise acting in an inappropriate manner towards a young woman. Of course, as was revealed years later when the young woman recanted her tale, all he was only truly guilty of is being a black boy talking to a white girl.

Many today believe that they would have done differently, that they would have seen through the false accusations or at least made sure that those who killed this innocent child, only 14, would pay for their crime. And, in the case of a black teenager being accused in a similar manner today, I’m pretty sure there would be many who would be incredulous and question the narrative.

We prefer to see ourselves as better than those who participated in lynchings, the Salem Witch Trials, genocides, and other injustices carried out by sanctimonious mobs who convinced themselves that the truth was on their side. But is that the reality? Would we do better than our ancestors who, in their misguided fervor for justice, committed horrendous injustices?

I have my doubts.

It is not people want to make bad judgments and do not intend to do good. No, it is because we are too easily blinded by our biases and political ideologies or agendas.

And, lest someone thinks their education makes them less susceptible, bias is not eliminated by our knowledge of bias nor intelligence. In fact, the very opposite is true, very intelligent people are as susceptible (or even more susceptible) to bias than their less knowledgeable and less educated counterparts.

For example, a knowledgeable person, in the case of a young man accused of inappropriate behavior towards a young woman, could bring up the statistic that most allegations of sexual assault are true and try to use this as an argument against an accused individual. But that is bad reasoning and that’s because statistics do not tell us anything about the individual cases. It would be like arguing that a man of a particular race is more likely to be guilty of a crime because statistics show more men of his particular racial demographic group are convicted. However, that is not good reasoning even if it is factually based.

The truth is, every circumstance is unique and must be considered on the merit of the evidence pertaining to that particular case. In the case of the accusation against Emmitt Till, for example, there was no corroborating evidence—there was only a claim made and a rush to judgment. The men who beat this boy to death were reacting out of racial prejudice rather than exercising good judgment. The jury that acquitted them, in the same manner, presumed their innocence despite the evidence and for the same reason.

Furthermore, even if the accusations against Till were completely true the ‘punishment’ did not fit the alleged crime. Had a young white boy done the same thing he may (or may not) have been confronted, but I doubt he would be pistol-whipped, shot and then disposed of in a river. Our racial, religious and ideological assumptions also shape the severity of our response.

Scandal and scandalous false accusations, in the political realm, must be understood as being political tools. An allegation in this context, true or false, us a means to manipulate public opinion and, for this reason, we must be even more skeptical of any and every claim—especially those made by our own side of the overall debate.

Tragedy is used to advance political agendas.

Tragedy is also created to advance political agendas.

I’m generally a skeptic of false flag and conspiracy theories and for the same reason that I want evidence (besides one person’s claim) in the case of where a political candidate is accused of sexual assault. Anyone could accuse another person of an assault and in partisan politics, where the ends are often used to justify the means, there is plenty of reason to fabricate an incident or embellish.

The frenzied media coverage of an alleged incident thirty years ago, when Brett Kavanaugh, a current Supreme Court nominee, was only seventeen years old, betrays a partisan agenda. This same media has buried the abuse allegations (with evidence) against Democrat Keith Ellison. They do not express any moral outrage against Cory Booker, a prominent Democrat who confessed to a sexual assault against a teenage girl, and there have been no claims that this incident many years ago disqualifies him. Meanwhile, these same media voices demand Kavanaugh be removed from consideration on an unsubstantiated accusation and simultaneously downplay the many voices that vouch for his upstanding character, like this word on behalf of the nominee:

“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.”

There’s a saying, “all is fair in love and war,” that may apply here and that’s because wars have been justified by all manner of reasons and many of those reasons falling apart under further scrutiny. The list is long: The US falsely accused the Spanish of sinking a battleship and then used,l rally call: “Remember the Maine!” The Gulf of Tonkin incident, used as a pretext for military intervention I’m Vietnam, never happened as reported. The young Kuwaiti woman who alleged that Iraqi invaders were killing babies was disseminating false information and, as we all recall, there were no stockpiles of WMD’s as we had been told would be found when those hostilities were resumed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

So the idea that every allegation should be taken as true is a foolish idea and especially when it is an accusation introduced in the 11th hour, in an apparent attempt to stall the process before midterms, despite being known months in advance when the actual vetting process is supposed to take place. Yes, certainly we cannot ignore the accusation, but the accusation must also be understood in the context it was made and weighed together in the larger body of evidence.

Kavanaugh is no more guilty of sexual assault as a result of an accusation than those accused (and condemned) of witchcraft in Salem were actual witches simply because young women in distress had accused them. In the Salem Witch Trials, many intelligent and knowledgeable people sided against the innocent like the jury sided with the murderers of Emmett Till despite the evidence. We should never assume that we are not susceptible to making similar mistakes in judgment simply because we are educated and have rejected previous versions.

When scandalous accusations are made, even if they agree with your own desired political ends, be a skeptic, demand real evidence.

I’ll leave you with this quote of Gibert K Chesterton:

“There is a case for telling the truth; there is a case for avoiding the scandal; but there is no possible defense for the man who tells the scandal, but does not tell the truth.”

Propaganda: Trump, Tariffs, Treason and Media Bias

If you read a headline, “Man Shot While Defending Wife, Gunman Not Charged Because of ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law,” you might get the impression that the man shot threw himself in front of a bullet to save his wife from a terrorist. And that is exactly what a writer of a headline like that intends. They want you to believe that a completely innocent man was shot by a “gunman” (a word often used to describe terrorists) and this awful law is to blame.

However, when you watch the video, you’ll see that the reality is a bit more complicated. The man was not shot while merely defending his wife. He was shot while in the process of physically assaulting another man who had been verbally confronting his wife over being illegally parked in a handicap spot. No, that doesn’t mean that he should’ve been shot nor that this other man should’ve been playing parking lot police. However, a verbal confrontation not an excuse to knock another man to the ground either and that unwise escalation to physical violence had deadly consequences.

The headline and slant of the article against the shooter is basically propaganda for the gun control lobby disguised as a news article. They want the reader to be biased and therefore deliberately present the facts in a way that is misleading. That kind of coverage is not the journalism of old. The headline does not summarize the actual story very well. The presentation of facts is not objective in the least. A more objective headline would read: “Man Shot After Physical Assault Over Verbal Confrontation Involving His Wife, Authorities Conclude Shooting Was Self-defense, Some Disagree.”

Trump Takes On Media Bias

Like the deceptive headline about the shooting, the anti-Trump media has been working overtime to discredit him and everything he does. The most recent example is the coverage of his remarks to veterans about media bias against him and it basically makes his point. The headlines tell us he said this: “What you’re seeing… Is not actually happening…” That snipped quotation makes it appear like he is admitting to Orwellian doublespeak. However, what Trump really said is this: “Just remember, what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what’s happening. Just stick with us, don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news.”

What you are told is that Trump is telling us not to believe our eyes and to believe him instead. That is absolutely incorrect. That is based on an editorial snip, given without needed context, that completely changes how his words are understood. This is soundbite journalism at its worst and is all the reason an objective person needs to be even more skeptical of what they read or see on television.

Trump was actually saying the exact opposite of what the headlines read. He was saying that the media, specifically the “fake news” media, distorts the truth about what his administration is doing and he is right on that point. They couldn’t even report this criticism of them without completely twisting the facts and grossly misleading the public. These partisans aren’t concerned with what Trump really meant. What they want to do is convince you of a false and damaging interpretation. First, they present the story in a misleading way and then when those fooled react, they do follow up stories using Twitter comments to further reinforce their skewed presentation. If anyone is guilty of being Orwellian it is them.

What’s worse is that they can’t even be honest about the “Big Brother” in George Orwell’s 1984. The “Big Brother” in Orwell’s narrative wasn’t necessarily a real person. He is more of an “Uncle Sam” type character or a “fictional personification of the Party” and a representation of a propaganda machine, a political and media apparatus, that destroyed anyone who disagreed with their politically correct interpretations. Truth was what the “Party” decided it was and those who went against “Big Brother” would be resisted to the severest degree. If anything, it is those accusing Trump who (collectively) more closely resemble “Big Brother” than he does, they certainly mischaracterize him at every turn.

The Treasonous ‘Doublespeak’ Used Against Trump

Like the “Party” of 1984, the anti-Trump media has suddenly gone from ridiculing the idea that Russia was a threat to accusing Trump of treason for doing his Presidential duties and visiting his Russian counterpart. In Orwell’s novel, this kind of flip in the propaganda narrative would happen from time to time as it served the interest of the “Party” or as Orwell’s character Winston describes it:

“Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. For several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself, some of which he remembered vividly. But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge, which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.” (1984, Chapter 3)

This sudden reversal in enemy and alliance has happened. Somehow we went from Russia’s Putin being someone Obama could promise “more flexibility” (after his reelection) and not face any repercussions for in the mainstream media to it literally being called “treason” for Trump, our President, to meet another head of state. The grand irony here is that there is more proof that those accusing Trump are more guilty of what they say he is doing than he is. They claim he “colluded” with Russia for encouraging them to do what our media and intelligence services refused to do, yet never question a “dossier” created by a foreign intelligence agent and used to discredit the elected leader of this nation.

The truth is that if anyone is guilty of treason it is those who are colluding with a foreign intelligence agent to bring down the duly elected representative of our nation. We are being gaslighted by those who claim to be only trying to protect us. This is what doublespeak is about. It is about taking a term and using it incorrectly to manipulate people. Trump is not treasonous to talk to his Russian counterpart. Treason is defined as “overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance” and, it is an absurd charge to make against a sitting President, it much more aptly describes those who will stop at nothing to overthrow the very leader of our nation over their personal hatred and partisan agenda.

Facts Without Context Are Misleading and Potentially Treasonous

It wouldn’t be so bad that the anti-Trump media were simply trying to overrule the voters and remove the President through intentional misuse of the impeachment process. Politics is a cutthroat business and there are many willing to use any means available to get an edge. It is no big surprise that the media is partisan and bias. It is easy to understand why they would be angry at the man who has called them out, used their own terms (ie: fake news) against them, and basically beaten them at every turn. However, it is completely another thing for them to throw the entire country under the bus in their raging hatred.

The media coverage of tariffs is atrocious. You would think that Trump was just flailing wildly and just out to start a trade war for no particular reason. Like shooter story or the edited soundbite, it is what they leave out of their reporting that misleads and what they leave out is the fact that many countries do tariff or otherwise make it difficult for us to compete in their markets and that Trump does have a point about the unfairness of this. Worse, our media, for ridiculing Trump, are strengthening the hand of foreign governments that are negotiating against us and could undermine his efforts to get us better fairer trade deals. Their blinding partisanship could cost us greatly and is far more a betrayal of the public trust than anything Trump has done.

Fortunately, this deceptive reporting has not completely sabotaged Trump on trade. His threat of tariffs recently succeeded in bringing the European Union to agree to work towards the ending of all tariffs against US goods. But the point remains that he would be far better at leveraging other countries to treat us fairly if the media was not so busy trying to attack his credibility and make him out to be the bad guy. They are doing us a great disservice both in that they should be helping our President push for things that help us as a nation and also that they are not giving us the information we need to decide correctly for ourselves. It is irresponsible at very least and possibly even treasonous.

The People Must Push Back

Trump lies, he embellishes the truth and gets the facts wrong. But that doesn’t make him unusual as far as politicians go and there are long lists of lies told by his political rivals. What is unusual is how many the mainstream media has gone off completely off the rails and are now reporting up as down and down as up in their effort to stop Trump. Anti-Trump Democrats (and some Republicans) accuse Trump of doing what they themselves are doing and need to be sent a clear message that this is not acceptable. We need to tune out, turn off their propaganda, and do our due diligence in finding the whole story ourselves.

Trump has plenty of baggage as far as his personal life and, for better or worse, he says things that most public figures do not say in public. But he is not literally Hitler, he has no resemblance whatsoever to “Big Brother” in 1984 and is politically a centrist when you cut through all the noise. Trump is economically a great President. He also seems to genuinely care about the country and is amazingly successful despite the strong headwind of those who have protested his Presidency and called for impeachment before he even set foot in the Oval Office. His critics in the media are not objective people, they are extremely agenda driven and, even when factually correct, distort rather than report honestly.

The misinformed masses will be out in great number this November. If they win political contests it will be a signal to the anti-Trump media to double down on the propaganda. It will be taken as evidence that their telling half-truths (or leaving out essential context) is working and lead them to do it more and more. The only means we have to push back is by correcting the distortions where we see them and also by showing up at the polls ourselves. It is up to us decide what we want to encourage or discourage by our own actions. What message do you want to send to those who use propaganda and ironically false accusations to manipulate public opinion?

Another Rant About the Corporate Media and their Gun Control Narrative

It is always interesting to see how hard-left ideologue respond to events that do not fit with their narrative and yet cannot be completely ignored. Such was the case when a woman—who happened to be an immigrant and also a vegan activist—went on a shooting rampage at the YouTube headquarters.

There were no stories on Yahoo News about immigrants who commit criminal acts or the history of left-wing violence. Nor was there any articles about links between mental illness and mass shootings. But there were a couple headlines that captured the desperation to turn the story back towards what does fit their ideological agenda.

#1) Blame the gun…

The first headline targets a gun manufacturer: “Smith & Wesson gun used in second mass shooting in two months“

I suppose—since there is no white male shooter or opportunity to push guilt by association onto a political opponent—going after the gun manufacturer is the next available option?

It makes as much logical sense as publishing an article: “Toyota vehicle used in a second drunk driving-incident in two weeks.” And, like the unwarranted attacks against the NRA, it is nothing more than a naked attempt to blame-shift.

#2) Attack semi-automatic rifles…

The second headline pushes the reader to imagine: “What if the YouTube shooter had an assault rifle?“

Again, the attempt is to shift the conversation from what actually happened (and the person who did the violence) to some hypothetical scenario that serves their hard left political agenda. You are supposed to react viscerally to the theoretically increased carnage and be moved to support their crusade against our rights defined in the 2nd Amendment.

But this is as germane as asking: “What if the Parkland shooter had a truck?”

A truck attack in France killed far more than 17 and yet that is not something they discussed in the wake of the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School because it is completely irrelevant.

There are many hypothetical questions we could ask that are more relevant. For example: What if the shooter had been deported before the shooting? Or what should we know about the ideology behind this Iranian-born woman’s hateful last act? That, discussing the real person and the actual facts, would make far more sense than creating a fictional account where she’s a retired Navy Seal with a machine gun and kills everyone within a ten-mile radius.

The only reason an alternative reality is created in relation to the YouTube attack is to push the gun control narrative.

3) Continue to use emotions to manipulate…

The last headline from Yahoo is pure fear-mongering: “Unfiltered: ‘I have never seen that many injured patients by high-velocity weapons all at once.’“

The blood and gore, obviously, is intended to frighten the reader and turn them against the object. They mention “semi-automatic” and “AR-15-style” and “assault rifles” in order to link those terms together with feelings of disgust.

That could be considered an informative article. But again, one must ask, why don’t we have similar stories about those who have treated people run over by trucks? Why are they devoting so much attention to such a low probability event?

All three cases above do not qualify as actual news or a sincere effort to inform the public debate. It is propaganda and recruitment. It is getting the word out to activists and coordination of effort. It is manipulation, an attempt to scare people into giving up their rights and push them to cede more control to corporate/government elites.

“But, but, think of the children!”

It is awful when any innocent person is killed. But there is something especially gut-wrenching about the murder of a young person. I lived in Lancaster County when the West Nickel Mines school shootings happened and cried thinking of the terror inflicted upon these defenseless Amish children.

My deep empathy did not, however, change my view of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I’ve learned long ago that emotional and impulsive responses do not often result in the best decisions. For me tragedy is a reason to reflect first and actions should be taken only when we have made a good clear-headed analysis.

But there are others who seem to take the confusion and chaos of a moment as an opportunity for political gain. I’m reminded of the words of Rahm Emanuel:

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you didn’t think you could do before.

There are many who see tragedy as an opportunity to advance their own ideological agenda. They want to manipulate feelings, they encourage rash decisions based in an initial over-reaction and they often exploit children for this purpose. The Parkland shooting was one of those ideal circumstances for many who want more government control over all aspects of our lives. It was a chance to bully those who had nothing to do with the shooting into silence using children as their human shields.

When CNN and other politically motivated organizations parade children around it is because they are too cowardly to let their arguments stand against the full force of a rational critique. They can simply hide behind the children, they can accuse anyone who challenges their views of attacking children, and prevent an adult conversation from ever taking place. It is only right that this sort of appeal to emotion and dishonest debate tactic provokes ire. Unfortunately it is a strategy that works the same way as hostages do and makes it difficult to know how to respond.

Fortunately, in the case of Parkland and gun control demands, there is a way to confront those who use children this way and that is to point out the serious contradiction in their argument. The same people who say that a teenager cannot be trusted to own a semi-automatic rifle cannot turn around and say that teenagers know better than us as far as government policies. No, they need to decide first whether or not teenagers are fully equipped to engage in a complex topic in a rational and responsible manner.

If you need children to be the leaders of your movement then there might a problem with your movement. Yes, there might be a certain purity to a young person’s mind. That said, teenage discernment is questionable, they do no have the sophistication of thought of a mature person nor the life experience to draw on. They are easy prey for the opportunists who offer them social status in return for parroting talking points.

Indoctrinated children, fed Marxist/Utopian lies, have led to millions upon millions killed. We should learn from history and resist those who use impressionable children as their pawns. Those who truly love children do not use them as stage props for a partisan political agenda. Those who have a reasonable argument do not need to rely on opportunism nor do they need to exploit children to advance their ideological cause.

Don’t be manipulated out of your freedoms by those who are immature, irresponsible and employ the same level of reasoning as a child. If children can’t be trusted with firearms, then they certainly cannot be trusted for their political opinions. More people have been killed by ill-conceived solutions that trampled individual rights than by school shooters.

If we must think of the children, think of those countless children who froze to death when they were loaded on rail cars, with their parents, and sent into the Siberian tundra.

Stalin, like modern leftist ideologues, didn’t let opportunities go to waste. In fact, it seems like he liked opportunities so much that he created the crisis in order to increase his opportunities.

Empowering government to strip away individual rights in a childish over-reaction to an terrible event is stupid and dangerous stupid.