Archive for the ‘lies’ Category

From Politico, a glowing retrospective on what a wonderful angel Eric Holder is and how everyone who questions his actions is racist.  Fast and Furious has been rendered a footnote to the left.

Holder, people close to him say, isn’t much hurt by the criticism over Wall Street, Gitmo, KSM or even the leaks; he remains confident that his decisions ultimately reflected the priorities of his boss. The same cannot be said for the 2012 vote by the GOP-controlled House to hold him in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over emails and documents linked to the Fast & Furious operation—a Justice-led gun sting that resulted in the death of a veteran Border Patrol agent in 2010. The vote was unenforceable. But no other sitting Cabinet member had ever faced a similar rebuke, and it remains the sorest of subjects with Holder.

Holder views the vote as emblematic of Republicans’ disrespect for Obama and himself, and he thinks that race is one, but not the only, factor in their attacks. Two people in his orbit told me he has described appearing before congressional committees as an experience akin to staring at a hostile “wall of Southern men.” (For the record: All of the 22 Republican members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are white, 21 are male and more than half are from Southern or border states).

“It was all about politics and had nothing to do with law enforcement,” insists former Holder spokesman Matt Miller. “They wanted to get his head.”

Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, ICE Agent Jaime Zapata, and hundreds of Mexicans are dead because of Holder’s ATF.

fast and furious 2010 massacre teens

No one has been held accountable for those hundreds of deaths since Holder simply chose to stonewall.  The left said nothing about Fast and Furious until Holder was held in contempt, and then started lying about it and protecting the Obama administration and the “survivor” Attorney General.

Holder is so disgusted with Rep. Darrell Issa, the aggressive California Republican who chairs House Oversight, that aides find it hard to keep Holder sitting still during the necessary prep sessions. Holder often commiserates about his grillings, via text messages and email, with a group of supportive African-American journalists and public figures, including Rev. Al Sharpton; Juan Williams, the NPR commentator turned Fox contributor; former CNN analyst Roland Martin; Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post; NPR’s Michele Norris; and her husband, Broderick Johnson, a White House aide—a cadre that often encourages Holder to push back harder than his more cautious in-house advisers.

Issa, in a 2012 letter to Holder, denied any other motives than “legitimate Congressional inquiry” and accused Holder of stonewalling to prevent a “co-equal branch of government” from performing its “Constitutional duty.” Members of Issa’s committee have shown no signs of backing off either.

This is what Holder sent to the Oversight & Reform committee:

That's not a print of Malevich's "Black Square".

Thousands of pages of redactions with no information.  Lies upon lies upon lies, and Holder is mad because someone dares to hold him accountable for the actions of his department and the coverup he has engaged in.  Holder, a racist, screams “white people!” if someone questions him.  Holder’s feelings are hurt because he was called out for the hundreds of dead Mexicans and two US agents killed by his operation.  Yet the left’s violent ideological blinders only allow them to see Holder’s hurt feelings in a vacuum, as though nothing has happened.

The entire Politico piece can be best summed up with: “Holder is good.  Republicans are racist and hate him for no reason.  Everything else is a lie.”

The facts of the past are entirely rewritten by the left.

It’s a well-known leftist tactic to change the language once something’s been exposed.  In the early 20th century, the left called themselves “progressives”.  When the public got sick of eugenics, prohibition and mass murder, they decided to call themselves “liberals”, despite being anything but liberal.  When “liberal” began to get a bad name, they called themselves “progressives” again (note everything in that video is HRC denying that progressive and modern liberals are all big government, top-down authoritarian statists).

Now we see the same thing with Obamacare.  The left is calling it by the bill’s official title: the Affordable Care Act, because it’s a failure and they don’t want Obama’s name associated with Obamacare.  Obamacare is the Affordable Care Act and vice versa.  But it’s time to hush up the failure by changing the language used.

(H/T Jawa Report)

From the Weekly Standard:

“Jessica Sanford was cited by the president as an Obamacare success story at a health care event he had here at the White House in the Rose Garden on October 21,” says a reporter for CNN from the White House. “That of course being just last month….”

Of course, she found out her coverage was being taken away by Obamacare and she can’t afford what she’s offered by Obamacare.

-

Jonah Goldberg over at NRO has decided to just sit back and enjoy watching Obama fail.  After all, this was warned against for a long, long, long time.  They were warned, they were told it wouldn’t work, they were told why it wouldn’t work, and they rammed it down our throats anyway… and now they get to fail.

If you can’t take some joy, some modicum of relief and mirth, in the unprecedentedly spectacular beclowning of the president, his administration, its enablers, and, to no small degree, liberalism itself, then you need to ask yourself why you’re following politics in the first place.  …

The hubris of our ocean-commanding commander-in-chief surely isn’t news to readers of this website. He’s said that he’s smarter and better than everyone who works for him. His wife informed us that he has “brought us out of the dark and into the light” and that he would fix our broken souls. The man defined sin itself as “being out of alignment with my values.” We may be the ones we’ve been waiting for, but at the same time, everyone has been waiting for him. Or as he put it in 2007, “Every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama’s been there.”

In every tale of hubris, the transgressor is eventually slapped across the face with the semi-frozen flounder of reality.  …

During the government shutdown, Barack Obama held fast, heroically refusing to give an inch to the hostage-taking, barbaric orcs of the Tea Party who insisted on delaying Obamacare. It was a triumph for the master strategist in the White House, who finally maneuvered the Republicans into revealing their extremism. But we didn’t know something back then: Obama desperately needed a delay of Healthcare.gov. In his arrogance, though, he couldn’t bring himself to admit it. The other possibility is that he is such an incompetent manager, who has cultivated such a culture of yes-men, that he was completely in the dark about the problems. That’s the reigning storyline right now from the White House. Obama was betrayed. “If I had known,” he told his staff, “we could have delayed the website.”

This is how you know we’re in the political sweet spot: when the only plausible excuses for the administration are equally disastrous indictments.

Of course we’re all going to suffer for the government takeover of 1/6 of the US economy, but at least we can enjoy watching the left fail at it.  We can enjoy some schadenfreude watching the leftist supporters have their hopes and dreams dashed as they look on in baffled confusion and pain like a dog who’s just discovered how skunks work.

Liar in chief:

Media stooge response of Mika Brzezinski hitting herself in the face (at about 1:35):

Not because it’s a lie, not because it’s hurting citizens, but because it’s “optics”.  It looks bad for the president.  They don’t want things to look bad for Obama because they love him and they support leftist ideology.  They’re upset because they believed the lies, they still believe the lies, and now they’re having to somehow spin the lies again to make up for the reality of them all being lies.

The piece Scarborough references with regards to a cancer patient is this Wall Street Journal article.

Everyone now is clamoring about Affordable Care Act winners and losers. I am one of the losers.

My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.

What happened to the president’s promise, “You can keep your health plan”? Or to the promise that “You can keep your doctor”? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.

For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people’s ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that’s a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that’s the point.

Chris Matthews lies when he decides to spin it by saying that a cancer patient would want Obamacare.  You can read the whole article and see that the author, Edie Sundby, is losing her outstanding coverage solely because of Obamacare.  Her health care plan paid out over $1.2 million to keep her alive without questioning her needs.  She had a plan that fit her needs.  Now, Obamacare is going to kill her.

There are a lot of people getting hit in the face by reality.  Even liberals.  And more liberals.

It takes a lot of spin and lies to convince someone that their health care is being revoked for their own good… so they will die… for their own good.

The left always says they want things like gun control  or health care “for the children”, but they sure do want them to die.

First, from a journalism professor at the University of Kansas:

ku prof nra death to children

First off, he’s wishing death to children, because somehow he’s decided that the children of NRA members are deserving of death.  Why?  Because he has assigned blame for the actions of a murdering madman in DC (a gun-free zone, remember) to the NRA.  “Journalism” professor David Guth clearly does not understand that the NRA is an anti-murder organization.  The NRA offers training for John Q. Public and Officer Murphy alike in order to help provide them with self-defense skills to avoid being murdered.  But Guth is one of those enlightened, anointed intellectuals to whom “guns are bad, m’kay”, and thus any organization which is pro-gun must also be held accountable for the actions of anyone using a gun.  Sort of like blaming Boeing for 9/11.

Second, it’s idiotic in a practical way.  As a leftist, he’s blaming the NRA for the actions of a madman and feels that the NRA is responsible, feeling that the NRA’s push for self defense rights are the reason murders happen.  The problem here is that if NRA members have their way, madmen are stopped PDQ.  The NRA’s School Shield program offers training and assistance to any school that wants to have an active defense.  There have been a few schools in states like UT and TX that have started offering the ability for teachers to carry firearms at school, which offers an immediate response to a madman.  Liviu Librescu saved a lot of kids by sacrificing himself to barricade a door, a courageous and selfless act of a hero.  But Nick Meli saved a lot of people by presenting an armed threat to a madman and didn’t have to sacrifice himself.  Thing is, this journalism professor is angry, but he can’t even see that if the NRA gets its way (which he hates), then the children of NRA members won’t have to deal with this threat at all.

He is demonstrating the leftist media-academia mentality of feeling over thought.  He wants people to feel pain because he thinks all it takes is for them to feel and they’ll come to his side and share his feeling, that guns are bad, m’kay.  It’s flawed to begin with, rests on an infantile understanding of human nature, and is not just reprehensible, but bonesnappingly stupid.  It’s also entirely impossible for him to understand that the real problem is that good people are left defenseless, and beyond the madman, fault lies with those who left good people defenselessDr. Suzanna Hupp explained this to congress once, but not all of them listened.

Also, last I checked, God is probably more likely to damn people who wish death to others’ children, but maybe Guth stopped reading right around the part with Pharoah not letting people go, and he didn’t understand what the other warnings like the frogs were about.

Or he could be a leftist lunatic who wants your kids to die for revenge so you can feel pain.

He’s been placed on administrative leave, but he defends his words.

Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little on Friday issued a statement regarding Associate Professor of Journalism David Guth.

“In order to prevent disruptions to the learning environment for students, the School of Journalism and the university, I have directed Provost Jeffrey Vitter to place Associate Professor Guth on indefinite administrative leave pending a review of the entire situation. Professor Guth’s classes will be taught by other faculty members,” Gray-Little said in the statement.

That’s a start.  The Kansas Senate majority leader is calling for his removal.   But Professor “Death to Your Kids” doubled down by defending his words by saying you’re too stupid to understand him.

‘If you look at how I structured the statement, I didn’t really bring [the NRA’s) children into it,” he said. “I carefully structured the statement to make it conditional, but apparently it was too much of a nuance for some people.”  Guth went on to say, “I don’t want anybody harmed. If somebody’s going to be harmed, maybe it ought to be the people who believe that guns are so precious that it’s worth spilling blood over.”

It takes work to lie that much.

He posts his explanation on his blog that make things even more clear.  First off, he’s wearing a Maryland shirt, which makes a lot of sense.  Most Kansans, even the leftiest leftist in Lawrence, aren’t liable to become his brand of violent, hate-filled idiot.

I am angry, frustrated, sad and determined.  The news of the senseless slaughter today at Washington’s Navy Yard has me again questioning how we can let this madness continue.  Frankly, I don’t care if I am criticized for being too quick to judge, too harsh in my criticism or too strident in my tone. The time has passed for niceties and tact. The blood spilled today is on the hands of the National Rifle Association.  I don’t care how the NRA tries to spin this. One fact is undeniable: The NRA has championed a gun culture that is shredding our nation’s moral authority like armor-plated bullets ripping through flesh. Is that imagery too graphic for you? It is no worse than what we are seeing every night on our television screens. Do our citizens have a right to bear arms? Certainly, that’s what the Constitution says.  But as it is with every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, there are limits. A person’s right to go about his or her job at the Navy Yard – or for that matter to attend an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut – trumps any individual’s right to stockpile weapons of mass destruction in the name of personal freedom.  I don’t wish what happened today on anyone.  But if it does happen again – and it likely will – may it happen to those misguided miscreants who suggest that today’s death toll at the Navy Yard would have been lower if the employees there were allowed to pack heat. Those fools don’t get it. If the price of “security” is to turn every workplace into an environment that can erupt into a Dodge City-like shooting gallery with the slightest provocation, then we have really missed the point. There is no justification for the widespread sale of assault weapons, high-volume magazines or hollow-point bullets. In fact, their sale is a well-documented threat to national security. Enough is enough. Lynn Jenkins, my congressional representative, is going to hear from me.  And if she fails to support reasonable restrictions on these murderous munitions, I am going to give my money and vote to someone who will.  There are two sides to this debate: The side of angels and the NRA. Where do you stand?
X
That’s it for now. Fear the Turtle

This is worth dissecting because it’s such a wonderful raging microcosm of the singular leftist anti-gun worldview.  The senseless slaughter at the DC Naval Yard was perpetrated by a madman who ignored laws against murder.  The madman killed a guard and killed people with the dead guard’s sidearm.  The madman had secret clearance and authorization to be on base and worked there, in that gun free zone.  He was also an avid video gamer (note this is just to illustrate a point, not a statement about video games).  Some of the earliest FPS games start with a player with a knife who needs to kill a guard to acquire better weaponry.

wolfenstein knife

It’s not a difficult concept, and it’s how the DC Naval Yard shooter was able to double or triple his available weapons in a matter of a moment.  As someone who was authorized to be there and familiar to people on base, he could’ve just stabbed the guard.

Point being, a madman with access to a weapons-free zone and desire to do harm can and will acquire a weapon.

The time has passed for niceties and tact.

 

Ah, a declaration apropos of nothing, and a justification for being an emotional twit.

The blood spilled today is on the hands of the National Rifle Association.

 

No, it’s not.  Again, a wild declaration with no connection to reality.

I don’t care how the NRA tries to spin this.

 

Translated: “I said something reprehensible and called for the murder of the children of my political enemies.  I will turn this on them by saying that they are misrepresenting my words and spreading lies about me.  Now I can accuse them of lying about me and claiming I called for God to damn them and death to their children.  Which I did.  But now my own words can be used against them, claiming they smeared me.  I am a clever journalism professor and no one can see through my veil of bullshit.  I am a genius.”

One fact is undeniable: The NRA has championed a gun culture that is shredding our nation’s moral authority like armor-plated bullets ripping through flesh.

 

Another wild declaration that is completely and 100% deniable because it’s dead wrong.  Gun culture doesn’t support murder, it supports self defense.  And bullets aren’t armor-plated, just in case you needed any more proof the prof is an ignorant fool.

Is that imagery too graphic for you? It is no worse than what we are seeing every night on our television screens.

 

Translation: “I’m saying this for shock value.  But you should be shocked at yourself!  Bwahaha!  I am so clever by saying horrible things while accusing you of being the horrible thing!”

Do our citizens have a right to bear arms? Certainly, that’s what the Constitution says.  But as it is with every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, there are limits.

 

Translation: “Question I intend to tell you the correct answer to.  Lip service to gullible fools.  Rights only extend until I think that force should be applied to stop them and they offend me, which is whenever I feel like.”  End result, rights are meaningless, law is meaningless, the rule of man is all that’s important.

A person’s right to go about his or her job at the Navy Yard – or for that matter to attend an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut – trumps any individual’s right to stockpile weapons of mass destruction in the name of personal freedom.

 

There is no right to be safe anywhere.  There is a right for you to protect your safety, but there is no protection the government can grant that can make you safe.  You can be in a gun-free zone on a military base protected by guards and still get murdered.  As in the case with the DC Naval Yard and Fort Hood, by people who were trusted by the government.  Students at a school who are left undefended and unprotected are just a defenseless to madmen as they are to teachers who molest their students, or fires in buildings.  No amount of wishful thinking will make any of them go away.

Also, I don’t stockpile WMDs, and I don’t know anyone who does.  My local range wouldn’t let me use the one Trident II missile I bought at a gun show, so why should I stockpile more of them?  I need to find a new range because of it.  Freedom.  ‘Murica.

I don’t wish what happened today on anyone.

 

Translation: “I wish that on my political enemies who resist me and my ideas.”

But if it does happen again – and it likely will – may it happen to those misguided miscreants who suggest that today’s death toll at the Navy Yard would have been lower if the employees there were allowed to pack heat.

 

Like I just translated: “I wish that on my political enemies who resist me and my ideas.”

Those fools don’t get it.

 

Translation: “I don’t understand their point at all, so they must be fools.”  This is where that disconnect comes into play.  Conservatives do understand liberals, but not the other way around.

If the price of “security” is to turn every workplace into an environment that can erupt into a Dodge City-like shooting gallery with the slightest provocation, then we have really missed the point.

 

Then what was the point, prof?  Because yours is completely wrong, all your facts are wrong, and all your opinions based on those facts lead to failure and more wrongness.

The death toll absolutely would be lower when people can fight back.  It works every time it’s tried.  The only thing that’s guaranteed when people are disarmed is that the government will be armed.  In the short run, it means Major Nadal Hassan and Sergeant Hasan Akbar and Sergeant John Russell can kill at will, in the long run, it means Major General Vasili Blokhin can kill at will.

oleg volk responsible government agents liberals and dissidents

The price of security (no sarcastic quotes) is easily bought with armed citizens.  Police officers and law enforcement tend to be filled with people with massive egos, yet there aren’t gunfights in police stations every day.  Gun stores are filled with massive egos, yet gun stores don’t erupt into gunfights over .45 ACP vs 9mm arguments.

There is no justification for the widespread sale of assault weapons, high-volume magazines or hollow-point bullets

 

“Assault weapons and high volume magazines” are effective tools, but are no more evil than the people behind them.

A leftist crusading against hollow point bullets is again demonstrating he’s an idiot.  Hollow points allow for more effective energy transfer in a target.  Whether you’re blasting Bambi or a bad guy, they provide more immediate damage that results in “stopping power” by opening as they enter the target and destroying more inside.  The objective is to stop the threat (or not to injure a game animal and make it suffer).  Police carry hollow points for the same reason most citizens do – pistols are relatively weak when it comes to stopping people (you may kill an assailant with a .22 LR, but he may bleed out in an hour after he’s crushed your head with a brick), and hollow points allow for more effective expansion of the bullet and doing more immediate damage that will stop someone.  Often, pistols with hollow points won’t even penetrate far enough to kill, but they’ll wreck enough on the way in to stop someone – which is the point.

The sale of ARs, standard magazines, and hollow points, none of which were likely used by the DC Naval Yard shooter initially, and if he used a standard capacity magazine, it was only by killing a guard first (and the military tends to use FMJ rounds, not HP, because of better barrier penetration).  So that argument is meaningless again.

In fact, their sale is a well-documented threat to national security.

 

There is no “well documented national security threat”, except maybe in a Mother Jones op-ed.  Now, if a leftist wannabe tyrant gets his way into power and starts dictating to people how they must live, then they are… but arms in the hands of US citizens are only a threat to tyrannical regimes.

Enough is enough. Lynn Jenkins, my congressional representative, is going to hear from me.  And if she fails to support reasonable restrictions on these murderous munitions, I am going to give my money and vote to someone who will.

 

Bluster bluster bluster.  You just got her a lot more phone calls against your ideas than for.  You just energized the NRA and KSRA and other pro-gun groups.  Their whole ethos can be summed up with the saying on a Gadsden flag: Don’t Tread On Me.  They want to be left alone, and they will defend themselves.  That’s it.  They defend themselves against madmen and against political attackers both.  Leave them alone and they’re harmless.

He finishes with this very telling line.

There are two sides to this debate: The side of angels and the NRA. Where do you stand?

 

Where have I heard that before…

One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.

- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

The Manic Media Hatred of the AR15 – Part 2

Posted: September 19, 2013 by ShortTimer in Guns, Journalism, Leftists, lies, Media

Emily Miller of the Washington Times was on Cam & Company/NRA News last night, and she discussed the fact that the New York Times went and reported that the DC Naval Yard murderer had an AR15… then he tried to buy one but was turned down by some Virginia state law, both of which are complete fabrications.  They not only got it wrong, they got it wrong over and over, and intentionally.

From the Washington Times:

Aaron Alexis passed Federal Bureau Investigation and Virginia state background checks to purchase a shotgun from Sharpshooters Small Arms Range in Lorton, Va., over the weekend.

Alexis did not attempt to purchase a rifle or handgun from the store, The Washington Times has learned exclusively.

She explained this thoroughly on Cam & Company, where she basically talked about how she called the gun store and asked them what the story was.  (She’s also much more of a journalist than a gun person, because when she mentioned the shotgun Alexis used, she got the designation wrong.)

A little big of journalism can go a long way, as Emily Miller found more of the story and reported it in the Washington Times again:

The liberal media is so obsessed with linking the Navy Yard shooter with the AR-15 rifle that it is making up false tales of Aaron Alexis trying to obtain one.

The New York Times attempts to give the impression that a so-called assault-weapon law stopped Alexis from buying a rifle in Virginia, but that is not true.

It’s important to make yesterday’s point again.  The media is lying in order to create a narrative.  The NYT said Alexis was prohibited from buying an AR due to some VA gun law that doesn’t exist.  The message is AR=bad, gun control=good.  But it’s all a fabrication.

“Virginia law does not prohibit the sale of assault rifles to out-of-state citizens who have proper identification,” Dan Peterson, a Virginia firearms attorney, told me Tuesday night. The required identification is proof of residency in another state and of U.S. citizenship, which can be items like a passport, birth certificate or voter identification card.

That’s the only difference in VA law.  If you want to buy a rifle that can take 20-round magazines or more, or that has a folding stock or threaded barrel, you have to prove you’re a US citizen.

While it is true that Alexis rented and shot an AR-type rifle at Sharpshooters Small Arms Range in Lorton, sources close to the investigation tell me that he did not attempt to buy the rifle.

Instead, he passed both the federal and state background checks and bought a Remington 870 shotgun and 30 shotgun shells (00 buckshot), which he used, tragically, to kill 12 innocent people.

The Times’ mistakes indicate the paper is trying to give the impression only some unexplained “assault weapon” ban in Virginia stopped Alexis from killing more people. The truth is that we have thousands of gun laws on the books, but none of them stopped a homicidal maniac intent on mass murder.

On top of this, there’s the obvious disconnect that someone with a secret security clearance and special access to a naval base has already been background checked by the government with access to very restricted areas.  His prior gun-related offenses and craziness didn’t restrict him from working on a “secure” facility.

He not only bought a shotgun (as endorsed by Joe Biden) and not an evil baby-killing assault death murder rifle, but he’s been passed through enough background checks to be in secure areas.  If the people who are trusted with secret clearance can’t be trusted with guns, who can?  The answer, to the left, of course, is no one (they exempt themselves and their enforcers, of course).  Their goal is an eventual total ban.  Asking why we should trust a government that spies on citizens, spies on journalists, targets political dissidents with the tax system, smuggles weapons to narcoterrorist cartels and mid-east terrorist cells, is responded to with the typical modern liberal/leftist argument.

Consider as well that when the Aurora, CO murderer decided to go on his rampage, he obtained everything he used to make both his incenidary bombs at his apartment and his assorted weaponry used at the theater, not as a madman, but as a neuroscience graduate student.  On paper, he was the promising future doctor or neurosurgeon because nobody reported any erratic behavior – there’s no mechanism to have him taken in for treatment.  On paper, the DC Naval Yard murderer was a man admitted every day into a secure facility with secret clearance and a 10 year record in the Navy that had all its flaws overlooked, and with run-ins with the police that never turned into convictions that would have denied him access to firearms, or more importantly, perhaps gotten him recognized for being a danger to himself & others so he could’ve been treated.

Ultimately, criminals and madmen intent on mayhem will get weapons.  All that’s necessary to make a firebomb is a container and a source of fuel.  It’s a good thing we don’t sell IED firebomb fuel by the gallon on the corner.

gas station

Oh yeah, that’s right.

It might be wise to focus on the actor in these crimes, not the tools.  Fixating on the tools gets grandma strip-searched at the airport for nail clippers while a jihadi sneaks through with a bomb in his underwear.  Fixating on the tools means that when Russia lets us know about a pair of Chechen terrorists and our intelligence and defense agencies do nothing, they’re surprised when terrorists come up with IEDs.  Remember what the I in that stands for – improvised.

But that would require a whole other kind of discussion and solution, and it’ll be one that neither aids those who desire a more powerful government, nor those who want quick solutions.

The Manic Media Hatred of the AR15

Posted: September 19, 2013 by ShortTimer in Guns, Leftists, lies, Media, Ruling Class, Tyranny

They really hate America’s Rifle.  They really, really hate it.

Some idiot at the NY Daily news had a propaganda column all ready to go.

ny daily news ar

Of course, the DC Naval Yard murderer didn’t use an AR.  He used a shotgun.  He took Joe Biden’s advice.

Mediaite has a huge roundup of various leftist media who blamed a rifle that wasn’t even there.

CNN had yet another “AR15s are bad, m’kay” piece.

(CNN) — It has been called the most popular rifle in America, and it briefly returned to the spotlight after Monday’s shooting at the Navy Yard: the AR-15.

It’s also in the CNN slideshow.  The first three photos of police and military personnel there to secure the area all carry AR variants.

A U.S. law enforcement official said Monday that gunman Aaron Alexis unleashed a barrage of bullets using an AR-15, a rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Authorities believed the AR-15 was used for most of the shooting, the official said. The news prompted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the strongest proponents of a ban on assault weapons like the AR-15, to issue a statement the same day asking, “When will enough be enough?”

Except he didn’t use an AR.  The demand was made again to ban semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines… yet this massacre was perpetrated with a shotgun and pistols taken from murdered security guards.

However, federal law enforcement sources told CNN Tuesday that authorities have recovered three weapons from the scene of the mass shooting, including one — a shotgun — that investigators believe Alexis brought in to the compound. The other two weapons, which sources say were handguns, may have been taken from guards at the Navy complex.

The sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial information that an AR-15 was used in the shootings may have been incorrect. It is believed that Alexis had rented an AR-15, but returned it before Monday morning’s shootings. Authorities are still investigating precisely how many weapons Alexis had access to and when.

One shotgun, two handguns at last count, both handguns taken from guards.

Regardless, the massacre pushed the AR-15 back into the gun-control debate.

No, it didn’t.  There was no AR15 used.  The media pushed it, and the rights-control debate, to the forefront.

Within a day, there were claims in the media across print, TV, and radio that “high capacity magazines” and “assault weapons” needed to be banned to prevent shootings like the Naval Yard murders, but the DC murders were done with neither of those things.

Anti-gun tyrants simply have one goal, and that is the total disarmament and subjugation of the populace, and they will not ever stop.

It seems hyperbolic, but listen to what they’ve said and the context it’s in.

A series of murders took place in a gun free zone in a gun free base in a gun free city, where a criminal madman walked through the gun free signs, killed people, and kept on going because no one could resist him as they were disarmed.  He didn’t do it with an AR, he didn’t do it with “high capacity” magazines.  He did it with a Remington 870 shotgun and some 00 buck shells and a whole lot of evil.  The response from the media is “Ban the AR15!  Ban assault clips!  Ban the shoulder thing that goes up!”

Who in their right mind can have as a solution a demand to ban something totally unrelated?  But they’re not mad, they’re simply fixated on the next step to the destruction of individual liberty, and the physical tools to maintain one’s own life are a big obstacle to pushing people into what the Ruling Class demands they become.  It’s been a goal for decades, and they simply dance in the blood of the victims every chance they get, thinking that the next series of murders (again committed by a schizophrenic on mind-altering drugs) will give them the emotional push to convince the populace to not think about their actions and simply act and make this thing they want happen.

They can’t win a rational argument (hence why they frame tyranny with the word “reasonable”), they have all of history disproving their suppositions and showing their desires for abolition of self-defense tools and rights to be inherently destructive to the individual, but they can dance in the blood of innocents and scream very loudly about their feelings.  They will,they do, and they are using every avenue to attack the rights of self-defense.

volk shooting victims violated twice

politician bodyguard oleg volk

Iraqi AK oleg volk

Photo by Oleg Volk.

Photo by Oleg Volk.

As soon as Obama decided not to decide on Syria and passed the buck to congress, anyone looking at it could see he’d play politics with it and use congress as his scapegoat.  If congress said no and he chose not to go to Syria, he could blame congress for Assad’s use of chemical weapons.  If congress said no and it was a wise choice, he’d pat himself on the back for staying out.  If congress said yes and the war went well, he could claim credit.  If congress said yes and the war went sour, he could blame congress.

Obama has chosen to completely and 100% pass the buck in order to shift blame.

Now he’s even blaming others for his own red lines:

“I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line,” Obama said. “My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’s credibility’s on the line.”

Obama set a red line a year ago.  Now he’s saying he didn’t, the world did.  Now he’s saying it’s not his credibility, it’s everybody else’s – everybody else who he can blame.

And he’ll blame everyone:

My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line and America and Congress’s credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

“Norms?”

norm cheersAnd he blames the world:

So, the question is, how credible is the international community when it says this is an international norm that has to be observed.

“International norms?”  When the hell do we go to war for “international norms?”  Are we the conformity police now?  This is a very thin veneer of an excuse for war.

The question is how credible is Congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use of chemical weapons.

So what?  Syria isn’t a signatory.

If you want to lean on them with sanctions, great.  But military actions against them for breaking a treaty they’re not party to is like going into your neighbor’s house and spanking your neighbor’s kid for not cleaning his room.  Make all the arguments about the greater good that you want, it’s really not your place, no matter what the neighborhood “norms” are.

That is progressivism at it’s core, though.  Woodrow Wilson’s desire to get involved in the Great War, and Teddy Roosevelt’s desire to get involved in all sorts of noble little wars – we belonged in none of them but there was always some great moral argument for going to war – to save Europe from the Hun or to avenge the Lusitania or the Maine.

If we’re going to be the world’s policeman, we’re two years late to the hundred-thousand conventional deaths in Syria, and we were smuggling anti-air missiles to Al Qaeda in Syria (which is why Ambassador Chris Stevens was out in Benghazi and not in Tripoli).  But this isn’t about being the world’s policeman or the role that would entail, this is about the president covering his ass, using classic progressive rhetoric to say “We must act!  Now now now!  Action!  The time for talk is over!  We must act!” and force congress into a decision that gives him a scapegoat.

Obama and his willing media sycophants are phenomenal liars.  They can convince people that their own words don’t mean what they say, that a war isn’t a war, and that Obama didn’t say what he said, that nations that don’t sign treaties must have military force used on them to enforce “norms”, that 1000 nerve gas deaths are worse than 100,000 conventional deaths, and that congress is to blame no matter what goes wrong.

It really is masterful propaganda.

-

One last bit here, from Real Clear Politics:

First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous thing that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for. And so, when I said, in a press conference, that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There was a reason for it. That’s point number one. Point number two, my credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

Again, Syria isn’t a signatory to chemical weapons treaties.  But the Syria Accountability Act is rather interesting, since it was passed in 2003, and that means Obama’s been ignoring it since 2008, and his party was ignoring it when Kerry and Pelosi were busy sitting down to dinner with Assad.  It also only applies to international terrorism, not a civil war, and nowhere in the bill is there a provision for military strikes, only sanctions.

The UK Daily Mail has made a point that John “Stupid People Get Stuck In Iraq” Kerry used to wine and dine with Syrian president Assad:

kerry and assad 2009

But he’s not the only one.  Remember when Nancy Pelosi took a little trip to Syria in 2007 to say what wonderful people the Assad regime is?

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad shakes hands with U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Damascus

Remember how she was harshly criticized by many on the right since she was hanging around with a dictator and giving a thug legitimacy?

pelosi assad ad rjc

Don’t worry if you forgot, the media would never remind you.

Now she wants to bomb Syria for being “outside the circle of civilized behavior”.

Are you serious?

eviloverlord12

Remember, these people will not stop.  They do not stop.  Theya re professional propagandists, and professional revolutionaries, professionally out to disarm you and fundamentally change the country.

From WSJ:

Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner has uncovered a fascinating document: an 80-page “talking points” monograph titled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” written by a trio of Democratic political operatives.

The document, as Bedard writes, instructs politicians and advocates “to hype high-profile gun incidents like the Florida slaying of Trayvon Martin to win support for new gun control laws.” Essentially it’s a how-to book on inciting a moral panic.

The booklet explicitly urges foes of the Second Amendment to abjure rationality in favor of the argumentum ad passiones, or appeal to emotion. “When talking to broader audiences, we want to meet them where they are,” the authors advise. “That means emphasizing emotion over policy prescriptions, keeping our facts and our case simple and direct, and avoiding arguments that leave people thinking they don’t know enough about the topic to weigh in.”

The 80-page propaganda booklet can be found here: Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging.

gun violence messaging propaganda booklet pg10-

gun violence messaging propaganda booklet pg11The entire thing is a ruthless propaganda screed designed to train people into using emotional arguments to brainwash citizenry into believing that they can surrender to government to make themselves “safe”.

This is subversion, professional propaganda designed to destroy freedoms paid for in blood of past and current generations.

gun violence messaging propaganda booklet pg31

It’s a wonderful propaganda primer that’s worthy of being dissected on every page.

There is no “freedom from” violence.  You can’t make people safer by making them defenseless.

The Declaration of Independence also says this:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

That’s achieved through force of arms.

The NRA and the “gun lobby” are more in tune with Americans than the professional left.  The argument put forth there is the Tim Robbins Team America “corporations being all corporationy in their corporation buildings and they make money”.  It’s not only cynical, it’s silly.  The firearms industry has been doing booming business in the face of legal threats because people want to get arms while they still can.  The threat of legal action by the statist left has created a market shift.  People buy guns for their own reasons, not because of NRA lobbying or gun company marketing.

-

The whole thing is worthy of dissection, but just a couple more pages as examples:

gun violence messaging propaganda booklet pg49Shoot First and Kill at Will are absurd.  Unless threatened with greivous bodily harm or death, you can’t shoot at all.  In many states, even showing a weapon unjustifiably will get you sent to jail – brandishing.

Stand Your Ground replaces Duty To Retreat.

The anti-gun left wants you to be forced to retreat.

It’s indicative of the whole “government will do what’s best for you” mindset of the left.  In this case, it’s quite literal.  You must trust the state to protect you, you must trust the state’s officers to protect you, and you must flee because you are not allowed to defend yourself.

Demonization of individual action is the goal, and absurd talking points that lie and willfully ignore reality are their stock and trade.

gun violence messaging propaganda booklet pg51

There are no gun-toting vigilantes in their neighborhoods.  Normal folks do not want to end up being targeted by the entire federal government for trying to defend their neighborhoods.  No one wants to be George Zimmerman and be targeted by President Barack “If I Had A Son He’d Look Like Trayvon” Obama and Eric “Sends Guns to Narcoterrorist Cartels And Then Sets Up A 1-800 Number To Target One Man” Holder and the entire DOJ for thoughtcrimes.

Why should employees of the government’s lives be more important than yours, citizen?  Why should trained, disciplined police officers with body armor and backup on call, and disciplined soldiers with body armor, backup, and artillery fire on call have more legal leeway to defend themselves than your 80 year old grandmother who’s facing a pair of home invaders?  The argument is that they need to crack down on grandma because she should have more government restrictions that minimize her ability to defend herself.  The threat to her life isn’t meaningful to the left.

They think you’re too stupid to defend yourself, and should not be allowed to defend yourself.  Your life isn’t meaningful to them.  You’re too stupid to live your own life, so you’re clearly too stupid to defend yourself.  Just like ol’ Colorado Democrat Joe Salazar said.

oleg volk salazar rape

To the propaganda again, all a person has to do is claim they’re threatened and have all the facts and evidence back it up as well.  And even that may not be enough, as evidenced by Zimmerman being targeted nationally by race-baiting hatemongers and the DOJ.  Plus for normal people (not criminals), they get their lives turned upside down by the process of being involved in even a justified shooting that prosecutors pass on.

Anyone not carrying a gun in the same circumstances as a good shoot won’t have anything to claim – as they’ll be a victim of greivous bodily harm or murder.  Criminals and thugs win, innocent people become dead victims buried on the moral high ground.

-

To contrast:

oleg volk cop with rifle 1

More contrast:

nssf infographic