Stacy Washington is a black, female political pundit, whose politics happen to be right of center. She runs a website and a radio show called Stacy on the Right.
On Friday, April 28th, she published an OpEd in the St. Louis Times called Stacy Washington: Guns and the media. In it, she had the audacity to suggest that the NRA and law abiding gun owners are not evil monsters on par with ISIS, stop calling them that and the media needs to stop being vehemently anti NRA.
Kennedy then describes the barbaric nature of the Islamic State and goes on to say of law-abiding, gun-owning Americans: “What makes the NRA so feared is its willingness to spend heavily and campaign aggressively in pursuit of its goal of removing all restrictions on the possession and use of firearms just about anywhere by just about anyone.”
Amusing. NRA members committed none of the gun crimes that he mentioned in his article. When inner-city residents complain of crime in their neighborhoods or decry the lack of adequate policing, the NRA or its membership are never mentioned…
To further illustrate the ridiculous nature of Kennedy’s comparison, when has a member of the NRA ever decapitated, set on fire, tossed from a rooftop or otherwise terrorized another American? The linkage is not only rife with improper context; it is false on its face.
For the sin of defending the NRA, the St. Louis Time has decided to end her column forever,
blaming a conflict of interest. The SLT seems to believe the only reason a reporter would defend the NRA is because they were on the NRA’s payroll. Thereby proving her point.
Over at the New York Times, the new hire Bret Stephens published this OpEd,
Climate of Complete Certainty. In it he acknowledged that humans are in fact changing the atmosphere, but that the rhetoric of Left Wing environmentalists/climate change fanatics isn’t doing their side any favors with hysterical, apocalyptic predictions about climate change and calling people who doubt the predictions stupid.
Well, not entirely. As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren’t.
Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.
For his questioning the dogma of climate change, the New York Times was inundated with
liberals canceling their subscriptions, and Stephens was
attacked on social media by other journalists. Some of the attacks even had an anti-Semitic bend to them – i.e.
criticizing Stephens climate change article by condemning his as pro-Israel.
Ann Coulter tried to speak at Berkeley and was shut down by Antifa.
The Left leaning ACLU came to the defense of free speech, even as they insulted Coulter.
For the audacity of trying to defend the First Amendment on a public campus, they were attacked and Leftists threatened to stop donating.
It has become quite clear that the Progressive Left has become the Trial of Socrates. Anyone who dares to say anything that goes slightly against the dogma of the left must be shut down. There is no room for debate anymore. It is an ideological purity test, administered by the most fervent of believers and those who don’t pass will be exiled. Antifa has become the
Muṭawwi (
Islamic religious morality police) of the Left, openly beating those who don’t conform.
This is dangerous as hell and a threat to the very foundation of our society.
Like this:
Like Loading...
