Media Forms “Human Shield” To Protect An Advocate Of Disarming You

From Real Clear Politics:

Ryan Grim, Washington bureau chief for The Huffington Post, explains to MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell how he and other “journalists” prevented Capitol Hill police from removing an anti-gun advocate from the Senate gallery after she yelled at Senators who voted down an amendment to expand background checks.

And so says the leftist reporter:

GRIM: I interviewed her along with a number of other journalists right afterwards. They were trying to escort her out of the building, but journalists kind of formed a human shield around her because they all had their microphone in front of her. The Capitol Police realized perhaps arresting a hero of Tucson, right after the Senate knocked down this sensible gun bill, wasn’t the best move, so they let her continue to talk.

There is nothing sensible about the bill.  It criminalizes citizens who have done nothing wrong, it would’ve subjected you to additional regulation while doing nothing to stop crime.

They claim a “hero of Tuscon” suddenly has moral authority over those who fought to defend rights, which disregards completely the heroes who fought to preserve those rights and why they fought.

But these are just, you know, 90%, 90% of people support this.

Lie lie lie, lie lie lie, lie lie lie lie.

And a 90% oppressor of a 10% minority is an oppressor.

There’s no Second Amendment right to 50 bullets, and yet here we are.

The Second Amendment covers arms.  There is no limit to one or 10 or 50 or 100 or 1000 bullets.

The Gun Control Sellout Begins

There’s too much to cover, so this is just going to be another news roundup.

Pat Toomey, was riding on Joe Manchin’s yacht, the “Black Tie” and getting all boozed up with his fellow Ruling Class goon to come up with a way to screw you out of your rights…

Senator Mark Kirk said the following to reporters about gun control and background checks and in particular the so called bi partisan deal reached by Senators Toomey and Manchin, “You guys really ought to go out to National Harbor and see the Black Tie, which has been much of the reason for much of the bipartisan cooperation around here. Sometimes alcoholic beverages might be served and ties might … get loosened.”

So there you go. Your elected officials getting liquored up on a a mega yacht conspiring to infringe on your inherent rights.

…is now being praised by Bloomberg’s Mayors For Citizen Disarmament.

The filibuster to prevent any gun bill from getting to the Senate floor ended because 16 Quislings RINOs agreed to go ahead and vote for “discussion”… which will be the same vote that comes along later when a “reasonable” “common sense” bill that’s wholly unconstitutional and is a compromise between you and the government that wants to strip you of your rights.  In other words, just the tip, baby.

The Second Amendment is not up for discussion unless they want to repeal it.  Which they do, but they know they’ll never get the states and the public to agree on it.

Text of the Orwellian-titled bill here.

And if you think the House is going to stop anyone from disarming you for the good of the state’s power, today crying carrot Speaker of the House John Boehner said he doesn’t need Republicans to pass bills in the House.  For those of you who’ve had a long day and miss this – the point is he’ll just pass Democrat bills.

Of course the media’s been doing their part, from citing Al Qaeda as a source saying we need more gun control (Yeah, why didn’t AQ try using guns against US citizens?  But why did they do it against unarmed people in Mumbai?  Rifle behind every blade of grass, get off my lawn, etc., perhaps?) and then CNN was profusely thanked by Democrat anti-gun Senator Joe Manchin for their neverending propaganda during the Sandy Hook massacre:

Berman: Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, you’ve been working around the clock for a compromise deal. I think you have a very busy few weeks ahead of you still.

Manchin: We appreciate your support, too, this is very, very important.

And just to throw in the last of this garbage in with the pile, Joe Biden doesn’t think you should own guns, because you think it’s like owning a Ferrari… which begs the question, what’s wrong with driving a Ferrari?

“It used to be we were dealing almost exclusively with hunters,” Biden said on MSNBC. “There’s a whole new sort of group of individuals now who, I don’t know what the numbers are, that never hunt at all but they own guns for one of two reasons: self protection or they just like the feel of that AR-15 at the range.”

“They like the way it feels. You know, it’s like driving a Ferrari,” he said, raising his arms as if shooting a gun.

To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.

That rifle is a tool of freedom, and without it, freedom dies.

“That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”

- George Orwell

Freedom is mighty nice, but it’s sad that freedom can only be maintained with tools.  Yes, clown, you’re not dealing with hunters.  You’re dealing with free men.  You’re dealing with people who own guns for self protection from government because reason doesn’t work against a ruling class that thinks they know what’s best for us and decides to dominate us.

Biden is a buffoon, but because he has no filter on anything that he says and speaks as though he has a political version of Tourette’s, he is actually identifying a big section of the Second Amendment crowd.  They (we) own AR-15s for self-defense because that is the critical function of the Second Amendment – to protect against oppressors large and small.  High-speed low-drag gear is cool, but that’s a far second place compared to what it defends.

Rand Paul is right.  And his final sentiment in that piece is one echoed here:

Our rights are not subjected to polls. Whether it is popular or not popular, I took an oath to the Constitution, and I am prepared to stand with other senators or alone to protect the freedoms that our Founding Fathers fought to preserve.

Dana Loesch Schools Piers Morgan

She shuts down filthy propagandist Piers Morgan and communist Van Jones.

She talks like the gun owners in America, albeit more eloquently.

If by Piers’ logic 30 rounds means 30 deaths, 7 rounds means “23 less deaths” to Piers… meaning that 7 deaths is acceptable.  Then he states 0 deaths are acceptable.  Ergo, no guns are acceptable.

Which is the point.  Piers’ crowd is anti-gun, anti-rights, for disarmament, and for people being controlled by government for their own good.

I’d say he should go back to where he came from, but Jeremy Clarkson would be waiting for him with a cricket bat.

The Lies That Gun Grabbers Tell

Good post over at Zerohedge by Brandon Smith:

When a group or organization seeks to establish any social policy, it helps tremendously if that group remains honest in their endeavor. If its members are forced to lie, tell half-truths or use manipulative tactics in order to fool the masses into accepting its initiative, then the initiative at its very core is not worth consideration. Propaganda is not simply political rhetoric or editorial fervor; it is the art of deceiving people into adopting the ideology you want them to espouse. It is not about convincing people of the truth; it is about convincing people that fallacy is truth.

Nothing embodies this disturbing reality of cultural dialogue more than the ill-conceived movement toward gun control in America.

It isn’t that gun control proponents are impossible to talk to in a rational manner; most gun control activists have an almost fanatical cult-like inability to listen to reason. It isn’t that they are so desperate to paint themselves as “intellectually superior” to 2^nd Amendment advocates; intellectual idiocy is a plague upon many ideological groups. What really strikes me as astonishing is the vast and embarrassing lengths to which gun grabbers in particular will go to in order to deny facts and obfuscate history.

I have seen jaw-dropping acts of journalistic debauchery and blatant disregard for reality since the gun debate exploded in the wake of Sandy Hook. I have seen past precedents rewritten in order to falsely diminish gun rights arguments. I have seen dishonest and volatile tactics used to misdirect discussion and attack the character, rather than the position, of those who defend the 2^nd Amendment. I have seen gun grabbers use unbelievable acts of deception that border on clinically sociopathic in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The entire post is a litany of leftist doublespeak and lies, with links to the stories that are critiqued for being fabricated.  It’s well worth reading for the examples given.  Most gun culture folks already understand these things, and the premise of the story, but it’s again nice to see several examples pulled out and used.

The piece ends with this:

If the only drive of anti-gun advocates was a sincere concern for public safety, they would not feel the need to misrepresent the facts and lie outright in order to convince others. Those who use disinformation to their benefit are acting on much darker emotional impulses and biases, like fear and malevolence. Their goal is not to find the truth, but to “win”. Their goal is not to encourage understanding, but to destroy their political enemies.

The most enticing motive for the average yuppie within the gun control society is not their hatred of guns per say, but their hatred of gun culture. Being worshipers of the establishment, they do not like our defiance of socialization, collectivism, and the corrupt state in general. They do not like our methodologies of decentralization and independence. They do not like that we have the ability to crush their skewed arguments with ease. And, they do not like that we have the physical capability of denying their pursuit of power. Gun control is not just a war on guns; it is a war on traditionally conservative Americans, our heritage, our beliefs, and our principles. It is a war the gun grabbers will lose.

Nothing that’s really news, but yet another confirmation thereof with the several examples that make up the body of the story.

Obama’s Sequester Release of Illegal Aliens and Unbelievable Political Theater

Yesterday’s backstory.

Today’s story, via HotAir:

The Associated Press has learned that the Homeland Security Department official in charge of the agency’s immigration enforcement and removal operations has resigned after hundreds of illegal immigrants were released from jails because of government spending cuts.

In an email obtained Wednesday by the AP, Gary Mead told coworkers that he was leaving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the end of April. Mead is the head of enforcement and removal operations at ICE.

So, even though releasing the detainees very conveniently served Obama’s goal of increasing the pants-wetting over sequester cuts while also very conveniently making the amnesty fans in his base happy, this was just Gary Mead going rogue without any direction from the White House.  And Obama’s so mad about it that Mead has to clear out his desk immediately two months from now.

Except then there’s this tweet by Jim Acosta:

ICE spox regarding departing official: he “announced several weeks ago to ICE senior leadership that he planned to retire after 40 years”

So he’s retiring in two months, his retirement had been planned, but now he’s being “fired”, and he’s to blame for releasing illegal aliens.

And they expect us to believe that?

Obama’s Sequester Hypocrisy

From BarackObama.com:

Wanna play dueling Obama quotes?

People will lose their jobs – because that’s what Obama wanted to have happen.

The Washington Post gave him four pinnochios on sequester lies.

The Obama Sequester

Via HotAir, from the RNC:

Charley Jones on Texas Overnight on 1080 KRLD had a better audio version several days ago, with Obama’s November 2011 support of the cuts juxtaposed with Obama’s February 2013 warning that jobs will be cut, border patrol agents will lose their hours, FBI agents will be sent home, civilian support personnel to the military will be cut, prosecutors will stop working and criminals will go free, dogs and cats will be living together, mass hysteria.  Nice to see the RNC finally got something together.

Now are they running it anywhere but the internet?

Obama’s Failing Ratings and the State of the Union 2013

Via Breitbart, from Gallup:

If it weren’t for Dick Cheney agreeing with Obama on drone strikes, he’d be all in negatives.

Of course, given that even MSN is calling bullshit on Obama’s State of the Union address, maybe it shouldn’t be all that surprising:

• The president claimed that “both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion.” But that’s only an estimate of deficit reduction through fiscal year 2022, and it would be lower if the White House used a different starting point.

We haven’t reduced the deficit at all, and we’re still running trillion-dollar deficits.

The “estimate of deficit reduction” is like writing out a diet.  You come up with a plan that says you’re only going to eat 2000 calories a day, you’re going to run 3 miles a day, lift weights for an hour, and do another hour of cardio.  By the end of 2013, you should be ready to run in an iron man triathalon.  Of course, when the day after you write that plan, you eat 4000 calories, waddle 30 yards to the fridge and back in a day, lift only food to your mouth, and do another hour of sleeping to rest from all your eating… you won’t find yourself at the end of the year ready to run an iron man triathanlon.

• Obama touted the growth of 500,000 manufacturing jobs over the past three years, but there has been a net loss of 600,000 manufacturing jobs since he took office. The recent growth also has stalled since July 2012.

That job growth just keeps “unexpectedly” stalling, just like the rest of the economy keeps “unexpectedly” stalling.

To continue with the working out analogy, Obama’s growth of jobs is like adding a half hour of running to your daily workout in the evening… after you take out an hour of running from your daily workout in the morning.  You can say you’re running an extra half hour, because it is a different half hour, but you still have a loss.

• He claimed that “we have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas.” Actual mileage is improving, but Obama’s “doubled” claim refers to a desired miles-per-gallon average for model year 2025.

The Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards that the government imposes are as fanciful as any other soviet pipe dream.  The party will dictate that it must be so, and when it cannot be produced, oh well – it’s the worker’s fault.  Obama declares that all cars must average 54.5 mpg by 2025.  That’s 12 years from now.  12 years ago, a 2001 Ford Taurus got 19 mpg combined.  Today, a 2013 Ford Taurus gets 23 mpg combined (and that’s ignoring that there was a massive Taurus redesign after some idiot wunderkind at Ford cancelled it).  The 2001 Toyota Camry 4-cylinder got 24 mpg combined.  The 2013 Toyota Camry 4-cylinder gets 28 mpg combined.

Ford and Toyota both make good cars.  The Taurus with a V6 over 12 years was able to be improved by 4 mpg.  The Camry with a 4-cylinder over 12 years was able to be improved by 4 mpg.  The new demands by government are that they go up to 54.5 mpg.  For the Taurus, that’s requiring an increase of 31.5 mpg – more than double.  For the Camry, that’s requiring an increase of 26.5 mpg – almost double.  And remember again, that’s average economy, so for every fun, desirable vehicle like the Ford Raptor, Toyota FJ, Jeep Wrangler, Ford Mustang, Dodge Challenger or any of the light trucks that are made that get in the teens to 20s for mpg, they’ll have to crank out some ridiculous number of vehicles that get above 55 mpg.

Keep in mind this is the Obama government that declared that we need to be running on biofuels that DO NOT EXIST.  They can make mandates, and when the mandates can’t be met, they impose fines, or seize control.  The objective is to fundamentally transform America, and it’s working.  Auto manufacturers will have to either stop making cars people want, or they’ll have to make the ones the government lets them.

And government-made cars suck.

• Obama said the Affordable Care Act “is helping to slow the growth of health care costs.” It may be helping, but the slower growth for health care spending began in 2009, before the law was enacted, and is due at least partly to the down economy.

Obamacare is a trillion-dollar tax hike.  Those taxes will be passed on to consumers.  We’ve already begun to see it, as businesses like Stryker Medical start cutting jobs; and they will be raising costs.  All those taxes have to come from somewhere.  Obamacare is also scheduled to cost every family about $20,000.

There is nothing there that will “slow the growth of health care costs” under Obama policies unless you have a very fanciful vision of the future… just like the 54.5 mpg cars, magic biofuels, increasing jobs, and recovering economy.

Democrats: Border Enforcement Is Lip Service So We Can Make More Democrat Voters

From HotAir the short short version:

Glorious candor from lefty Greg Sargent. Granted, this message is aimed at liberals by liberals in hopes of selling them on an immigration bill they won’t completely like — damn it, why can’t we have even weaker borders?? — but it has the virtue of being true. Remember, the big security concession in the new bipartisan bill is a blue-ribbon commission made up of southwestern governors, attorneys general, and “community leaders” who’ll collectively decide when the border is secure enough so that we can proceed to the citizenship phase of the project. This is, in other words, supposed to satisfy immigration hawks who prefer the “enforcement first” approach. A good-faith effort by Democrats to meet the right in the middle? No, not really:

Democrats realize that they can’t “allow the commission to have a real veto” over setting in motion the path to citizenship. He noted that Dems see the commission as “something that gives the Republicans a talking point” to claim they are prioritizing tough enforcement, giving themselves cover to back a process that “won’t stop people from getting citizenship.”

As usual:

Dissecting Obama’s Gun Control Speech

From the transcript here, I’m just going to hit the last page or so right now, because some things jumped out at me.

That’s what these reforms are designed to do. They’re commonsense measures. They have the support of the majority of the American people.

No, they aren’t.  No, they aren’t.  No, they don’t.

 More of our fellow Americans might still be alive, celebrating birthdays and anniversaries and graduations.

Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata would still be alive if Obama’s Justice Department under Eric Holder and his ATF hadn’t been sending guns and ammunition to the Mexican narcoterrorist cartels with the intention of murdering Mexican citizens so they could discover them at crime scenes and say “see, look how bad the Second Amendment is!”  His active, murderous conspiracy killed 10 to 100 times the number of people in Mexico as were killed in Connecticut.  For once, I can see how someone would say America is a racist nation – based on the media coverage (there was none) by most networks about Fast and Furious, you’d think American doesn’t give a rat’s ass about dead Mexican kids.  Of course, it doesn’t really matter what color the kids they murder are, what matters is that Americans are disarmed.  The FBI and ATF conspired to let felons pass the NICS background checks so they could send guns south to cartel hitmen.  They used taxpayer money to fund cartels that couldn’t buy their own.  Individual ATF agent supervisors lied on 4473 gun background check forms – committing felonies – only to have their guns turn up at murder scenes in Mexico.

This administration has less than zero credibility.

This will be difficult. There will be pundits and politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical all- out assault on liberty, not because that’s true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves. And behind the scenes, they’ll do everything they can to block any commonsense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever.

This is the interesting part, and where myself and two other coworkers heard a Freudian slip.  The pause there where he said “that’s true” struck us, as though he had suddenly told the truth – acknowledging that yes, this is a tyrannical all-out assault on liberty.

This is a tyrannical all-out assault on liberty.

Now, let me be absolutely clear: Like most Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. I respect our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen. There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in America who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting or sport or protection or collection.

We already know that when Obama says “let me be clear”, the next words he says will be flat out lies.  Here he says “absolutely clear”, so these are astonishing whoppers.  (I can imagine him telling Michelle “let me be clear, I love the food out of your garden” and her giving him the death-stare.)

The Second Amendment says nothing about hunting, or sport, or collection, or even about self-defense against thugs.  It’s about the security of a free state – it’s about security against government.  Individual self defense is a great benefit (and recognized by the Founders), but ultimately the Founders prefaced the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms by noting that a well-regulated militia (as in free, armed citizens) are necessary to the security of a free state – as opposed to a tyrannical state – and whether against oppression from within or without.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to argue against the “necessity” pleas of tyrants, and against liars who say “common sense” is having a natural right respected by the Constitution abolished in regulation.

Mexico, Obama’s favorite nation to murder innocent people in, has a 10th Amendment that says the people have the right to bear arms, subject to “reasonable” restrictions.  Which means, according to any government, that there will be no guns for the serfs.

If the same argument were being used against violent video games, what would that sound like?  If there were 23 executive actions taken against the rights of people to play and own violent video games, how would that sound?

This will be difficult. There will be blogs and gamers and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical all- out assault on liberty, not because that’s true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves. And behind the scenes, they’ll do everything they can to block any commonsense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever.

Now, let me be absolutely clear: Like most Americans, I believe the First Amendment guarantees an individual right to free speech. I respect our strong tradition of gaming and TV entertainment. There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gamers in America who cherish their right to play Frogger or Pac-Man, or even Wii Tennis.

I also believe most gamers agree that we can respect the First Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale. I believe most of them agree that if America worked harder to keep violent video games out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in Newtown.

First, it’s time for Congress to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a video game.

(APPLAUSE)

The law already requires licensed video game dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a violent video game.

But it’s hard to enforce that law, when as many as 40 percent of all video game purchases are conducted without a background check. That’s not safe. That’s not smart. That’s not fair to responsible video game buyers or sellers.

If you want to buy a video game, whether it’s from a licensed dealer, or a private seller, you should at least have to show you aren’t mentally defective, and that you pose no threat to society under our definitions. This is common sense. And an overwhelming majority of Americans agree with us on the need for universal background checks for video games, including more than 70 percent of readers of Game Informer and Wired according to one survey. When we asked them “should people like Ted Bundy be allowed to play violent video games?”, they said no.  So there’s no reason we can’t do this.

Second, Congress should restore a ban on all violent video games, and a 10 minute play-time for all games.

The type of video games that drove the killer to murder in Aurora, for example, when paired with long-duration games has one purpose: to drive a person to as much violence as possible, to do as much damage to their psyche and designed to inflict maximum madness. And that’s what allowed the maniac in Aurora to hurt 70 people, 70 people, killing 12.  The bombs he set at his home because of trap games he played had taught him how to kill many more, and it was only by luck that his bombs didn’t kill hundreds more.  And this is all due to violent video games.

Violent video games designed to glorify violence and war have no place in American homes. A majority of Americans agree with us on this. And, by the way, so did JFK, one of the staunchest defenders of the First Amendment, who wrote to Congress in 1963, urging them — this is JFK speaking — urging them to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further creation of violent films and entertainment that drive people to violence.

We have to ban video games for the good of the children.  We have to do this, because we must do this.  We cannot let anyone else be harmed by the madness inflicted on our society by these death-pornography merchants.  We have already seen the carnage that these madmen cause, whether with guns, bombs, knives, or fire, and we can only use common sense to come up with common sense solutions that will embrace what the public has already demanded.  All violent video games must be banned.  We must urge congress to ban all violent video games for the children.