More HUGE lies by those promoting ‘The Narrative.’ Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
I try to stay off political topics on this blog but sometimes ‘The Narrative’ pushes my buttons. Plus, I like doing research and crunching numbers so this was interesting for me.
The following paragraph appeared in an article on the ‘U.S. Uncut’ website. I’ll spare you the clickbait but please check me if you would like to.
America’s largest gun lobby contributed to the campaigns of 50 Republican senators who voted against the latest gun reform legislation this Monday, from amounts ranging between $2,500 (Sen. Rand Paul) and $7,740,221 (Sen. John McCain). Over the course of all 50 senators’ careers, the NRA contributed a total of $36,290,699, according to data compiled by the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
I particularly thought the McCain number was interesting. Although I’m not his biggest fan, the number is so huge I thought it was worth checking. The article referenced by U.S. Nutcut, Center for American Progress Action Fund, didn’t provide any source for their numbers, which is always a Red Flag to me.
To get some actual data, I went to OpenSecrets. Here’s the data they provided for Senator McCain.
2014 cycle – $0
2012 cycle – $0
2010 cycle – $7450.00
2008 cycle – $1250.00
2006 cycle – $0
2004 cycle – $0
2002 cycle – $0
2000 cycle – $1000.00
1998 cycle – $10400.00
1996 cycle – $0
1994 cycle – $0
1992 cycle – $9900.00
1990 cycle – $9900.00
That’s as far back as the data on the OpenSecrets website goes.
Just to make sure I didn’t make any manual adding mistakes, I put that info into an Excel spreadsheet. Gee, it only added up to $39,900.00. That’s about $7,700,321.00 short of the number cited by the author, Mr. Tom Cahill, about whom the article said:
“Tom Cahill is a writer for US Uncut based in the Pacific Northwest. He specializes in coverage of political, economic, and environmental news. You can contact him via email at firstname.lastname@example.org.”
Is Cahill an utterly inept blogger masquerading as a ‘journalist?’ Or is he an unethical lying shill for the internal enemies of our great Nation? I have my suspicion about which it is but I’ll let you make your own decision. If the latter, he obviously can’t demonstrate his case so he just creates disinformation (Dezinformatsiya, as the KGB called it) to mislead his [gullible] readers.
As Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Reich Minister of Propaganda, said:
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
Through an oblique reference, I recently found a link to The Woman’s Gun Pamphlet. Edit: The link and the server appear to be gone. A PDF of the Pamphlet is available at the edit of this post.
It’s a very interesting publication that was written and published by a colloquium of radical feminists in 1975. The intent was to provide information about both guns themselves and about personal protection attitudes to women of that era who knew nothing about guns or personal protection. As such, I consider it an historically significant document. There’s quite a bit of political rhetoric in it but also a goodly amount of information. Even dry practice is touched on. Some morsels of dry wit are quite entertaining.
Especially interesting to me is that it was written from the perspective of self-taught women of the time with some input from men and by doing primary and secondary research. What they considered important, how the information was structured, and how it was presented is insightful. There are a number of items in it that made me realize there are areas of my subject matter knowledge I take for granted.
Given this week’s confrontation between the Federal government and a quasi Posse Comitatus group in Oregon, I also found the political views and fears presented in a 1975 publication to be notable. When I graduated high school in 1972, I doubted I would be able to own a handgun, much less carry one in the majority of States, even slightly into the future at that time. The recent shenanigans regarding Weapons Carry reciprocity in Virginia by its anti-gun Governor and his lackey Attorney General echo items in the Pamphlet. The attitudes and tactics of hoplophobes and political control freaks have changed little in the past 50 years. A common one is ‘take something away, then give it back in exchange for something else.’ The saying ‘One step forward, two steps back’ comes to mind. Gun controllists play the long game, just like Mao Zedong, and never view their playbook as a zero sum game.
The Pamphlet took me a little over an hour to read cover to cover, so it’s not heavy reading. Anyone who teaches, either formally or informally, women or Gun Culture 2.0 will find it worthwhile reading.
A friend posted a comment on his Facebook page about police response policies and times today. His post related to the hypocrisy of politicians who are protected by armed guards around the clock but desire to have the populace disarmed and at the mercy of the criminal element.
In the wake of the Umpqua Community College and Northern Arizona University shootings, there have been renewed calls by Mr. Obama for increased gun control, along with other politicians. The implication of these calls is that law enforcement authorities are always available to protect the citizenry at a moment’s notice. If the government will not allow the citizenry to protect itself, as is now the case in Lesser Britain, then that responsibility must fall to the organized government. A frequently validated saying in the Army is
If no one in particular is responsible for something, then no one is responsible for it at all.
There are several problems with making the government responsible for our safety in the United States, two in particular.
First, the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 and again in 2005 that the government does not have the duty to protect us as individuals. Government in general, and the police in particular, only have the duty to preserve a general sense of order in the US. Only society at large is owed a duty of protection.
Second, there are practical considerations. The following was how I responded to my friend’s post:
I have a recording of an actual 911 call by a woman whose home is broken into while she is on the phone with 911. It is not fiction and was used as an exemplar in 911 dispatcher training.
The dispatcher is shocked into silence by the events, which allows hearing the gruesome sounds and screams as the woman is murdered. It is 2 minutes and 51 seconds long from the time she calls when he is outside until the murderer calmly hangs up the phone after the woman is dead. She is screaming “Who are you?” and has no idea of her attacker’s identity. To my knowledge, the murderer has never been identified, much less caught and brought to justice.
The recording is so horrible and shocking that I am very judicious about whom I play it for. I have listened to it many times and it still turns my stomach every time I hear it.
It’s not the only such macabre recording like that in my collection. They range in length from 1 minute 1 second to 3 minutes 3 seconds.
Every scumbag politician, including police chiefs who serve as mouthpieces for their political masters, should be required to play it at the conclusion of their spiels about how they will protect us and a five to eleven minute response time is plenty. It would be the end of that [you know what].