Obama Doesn't Care About Dead Children
"Obama doesn't care about dead children. He's indifferent to the suffering of their parents. There isn't a single coherent argument on his side of the case. He lies about the issue. It's pure politics," Mona Charen writes, adding that "That's the way the dispute would be presented if Obama's opponents deployed the kind of demagogic language he slips on like comfortable loafers. Sounds harsh, doesn't it, possibly even racist?"
Funny how touchy everyone is about the way Obama is criticized but how indifferent most are to his low accusations. His opponents are always guilty of bad faith, whereas he is concerned about preventing children from being mowed down by crazed gunmen.
Except he isn't. The gun control measures the president worked so hard to pass and which the Senate voted down would have done nothing to prevent Newtown and would do nothing to prevent the next Newtown.
Adam Lanza did not obtain his guns through the gun show loophole. More rigorous background checks would not have prevented most of the mass shootings we've suffered in the past 15 years.
Nor does the president's outrage at the Senate's failure to pass his trivial reform really hold up as a genuine expression of policy disappointment. As Allahpundit observed, the president responded very differently to the Aurora, Colo. shootings than to Newtown. Could it be because Newtown was more heinous? It's possible. It could also be because Aurora happened before the election, and Obama chose not to embrace a potentially unpopular issue like gun control while his name was on the ballot. Yet when four Democrats from pro-gun states declined to place their own reelections in jeopardy, Obama in effect called them "shameful."
That the president is sincerely angry that he lost a political battle after making lots of speeches and parading Newtown parents before the cameras is beyond dispute. What must sting most acutely though is not that he lost, it's that Democrats participated in his defeat, undercutting the preferred narrative about Republican obstruction that he might have flogged until November 2014.
Meanwhile, Jonah Goldberg notes another example of how the left and the media (but I repeat myself) stacks language against the right:
As the Washington Examiner's Philip Klein recently noted, among the myriad reasons conservatives take offense at this idiotic knee-jerk slander is that the term "right wing" is also routinely used to describe both terrorists and mainstream Republicans such as Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. I can exclusively report that neither of them celebrates Hitler's birthday.
Every Muslim terrorist enjoys not just the presumption of innocence until proven guilty but the presumption that he's a fan of Ayn Rand, too.
Ah, but some would respond that "right wing" is different than "Muslim" because there's so much similarity between mainstream conservative ideology and the terror-filled creeds of the far right.
Except there isn't. Timothy McVeigh, an atheist, wasn't part of the conservative or libertarian movements. He wasn't even part of the militia movement. And what on earth was right wing about the Columbine shootings?
In plenty of cases of multiple killings, from the Unabomber to Christopher Dorner, the perpetrators espoused views closer to the mainstream left's than McVeigh had to the mainstream right. Occupy Wall Street was an idealistic expression of democratic protest, but the Tea Partiers were brownshirts in khakis.
And, recall that Secretary of State John Kerry belonged to a group -- Vietnam Veterans Against the War -- that once discussed assassinating American politicians. Barack Obama was friendly with a convicted domestic terrorist. But to even bring these things up, never mind invest them with significance, is considered outrageous guilt by association.
And you know what? Maybe it is.
But if that is outrageous, what do you call the paranoid style of liberal politics that has confused normalcy for fascism for more than half a century?
Read the whole thing.
When one half of the nation is using a completely different dictionary from the other, there's the great risk of running into what Aaron Clarey dubs "The Zombie Feminist," or her male counterpart:
I truly believe that after K-Grad school education, the human brain is so indoctrinated and steeped in leftist thought they are mentally impaired and incapable off;
admitting being wrong or in error
And with a compliant media, government, and society, this mental disease remains thoroughly ensconced in their psyches into adulthood. But what makes it worse is there is usually a violent (though mindless) reaction. An emotional and visceral response to anyone or anything that dares to suggest they or their ideology is wrong.
For example, compare and contrast these two clips.
Precisely how do their psychologies differ?
Will Smith's character (if I remember the movie right) tried to reason with the zombies saying he could cure them.
They wanted none of it.
The MRA in the other video wanted to have a calm discussion.
The feminist wanted none of it.
Post 9/11, the left has moved further and further into PC land, a trend that seems to accelerate exponentially every time a crime such as the Giffords, Trayvon or Newtown incidents becomes one of Mr. Obama's nationalized psychodramas. (As opposed to last week in Boston, whose root causes "cannot be determined.") And as the left gives a pass to their own radical chic desires and those of their fellow travelers. (See also: MSM fawning over a film director who's learned to stop worrying and love the Weather Underground's bombs.)
As the left moves further and further into PC land -- where does a bifurcated nation go from here?
Related: Gerard Van der Leun on "The First Terrorist War -
Five Years Later Ten Years Later."