Gun Control: President Stompy Foots Biggest Loss

Welcome to democracy, pal! (yes, yes, I know we have a Republic, but it’s part of the Democratic model where people take votes)

Gun control: President Obama’s biggest loss

Never before had President Barack Obama put the moral force and political muscle of his presidency behind an issue quite this big — and lost quite this badly.

The president, shaken to the core by the massacre of 26 innocents at Sandy Hook Elementary School, broke his own informal “Obama Rule” — of never leaning into an issue without a clear path to victory — first by pushing for a massive gun control package no one expected to pass, and then sticking through it even as he retrenched to a relatively modest bipartisan bill mandating national background checks on gun purchases.

I guess the Politico thinks that Obama’s push for Obamacare wasn’t a big issue. Furthermore, they forget that it was never a certain pass, requiring quite a few bribes (which would have been illegal in the private sector) to get it passed through the Democrat controlled House and Senate. Nor were the (failed in practice) Stimulus and (mostly failed in practice) Dodd-Frank easy, yet he put his weight behind them. And one has to ask why the POTUS would push to violate his oath of office by infringing on Constitutional Rights so heavily, particularly when the legislative pieces wouldn’t have stopped any of these mass shooting.

It was a bitter defeat for a president accustomed to winning, a second-term downer that may — or may not — foreshadow the slow decline suffered by so many of his predecessors. Obama seems to have the public behind him, but it illustrated his less-than-Johnsonian powers of personal persuasion, the possible shortcomings of his decision to wait a month after the killings to present a plan and above all the limits of his go-to “outside” strategy of taking his case directly to the American people.

He spent his time demonizing and insulting 2nd Amendment supporters and never told the American people exactly how his gun law prescriptions would have stopped the shooters. He brought the argument to his far left base which is anti-gun and want guns taken out of the hands of (Other) law abiding citizens.

In a break from protocol — Obama seldom talks publicly about what other politicians say to him privately — the president called out the Senate, including members of his own party, for succumbing to bullying of the National Rifle Association in the Rose Garden about an hour after the vote.

“Most of these senators couldn’t offer any good reasons… there were no coherent arguments about why we couldn’t do this… it came down to politics,” a visibly agitated Obama said, flanked by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a clearly shaken Vice President Joe Biden and family members of Sandy Hook victims.

He threw a major league tantrum. If only he’d get as pissed off that his economic policies have been such failures.

 

Anyway, he forgets the other part: why we should enact these laws. Emotionalism is not an excuse to infringe on the Rights of Americans, especially when, as has been written and said multiple times (including this post), the legislation would not have stopped any of these mass shootings. Plus, they would infringe on the privacy rights of those with “mental illness”, which was poorly defined, and would have infringed on their right to own a firearm without benefit of a trial. As to a good reason, well, just like I tell any anti-gun Progressive I talk to: “because I can own one. My Right.”

Within an hour of Obama’s Rose Garden remarks his political arm, Organizing for Action, announced it is launching a “day of action” Saturday. Supporters in states with what OFA believes are persuadable senators will hold events and be urged to contact their senators.

Yeah, that’s the group which is supposedly separate from Obama, pushing his agenda seemingly at his direction.

Plenty of other Progressives had stompy foot fits, including Gabby Giffords in a NY Times editorial. She failed to note that none of these laws would have really stopped her shooter.

More: Bruce at Gay Patriot catches something else interesting in the story.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Gun Control: President Stompy Foots Biggest Loss »

Sierra Club Authorizes “Civil Disobedience” Against Tar Sands

What could possibly go wrong? From their press release (via Real Science).

The Sierra Club Board of Directors has approved the one-time use of civil disobedience for the first time in the organization’s 120-year history.

Recognizing the imminent danger posed by climate disruption, including record heat waves, drought, wildfires and the devastation of superstorm Sandy, the Sierra Club board of directors has suspended a long-standing Club policy to allow, for one time, the organization to lead a group of environmental activists, civil rights leaders, visionaries, scientists, and other high-profile individuals in a peaceful protest to dirty and dangerous tar sands. The action will be by invitation only and is being co-sponsored by 350.org.

The Board apparently understands exactly who their base is, and will do all they can to weed out the ones who will become violent. Vandalize. Destroy property. Get arrested. Etc. Oh, and leave lots of litter behind. Their signs. Coffee cups. Cigarette packs. Drug paraphernalia. Talking points papers. Processed foods boxes. And these people are the norm for who shows up.

“For civil disobedience to be justified, something must be so wrong that it compels the strongest defensible protest,” said Michael Brune, Sierra Club Executive Director.

“We are watching a global crisis unfold before our eyes, and to stand aside and let it happen — even though we know how to stop it — would be unconscionable. As the president said in his inaugural address, ‘to do so would betray our children and future generations.’”

Don’t forget

  • .08C (.14F) increase in global temperature from 1997
  • .28F (.16C) increase since 1990

Not exactly doom-worthy.

Read: Sierra Club Authorizes “Civil Disobedience” Against Tar Sands »

If All You See…

…is snow created because all the heat is hiding at the bottom of the sea, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Camp Of The Saints, with a post on what the future holds (see: Britain)

Read: If All You See… »

Ted Nugent Schools CNN Anchor On Gun Trafficking

Via Doug Powers, who says you should skip to the 6 minute mark in the video of the interview between Nugent and Erin Burnett for the really fun stuff, where Ted tries to find common ground that Erin had been looking for and Erin can’t escape the interview quick enough

Nugent: I think we can both agree that we need to stop gun trafficking. Do you agree with that?

Burnett: Stop gun trafficking? Yes.

Nugent: Illegal gun trafficking?

Burnett: Yes.

Nugent: Then you would support my recommendation that we arrest Eric Holder.

Burnett: Well no, I don’t support that.

Nugent: Well, Fast & Furious was gun trafficking.

Burnett: I have to admit I don’t support that (arresting Eric Holder for gun trafficking).

Nugent: Well I do. That’s how you stop gun trafficking — by stopping gun trafficking.

Burnett: That’s your right as an American to have that belief.

Nugent: If you want to stop gun trafficking why don’t we go after the guy whose been trafficking guns? That would be Eric Holder.

Burnett: Alright, we’ll leave it that — I would love to continue [uh-huh — DP] but they’ve been trying to get me to wrap for a couple of minutes.

Let’s not forget that Fast and Furious resulted in the deaths of at least 2 US federal agents and 200 Mexican citizens. Video below the fold

Read More »

Read: Ted Nugent Schools CNN Anchor On Gun Trafficking »

Gore Takes Fossil Fueled Flight To Call For Action On Hotcoldwetdry

One has to admire his hutzpah in taking a fossil fueled flight (probably on a private jet) to a conference that whines about “climate change”

(Irish Times) Former US vice-president Al Gore called for action on climate change yesterday, comparing denial of changing weather patterns to “sleepwalking towards the edge of the cliff”.

Which is why he lives a big carbon footprint lifestyle and purchased a McMansion near the Pacific ocean in California.

Mr Gore, who was jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his attempts to raise awareness of climate change, made the remarks at a keynote address at a Dublin conference exploring the links between climate change, hunger and poor nutrition.

“Even with glaring evidence [of extreme weather patterns] people still do not connect the dots of climate change,” he told more than 350 delegates from 60 countries. “We have to win the conversation about climate change. When you hear denial, speak up.”

He’s kinda right: when you hear these New Climate Deniers whine about the weather, speak up, ask them for their scientific evidence, and then ask them how they’ve changed their own lives in accordance with their beliefs. Ask them why they think we’re doomed from a .08C (.14F) increase in global temperature since 1997 and .28F (.16C) increase since 1990.

Oh, and ask Mr. Gore why he refuses to debate anyone on the issue.

He told delegates that the most significant challenge facing humankind was to prevent worse damage in relation to climate change and suggested that “a combination of scientific knowledge and traditional expertise … can make all the difference”.

You can also ask Mr. Gore why, if this is the most significant challenge facing humankind, it seems that his only interest is in making quite a bit of money off of it and living a high flying lifestyle.

Meanwhile, the EU carbon market is continuing to collapse. Carbon markets are one of Gore’s big pushes (because he has a financial interest in them).

Read: Gore Takes Fossil Fueled Flight To Call For Action On Hotcoldwetdry »

Politico: Why Won’t You Republicans Give Obama His Bipartisan Moment And Pass Gun Control?

And probably other highly partisan legislation Mr. Obama has recommended?

(Politico) A few hours after the deadly Boston Marathon attack, President Barack Obama made an extraordinary, if understated statement: politicians should suspend their state of perpetual conflict to unite against an unknown and deadly new national threat.

“I’ve updated leaders of Congress in both parties, and we reaffirmed that on days like this there are no Republicans or Democrats — we are Americans, united in concern for our fellow citizens,” Obama told reporters on Monday just after twin blasts ripped through a festive crowd in Boston, killing three and grievously wounding over a hundred others.

Well, we do not exactly know what this deadly new national threat is, because it’s “unknown”. No one has taken credit and there have been no follow up attacks. And if it ends up being linked to an Islamist group, that wouldn’t be new. Oh, and let’s not forget that Democrats haven’t really taken the threat from them seriously in a decade.

It was a subtle but unmistakable admission of just how much things have changed since George W. Bush grabbed a bullhorn, earning the tearful admiration of liberals and conservatives alike, as he stood atop the smoldering ruins of Ground Zero.

With all due respect to those killed or injured in Boston, and their families and friends, there is a difference in which 2,996 people were killed, the Twin Towers were knocked down, the Pentagon hit, and 4 planes had been hijacked, and no one really new what was going on or how many were actually dead for a few days. Oh, and let’s not forget Obama was calling for “understanding” and that there was a “lack of empathy” with the attackers on the part of the United States just a few days after 9/11.

Now, despite Obama’s wishes, battle-weary Democrats and Republicans fear just the opposite will happen this time: whatever turn the investigation in Boston takes — whether the killer or killers was foreign terrorist or home-grown murderer — the long-term result is likely to foster a new cycle of finger-pointing, recrimination and political positioning.

Democrats, including Obama, have no one to blame but themselves. Their “good will” towards President Bush lasted only so long before they started attacking him mercilessly. And let’s also not forget that a good chunk of the Democrat voting base were part of the Truther movement, believing Bush either let 9/11 happen or made it happen. They made the post-9/11 era highly partisan and personal. Anyhow, here we go

In fact, one senior Democrat predicted that the most likely political consequence was that some senators would use the attack “as cover” to oppose the bipartisan compromise on guns inching its way through the upper chamber. White House officials, this Democrat said, had no expectation that the Boston attacks would create an “era of good feeling.”

So, Democrats would considering it a post-Boston bipartisan moment if Republicans would roll over and vote for the background checks bill that wouldn’t have stopped most of the mass shooting events, if any. And it’s probably implied that Republicans should vote for the rest of Obama’s agenda in that “bipartisan spirit”.

Let’s also not forget, as the Politico points out deep in the article, that Democrats immediately attacked Republicans in saying that this was a result of Sequestration, for talking about cutting government, elected Dems such as Barney Frank, and also were immediately jumping to attempting to blame people or groups on the Right for this attack. It’s amazing: Republicans immediately think about external threats such as Islamists, and Democrats immediately look to blame their fellow Americans who have different political views. What we can expect once we know what the attack was about:

  1. If it was an Islamist, Dems will immediately proclaim that the person(s) was a lone wolf and not representative or part of the Islamic world in the least, and if you try to link the even to Islamic terrorism, Sharia law, etc, well, you’re an Islamophobe. They’ll also say that we should have more spending and federal government because of this 1 off incident.
  2. If it was a domestic plot, they will immediately look to portray the person(s) as far right, and will keep that narrative up despite any evidence to the contrary, and will make this about the Conservative movement/Republican Party as a whole, demonizing all, attempting to destroy all on the Right, despite Conservatives disowning these fringe groups. Oh, and call for more government and spending and liberty restrictions.
  3.  If the person is easily known as a liberal (Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Black Bloc, some environmentalist, etc, groups that Liberals rarely disown),  the media will either completely downplay the link and still find a way to blame Republicans or let the story quietly die out while also mentioning that this was an aberration and means we need X (gun control, more spending, bigger government, higher taxes, etc).

But, don’t forget to give Obama his bipartisan moment, because he has done so much during his time in office to….well, demonize and slam anyone who doesn’t agree with him.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Politico: Why Won’t You Republicans Give Obama His Bipartisan Moment And Pass Gun Control? »

Earth Day 2013 To “Put A Face On Climate Change”

And apparently ignore the environment in favor of hotcoldwetdry. From the Earth Day Network press release

Earth Day, April 22, is one week away. The theme of Earth Day 2013 is The Face of Climate Change. This campaign seeks to harness the power of Earth Day to personalize the massive challenge that climate change presents, while uniting people around the globe into a powerful call to action.

Earth Day Network is collecting images of people, animals and places affected by climate change, as well as images of people doing their part in the fight against climate change. On Earth Day itself, an interactive digital display of all the images will be shown at thousands of events around the world. The display is also available online to anyone who wants to view it, show it or read the stories.

Read the rest. They kinda forgot about actual environmental issues. Hey, here are some hotcoldwetdry faces

Well, getting beyond a bit of titillation (sic), the face of climate change should be every Warmist who refuses to give up their fossil fueled vehicles, fossil fueled flights, takes a shower longer than two minutes, turns the AC below 78 (heck, uses AC), won’t buy only local, won’t unplug everything not in use, etc and so on. Highlight their hypocricy.

Oh, and thinks a tiny fraction of a degree C or F uptick is dooooooooooom.

Read: Earth Day 2013 To “Put A Face On Climate Change” »

If All You See…

…is an evil fridge with an evil ice maker, causing the world to burn, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is small dead animals, with a quick post on a Dem not blaming the criminals.

Read: If All You See… »

Climate Scientists Really Looking For “Explanations” To Explain Missing Warming

Again, numbers to remember

  • .08C (.14F) increase in global temperature from 1997
  • .28F (.16C) increase since 1990

Not exactly doom worthy. But, climate scientists need to keep the cult and the funding gravy train going

(Baltimore Sun) Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.

Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon.

Theories for the pause include that deep oceans have taken up more heat with the result that the surface is cooler than expected, that industrial pollution in Asia or clouds are blocking the sun, or that greenhouse gases trap less heat than previously believed.

Strangely “nature doing the things nature does” is missing. Also “we were completely full of mule fritters and no one should listen to us and our computer models and ginned up studies and massaged data” is absent. All the prognostications will be based on Mankind messing things up but something else blocking the warmth. Meanwhile, Warmists still aren’t practicing what they preach.

Read: Climate Scientists Really Looking For “Explanations” To Explain Missing Warming »

Bummer: Gun Control Bill In Peril

What The Politico’s John Breshanan and Jake Sherman seem to be referring to is the Manchin-Toomey background checks bill

The tough gun-control bill that President Barack Obama wants now has little, if any, chance of passing this Congress – it’s struggling in the Senate and facing outright rejection in the House.

Vice President Joe Biden worked the phones Monday to try to salvage a bipartisan bill in the Senate but has come up short. Personal appeals from parents of Newtown victims and former Rep. Gabby Giffords haven’t worked either.

And even if Senate negotiators get to 60 votes, the House is certain to rewrite the bill – or discard it altogether.

The thing about Manchin-Toomey, as so many, including myself, have noted, is that it would not have stopped Adam Lanza. Nor Hasan Nidal. Nor James Holmes. Nor Jared Lee Loughner. All had guns illegally (Loughner lied on his form about marijuana usage). Tougher gun control certainly hasn’t worked in Chicago.

A defeat would mean that in just five months after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, the best chance for new gun controls in 20 years is slipping away.

What they mean is restricting law abiding citizens their Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms. And say there’s lots of blame to go around for stopping this bill (note: I’m not against it, it won’t do much, and I see no problem, including Constitutionally, with requiring background checks for all firearm purchases. Though, the sections about mental illness needs to be very carefully re-written so as to not infringe on people’s rights): The NRA, red state Dems, reps in rural areas). And

It also, once again, displays the competing interests in the Capitol: A Senate attuned to national politics, and a House consumed with local, gerrymandered, constituencies.

Um, is that not what Representatives are supposed to be concerned with? The American citizens in their districts? Should Senators not be concerned with the opinions of the citizens of their states? Looks more like the Politico is pushing Collectivism and authoritarianism.

If the Democrat led Senate was serious they would be writing legislation that goes after criminals instead of making it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase a firearm.

Read: Bummer: Gun Control Bill In Peril »

Pirate's Cove