Streetwise Professor

December 30, 2012

For Me But Not For Thee, You Bitter Clinging Bloody Peasant

Filed under: Politics — The Professor @ 5:16 pm

If you want a perfect illustration of the MO of the insular, for me-but-not-for-thee government elite, take a quick look at David Gregory’s week.

Gregory engaged in a prima facie violation of DC’s gun laws by brandishing an illegal 30 round magazine (NOT A CLIP!) on last week’s version of Meet the Press.

If you had done that, or if I had done that, then: (a) there would have been a hue and cry denouncing our actions, and (b) we would have been frog-marched by the local constabulary, fingerprinted, and arraigned.

But not our David.  He’s acting in the service of A Higher Cause.  That cause being disarming you and me.

He (and his producers at NBC) had attempted to get permission beforehand, but failed to.  They proceeded anyways.  After questions were raised, they received some sort of indulgence, and David is still at liberty.

That was an ironic statement.  Not only is dear David at liberty, this firearms felon was awarded with an interview with Obama, no doubt for his service for The Higher Cause.

The interview was even more nauseating than one would have usually expected.  Gregory-I sh*t you not-asked Obama if “this is your Lincoln moment?”  I’m only shocked he didn’t ask: “is this your Jesus moment?”

Questions on Syria?  Egypt?  Russia’s adoption ban?  Surely you jest.  The court jester David basically spoon fed Obama questions allowing him to bash Republicans for obstructionism.  Seriously.  Obama explicitly stated that he gave Republicans take-it-or-leave-it demands on the “fiscal cliff”, then bashed Republicans for failure to compromise.

How do you compromise with take-it-or-leave-it demands?

But dear David didn’t bat an eye, or dare question Obama on this blatant inconsistency.

But of course not! For first, David agrees. And for seconds, David is buying an indulgence from Pope Barack.  If he carries Barry’s water, legal troubles will just vanish.  Just watch.

The hypocrometer pegged when Obama opined that putting armed guards in schools was not the answer to Newtowns.  Barack and David send their children to Sidwell Friends School.  Sidwell Friends employs 11 armed guards.

Seriously.  11 armed guards.  Not counting the Secret Service people-well armed, I assure you-that protect Obama’s children.\

Did dear David say a word about this? Hahahahaha!

(Bonus bullshit: Obama said we should try anything-like banning the 30 round mags that dear David brandished-but not arming school employees.  Anything ain’t what it used to be.)

The motto of the prog elite: For me, but not for thee, you bitter clinging bloody peasant.

I want to extend my deepest thanks for David Gregory’s public service.  For in a single week he has done the service of demonstrating the fundamental inequity of American political life.  And no, it has nothing to do if whether you make more than $250K or $400K or $1MM or WTF defines “rich” at this instant.  Instead, it has everything to do with proximity to government power, and the willingness to do whatever is necessary to whore for the interests of that power.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Where’s the mainstream’s media outrage over Tarantino’s (and more broadly Hollywoods’) glorification of violence? How about some of the networks’ own programs which serialize violence? Seems more than a little hypocritical to me…

    Comment by dh — December 30, 2012 @ 10:28 pm

  2. David Gregory will get a pass because -we all know that he wasn’t going to commit a real crime-.

    But, the law imposes strict liability, meaning that it doesn’t matter what the defendant intended or actually did. Possession is enough to suffer prison time, and the judge can’t lessen that result.

    Our laws used to require mens rea; the defendant had to have a “guilty mind”, with the intent to cause harm or break the law. But, it was harder to terrorize the public and get convictions under that standard. Now, most federal laws are written under strict liability.

    This gives the prosecutor tremendous power to intimidate and make examples. If a peasant waves a 30 round magazine, and the prosecutor brings the charge, then the peasant goes to jail.

    Mom Fined $535 After Daughter Saves Woodpecker [edited]
    === ===
    The girl snatched up the woodpecker when she saw a cat about to pounce on it in her dad’s backyard. She and her mother decided to take it home, nurse it back to health, and release it.

    They stopped at Lowe’s for the air conditioning. They were spotted by another shopper, who was with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service.

    She said the woodpecker was a protected migratory bird, and it was illegal to take or transport it. When the family returned home, they let the bird go.

    Two weeks later, the Lowe’s woman showed up with a state trooper. They must appear in court for unlawfully taking a migratory bird and pay a $535 fine.
    === ===

    Comment by Andrew_M_Garland — December 30, 2012 @ 11:51 pm

  3. […] Our kiddies, the kiddies of the politically powerful and connected, can and should have armed guards. […]

    Pingback by And this blog’s nomination for “Hypocrisy Of The Year” is — December 31, 2012 @ 2:28 am

  4. […] I include myself in that number – things are better. Coincidentally, Tim Worstall links to this very good piece by ‘The Streetwise Professor’, Craig Pirrong, Professor of Finance at the University of […]

    Pingback by Nick Herbert/Observer libel update « The Monday Books Blog — December 31, 2012 @ 5:57 am

  5. Quick, ostracize the heretics –

    Comment by paul — December 31, 2012 @ 6:31 am

  6. @paul. Thanks for the link. Notice the strange convergence of the control freaks from right and left. American Conservative=paleocon, anti-Semitic, publication started by Pat Buchanan and financed by noted anti-Semite Taki Theodoracopulos. The writer of that article blogs at ThinkProgress, which, as the name suggests, is a noted prog site. The LCD is the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic and at times anti-American bias.

    That article was Obama-esque in its rhetorical tricks. Notably the grotesque caricature of those opposing specific gun control regs, associating everyone who so opposes with the survivalist crowd. Then, in a typically Orwellian fashion, disclaiming any intent to mischaracterize.

    I always consider it particularly rich when someone on the left presumes to say what is unconservative.

    Very illuminating. Thanks for sharing. See you in the camps, maybe.

    The ProfessorComment by The Professor — December 31, 2012 @ 4:05 pm

  7. I do not have a clue how some of the reddest states will react in the event of new draconian federal gun laws and in particular Texas. Are these regulations proposed under the Commerce Clause?

    Comment by pahoben — December 31, 2012 @ 9:01 pm

  8. @pahoben. How quaint, suggesting the need for a Constitutional justification/basis for federal legislation.

    Did you see the oped in the NYT that basically says you adhere to the parts of the Constitution you like, and ignore those you don’t? It is being criticized for its normative content. I actually think it is more descriptive than prescriptive.

    The ProfessorComment by The Professor — December 31, 2012 @ 11:13 pm

  9. Wow. “Revolutionary expediency” is the concept. Your constitutional law professors still don’t know what every illiterate bolshevik thug knew a hundred years ago. How they ever expect to succeed in building true communism is beyond me.

    Comment by Ivan — January 1, 2013 @ 3:06 am

  10. @Ivan. Scratch many a ConLaw prof and you’ll find a Bolshevik. At least a Bolshi wannabe.

    Obama taught ConLaw. Just sayin’.

    The ProfessorComment by The Professor — January 1, 2013 @ 7:08 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress