(Feel like a slave to the federal government YET? Are you broke? Have you lost your home, job, business? The 1st and 2nd Amendments are the last bastions of freedom for sovereigns. Democrats Carolyn McCarthy and Robert Brady want those too.)
“NEVER LET A GOOD CRISIS GO TO WASTE” – Saul Alinsky
I’ve been keeping on eye on the clock since the Giffords shooting to see how long it would take for some form of gun control legislation (that was probably written by a left wing think tank) to be introduced. What did it take; 26 hours? And all because of a liberal leftwing moonbat with no sense of personal responsibility decided it was a constructive idea to gun down a bunch of people to prove whatever delusional point he was suffering from, (or was he a liberal leftwing moonbat?).
How about we have gun control for registered democrats and any other granola eating moonbat, and just leave everybody else alone. Better yet, let’s move all the kumbaya leftists and democrats to Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Massachusetts and let them fend for themselves. We would only need a few states as more and more Americans open their eyes and ears, do the math, and flee the Democratic party and blue states.
One of the fiercest gun-control advocates in Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson Sunday, promising to introduce legislation as soon as Monday targeting the high-capacity ammunition the gunman used.
“My staff is working on looking at the different legislation fixes that we might be able to do and we might be able to introduce as early as tomorrow,” McCarthy told POLITICO in a Sunday afternoon phone interview.
Gun control activists cried it was time to reform weapons laws in the United States, almost immediately after a gunman killed six and injured 14 more, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, in Arizona on Saturday.
Many said that people with a history of mental instability, like the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, should not be able to buy a gun — and no one should be able to buy stockpiles of ammunition used by the 22-year-old assailant.
McCarthy said she plans to confer with House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to see “if we can work something through” in the coming week.
McCarthy’s spokesman confirmed the legislation will target the high-capacity ammunition clips the Arizona gunman allegedly used in the shooting, but neither he or the congresswoman offered any further details.
“Again, we need to look at how this is going to work, to protect people, certainly citizens, and we have to look at what I can pass,” McCarthy said. “I don’t want to give the NRA – excuse the pun – the ammunition to come at me either.”
Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.
Another vocal supporter for gun control, Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley, told POLITICO that he hopes “something good” can come from the Arizona tragedy – perhaps discussion on a new assault weapon ban, sales at gun shows and tracing measures.
And how about Robert Brady’s grand infringement of free speech at it’s best? “A federal crime to use imagery or language intended to threaten or incite violence against a Member of Congress or federal official“, and presidential level protection for the very criminals derailing the country whilst they go about their business turning America into a third world banana republic. Bobby obviously has no clue how many Americans are completely AWAKE AND PRESENT, and how many more are waking up each and every day as they lose everything they have spent their lives working for. Bob also does not understand that the hate speech is coming from his very own political base, the left – NOT conservatives; and yet, we are vocally protesting for their right to speak their minds. Imagine that? Can someone send Judge Napolitano over to Bob’s house to explain the Constitution to him?
Bob; you are a frakkin’ dumbass, a fascist, and you need to find a real job creating something, not controlling something.
Rep. Robert Brady is trying to put new Members and their spouses at ease by introducing legislation that would make it a federal crime to use imagery or language intended to threaten or incite violence against a Member of Congress or federal official.
“The spouses are in an uproar,” the Pennsylvania Democrat told CNN on Sunday. “They are panicking.”
He said he plans to introduce the legislation on the first day the House reconvenes. It would expand protections now afforded to the president to other civil servants.
Brady specifically criticized former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s online “hit list” of Members whom the Republican wanted defeated in 2010. Giffords was on that list, which used crosshairs on a map to identify districts to target during the midterm elections.
Members “are as out there as much as anybody else, and we are trying to criminalize behavior that puts bull’s-eyes over Members of Congress and their districts,” Brady said. “We’re going to make that a federal crime.
“All we’re doing is trying to protect ourselves and protect our staff members,” he continued. “I’m not going to hide or not go to my events or public events just because of this incident.”
I dragged this out of the vault for all those lefties that still don’t understand the true spirit of the 2nd Amendment, and why every American should be required to own a gun.
In making the announcement, Ailes said, “Juan has been a staunch defender of liberal viewpoints since his tenure began at Fox News in 1997. He’s an honest man whose freedom of speech is protected by Fox News on a daily basis.”
Also, today Glenn Beck announced on his television program that George Soros contributed $1.9(Editors Note: My typo) $1.8 Million to NPR. Check out NPR’s memo at the bottom of this post.
What Would These Guys Have Done? (Oh, excuse me! What DID THESE GUYS DO?)
A few thoughts about the firing of Juan Williams by NPR because he spoke his truth and committed the sin of exercising his God-given right to free speech in the America infiltrated by progressive ‘know-it-alls‘.
I’m not a big fan of Juan Williams but I will defend to the death his right to exercise his right to free speech.
A close friend from Nigeria who fled that country because he was a christian used to tell me on almost a daily basis, “if you speak the truth, you are considered rude.”
This isn’t so much about trying to shut down FoxNews and make people shy away from appearing on the cable news station, this is more about the CONTINUED ‘Chilling Of Free Speech’ in this country when it comes to anything the globalists don’t want interfering with their agenda. (Like Americans who have independent thought, action, and who exercise all of their freedoms.)
This entire situation is just more fodder for the Dems and the administration to wave the left hand vigorously and distract you while they bitchslap you with the right. What are Wall Street and those federal economic agencies doing today? What’s happening with Fraudclosure or the value of the dollar? Oh that’s right, Fannie and Freddie need another bailout.
NPR may have just broken the camel’s back; which is what always happens when you push good people too far – they let you know what they think!
Do you think that Juan Williams will have a David Horowitz moment now?
Are you as sick of the multiculturalism as I am? What are you first and foremost; an American or something else?
Juan Williams’ response to his firing by NPR:
According to Vivian Shiller , ‘this action was not anti-Fox’. I am calling bull**** on that statement, although the ‘anti-Fox’ aspect is only one agenda of many that the left thinks they are going to advance by firing Juan Williams.
The following is an internal memo sent on behalf of NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller:
Thank you for all of your varying feedback on the Juan Williams situation. Let me offer some further clarification about why we terminated his contract early.
First, a critical distinction has been lost in this debate. NPR News analysts have a distinctive role and set of responsibilities. This is a very different role than that of a commentator or columnist. News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that’s what’s happened in this situation. As you all well know, we offer views of all kinds on your air every day, but those views are expressed by those we interview – not our reporters and analysts.
Second, this isn’t the first time we have had serious concerns about some of Juan’s public comments. Despite many conversations and warnings over the years, Juan has continued to violate this principal.
Third, these specific comments (and others made in the past), are inconsistent with NPR’s ethics code, which applies to all journalists (including contracted analysts):
“In appearing on TV or other media . . . NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows . . . that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.”
More fundamentally, “In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist.”
Unfortunately, Juan’s comments on Fox violated our standards as well as our values and offended many in doing so.
Here is the truth:
We’re profoundly sorry that this happened during fundraising week. Juan’s comments were made Monday night and we did not feel it would be responsible to delay this action.
This was a tough decision and we appreciate your support.
President & CEO, NPR
Vivian has a wholelottasplaining to do.
Megyn Kelly interviewing Ibrahim Hooper of C.A.I.R.:
On July 3rd, Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen issued a new rule that does not allow the media or anyone with cameras to get closer than 65 feet to any response vessel or boom without permission from the Coast Guard Captain of the Port of New Orleans. Violation of the rule carries a $40,000 fine and A Class D Felony charge.
This text will be replaced by the player
Whatever is going on in the Gulf of Mexico; this government DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW!
It’s time to get to the Gulf and find out what they are hiding from the ‘little people’!
The NRA sells out to Democrats on the First Amendment.
The campaign finance bill, sponsored by Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Chris Van Hollen, is the Democratic response to the Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which restored the First Amendment right of corporations, unions and nonprofits to make independent campaign expenditures. At the time, the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre calledCitizens United “a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us.”
Look who’s arrogant and elitist now. Under the Schumer-Van Hollen bill, political speech would be bound up with new restrictions, including special burdens on government contractors and corporations that have a certain level of foreign ownership or received TARP funds. The bill also includes disclosure rules designed to hit corporations, requiring CEOs to appear to “approve this message” the way politicians do, and for groups to identify their donors. Except for the NRA.
Under the NRA carve-out in the House bill, the new rules won’t apply to any organizations that have been around for more than 10 years, have more than a million members and receive less than 15% of their funding from corporate donors. That fits the NRA nicely, though as best we can figure, everyone else, from the Sierra Club to Planned Parenthood, fails to qualify. So much for defending the little guy against the fat cats.
This backroom deal came at the behest of Democrats from conservative states, for whom the NRA’s scorecard of their legislative record can be a major boost or obstacle to election. Creating a special exception for the NRA, and thereby assuring the Democrats “good grades” on Second Amendment rights, eases the way for the bill to be passed. A failing grade on First Amendment rights is somebody else’s problem.
By erecting what amounts to a grandfather clause of First Amendment rights, the bill creates a sort of interest-group incumbency, concentrating the power to speak freely among a handful of large and longstanding groups. Established organizations like the NRA provide important representation for their members, but their lobbying cause is specific and limited.