Navy Yard: “Regardless” of the Truth(Comments Off)
The dust had barely settled at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday when a barrage of lies began to fly from the usual suspects on the left. For once, the religion of the crazed shooter, Aaron Alexis, was not buried or ignored completely, since he was publicly connected not to Islam but to Buddhism. But immediately, “law enforcement sources” were drawing attention to the killer’s weapon of choice, an AR-15.
Quick on the draw with a statement was Dianne Feinstein, who referred to the shooting as “one more event to add to the litany [sic] of massacres that occur when a deranged person or grievance killer is able to obtain multiple weapons—including a military-style assault rifle—and kill many people in a short amount of time. When will enough be enough?”
Never one to miss an opportunity to “milk” a calamity for political gain, Feinstein insisted, “Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country.”
The indefatigable Piers Morgan immediately booked guests John Lott and Ben Ferguson to yell at them about assault weapons: “AR-15, killing multiple Americans, I just cannot have this debate anymore and it’s ridiculous!”
Now, less than 24-hours later, CNN is admitting that “The sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial information that an AR-15 was used in the shootings may have been incorrect.”
The latest investigation suggests that Alexis brought a shotgun to the scene and stole handguns from two officers once the shooting commenced. So, no “assault” or “assault-style weapon” was involved.
Breathtakingly, CNN, while issuing the correction, fills out the column space with a diatribe against . . . the AR-15. ”Regardless, the massacre pushed the AR-15 back into the gun-control debate.” The article then goes on to list all of the shootings in which the semi-automatic rifle was used, before affectionately citing the above-mentioned Piers Morgan and comparing the weapon’s automatic predecessor (from 1958, an “efficient killing machine”) with an AK-47.
Note with horror this fact: “The AR-15 has since become a semiautomatic rifle, firing one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. But like the M16, ammunition is loaded through a magazine.” (A magazine! Just like the .22 semi-automatic my children and I use to shoot cans in the backyard!)
Better hang on to your guns (and religion) a little tighter. There is no lie that the left isn’t willing to tell to get at them.
The left-wing media painted the legislation restricting abortions in Texas with the broadest brush. ”Sweeping” was the most common adjective. As in “’It is a very happy, celebratory day,’” Perry said before signing the sweeping antiabortion measure” (Salon); “Gov. Rick Perry signs sweeping abortion bill” (ABC News); or “Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed sweeping new abortion restrictions . . . that could shutter most of the state’s clinics that provide the procedure . . . ” (USA Today).
The “sweeping” law, which bans abortions after 20 weeks, preserves 98.5% of current abortions, according to Guttmacher Institute statistics. Of course, fewer abortions is a good thing, even if the reduction is only by 1.5%, and the other provisions of the legislation, which compel abortion mills to rise above the level of a tattoo parlor or a Botox party, may reduce numbers further.
Texas Republicans’ stated rationale for the 20-week limit was that “the state has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of unborn children from the stage at which substantial medical evidence indicates that these children are capable of feeling pain” (pdf).
And that’s hogwash, because the legislation makes a barbaric exception when it comes to unborn children with “a severe fetal abnormality.” According to the Health and Safety Code of the State of Texas, “a ‘severe fetal abnormality’ means a life threatening physical condition that, in reasonable medical judgment, regardless of the provision of life saving medical treatment, is incompatible with life outside the womb.”
Never mind the vagueness of “reasonable medical judgment.” What this exception means is that a new standard is created for determining whether a child in utero is “unwanted.” If the disabled child is not expected to live long (however you may define “long”), who cares if “these children are capable of feeling pain”? Why bother to let them live as long as they can, when you can kill them—for all the same reasons the abortion-on-demand Democrats cite for 20 weeks and beyond?
Disabled babies belong in the bio-hazard waste bag, and no amount of pain should stop them from reaching their destination. This is what “conservative” abortions look like.
You’d think Putin had constructed a gas chamber on the edge of Olympik Village in Sochi, but the reality is much less shocking.
The surprise and shock was not confined to the Japanese. This dawning of the nuclear age gave us new fears and changed our imaginations.