A bad case of political correctness
Democrats’ reaction to the attack in Orlando, Fla., deserves comments, but first, let’s clear up the recent dust-up between the FBI and Apple Computer about the San Bernardino terrorist’s smart phone.
In March, prior to the phone being unlocked, I wrote, “I suspect that unlocking the iPhone would take fewer than 30 minutes, wouldn’t require new software, and the CEO of Apple is being less than truthful when he says otherwise.” It turned out that programmers working for a private company were able to complete the task in less than two weeks even though they didn’t have access to documented iPhone source code. So I stand by my statement.
Since the phone was unlocked, most pundits were willing to say “No harm, no foul” and forget the episode. Not me. The Apple CEO needs to be reminded that we know he was lying.
Furthermore, I doubt that Apple would have refused to unlock the phone if the murderers had been members of the Ku Klux Klan. But the San Bernardino killers ranked higher on the “political correctness” scale.
After the Orlando attack, Democrats fell all over themselves trying to blame it on anything other than Islamic terrorism.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch said we may never know the motivation of the killer. The New York Times published an unhinged editorial that blamed the National Rifle Association, and an op-ed in Rolling Stone called for repeal of the Second Amendment.
Apparently the flood of disinformation worked because a Gallup poll taken two days after the attack found that 60 percent of Democrats view the shooting as an issue of gun violence while only 29 percent view it as Islamic terrorism.
The Second Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms, and the Rolling Stone author was correct (perhaps unknowingly) that one cannot successfully argue otherwise. If one diagrams the sentence that makes up the amendment, the clause about a well regulated militia is connected to the main subject and verb by a dotted line, and it is included merely to explain the reason for the amendment.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to give people the right to hunt turkeys or to plunk tin cans with a rifle. And one needs to look no further than the suffering that democratic socialism has inflicted upon the people of Venezuela to know why democratic socialists in the U.S. don’t want an armed populace.
Democrats in the Senate staged a filibuster and called for a vote on gun control bills, but then they voted against a bill that would prevent people on a no-fly list from purchasing a gun. The bill required the government to prove to a judge that the person actually deserves to be on the list.
Basically that tells you that they don’t want the law; they blocked the law so they could continue to exploit the issue for politics. They can fraudulently imply that Republicans want to allow terrorists to buy guns, and can rely on the left-wing media to ignore the fact that they voted against a bill that would have prevented it.
The bill (called the Cornyn amendment) gave the Justice Department three days to convince a judge that a prospective gun purchaser should be barred from buying a gun, or else the sale would go through.
Democrats objected to the three day period, but if they actually cared about restricting gun sales to people on the no-fly list, they would offer some other time period, like three weeks, three months, or whatever.
Our justice system is not based on requiring someone to prove his innocence to get off the no-fly list; it is based on requiring the government to prove his guilt.
Not to be outdone, Democrats in the House staged an all-night sit-in to call for more gun control. Keep in mind that this fundraising stunt was carried out in a building that was guarded by people with (gasp) guns. Fundraising from the House floor is in direct violation of House ethics rules.
And there’s no truth to the rumor that after the slumber party, they clutched their blankies and went around saying “Good game” to each other. OK, OK, I’ll confess. I’m the one who started that rumor. —John Fogle welcomes your comments at .