Category: Scratch a Lib-Find a Moron

Just my opinion but this was intentional for more than one reason.
1 Political power through election fraud.
2 Graft via kickbacks from purposefully incompetent oversight of funding.

The Somali Fraud Story Busts Liberal Myths
Mass immigration, antiracism, and the welfare state lead inexorably to fraud.

There is a moment when every news story either achieves lift-off or tumbles back to the earth. Having covered a few that drove national headlines, I’ve discovered there is no universal formula for which ones hit the stratosphere, and which do not.

Our recent story detailing Minnesota’s Somali fraud rings has been one of the lucky ones, achieving liftoff in record time. City Journal reporter Ryan Thorpe and I summarized a decade of Somali fraud schemes that stole billions of taxpayer dollars, some of which ended up with Al-Shabaab terrorists back in Somalia. These were sophisticated criminal enterprises that exploited Minnesota’s generous welfare state, deployed accusations of racism to deter scrutiny, and looted the public treasury until local prosecutors did the hard work to bring them down.

The meta-story—how a news item weaves its way through public discourse—is also worth considering. When we published the story, it quickly dominated the conversation on conservative social media. It filtered upward to primetime Fox News, where, on Laura Ingraham’s program, I summarized the piece and called on President Trump to revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for all Somalis in Minnesota.

Within hours, the president, who had been following the story, announced that he would revoke TPS for all Somali recipients. Then, over the Thanksgiving holiday, Trump raised the stakes with a blistering social media tirade that ripped into Somali fraudsters, accused Minnesota governor Tim Walz of mental deficiencies, and promised to stop all asylum cases and immigration from the Third World. This sequence of events turned the Minnesota fraud into the debate of the moment.

The next step in the process is for the liberal media to respond. Right on cue, CBS News published a story misrepresenting our report and “debunking” that misrepresentation—a claim that it eventually retracted under pressure. The New York Times did somewhat better, publishing a long feature on the Somali fraud, confirming key details, and opening the floodgates for discourse on the center-left. The spotlight thus turned to Governor Walz, who was at the helm when Somali thieves robbed Minnesota of billions.

On the surface, the Times story was an acknowledgment that this was a real scandal that the liberal press had missed. But the paper did not address the underlying narrative about why the fraud happened. Yes, the story is about a criminal enterprise, but it runs deeper than that. The story has touched a nerve because it busts liberal myths about immigration, anti-racism, and the welfare state.

Minnesota has long prided itself on its generous welfare programs and reputation for good governance. But after the mass arrival of the new Somali population—many of whom brought with them different attitudes toward government and civil society—these programs became a weak point. George Floyd’s 2020 death in Minneapolis demonstrated that scrutiny could be deflected by making baseless accusations of “racism” against anyone who raised questions about the missing funds.

The uncomfortable truth for Times readers is that all cultures are not equal. Therefore, not all cultures are compatible with all political systems. In this case, the Somali criminal enterprise is incompatible with a generous welfare state, particularly in the context of a racial politics that intimidates whistleblowers and other honest brokers.

Though this story was particular to Minnesota, disruptive mass immigration is a national phenomenon. During the four years of the Biden administration, America imported millions of foreigners, many illegally. Some of these have brought, or are trying to bring, negative aspects of their home culture to the United States.

Indeed, cultural incompatibility was a campaign theme during the 2024 election.  Venezuelan gangs took over apartment buildings in Colorado. Haitian migrants overwhelmed deindustrialized towns in the Rust Belt. The Somali fraud story is another point in this plotline.

The Trump administration claims to be on pace to “shatter” records of forced deportations and so-called self-deportations, but more must be done. The administration should put financial restrictions on illegal immigrants, like requiring proof of legal status for maintaining a bank account; and implement massive remittance taxes to reduce the profitability of illegal immigration and fraud. And it must line up the manpower to turbocharge the prosecution of immigrant fraud, in Minnesota and elsewhere.

The New York Times won’t spell it out in block print, but even devoted liberals are starting to ask questions about the welfare state’s combability with mass migration. The shocking scope and scale of the Somali fraud in Minnesota made this a story that could no longer be ignored.

Everytown Misfires in Attack on Defensive Gun Uses

When Everytown for Gun Safety announced it was holding online gun “training” classes, many anti-gun activists and volunteers with the organization were sharply critical of the move, declaring it was akin to the group normalizing gun ownership instead of advocating for a gun-free future.

Of course, the so-called training has proved to be mostly anti-gun talking points, but if the group’s anti-2A critics have any doubts that Everytown is still as opposed to our right to keep and bear arms as ever they just have to look at the organization’s latest report for reassurance.

Titled “Disarming Fear: Debunking Myths of Defensive Gun Use”, Everytown’s report starts with several incidents that they allege were reported as defensive gun uses even though there were elements of each incident that were immediately known that undercut any self-defense claim. One incident highlighted by Everytown, for example, was the shooting of teenager Ralph Yarl in Kansas City after he knocked on the wrong door of a home when he went to pick up his little brothers from a friend’s house. While Andrew Lester Lester told police that he believed that Yarl was trying to break in to his home and was “scared to death” of Yarl’s size, it only took prosecutors four days to file charges against him.

Everytown asserts that legitimate defensive gun uses are “exceedingly rare,” and that they are “often deployed against unarmed perpetrators, and often accompanied by underappreciated personal and social risks, including loss of life and property.”

How rare? Everytown says it used National Crime Victimization Survey data and came up with a figure of about 69,000 DGUs every year between 2019 and 2023. That’s far below the estimates of 1 million or more DGUs from researchers like Gary Kleck and William English, but even so, that’s about three times the number of homicides in the United States. If DGU’s are “rare”, then murders involving firearms are even more rare, which undercuts Everytown’s entire ideology.

Everytown also takes issue with using a gun to defend yourself against someone who doesn’t have a firearm.

In the majority of these uses, suspected perpetrators are unarmed. In fact, 58 percent of perpetrators are not armed with any weapon. In eight out of 10 DGUs, the suspected perpetrator is not armed with a gun.

So what? An unarmed individual can still pose a threat to life and limb. Just look at the recent DGU in Los Angeles where a 79-year-old Vietnam veteran shot and killed a man who had thrown him to the ground and broke both his legs and continued to assault him while he was writhing in pain. Does Everytown believe George Karkoc should be charged for acting in self-defense since his attacker wasn’t armed with any kind of weapon?

If not, it sure looks like they at least believe Karkoc would have been better off without a gun.

Crime victims who responded with a gun were less likely to get away from the offender than those who responded without one (7 percent with a gun compared to 18 percent without) and less likely to avoid injury (39 percent compared to 44 percent).

So… in either case the vast majority of individuals who were the victim of a violent crime were unable to get away from their attacker, and the difference in the injury rate is honestly negligible. If that’s true, then I would definitely prefer to be armed if someone decides to invade my home, carjack my vehicle, or assault me on the street.

Everytown also notes that violent crime is trending down across the United States, but as FPC’s Rob Romano notes, they still claim that an armed society is a more dangerous place.


Giffords has also recently complained about the number of justifiable homicides, which makes me wonder if this going to be a new talking point for the gun control lobby. “Too many people are defending themselves from violent attackers” doesn’t sound like a great argument to me, but maybe their focus groups are telling them differently.

Everytown’s conclusion, of course, is that you’re better off not owning a gun at all. I’d say the gun control group gave us 69,000 reasons to disregard that advice. In reality the number of defensive gun uses is likely much higher than what the anti-gun org is wililng to admit, but even using their numbers hundreds of people are protecting themselves with firearms each and every day across the United States; proof positive that DGUs aren’t uncommon or unnecessary.

BREAKING: Dems Finally Cave on Schumer Shutdown Clown Show; Newsom: ‘Pathetic.’

What did Senate Democrats get out of the 40-day Schumer Shutdown? Nothing more than what they would have had with the clean continuing resolution.

Chuck Schumer’s caucus threw in the towel last night, with at least ten Democrats plegding to vote to end the filibuster on the CR. The Senate will replace that CR with new language that would extend government operations until the end of January while negotiations continue on the FY2026 budget. Forty days ago, Schumer demanded passage of an extension of expiring ObamaCare subsidies, plus repeals of Medicaid changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill that eliminated coverage for illegal aliens.

So what did Democrats end up getting for this biblical walk in the idiotic budget wilderness? A promise for a vote on the ACA subsidies, with no guarantee of GOP support:

“We may not have gotten everything we wanted”? Democrats didn’t get anything they wanted. They didn’t even get a pass on the filibuster for the debate on ACA subsidies, let alone a commitment for an extension. We’ll get back to that in a moment, but the only real concession in this deal from the GOP is a pledge to rescind the layoffs that Russ Vought began, and those only took place because Schumer shut the government down:

A handful of Senate Democrats on Sunday indicated they are ready to advance a package of bills that could end the government shutdown, multiple sources told Axios.

Why it matters: It is the most significant movement toward a bipartisan breakthrough in the talks to reopen the government in over a month.

  • At least 10 Senate Democrats are poised to support a procedural motion to advance a package of spending bills and a short-term funding measure through the end of January, multiple sources from both parties told Axios.
  • The deal includes a December vote on a Democratic proposal to extend ACA tax credits for one year, multiple sources said. It would take 60 votes to pass.
  • It also includes language aimed at providing assistance to federal employees who were laid off during the shutdown, as well as a provision to fund SNAP benefits through Sept. 30.

Continue reading “”

“It’s like the media is a cat and Trump has the world’s biggest laser pointer.”

Trump-haters’ White House ballroom tantrums get even more ridiculous.

President Donald Trump has done it again — sent the left and the media (but I repeat myself) down a rabbit hole of absurdity.

“It’s like the media is a cat and Trump has the world’s biggest laser pointer,” Margo Cleveland posted on X, “with it currently aimed at the new ballroom.”

That’s right: While Trump tours Asia, dancing, making trade deals and apparently having a blast, he’s got his opponents back in the Swamp obsessing over . . . a home renovation project.

Using donated funds, not taxpayer money, Trump is rebuilding the White House’s shabby East Wing — originally added to cover up construction of a bomb shelter during World War II — to create a large and modern space that meets the needs of today’s presidency.

Naturally, this has the usual gang of idiots fuming.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) on Saturday lectured his fellow Democrats not to even imagine running for the presidential nomination unless they “pledge to take a wrecking ball” to Trump’s renovation.

As the government shutdown enters its fifth week, we wonder when Democrats in Congress will regain touch with reality, or if that’s even a thing for most of them anymore.

Trump inspires a new wave of nationalism — from Japan to Argentina
(Cleveland commented: “The funniest thing about this is not that Swalwell posted it, but that he thought it was so brilliant that he reposted it.”)

Talk show host Joe Walsh, who once cosplayed as a Republican, took up Swalwell’s demand: “I’ll say it every day for the next 3yrs,” he wrote, “any Democrat running for president in 2028 MUST pledge to tear down Trump’s ballroom. It matters.”

Does it? Does it really?

It’s hilarious to see such reactions from Democrats like these, along with Joe Scarbrough, Stephanie Ruhle and other Very Serious People, to a project that enriches our national infrastructure and won’t cost taxpayers a dime.

Those who a couple of years ago were toppling monuments to America’s founders and denouncing America itself as a slave state are now posing as defenders of our deep history and heritage.

Because nothing says “deep history and heritage” like a structure built in 1942 to hide a bomb shelter.

Continue reading “”

Sodom and Gomorrica: The Infant-Poaching Obsession

Documenting the West’s descent into Satanic receivership.

Homosexual ‘fathers’ poach baby for photo shoot in ritual mockery of motherhood

Gay men appear to have an unsettling fetish for poaching babies for themselves from women desperate for cash and then using them as props for Instagram photo shoots and TikTok videos.

Like this radicalizing image from a pair of twinks, one of whom is swaddling a newly requisitioned infant while wearing a hospital admission bracelet on his wrist, pressing it to his chest like he’s about to breastfeed.

Paradigm destruction in chart form
Excellent reporting, buttressed by visually captivating graphs fed by data collected by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), demonstrates that the rate of transgender self-identification among American students has halved since its peak in 2023.
Via Unherd (emphasis added):
A surprising shift is taking place in the gender and sexual identities of young Americans. Data from my new Centre for Heterodox Social Science report, “The Decline of Trans and Queer Identity among Young Americans”, shows that since 2023 both trans and queer identification have dropped sharply within Generation Z.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which conducts a large annual survey of US undergraduates, polled over 60,000 students in 2025. My analysis of the raw data shows that in that year, just 3.6% of respondents identified as a gender other than male or female. By comparison, the figure was 5.2% in 2024 and 6.8% in both 2022 and 2023. In other words, the share of trans-identified students has effectively halved in just two years.

The precipitous decline in trans-identification was accompanied by similar declines in self-reported rates of anxiety and depression, as seen in a separate chart in the thread posted above.

The data would seem to confirm that, in fact, transgenderism is a social contagion that rises or falls in popularity based on social incentives and inputs, rather than anything arising from within the individual.

Per the chart, youth gender-queerness rates spiked substantially in the late 2010s, coinciding with a massive, coordinated propaganda campaign by corporate media, corporations, NGOs, academia, government, and the public school system.

Then, coinciding with the popular backlash that really ramped up around 2023, the rates tanked.

Which looks an awful lot like impressionable kids riding the waves of whatever trend du jour — monkey see, monkey do — and a lot less like the manifestation of deeply held, inborn gender identities being allowed to be expressed after years of heteronormative oppression of gender-queerness, as the progressive argument holds.

If, as the social engineers constantly claim, transgenderism is the deepest expression of the immutable true self, how could the rate among young adults vary so dramatically in just a couple of years?

Were all of the trannies rounded up for extermination camps or forcibly reconverted to normalcy?

Or did they simply change their minds?

Of course, the LGBTQ4GF150+++™ insanity isn’t going to be eliminated overnight — there’s simply too much inertia for that to occur in any other way than gradually.

But all signs point to a massive sea-change in progress.

In my opinion, those in the California justice system who had anything to do even tangentially with this should all be prosecuted as accessories and charged under the felony murder rule. I will be generous though, and just for them, allow them to be sentenced to life without parole. The killer though better get the death penalty.

California Ignores Detainer and Releases Serial Criminal Illegal Alien; He Kills 6

A serial criminal removed from the United States multiple times for being an illegal alien and arrested for multiple offenses, including drunk driving, was released last year by the state of California despite a federal detainer. He subsequently murdered six people.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) finally caught up with Beto Cerillo-Bialva in September, but the illegal alien had had numerous encounters with law enforcement before. Unfortunately, however, the legal apparatus simply did not insist on holding him for his crimes, at least in sanctuary-state California.

“This serial criminal killed six innocent souls. Governor Newsom has blood on his hands. This serial criminal should have never been released by California authorities,” mourned Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin in a DHS press release. “Sanctuary policies protect the WORST OF THE WORST criminal illegal aliens. ICE will do everything in our power to remove this serial drunk driver, abuser, and drug user from our country.”

In 2024, Cerillo-Bialva was arrested for the third time for driving under the influence, but Gavin Newsom‘s California released him. As noted above, he subsequently killed half a dozen people in a drunk driving incident.

Cerillo-Bialva has been removed from the United States seven times—a felony—and maintains an extensive criminal history including possession of cocaine, three DUIs, driving without a license, and violating a court ordered restraining order for domestic abuse.

This news about Cerillo-Bialva comes just after the announcement that the illegal alien who killed University of South Carolina Student Nate Baker this year in a hit-and-run drunk driving accident was sentenced to only a year in jail.

McLaughlin emphasized how outrageous is the miscarriage of justice: “21-year-old USC student Nathaniel ‘Nate’ Baker was driving a motorcycle when he was hit by a truck driver who fled the scene. The hit-and-run driver, Rosali Isaac Fernandez-Cruz, was in our country illegally and received just 1 year in prison for taking Nate’s precious life. ICE lodged a detainer to ensure as soon as this killer completes his one-year prison sentence that ICE is notified to arrest him and get him OUT of our country.”

 

Too much of our so-called justice system is now rigged in favor of the worst criminals and against the victims. McLaughlin deplored the series of terrible decisions by authorities that led up to the deadly crash: “Nate was a 21-year-old college student with his whole life in front of him. This monster should never have been in our country and has had a final order of removal since 2018.”

But in all those years, the illegal alien Rosali I. Fernandez-Cruz was not removed, so he was still present in the United States to kill a wonderful young American man. How many Americans have been robbed, raped, assaulted, or killed by illegal aliens who should never have been allowed here in the first place, and many of whom were even previously ordered deported?

The Democrat Party has left a trail of corpses in its wake.

Trump on the Verge of Ending the Israel-Hamas War, and the Left Is Furious About It.

It’s one of the strangest spectacles in modern politics — watching left-wing pundits struggle to process the possibility that President Donald Trump could be on the verge of ending the Israel–Hamas war.

Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shocked the world with a bold peace plan to end the Israel–Hamas war and stabilize Gaza. On Friday, Trump gave Hamas a deadline — accept the deal by Sunday at 6 p.m. Eastern or face consequences. Hamas quickly responded, agreeing to give up control of Gaza and release all remaining hostages, while saying some details still required consultation with other Palestinian factions. Trump’s firm deadline and direct approach have already accomplished what years of empty diplomacy never could — real progress toward peace.

But, rather than celebrate the prospect of peace, some commentators seem triggered by the idea that Trump, of all people, might succeed where countless global leaders have failed.

On the latest edition of CNN’s Newsnight, foreign affairs analyst Reena Nina laid out the complex diplomatic environment surrounding the ongoing negotiations. “This is a moment where you’ve got so many of the right things lined up,” she said, noting that regional pressure on Hamas has intensified. “In the Arab world, there’s a — I’m hearing a great deal of pressure from countries like, you know, Turkey and Qatar, saying to Hamas, you’ve got to do this and take this deal.”

Nina added that Hamas “realizes there aren’t a lot of windows of opportunity for this,” referencing the earlier Gilad Shalit prisoner swap. “You’re waiting for 20 hostages that are living, that we believe are still alive and possibly as many as 30 bodies,” she explained. Then she made a striking admission: “I do believe this window of opportunity is real… because I really believe President Trump. I really believe he will unleash hell and fury if they don’t follow through with this.”

Even CNN host Abby Phillip couldn’t deny the implications if this pans out. “If President Trump is able to do this, this is a major—it’s a major victory for him,” she said, before quickly pivoting to suggest Trump’s motives might not be purely humanitarian. “He wants the war to end for a lot of reasons. Some of them are personal reasons. He wants that Nobel Peace Prize,” Phillip said. But even she conceded that Trump “does not like the idea of all the death and destruction.”

That’s when the tone shifted from analysis to thinly veiled resentment. Liberal commentator Alencia Johnson admitted it was “challenging to actually hear that piece of, you know, Trump being—potentially being the one to get the ceasefire deal.” Her discomfort was palpable. “I would be interested to understand President Trump’s interest in this,” she said, suggesting skepticism about his motives. “He has said some things that are very harmful to the Palestinian people. I don’t know, you know, what his motivations are.”

Imagine being so consumed with Trump Derangement Syndrome that you’d actually lament the prospect of peace simply because it might make Trump look good. Alencia Johnson’s comments captured this perfectly — the left’s reflexive inability to acknowledge any Trump success, even one that could save lives. Ending a brutal war and bringing home hostages should be something everyone celebrates, yet Trump’s critics sound almost offended that he might be the one to accomplish it.

CNN’s Scott Jennings was having none of it. “This is not a political issue,” he said bluntly. “Look, President Trump has been clear from the beginning he wants the hostages back.” Jennings reminded viewers that Trump “had an initial deal to get some hostages” soon after taking office in January, but that “Hamas reneged on that deal.”

“He’s been clear from the beginning,” Jennings said. “I just want these people back. The people who are alive, we pray that they’re still alive, the remains that exist — it all needs to happen and it needs to happen quickly.”

He didn’t mince words about Hamas either: “I don’t want to be strung along by these terrorists. I want the hostages. That’s what the President wants. And I don’t want him to give them very much time because they don’t deserve it and these people need to come home. We’re almost two years into this.”


Even CNN’s own analysts couldn’t deny the magnitude of the moment, yet the left’s sheer disgust at the possibility of Trump succeeding was unmistakable. You could practically hear the resentment in their voices — not because peace might finally be within reach, but because Trump might get the credit. That’s the sickness at the heart of modern leftism: they would rather see war drag on, hostages remain in tunnels, and innocent people suffer than admit that President Trump’s leadership is delivering results they could only dream of. It’s petty, it’s ideological, and it’s downright shameful.

Be Not Afraid: Fear, Guns, and Gun Policy

here’s something about fear that makes people do very different things, even if their fear is over the same source. It’s why some people stick their heads in the sand while others prepare for disasters. It’s why some people try to change the world and others just dig in and try to survive in it.

And let’s be real here, the subject of fear is a big part of the gun debate, whether we like it or not.

That’s especially true when people let their fears dictate what policies they back, especially when they’re trying to decide what anyone is allowed to do.

This came up because of an op-ed at an independent student publication at Auburn University. I don’t particularly like picking on college students, but sometimes, they offer up tidbits of what others are thinking, and their arguments need to be addressed. This particular op-ed seems to talk a lot about gun control, of course, but there’s a reason I’m talking about fear.

It’s because the author started it.

The heavy emotions I felt receiving my high school diploma this past May came in distinctly differing ways.
I felt a deep sense of accomplishment for myself and my closest friends. I felt as though a suffocating weight was lifted off of my chest, opening a portal for unlimited success. I felt as though I would never return to Huntsville and live the same simple and carefree life. I would never roam the halls of the high school or put my keeper gloves on for soccer practice.   

It was this breakneck speed of time passing that pried my fingers from holding on. An era of childhood was closing in front of my eyes, and I didn’t know how to react to it. As I took in the occasion, feeling gracious for the memories and sentimental for the time I would never get back, for a brief moment, I thought to myself, “I survived.” I survived a part of life that many children and young adults don’t each year.

Now, let’s understand that school shootings are rare. While the current hotness for anti-gunners is that firearms are the leading cause of death in children, it still should be noted that child deaths aren’t super common, either.

In other words, if you’re born in this country, you’ve got a really, really great chance of reaching adulthood. So long as you stay in school, you’ll graduate. There’s really no reason to fear that you won’t survive beyond the media hype trying to convince people that they won’t.

Yet, what I find funny is that this person, who claims they were so relieved to survive to graduate, then had the gall to write this:

What are pro-gun activists so scared about as they leave their house that forces them to conceal carry a life-ending weapon? What does it say about our nation that people feel such a strong need to always protect themselves? Why are people so willing to look past all of this tragedy for their own convenience of owning a gun? Why are we time and time again allowing unstable citizens and children access to buy these guns or access them without stricter security measures?  

American gun violence in schools blows every other first-world nation out of the water in terms of how often they occur and the amount of deaths that result.  

American non-gun violence blows every other first-world nation out of the water in terms of how often it occurs, especially when compared to those nations’ total rates.

And the vast majority of that violence is carried out by people who cannot lawfully access guns, but do so anyway.

I find it funny, though, that the author has decided to question our courage by opting to carry a gun when he was relieved just to survive high school, when there wasn’t really a great chance he wouldn’t.

The truth is that most of us aren’t really afraid. We have concerns that bad things can happen, but we believe that it’s better to be prepared for the unlikely than to simply trust probability to protect us.

Look, I’ve had people in my sights twice. Once because I was afraid for my own life, and once for the life of another. I’m glad I didn’t have to pull the trigger either time. I’m already outside of the probability range for most people, so you’ll excuse me if I go about my day with a gun on me out of concern that the laws of probability aren’t finished screwing with me. I’m not afraid most of the time. The gun is for when there’s a reason to be afraid.

Yet let’s understand that while the author makes a thing about asking what we’re afraid of, his entire approach to the issue of guns is governed my his own fears. He cites fatal shooting statistics around college campuses after lamenting K-12 school shootings, and I get the concern. Colleges are prime targets for bad people, but not because there aren’t enough gun laws. It’s because college campuses are gun-free zones.

Fear governed the creation of gun-free zones. Fear expanded them onto college campuses. Fear governs the calls for gun control throughout the nation, all while anti-gunners ask us what we’re afraid of.

When I’m carrying, the answer is, “Nothing.”

It’s a lot easier to be not afraid when you have the means to meet the threat. It’s a lot easier to have no fear when you’re prepared for whatever dangers you might encounter.

Sure, fear will pop up then, but that’s a different matter. Everyone else is just as afraid. I’m just in a position to do something about it.

I’m not counting on a law that will be ignored to protect me.

Chris Murphy: School Shootings Aren’t Common Enough for Armed Guards

Whenever there’s a high-profile shooting, such as what happened at Annunciation Catholic Schools, we start hearing about how common these have become, with manufactured numbers that drive the total up, all designed to scare people into supporting gun control.

The answer from our side is armed school staff or, at a minimum, armed guards in schools.

Now, there’s no question about which side of this debate Sen. Chris Murphy falls. He’s a noted gun grabber and he’s always looking for a gun control angle. We all know it.

But it seems that even he knows that he’s been running a line of BS for years.

On Wednesday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “All In,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) stated that he opposed armed guards in schools because he thinks it creates “irrational” fear in children and “you are still more likely in this country to be killed by a falling object than you are in a mass shooting.” But there is an “underlying story about the easy access of guns. And if we just were more careful about who has access to powerful weapons in this country, we would have less need to board up a lot of our public settings.”

Wait, so these are super rare events that we shouldn’t stress to the point of putting armed guards in schools because it’ll instill fear in children–spoiler: school resource officers are common enough that we’d know if it did, and it doesn’t–but we should totally trample our right to keep and bear arms because of something rarer than being killed by a sack of potatos falling out of the sky and killing someone?

Am I tracking this right?

But the doublespeak continued, with Murphy saying, “As much as this has now become an epidemic, you are still more likely in this country to be killed by a falling object than you are in a mass shooting. There [are] far too many mass shootings.”

It’s not an epidemic if it’s rare. The two things contradict one another, at least as the public sees it.

So either it’s an epidemic and we simply have to do something, or you’re more likely to have something fall on you and kill you than to be shot and die in a mass shooting. It’s one or the other.

Let’s not forget that Murphy argues an armed guard in an elementary school is akin to a boarded-up encampment. Yes, he actually said that, too. People in the United States grow up with armed guards and armed police in a lot of places. There’s a cop at the local movie theater every weekend night, for example. No one blinks. No one feels unsafe. Most of the time, he’s telling loud teenagers to shut up or get out, so that’s what people accept is his purpose, even if they know he’s the guy who will respond if bullets start flying.

Murphy is so terrified of guns that even carefully vetted individuals in a position of security can’t be trusted with them. He talks about being a little more careful about who can get “powerful weapons” in this country, but the truth is that his version of careful would be to prohibit literally everyone.

He can’t even see safety in off-duty cops, after all.

But let’s remember that no matter what Murphy says going forward, he knows these are rare. He knows these make scary headlines, but are the exception rather than the rule.

He’s just trying not to let a good crisis go to waste, all so he can destroy your right to keep and bear arms.