Parkland Politics

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke2/23/18
Are Democrat Midterm Ambitions the Real Reason Parkland is Still in News?  •  Unlike after other mass school shootings, the movement from Parkland to propaganda has had tremendous lasting power. The tragedy’s wake has seen sustained news coverage and energized anti-Second Amendment protests, ostensibly due to organic “student activism.” Yet post-shooting leftist anti-gun appeals and young students willing to facilitate them are nothing new. What is new is that the Democrats just recently suffered a devastating political one-two punch.

Not long ago Democrats were licking their chops at the prospect of a November midterm sweep. Since then, however, two momentous things have occurred: Both the Trump-Russia-collusion narrative and the Democrats’ generic congressional poll numbers have collapsed. To right this listing ship, leftists need a new issue, and fast, and they may think they’ve got it: gun control.

As U.S. News & World Report informed Feb. 14, “The new Morning Consult/Politico poll released Wednesday showed respondents rewarding Republicans for passing the tax cut bill in December, with 39 percent saying they would vote Republican if the election were held today compared to 38 percent who would vote for Democrats — down from a 10-point Democrat advantage in mid-December.” The same poll showed President Trump’s approval rating drawing even with his disapproval number; in fact, Trump’s approval figure is three points better than Barack Obama’s was at the same time in his presidency. This was wholly unanticipated.

On Feb. 16, the Friday before a three-day weekend, Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced the vanity indictments of 13 nationals and three entities of the Russian persuasion. A Project Veritas sting operation had already captured CNN figures on video last summer admitting there was nothing to the Trump-Russia-collusion story and that they were pushing it for ratings (and if CNN knew it was nonsense, so did the rest of the mainstream media), but this didn’t stop Fourth Estate Russia fakery.

But with these nonsense indictments — of men who can never be extradited and tried — the writing is on the wall: “The Trump-Russia collusion narrative is dead,” as Fox News put it.

How bad is it for the Dems? The party for months was talking about impeaching President Trump as if it were only a matter of time. Now some leftists claim that collusion was never even the focus of the Mueller investigation! They just wanted to learn more about Russian meddling, you see. The people who gave us revisionist history now have graduated to revisionist current events.

But it gets worse still. Mueller’s latest indictment, of lawyer and son-in-law of Russian oligarch Alex Van Der Zwaan, may lead to the implication of prominent Democrats. So the Dems and media may want Mueller’s investigation off the front pages posthaste, and they need an issue to replace it and hopefully buoy their flagging poll numbers. Ergo Parkland, Parkland and more Parkland, 24-7.

The Democrats, mind you, have played this game before. Remember how “contraception” suddenly became a big issue during the 2012 campaign? This was no accident. As former Clinton insider Dick Morris explained at the time, the Democrats needed to replace prenatal infanticide — which is no longer a winning issue for them — with something else. As he put it, “It used to be ten points more pro-choice than pro-Life[;] now it’s ten points more pro-Life than pro-choice…. So what they’re trying to do now is replace it with contraception.”

So prenatal infanticide became contraception and Russia control becomes gun control — as the demagogues transition from defending the killing of unborn children to bemoaning the killing of older children — whatever it takes to win. The reality is that the Left’s focus isn’t on stopping school shootings, but on stopping GOP momentum. And the Parkland kids are a very handy means to that end.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to • (186 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Parkland Politics

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    On the other hand, the CNN “town hall” aka hatefest against guns, the NRA, and their representatives at the event (Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch) may have shown a lot of pro-gun voters just how vile the other side is. (The gun-haters even booed and mocked Loesch’s mention of a rape victim who had wished she had a gun to defend herself from the rapist. If this is the case I think it is — from UNLV, I think — she had a gun in her car and a concealed carry permit — but the school didn’t permit the gun on campus, and (unlike the rapist) she obeyed the rule. When they mocked her, they forfeited our sympathy once and for all.)

    One thing I regretted is that neither Rubio nor Loesch made much of an effort to correct their erroneous views regarding gun control issues. I doubt it would have done any good with that audience, but why else was Loesch there is not to teach them the facts (or at least try)?

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    According to David French and many other sources:

    [Scot] Peterson — named school resource officer of the year for Parkland in 2014 — was in another building, dealing with a student issue when the shots sounded. Armed with his sidearm, Peterson ran to the west side of Building 12 and set up in a defensive position, then did nothing for four minutes until the gunfire stopped, the sheriff said.

    It gets worse. According to Patrick Jakeway:

    CNN now reports that three other Broward County deputies were on site.  They waited  “behind their cars with pistols drawn” and did not enter the school building.  And now it comes out that one of the FBI tipsters who called about Nikolas Cruz indicated that Cruz “was about to explode,” that he “bought all these rifles and posted pictures on Instagram,” and that “he’s so into ISIS … I’m afraid something’s going to happen.”  She finished: “I just want a clear conscience in case he takes off and starts shooting places up.”  This is governmental dereliction of duty on the highest scale at both the federal and local levels.

    And as Jakeway writes:

    Aaron Feis can be viewed now as an even greater hero, and the deaths that day are even more tragic.  Mr. Feis rushed in to save children based only on his own personal bravery in the face of AR 15 fire.  At least one trained and armed officer of the law cowered right outside in the immediate aftermath, and three more came to cower soon after.

    First of all, I’m not here to instigate a two-minute hate and castigate these officers for cowardice. I’m not even sure cowardice was an issue. But the point is, with journalism all but dead, it will be difficult to find out why the police and FBI, among others, failed in such an obvious case where action was called for. Even French does nothing to try to answer these questions.

    I can speculate. We must speculate. It’s all we have at the moment. One aspect is that competence at all levels of our society has decreased as we’ve chased the goal of “equality.” The doesn’t necessarily mean that these cops and FBI agents who did nothing were affirmative action plants. They may well have been white males. The point would be that we know for a fact that training in all areas of society has been “equalized,” meaning that standards for all have been lowered.

    I also wonder if there is the anti-“Dirty Harry” effect. Certainly one can imagine any bureaucrat (with or without a badge, with or without the title of “police officer”) holding to a men-without-chests standard procedure of “establishing a perimeter” rather than confronting a shooter (especially after years where we’ve been told that heroism, bravery, and doing the manly job of what is necessary at the moment is “toxic masculinity” and tends to garner punishment, not rewards). We should understand that this may have little to do with cowardice. It may have to do with policies bred of political correctness and normal bureaucratic instincts to do nothing decisive lest it leave one open to criticism.

    I know for a fact that if our own Pat was in or near that school (armed or not), he would have taken action. This is the kind of “men with a chest” that he is. He’s also raised a proud Marine as a son who would do the same. Yes, in this case, courage would be involved. But it’s more than that. It’s about people not being worn down into a bland amoral ball of nothingness. There are still people who have a sense of right and wrong and who have not yet been dissolved into passive inaction by political correctness and the cover-your-ass bureaucratic instinct.

    Unarmed, I seriously doubt I would have engaged the shooter directly. But as one writer point out, if the police who were uselessly hunkered down outside the school had done nothing but yell into a bull horn “We have you surrounded, come out with your hands up” it might have at least distracted the shooter and stopped his killing spree.

    What is almost certain is that people will be free in their condemnation of the officers involved who did nothing. “Coward” is such an easy word to throw around and it props up one’s own sense of righteousness. And most of this will be vented uselessly on Facebook, etc. Where it counts — at town hall meetings, etc. — they, too, will likely shrink back behind the fear of sticking their necks out. So, before castigating these officers, ask yourself what you have done, or will do, to insert useful comments and feedback to the sources where it could do some good.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Something like this happened — and under orders — at Columbine. Since then, the police have been more pro-active in such cases. Somehow that didn’t happen here, even after they had 4 deputies. Not acting then was unconscionable. Not until the city police showed up did anyone go in, and by then it was too late. Even then the deputies didn’t go in. Although they were supposedly forming a perimeter (not a bad idea), it doesn’t seem they really did unless the building only had a single entrance (which Peterson would certainly have known, having served — and even lived, in an on-site trailer — there.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Although they were supposedly forming a perimeter (not a bad idea),

        In what morally or tactically sane universe does it make sense for first-responders to “set up a perimeter” when kids are in the middle of being gunned down in schools? It was a horrible idea.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Depends on how many police you have available. The first responsibility should be to go after the murderer, but setting up a perimeter to prevent him from leaving is useful, too. I don’t think 4 men are enough to do both, but after the city police showed up it was a different matter. I wonder if the killer had already escaped by then.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            In no universe I know of does it make sense for those trained in the art of gunplay and self-defense, and who swear to “protect and serve,” to hunker down outside a school for four minutes to the sound of gunshots while a madman murders kids at his leisure. Period. Non-negotiable.

            • Steve Lancaster says:

              There is one universe that explains the actions of these officers–they were ordered to wait by either the policy of the department, or directly by their supervisors.

              I know and have known a number of police, some good officers some not so good, but none of them would just stand by while people are being murdered.

              IMHO they did what the sheriff ordered them to do. Now they are going to take the fall for bad policy on the part of their, elected boss. I wonder if he is up for election this year?

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I don’t think “coward” is too strong a word to use in this instance.

      I have always laughed at the way TV and movies show how the police act in dangerous situations, i.e. they rush in without thought for themselves. Ha, ha. I understand it is normal to wait for backup and proceed cautiously. But when there is an active shooter loose, particularly in a building or area with a concentration of many people, officers of the law are there to rush in and protect the public.

      For anyone who tries the ploy of asking, “Would you have gone in?, I say bullshit!

      Policemen are given a special position in our society. They are licensed and trained to protect the public. They take money for doing this. There is a reason lawmen carry firearms. It is to be in the position to stop illegal action before, or as it occurs. How much more so in a situation like Parkland.

      These four cops should all be publicly scorned at the very least. I am not sure what other actions which might be taken against them, I don’t know, but I hope someone is looking into it.

      As to the question of a perimeter…the local deputy’s (who was assigned to the school) first reaction should have been to seek out and engage the shooter. He alone, could not establish a “perimeter” and waiting for the backup to do so simply gave the perp more time to shoot more people.

      This was not a set-piece military situation where a battle-plan had been worked out and could be implemented according to a time-schedule. This was a situation where seconds matters.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The first deputy, Scot Peterson, has resigned (with full pension, of course, which I understand is about $60,000 a year). He also faces investigation, but we’ll have to see what that accomplishes.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Ditto, Mr. Kung. Very well said.

      • Steve Lancaster says:

        Ever since some progressive came up with the idea of school, “resource officer” police departments have used the position to farm out officers who are, or never were fit for the street, especially those close to retirement. It is understandable to an extent, for the most part nothing ever happened in a school except the occasional fight and drug use. But that is a used to be. In the last 20 years schools, sadly, have come to reflect the larger society and incompetent officers can no longer be allowed to wait out retirement safely in a school.

        I can understand not discharging officers who are close to retirement, even those with poor or underdeveloped skills, but administrators need to take them out of the community to the extent of turning them into clerks without badges or guns. An adequately trained civilian with a gun is more security than a poorly motivated officer.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Thanks for the background on that, Steve. All of that has the ring of truth to it.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Interesting that you say this. When I saw a photo of the officer, I wondered how someone so overweight could be considered fit to carry a gun on active duty, instead of sitting behind a desk.

          I am amazed at the number of grossly overweight officers I see on TV. I don’t know how they can pass physicals and their reaction time must be rather slow.

          Perhaps officer Peterson was well aware that he fit such a profile.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            But he still could and should have acted, and the later officers who showed up even more so (for whatever that would have been worth by then)., as I’m sure we all agree.

      • Steve Lancaster says:

        When seconds matter the police are only minutes away

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    Mark Steyn discussed this tonight, especially the disgraceful, disgusting performance of Sheriff Israel. He noted a joke someone tweeted about a hypothetical 911 call. When the operator asks what the caller wants, the answer is: “There’s someone breaking into my house. Could you send the Broward County Sheriff’s Department to water my lawn while I kill the intruder?”

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Mark Levin praised this sheriff right after the slaughter. I wonder how he will react now.

      Just another reminder that everyone makes mistakes and has their personal blind spots.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      LOL. Great joke.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I had a look at Steyn’s piece and it was very good. This Sheriff Israel is a scoundrel of the first order.

      I would not be surprised if the department was very political and to some degree used for rewarding supporters; to protect and serve being of secondary importance.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Fort Broward used to be a Republican county back in the days of Barry Goldwater, but now it’s very heavily Democratic. So it would be no surprise if the police force (and the rest of the county government) happens to be highly partisan.

  4. Mstcss says:

    Selwyn Duke, thanks a lot for the post.Really thank you! Much obliged.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Maybe someone is doing some investigative journalism.

    Clarence Feldman has an article that makes good points on its own and references some work done by an anonymous “Sundace’ at The Conservative Treehouse.

    The gist of it is that Broward and Dade County police departments have been oriented toward not reporting crimes in order to get more grant money as incentivized by Obama. Do-nothing and corrupt police officers were rewarded (including free housing) while honest cops were marginalized and dispirited in this enviroment.

    And the environment was centered around politics (in this case, “let’s not pick on people-of-color for committing crimes”), not law enforcement. And, in particular, the job of the officer assigned to the schools was, as Sundance reports:

    Officer Scott Peterson standing outside the building while students were shot and killed is not unexpected.  The roles of SRO’s are political, not law enforcement.

    Here’s what people don’t understand.  When the county policy is intentionally constructed to ignore criminal behavior in schools, the Sheriff and School superintendent cannot rely on “law and order-minded” SRO’s to carry out the corrupt policy.

    The SRO must carry a political hat and be able to intercept behavior, modify the action based on a specific policy, falsify documents, manipulate records etc, and engage in the system with an understanding of the unwritten goals.  SRO’s are given political instructions NOT, I repeat, NOT given instructions to uphold laws and regulations.

    They even went so far as to have the CCTV cameras on a 27-minute delay. Sundance reports:

    As a standard Broward and Miami-Dade practice, when school law enforcement need to cover-up or hide behavior, they need time (when that behavior happens) to delete the evidence trail. As such, the school policy – as carried out in practice – is more efficient with a 30-minute tape delay affording the school officer enough time to deal with the situation, then erase the possibility of a recording of the unlawful activity surfacing.

    Building in a 30-minute delay on the CCTV system was one of those pesky add-on items that happened a few years ago when the School and Law Enforcement officials established the policy of intentionally not arresting students.

    So basically Democrat politics killed those kids…or at least left them to be sitting ducks.

  6. Timothy Lane says:

    Sheriff Israel went on CNN’s Sunday news show today to be interviewed by . . . Jake Tapper, who hosted the misbegotten “town hall” aka hatefest last Wednesday. At Hot Air, this was described as being more akin to a waterboarding (and no one deserves that more than Israel). Tapper, considered a fair individual (perhaps the only one at CNN), really went after Israel, perhaps angered by how the hatefest got away from him (he may actually have intended a real town hall) and Israel’s role in that (despite the news that came out the next day about his deputies’ derelictions of duty during the atrocity).

    Tapper in fact pushed him hard on the deputies, and on whether he knew that the night before (the lying POS Israel never really answered, which is answer enough). He also quizzed him about failing to act beforehand, while Israel boasted about his great leadership (which left Tapper incredulous). The link is:

  7. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Given the continuous talk about the Parkland school shooting, I got curious about some of the numbers

    The numbers are from the National Center for Education Statistics (part of the Dept. of Education.)

    No. of Schools in the USA as of 2015

    98,200 public
    6,700 charter
    34,600 private
    139,500 total

    No. of students K-12 in the USA as of 2017

    50.7 million in public schools
    5.2 million in private schools
    55.9 million total

    I have not seen crime statistics for schools, but it would seem the odds of being killed in am American school are pretty slim, if one uses mass-shootings as a benchmark.

    The point is, it would appear schools are pretty safe places. And the costs to put police in them all would be enormous. I think something like US$700 billion is being spent annually on public education. I believe the cost per student was around US$12,300 per student. Somehow, I don’t believe the nation is getting value for money. A few years ago, the only country which spent more per student was Switzerland and I can assure you that they got better value for money.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This is why arming staff would be better than hiring armed guards, except for schools that have a real problem (or are much larger than average, such as the Parkland school with over 3000 students). A small bonus for those who do it would easily come out of the bloated expenses at most public schools.

      • Rosalys says:

        Paying teachers to carry will attract exactly the wrong kind of people for the job. Any adult employee, who already is well acquainted with and owns firearms, should be certified and allowed to carry in schools – after a good screening. Teachers are people, too, and some of them are likely to be nut jobs. Offering extra pay is the wrong motivation, and may cause some, who are unqualified by mindset, to go after the extra money. Most responsible gun owners would be proud to be part of the solution. Once word gets around that schools are no longer gun free zones, the mass shootings will stop.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Well, I was thinking of a very small bonus. There are some extra expenses involved, particularly the training needed to maintain skills. You at least want to cover those.

  8. Rosalys says:

    On both sides, both pro and anti, we still talk about “gun control.” It’s time we stop telling that lie, because the truth is, the end game for the left is gun confiscation. From now on, when I hear someone talking about “gun control,” I am going to stop them, and correct them, saying, “You mean gun confiscation.” There are some who will object, and say (as they have been saying continually for decades,) “Nobody wants to take away your guns.” At this point, it will be appropriate to tell them that, whether they are merely mistaken or just baldfaced liars, they are wrong. It’s about confiscation, and recent actions prove this.

    Once again, Rhode Island is ahead of the pack, re-confirming our ancient epithet of Rogue Island; David Cicilline, US Representative, Democrat, pervert, has introduced legislation to ban the “‘sale, transfer, production, and importation’ of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can accept a detachable magazine as well as those with a fixed magazine that can hold over 10 rounds.” Gina Raymond, Governor of RI, Democrat, ultra lefty/feminist, has signed and executive order, and is backing a proposed red flag bill in the RI General Assembly, “…to take firearms away from people deemed at risk for violence…”

    What’s wrong with a “red flag” order? Well, for one we don’t need it. I’m pretty sure that it’s already against the law to make threats. The police already have the power to investigate. Trouble is, they actually have to do it.

    The problem with this latest school shooting, is the failure at every level, of everybody to do anything to stop this guy before he did what he said he was going to do. Nobody, but nobody “in authority” did their freakin’ job! Failure all around, and yet the focus is on gun confiscation. Some people point out other ways to protect the schools, but that just sends up an hysterical cry from the left that it won’t work. Meanwhile, some are attempting to turn that sack of jellyfish, in Broward, disguised as law enforcement officers, into heroes. Thankfully, they’re not having a lot of success with that one!

    Pardon me while I don my tin foil hat, but it’s beginning to look a little suspicious. We know the left doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about children (except, perhaps, their own.) We know this, because if they cared about children, they would be fighting against abortion, plus actually doing something to stop the exploitation of children. But what the left cares about very, very much is gun confiscation. You draw your own conclusions, but as I said, it’s beginning to look just a tad suspicious.

    Now we have high schoolers on the march to ban all guns. And exactly why is it that we should take our marching orders from them? They’re teenagers, and teenagers are not known for their wisdom! That’s why we (are suppose to) protect them, and they are not given full rights and responsibilities as adults, as they need time to grow up.

    And then we have David Hogg. This 17 year old senior says he won’t go back to school until gun confiscation is passed. (I know he actually said gun control, but that is a lie and I just won’t repeat the lie anymore.) Well David, you’re an idiot. I don’t mean that unkindly. It’s just a fact. You’re a teenaged boy, and to some extent, all teenaged boys are logically challenged. It is my hope that someday you will grow up to be not an idiot. So here is some advice from someone who has been around the block a few times. Don’t go back to school! I believe that the evidence would show that 11.5 years in the public school system has done nothing to help you outgrow your idiocy, and may actually have aided in reinforcing said idiocy. Since schools are gun free zones, you will also be safer not being there. Don’t go to college, either. The main function of college nowadays, is to turn you into a helpless, permanent adolescent (i.e., idiot.) Instead get involved with Mike Rowe’s Works Foundation and learn a trade. In the process, you’ll get an education in real life and may even gain some much needed wisdom. Plus, you’ll earn a nice paycheck and the comfort of knowing that whatever happens, people will always need skilled people to do what they can’t or won’t.

    • Steve Lancaster says:

      You can identify a progressive by their use of three adjectives: Common-sense, Smart, and Comprehensive. Any one or combination identifies the user as a prog. saves a lot of time reading their trash. Not to say anyone here is just passing an observation on.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      It could be especially useful learning skills that don’t require electricity or, especially, computers. Then you have something to do even in an EMP emergency.

      One thing the Second Amendment defenders need to point out is that the gross failures at Parkland are evidence on our side, providing a fantastic example of why we can’t afford to rely on the authorities to protect us. Some of them don’t even want to (e.g., the Broward County Sheriff and his merry crew).

      The phrase “gun control” exists partly because it used to be accurate a few decades ago, and because the gun confiscators find it a useful cover today (as you just pointed out).

  9. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    This is hilarious. The State of Georgia acted very quickly on this issue. And I don’t think Delta will be able to do much.

    I have an even better idea. How about ending all these government tax breaks for huge corporations and billionaires (NFL Football stadiums) and lowering taxes for everyone.?

  10. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    In the U.K. most murders appear to be committed with knives.

    We in the U.S. joke about those going after our guns by asking if they will go after our knives.

    It would appear that this might be in the minds of some British politicians. At the very least, the headline of this piece is suggestive of something like the confiscation of knives.

    And Ian Duncan Smith is a so-called conservative.

    Here is an example of deaths that would not happen if the Brits confiscated knives.

    Why should an elderly homeowner be able to defend himself against a couple of young thugs armed with screwdrivers who have broken into his home for nefarious purposes?

    That’s something David “Camera” Hogg and his ilk can get their teeth into.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I’d bet that if informed, they would support charges against the elder man. He obviously isn’t one of them, and to accept his right to self-defense is to lead to some inconvenient questions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *