Left omits facts, skews stats on Russia, shootings
By Holly Audette
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
I have come to understand liberals’ strategy regarding influencing public perceptions, and I am very used to them omitting significant information and selectively targeting “solutions” based on their own preferences.
The issue of Russia interference in elections is a very good example of this. First, if you did not know the historic facts and listened exclusively to the mainstream media that favors a liberal perspective, you would think that efforts by the Russians to influence our election outcome was brand new and showed up in 2016 in the Trump-versus-Clinton election. Yet if you actually watched congressional hearings, you would have heard this exchange between Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, and the former FBI Director James Comey as reported on Senator King’s website:
Senator King: “Mr. Comey, a broad question. Was the Russian activity in the 2016 election a one-off proposition, or is this part of a long-term strategy? Will they be back?”
Mr. Comey: ”Oh, it is a long-term practice of theirs. It's stepped up a notch in a significant way in '16. They'll be back.”
King: ”I think that's very important for the American people to understand. That this is very much a forward-looking investigation in terms of how do we understand what they did and how do we prevent it. Would you agree that is a big part of our role here?”
Comey: “Yes, sir. It is not a Republican thing or a Democratic thing. It really is an American thing. They're going to come for whatever party they choose to try and work on behalf of, and they're not devoted to either, in my experience. They're just about their own advantage. They will be back.”
A Russian long-term practice before the 2016 election that will likely continue and not a Republican or Democrat “thing.” But the left media have made this a part of negative news against President Trump for over a year. However, the concerted effort between Hilary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee to advantage Clinton and disadvantage Bernie Sanders as they tried to secure their party’s nomination, a mere footnote. Apparently the evidence of this effort to affect the election outcome was not as interesting to James Comey’s FBI or the left-biased mainstream media.
Now we see the same thing from the left regarding school shootings. We tune in to the left media and find them going absolutely apoplectic over the loss of life in school shootings. How can we allow our children to be so vulnerable and unsafe? Reasonable dialogue, right? But almost immediately comes the left’s clarion call against guns. We cannot tolerate the risk to our children associated with guns. Meme after meme are quoted by left-wing media outlets about the “statistics” that show how many times our school children have been at risk over “school shootings” despite absolute proof the statistics are misleading at best.
Is the left’s reaction really about children’s tragic deaths or guns? I think these statistics may shine some light on the obvious. In 2016-17, there were 51 million children enrolled in K-12 schools. Three school-age children were tragically killed in a school shooting in 2016, four in 2017. In 2016, 10,497 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. Fifteen hundred and fifty were occupants of the drunk driver's car, 1,520 of another car, and 948 were not vehicle occupants. Of this number, 214 were children under 14.
Has anyone seen any of the folks who claim the response to school shootings should be more limitations on guns, also claim there should be additional limitations on alcohol or driving privileges as a result of innocent children losing their lives? Fewer than 2 percent of children died in 2016 in a school shooting compared to alcohol-impaired driving incidents. The left has no credibility claiming children’s tragic deaths as “reasoning” to go after their real target, guns, when they are silent on more restrictions on alcohol and driving privileges to “prevent” more such tragedies.
Holly Audette is a small-business owner active in political and civic causes.