Campaigning before a church congregation on Chicago’s South Side one Sunday in July 2007, Barack Obama said an epidemic of big city violence was “sickening the soul of this nation.”
Why is it that the media never invokes the most simple thought in response to this kind of empty expression: big city violence 1) is committed on the part of criminals who have access to guns outside of the law, and 2) is the result of the government’s violent war on drugs. A whole lot of empowered people get rich off of the drug war, which is why they will never let go of it. But the propaganda is written in such a way that makes it appear that armed, non-criminal Americans, and their rightful ownership of guns, is the problem. There is no support for gun control in Congress right now, which is why Obama is attempting the truly tyrannical route.
Sixty-five House Democrats wrote Attorney General Holder in mid-March, saying they “would actively oppose any effort to reinstate the 1994 ban” and predicting “a long and divisive fight” if the administration tried to push for one. Many of them represent rural districts, where gun control is no more popular than in Nevada.
On another note and in another sham twist of words, the media refers to Obama’s tyrannical rampage against the free market and individual rights as a “breathtakingly ambitious agenda.” In fact, that makes him “Mr. Cool.” Until now, the term used to describe trashing the Constitution had been “bold move.”
You have to wonder about the mental state of reporters who swoon over power and lust, and rejoice in its use and abuse.2:55 pm on April 24, 2009 Email Karen De Coster