Monday, April 15, 2013

The Cindy Sheehanization of Sandy Hook

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Anyone here remember Cindy Sheehan? Anybody? Anybody at all? Back before the war in Afghanistan became Obama's and the casualties really started to mount, the Main Stream Media found a champion against the war in Cindy Sheehan. Cindy's son had been killed during the Iraq war, and Cindy would camp out by the side of the road in Crawford, Texas, to see if she could waylay President Bush on his way to or from his ranch. As an IED of the MSM (Improvised Exploitative Device), Cindy was supposed to have moral authority to oppose the war, perhaps more than any other, because she lost her son in the fighting.

After a while, her fame at being a gadfly, escalated to where she could rub shoulders with dictators, and demagogues like Jesse Jackson, up until there was a Democrat in the White House. After that, it didn't matter how many mothers lost their sons in the escalation of deaths in Afghanistan, because protesting a Democrat president simply isn't done, except by the far Left wackadoos, and we try to keep our distance from them!

The reason I bring up dear, forgotten Cindy, discarded by the Left like a Kleenex in an influenza ward, is it seems to be happening again to a lesser degree with the parents of Sandy Hook. The Left doesn't have a logical argument for implementing a new regiment of gun control laws. They are exhibiting the "never let a crisis go to waste" mentality that they tried with Gabby Giffords* and the Aurora theater shooting and now with the Sandy Hook shooting, to stir people emotionally to the point that they do not recognize that none of the proposed measures would have stopped any of those tragic shootings. Not one.

It seems that flying the parents, or at least some of the parents, out on Air Force One and squiring them around to twist the arms of law makers is an attempt to make use of this same supposed "moral authority" that Cindy Sheehan was supposed to have. "Who better to judge whether or not we should be at war than someone who lost a son?" translates to "Who better to judge what is a good gun control law than someone whose child was a shooting victim?" Well, in Ms. Sheehan's case, perhaps someone who was an expert on military strategy, or someone familiar with the security and defense needs of our country, or the intentions of our adversary? People also lose loved ones in auto accidents every day. It scarcely makes them authorities on automobiles, road construction or advisability of traffic laws.

While we have deep feelings for those surviving family members of the Sandy Hook shooting, grieving for their loss, it doesn't make them an authority on gun control or the Second Amendment, or give them some moral authority that should supersede the rights of fellow citizens. I truly feel sorry for their loss, but it does not make them experts on guns or legislation, it merely makes them political pawns.

And when all the President's men are through using them, they will find themselves abandoned, by the side of the road, alongside Cindy Sheehan. And any actions taken by this administration will have been to further their own political agenda.


*Remember the shameful "memorial" service/ pep rally Obama had in Tucson for those who were killed? All the attendees were given a "Together We Thrive" t-shirt, because what's a proper remembrance of the dead without a slogan for the President's reelection campaign?

Cross posted at LCR.

2 comments:

  1. Cindy who? These "morally superior" people are going to come at us with everything they have. The low informationites are eating it up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Cindy, who?' is right. Once the darling of the Left, poor Cindy is lower than whale poop because she's no longer "useful".

      Delete

Related Posts with Thumbnails