If it's in the News, it's in our Polls. Public opinion polling since 2003.


Democrats Using Texas Tragedy to Advance Agenda

A Commentary By Charles Hurt

What kind of demonic soul walks into a church a murders 26 innocent people, including several children, at point-blank range?

What kind of heartless monster instantly seizes on such senseless tragedy to advance a personal political agenda?

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Democrat, for one. Authorities identified the killer as a severely deranged and violent reject illegally in possession of guns, but Ms. Warren somehow accused the Republican Party of perpetrating the atrocity.

“We must end this violence. We must stop these tragedies,” she said in a message to the “GOP.”

“People are dying while you wait.”


Ms. Warren, who is gearing up to run for president, also blamed God for not answering prayers as she sees fit. Talk about sick and deranged. At least you cannot blame her for not seizing an opportunity.

Such is the state of politics in America today that one entire wing of elected politicians is dominated by people who eagerly salivate every time a whacko gunman goes on some senseless rampage.

And it is not just daffy fringe candidates, like Ms. Warren, who think they are God grasping at every opportunity for personal political gain amid suffocating misery.

Former President Barack Obama, whose political legacy is in tatters, sprang to cash in on the tragedy as well.

“May God also grant all of us the wisdom to ask what concrete steps we can take to reduce the violence and weaponry in our midst,” he said.

Compared to Ms. Warren, Mr. Obama’s statement was almost statesmanlike. But it still assumes that preventing this heinous crime is a simple political choice — a political choice that his political opponents refuse to make. Because, as Ms. Warren said, they would rather sit back and watch people die.

What is kind of amazing here is how incredibly stupid two people can be who graduated from some of America’s most highly regarded educational institutions. And one of them, with the aid of affirmative action for Native Americans, even managed to teach at one of these esteemed universities.

Despite the loony claims of Ms. Warren and Mr. Obama, the horrific shooting in a Texas church last week does absolutely nothing to prove that somehow the federal government needs more guns laws. In fact, it proves the opposite.

First, the shooting shows how toothless gun laws can be in their ability to prevent this kind of mayhem from a madman hellbent on murder. After all, it was already against the law for this fiend to buy, own or possess any gun based on his convictions for violent crimes against his ex-wife and her child.

Second, gun laws are especially toothless when government functionaries fall down on the job. In this case, it was the U.S. Air Force that failed to ensure the monster was flagged for his violent convictions each time he tried purchasing a weapon.

If politicians, such as Mr. Obama and Ms. Warren, are serious about curbing this kind of violence, they would channel all of their political energies into enforcing current gun laws already on the books and doggedly striving to prevent criminals from illegally getting their hands on guns.

Instead, Mr. Obama used some of the final power of his presidency to pardon more than 100 federal prison inmates who had been charged with gun crimes. These included criminals who had used firearms while dealing drugs or carrying guns despite having been convicted of felonies, according to a Washington Times report in August 2016.

Still others pardoned by Mr. Obama were caught lying to gun dealers or carrying weapons with the registration numbers filed off — suggesting an even deeper level of gun crime.

This sort of disdain for existing federal gun laws suggests that Ms. Warren placed responsibility on the wrong politicians when she blamed Republicans for the Texas church massacre.

Charles Hurt can be reached at churt@washingtontimes.com and on Twitter @charleshurt.

Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports. Comments about this content should be directed to the author or syndicate.

See Other Political Commentary by Charles Hurt.

See Other Political Commentary.


Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.

We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter and various media outlets across the country.

Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $4.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on upcoming elections, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.

To learn more about our methodology, click here.