Monthly Archives: December 2011

2012 Primary, Dirty Tricks, Elite Media, Trump

Donald Trump Smacks Around “F” Chuck Todd and Karl Rove

Leave a comment

Notice how “F” Chuck Todd tries to sneak in some rather bogus political narratives? This is one reason why MSNBC has such poor ratings. People are smart enough to see the semantic games and bogus narratives introduced as a matter of routine at MSNBC.

On a side note, at the beginning “F” Chuck Tries to posture Trump and is completely bowled over. While Trump is at times a tad over the top and thus “unpresidential”, the GOP field could use a little bit of Trump’s fire.

 

Note: If you missed the Donald Trump interview with Sean Hannity be sure you see it as it is a good policy discussion – LINK.

Culture War, Editorial, Education, School Indoctrination, True Talking Points

Rules for the Facebook Wall!

Leave a comment

A retired professor friend of mine, who is sick and tired of the mindless emotionalism of others passing as arguments, created a set of rules for his Facebook wall for those who follow and comment.

RULES OF MY WALL

1) Friends may feel free to contest anything I post. BUT there are rules of engagement that your must adhere to otherwise, if you do not I may either delete your utterance or in obdurate cases defriend as being a friend without redeeming significance. There is a reason why there is a “like” button but no “Dislike” If you dislike something say why specifically.

2) NO profanity or gratuitous snarl words., courtesy meet for my advanced age.

4) Do NOT comment on a post you have not read.

5) Assertions are not facts, nor words merely expressing your view point, logic.

6) If I ask a question you MUST ANSWER it BEFORE preceeding to the next assertion. E.G if you say something is “ridiculous,” I may ask you why you think that. If you assert that I “support BO,” I will definitely ask you WHAT EXACTLY I said that made you think that.

If you say you support Newt, I may ask you if you agree with him on this or that point to ascertain how much you know about your candidate. You MUST answer before making your next point.

7) No hit and run snarl word without supporting specific facts, not unsupported opinion or glittering generalizations. I will abide by these same rules on your wall and your postings.

I like these rules, especially number six. Some people use the selective ignoring of key inconvenient facts as a means of calculated aggression, some are just creatures of raw emotion and block out whatever causes cognitive dissonance.

Also on number six, lots of people say on Facebook “If you don’t agree with me” or “If you don’t support candidate X, then you are just trying to get Obama re-elected”.  In most cases that is pure idiocy unless you can back it up with a very good argument.

The fact that such common sense rules are needed is an indication of something that we have lost in society. Why? In the days of the old partisan press, when each town had at least two newspapers with different points of view, people would talk about these differences at the barber shop and the soda shop thus enjoying exercise in debate of the issues of the day regularly. Today if people get half a centimeter out of their comfort zone they can just change the channel or click and button and poof the discomfort is gone. If they cannot do that they pulled the “I’m offended!” card. Pardon me, but I prefer clarity to comfort.

I had this problem with some young professors at IU; said professors could not tell the difference between the sting of an inconvenient truth presented directly and someone being uncivil and nasty. There were several times that I had to explain the difference to a professor when they made this error, which sometimes just enraged them even more.

Fortunately I published my own student newspaper which was very popular so most of the faculty feared my First Amendment ability to sound the alarm. Some Marxist professors were pretty brave until they realized I would be willing to quote them exactly in the student paper. Of course, the professor who appreciated good scholarship and legit debate had nothing to fear from me. Some students would publish grossly unfair things in the official student paper, but in my paper, which was published by older “non traditional” students, we had very high standards because we knew that the administration would use any excuse to attack us.

Health Law, Obama

Study: Under Obamacare, Employers Will Likely Engage in ‘Targeted Dumping’ of Employees

Leave a comment

This is no surprise. In 2009 I was said repeatedly on my old college blog that ObamaCare was designed to blow up the system by driving prices and taxes up, by creating an impossible regulatory environment, and by a series of “incentives” that encourage people to make decisions that make the system less feasible as time goes on. Shortly after I said that ObamaCare creates an economic death spiral (known as an adverse selection spiral) of bad incentives that encourage people to game the system; each decision that you take for your own best interests helps to bankrupt the system.

The Weekly Standard:

Minnesota Public Radio reports, “A loophole in the federal health care overhaul would allow many employers to game the system by dumping their sicker employees [into] public health insurance exchanges, according to two University of Minnesota law professors.” Such “targeted dumping” of sicker employees would cause Obamacare’s taxpayer-subsidized exchanges to cost more — potentially far more — than the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected.

The CBO has already badly misjudged the number of employees who would lose their employer-sponsored insurance under Obamacare. The CBO projected that, from 2010 to 2011, a net of 6 million Americans wouldgain employer-sponsored insurance in the wake of Obamacare’s passage (see table 4). But Gallup has found that, since President Obama signed Obamacare into law in March 2010, 4.5 million Americans have losttheir employer-sponsored insurance. In other words, the CBO’s estimate is off by about 10 million people already.

Some of this no doubt has to do with the historically bad economic “recovery” under Obama. But Obamacare likely has a lot to do with that as well.

In their study, published in the Virginia Law Review, authors Amy Monahan and Daniel Schwarcz write,

“[T]here is a substantial prospect that ACA [Obamacare] will lead some, and perhaps many, employers to implement a targeted dumping strategy designed to induce low-risk employees to retain ESI [employer-sponsored insurance] but incentivize high-risk employees to voluntarily opt out of ESI and instead purchase insurance through the exchanges that ACA establishes to organize individual insurance markets. Although ACA and other federal laws prohibit employers from excluding high-risk employees from ESI, these laws do little to prevent employers from designing their plans and benefits to incentivize high-risk employees to voluntarily seek coverage elsewhere. If successful, such a targeted dumping strategy would allow employers and low-risk employees to avoid the costs associated with providing coverage to high-risk employees….”

The authors note that employers who did this “would avoid any financial penalties under the so-called individual and employer ‘mandates.’”

2012 Primary, Carter, Chris Christie, Communications Theory, Elite Media, Herman Cain, History, Mitt Romney, Newt, Obama, True Talking Points

Inside the Beltway ‘Wisdom’ Isn’t So Wise

Leave a comment

[Note, this story is stickied to the top of the page as it is our feature of the week. Please scroll down to see new posts and updates!]

by PoliticalArena.org Editor Chuck Norton

Sometimes beltway wisdom can reflect certain truths not apparent to many nice folks in “fly over country”, but often the beltway wisdom caters to government largess and the message can be sold to large donors and bundlers.

Inside the beltway, insiders from both parties treat small government conservatives as “extreme” because all of them make their money from government largess either directly or indirectly.  There are also factors that swing the public that those inside the beltway never get exposed to. The greatest example of this was in 1976 and in 1980 when “insiders” believed that Ronald Reagan was a joke, a stupid B-movie actor whose eloquent speeches about the dangers of communism, socialism and collectivism should have went out with the 1950’s. Now those same pundits claim to be the very fathers of his success. While some of the names of the insiders and pundits have changed, the beltway mentality has not.

Please examine these comments from the insiders poll at National Journal and enjoy my comments which will appear in red.

National Journal:

The Gingrich Moment has yet to catch on with National Journal‘s Political Insiders. Despite former House Speaker Newt Gingrich‘s surge in the Republican presidential nomination contest, overwhelming majorities of both Democratic and Republican Insiders still say former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has the better shot at beating President Obama in 2012.

[This is what the left and the elite media say. They said the same thing about McCain and Dole. The elite media is essentially the Democrat media complex, so if Mitt Romney is so much of a threat why are they avoiding piling on and trashing Romney like they have the other candidates? In each case where the most “moderate” candidate was considered the most electable the Democrat campaigned to the right of the GOP nominee and won. When there is a bold difference between the two candidates the conservative Republican wins.

Some insiders know this and are simply rooting for the two candidates who are most likely to guarantee continued government largess. Other insiders start out with the best of intentions, but end up adopting the very mentality that they came to DC to change in the first place. Having been to DC events I can tell you that the temptation to meld in to that mentality is highly seductive. Make no mistake, the media and the White House want to run against Romney and several White House staffers have let that leak out. They believe that the same strategy the GOP used against John Kerry in 2004 can be used against Mitt Romney. They also believe that Obama can fool voters by campaigning to the right of Romney’s record. They will say that Romney talks like Reagan, but governed like Dukakis. Obama will also run against what he will describe as a namby-pamby do nothing Congress that talks about grandiose reforms but ends up with a schizophrenic big government record like Romney’s. ]

For some of the Insiders, Romney’s well-oiled campaign and potential for moderate appeal gave him the edge.

[The well oiled campaign with huge state machines is not as overwhelmingly effective as it used to be for two reasons.

The first reason is that with the power of the internet and multiple 24 hours news channels voters have more unfiltered access to information and the candidates. Herman Cain had almost no ground machine to speak of, and the truth is that if it weren’t for his repeated stumbling when it comes to basic foreign policy questions and messaging, he would still be the front-runner. The allegations of sexual harassment by women, all of whom have direct ties to David Axelrod and the Chicago Democrat machine were so transparent, that most people were not swayed by them. The fact that the Cain allegations didn’t stick in spite of a massive elite media campaign to try to make them otherwise is yet another indicator of just how powerful new media really is (note, remember when Cain was asked if he would take a lie detector test about the allegations and he said yes? Only local media shared the results).  A wealthy massive machine is no longer necessary to get a message out.] 

“He [Romney] almost beat a liberal icon in a blue state and went on to win the governor’s race,” said one Democratic Insider. “He is a very strong general-election candidate.”

[And Newt nationalized a mid-term election, brought in a GOP majority in the House for the first time in 40 years, cut taxes, balanced the federal budget, created a surplus, and passed welfare reform with a Democrat President, yet our Democratic insider knows that. Also, since when has Massachusetts ever been a political gauge for the rest of the country? ]

“Mitt Romney is better positioned to speak to independent voters,” said another Democrat, “including key voting blocs like swing unmarried women.” A Republican strategist agreed. “Romney is more acceptable to moderate voters, especially female voters.”

[Nonsense. And this brings us to the second reason why massive state machines on the ground are not as effective as they used to be. Those machines were needed to get the attention of ordinarily more apathetic independent voters (and conservatives could not be more motivated already). Independent voters have been anything but apathetic since 2009.  Independents are engaged and informed in a way I thought I would never see again in my lifetime. They are also far from what beltway insiders would consider moderate. 

In questionnaires about civics and current events independents score almost as high as Republican voters, before 2009 they scored below Democrat voters.

In the 2009 state and local elections voters swung towards GOP/TEA candidates by 18 points in the key swing states of Florida and Pennsylvania. The independent voters in those key swing states were not energized by a “moderate message”. They were energized by the bold TEA Party message of Rick Santelli and Sarah Palin. In New Jersey the firebrand fiscal hawk Chris Christie was elected governor. 

In 2010 GOP/TEA Party candidates swept the elections in nine of the top ten swing states. For the first time since 1984 when Ronald Reagan won 49 states, traditionally independent and slightly left leaning voters such as women and Catholics voted Republican by big numbers. There is no way that anyone could say that they were energized by Mitt Romney or anyone like him. Florida, which Obama won, tossed out their own Republican Governor Charlie Crist who was a wishy-washy Mitt Romney like moderate, and replaced him with reaganesque Marco Rubio. Governor Crist tried to take the independent vote away from Rubio by running as an independent and guarantee the Democrats a win, but independent voters such as women and Catholics voted for Rubio by significant margins.] 

Other Republican Insiders named Romney as the stronger candidate, but couldn’t muster much enthusiasm about the prospect.

“Romney’s shape-shifting might not be appealing for conservatives in the primary, but he’s far more disciplined than Gingrich and is the only candidate that can win in November,” said one Republican.

[Romney is more disciplined, but not as disciplined as one might think, already since the debates started Romney has changed his messaging and positions. What is the bold Romney vision for America other than “I’m not Barack Obama and don’t I look sweet on TV? Also Newt has come back from the early missteps in his campaign with a new discipline and has avoided his previous academics ways of getting himself off message with excessive nuance.]

“Mitt Romney will be hard to hate in the general for the same reason he is hard to love in a primary,” said another Republican. “There isn’t much ‘there’ there, so the spotlight will gravitate to Obama. Romney makes it a referendum on Obama; Gingrich makes it a choice.”

[Indeed, 1980 could have been a referendum about Carter, but Ronald Reagan went out of his way to make it a choice. Gingrich gives you something to vote for.]

Concerns about Romney’s charisma led a small number of Insiders on both sides of the spectrum made the case for Gingrich as the stronger Obama opponent. “Romney seems like he is the most formidable on paper and in debates,” said one Democrat, “but the American people will struggle to take to him, just as the Republicans are struggling to take to him.” “The president’s money will dwarf ours,” warned a Republican strategist. “So our candidate must frame his message more clearly and forcefully. That’s Newt’s strength and that’s Romney’s weakness.”

[Hey someone in DC is thinking! Obama and his team led by David Axelrod will try to mottle everything, change history, and make the facts into a soup until people don’t know what to think. Newt has the boldness and razor like clarity in his presentation that can cut through the nonsense.]

Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham are for Mitt Romney. Why?

Ann & Laura are singularly focused on Romney’s ability to speak and have been quite up front about this when discussing it.

I understand their point of view, but I do not totally agree with it. During the Bush administration while I was getting my latest degree at IU, I had to constantly defend what the administration was doing right because the administration made almost no attempt to articulate it themselves (with the exception of hiring Tony Snow).

This became very tiresome and was a reason why the GOP got pasted in 2006 and 2008. Since communication is the life of Ann and Laura (and it is my life too) I see how their point of view can be so unbalanced.

When George W. Bush was debating John Kerry can anyone honestly say that Bush dominated Kerry in any of those debates? Yet Bush still won convincingly.

The want to have Romney for the reasons stated is defensive in nature. Just as the Democrats picking Dukakis was defensive, picking Mondale was defensive, and picking Kerry was defensive. They were all picked because the Democrats “settled” on who they thought was “electable”. The GOP did this with Dole and McCain and today many “insiders” want to follow that line of thinking for 2012. Don’t be fooled.

Ann and Laura had a conversation on The Laura Ingraham Show and agreed that Mitt Romney will never be as conservative after the primary as he is now, and he will not be as conservative in the White House as he would be in the General Election. They both laughed and said how it will work out great for them because they will have yet another [liberal] Republican that they can make fun of for four years.

The state of the country is so dire that we no longer can afford the luxury of having a president talk radio can make fun of.

2012 Primary, Coolidge, Lies, Mitt Romney, Newt, Obama, Reagan, Sarah

Romney will not debate Gingrich

Leave a comment

Herman Cain debated Newt in a long format one on one and came out OK, so what is the problem Mitt?

Aren’t the American people deserving of a long format conversation that isn’t just cute 30 second responses? Mitt is trying to run out the clock and hope for a win without really fighting for it.

We all know Mitt’s past and we all know Gingrich’s.  Both candidates in the past have had some foolish positions. The difference is not just some of the foolish positions that have come out of their mouths, but what they have actually implemented into law.

Mitt has the RomneyCare albatross around his neck which is too similar to ObamaCare. Gingrich talked about a health insurance mandate as a part of a thought experiment with a think tank and rejected the idea after a time because he concluded that a government powerful enough to impose such a mandate would also be a heavy handed disaster. Romney actually imposed a mandate. Both candidates say they are pro-life now, but as a matter of legislation only one has signed laws that have taxpayers pay for abortions and that is Mitt Romney.

Newt Gingrich has actually balanced the US budget, reformed entitlements and welfare into better working programs and Newt helped draft the Medicare Part D which came in 40% under budget.  Newt blabs a lot, he is an academic and 50 odd sounding ideas will come out of his mouth every day, Newt’s mouth and academic way of thinking makes Newt his own worst enemy, but when you look at what laws were passed and how budgets were balanced Newt gets the job done and knows how to nationalize elections and get the American people behind an agenda he has sold on the merit. What has Mitt Romney actually DONE to advance the conservative movement or even protect traditional Americanism?

Newt has said a lot of things that are just dumb or were unfairly demagogued and lied about,  but Newt admits these mistakes and does not sugar coat them. Mitt Romney lies about his. I have not caught Newt in a fib in any of the debates. I cannot say the same about Romney.

Newt is not afraid of the media and will take them on when needed, this is critically important to both the election and the fourth estate as a check and balance.  The elite media is supposed to be helping keep government in check and instead most of what we get from them is cheer-leading for a leviathan state.

Newt Gingrich has been plugging away against Obama’s bad policies since 2009 and has been defending us in the elite media since Obama took office. Newt defended Sarah Palin as the press trashed her when we now know that on issue after issue after issue from death Panels, to ObamaCare costs, to the cronyism, to energy policy, to Egypt & Libya, to inflation and the increasing food problem that Palin has been almost prophetic in her correctness.   Where was Mitt Romney in 2009 and 2010 when you and I were out protesting in the cold, raising awareness, networking to educate people, and raising funds for local candidates?

When history looks at who advanced the conservative movement the most Newt comes in second only to Ronald Reagan. Newt is featured in almost every political science textbook for his achievements. Newt’s name will always be remembered along the names of Reagan, Taft, Coolidge and Goldwater.

If this does end up as a race between Newt and Mitt, the choice of who to endorse is obvious.

2012 Primary, Econ, Elite Media, Lies, Obama, True Talking Points

Elite Media: “Unemployment Unexpectedly Drops”. What Pure B.S.

Leave a comment

This happens every year. Hiring picks up in the retail and service sector for the Christmas season. There is no way that this can be unexpected, but the implication is that “Obama’s policies are finally working”.

Next month the reports on consumer spending will show that they went up in December with the spin that it is all because Obama is great, but the truth is that consumer spending always goes up in December. In February and early March the elite media will say that “unemployment went up unexpectedly” and “consumer spending dropped unexpectedly”. Why? Holiday help will get laid off and the credit card bills will start coming in.

Another reason that unemployment has dropped unexpectedly is that a reported 315,000 people have given up looking for a job. That artificially lowers the government unemployment number.

Bloomberg News:

Job gains in the U.S. picked up last month and the unemployment rate unexpectedly fell to the lowest level since March 2009, a decline augmented by the departure of Americans from the labor force.

Payrolls climbed 120,000, after a revised 100,000 increase in October, with more than half the hiring coming from retailers and temporary help agencies, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey called for a 125,000 gain. The jobless rate declined to 8.6 percent from 9 percent.

“It’s good news, not great news,” said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Inc. in Lexington, Massachusetts, whose forecast matched the survey median. “The labor market is gradually healing.”

What nonsense, because way down deep in the article, they finally tell you the truth [Note – reporters know that most people never read beyond the 5th paragraph in most any article]:

Employment at service-providers increased 126,000 in November, including a 50,000 gain in retail trade as companies began hiring for the holiday shopping season. The number of temporary workers increased 22,300.

Macy’s,  the second-biggest U.S. department-store chain, increased mostly part-time staff by 4 percent for the November-December shopping season. See’s Candies Inc., a chocolate maker owned by Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said it would add 5,500 mostly temporary workers.

Still, factory payroll growth slowed and construction employment dropped. Government payrolls decreased by 20,000 in November, including a 16,000 decline on the state and local levels.

More on “Unexpected”

Enjoy this piece from my old college blog where I had some fun with the elite media economists where they declared every piece of bad news “unexpected” for two years while they were spinning positive for Obama:

Indeed. According to the elite media “most economists” were surprised by month after month after month of unexpected, unexpected, unexpected, unexpected, unexpected bad economic news for the last two years. Of course to those who were paying attention it wasn’t unexpected at all.

In February or March we will be told that factory orders for consumer goods are up “unexpectedly” which is a positive sign that Obama is the best president ever. The truth is that it will be the result of totally expected inventory restocking after the holiday season.

Jobless claims are over 400,000 again this week. Last month “Hope” was alive because new claims had dropped below 400,000 to 397,000, which is statistically insignificant:

Fewer people applied for unemployment benefits last week, a hopeful sign that the job market might be picking up.

The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly applications dropped 9,000 to a seasonally adjusted 397,000, the lowest level in five weeks. It’s only the third time since April that applications have fallen below 400,000.

Were saved! Most every week claims are above 400,000 it is unexpected and each time below it is because we have the hopeful if not smoking hot economy. Gimme a break.

2012 Primary, History, Obama, True Talking Points

Obama at lowest approval at this stage in his presidency in history. Below Carter.

Leave a comment

Gallup Polling firm’s daily presidential job approval index put the current president‘s job approval rating at 43 percent compared to President Jimmy Carter’s 51 percent:

US News and World Report:

The job approval numbers for other presidents at this stage of their terms, a year before the re-election campaign:

— Harry S. Truman: 54 percent.

— Dwight Eisenhower: 78 percent.

— Lyndon B. Johnson: 44 percent.

— Richard M. Nixon: 50 percent.

— Ronald Reagan: 54 percent.

— George H.W. Bush: 52 percent.

— Bill Clinton: 51 percent.

— George W. Bush: 55 percent.

What’s more, Gallup finds that Obama’s overall job approval rating so far has averaged 49 percent. Only three former presidents have had a worse average rating at this stage: Carter, Ford, and Harry S. Truman. Only Truman won re-election in an anti-Congress campaign that Obama’s team is using as a model.

To counter this the GOP should run against the Senate and the Democratic leadership. The Senate will not even do it’s constitutional duty and pass a budget. The GOP has passed job bills that actually are not government power grabs, balanced budget proposals, regulatory reforms etc and Democrats in the Senate will not even allow them to come to the floor.

2012 Primary, Firearms, Lies, Mitt Romney

Gun Owners of America on Mitt Romney

Leave a comment

Mitt Romney and Gun Control

In the recent Presidential debate, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann said America’s voters did not need to “settle” for the moderate candidate.  Amen to that.

And gun owners do NOT want candidates who talk out of both sides of their mouths.

As the Gun Owners of America’s Board of Directors looks at the Republican candidates running to unseat radical anti-gun President Obama, we see several who have strong pro-gun backgrounds.  Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman all have solid pro-gun records and deserve a hard look from pro-gunners.

At least one frontrunner candidate stands in contrast with a decidedly mixed record on the gun issue.  While Mitt Romney likes to “talk the pro-gun talk,” he has not always walked the walk.

“The Second Amendment protects the individual right of lawful citizens to keep and bear arms. I strongly support this essential freedom,” Romney assures gun owners these days.

But this is the same Mitt Romney who, as governor, promised not to do anything to “chip away” at Massachusetts’ extremely restrictive gun laws.

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said during a gubernatorial debate.  “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”1

Even worse, Romney signed a law to permanently ban many semi-automatic firearms.  “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense,” Romney said in 2004. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”2

Romney also spoke in favor of the Brady law’s five day waiting period on handguns.  The Boston Herald quotes Romney saying, “I don’t think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”3

Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

And that makes it all the more troubling that Romney refuses to answer GOA’s simple candidate questionnaire.  In our more than 36 years of experience, a candidate is usually hiding anti-gun views if he or she refuses to come clean in writing with specific commitments to the Second Amendment.

Today, Romney may be a favorite “Republican Establishment” candidate of the national press corps.  But that is exactly what gun owners DON’T need in a new President. We need someone who will stand by true constitutional principles and protect the Second Amendment.

 

[1] Mitt Romney in the 2002 Massachusetts Gubernatorial debate.  Part of the quote can be read in this article at Scot Lehigh, “Romney vs. Romney,” Boston Globe (January 19, 2007) at: http://mittromney4potus.blogspot.com/2007/01/context.html

[2] “Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban,” July 8, 2004, at: http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=14812

[3] Mitt Romney, quoted by Joe Battenfeld in the Boston Herald, Aug. 1, 1994.

2012 Primary, Firearms, Newt

Gun Owners of America on Newt Gingrich

Leave a comment
Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America.  But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.

The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban.  And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”

His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped to well below the “C-level.”  In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal.  Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.[1]

The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing one’s Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor.[2] Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home — and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.

While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996.  Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was “a very reasonable position.”[3] He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress — despite repeated requests to do so.[4]

Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions.  For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.[5] (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.)  Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”[6]

Final passage of H.R. 3610, Sept. 28, 1996 at:  http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml . Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) warned his colleagues about the hidden dangers in H.R. 3610, and in regard to the Kohl ban, noted that it would “prohibit most persons from carrying unloaded firearms in their automobiles.”

See Gingrich’s vote at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml .

[3] Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996.  The full quote reveals how much Speaker Gingrich had adopted the anti-gunners’ line of thinking:  “I’m very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns,” the Georgia Republican said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think that’s a very reasonable position.”  But the fact that this gun ban covers misdemeanors in the home is primary evidence that NON-violent people have been subjected to lifetime gun bans for things like:  shouting matches, throwing a set of keys in the direction of another person, spanking a child, etc.

[4] See H.R.1009, “States’ Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1997,” introduced by Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID).

H.R. 2703, March 14, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll066.xml .

S. 735, April 18, 1996 at:  http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll126.xml .

2012 Primary, Firearms, Rick Perry

Gun Owners of America on Rick Perry

Leave a comment
As Governor of Texas for a decade, Rick Perry has shown himself to be a tough defender of the right to keep and bear arms.

In his private life, Gov. Perry carries concealed and knows how to use his weapon.  While jogging with his dog last year, he used his .380 Ruger to shoot and kill a cayotte that was menacing his pet.

“Don’t attack my dog or you might get shot … if you’re a coyote,” he told the Associated Press.

As for his public record, Gov. Perry has a near-perfect gun record, having signed dozens of pro-gun bills into law.  Here’s his record as governor:

2001

Signed Senate Bill 766, which prohibits lawsuits against gun ranges, gun manufacturers, and distributors for anything carried out in lawful operation.

2004

Signed concealed handgun reciprocity agreements with Georgia and Montana.

2005

Signed House Bill 225 (Driver) which extends the renewal period for a concealed handgun license from four to five years without an increase in renewal fee.  The bill also included a provision that a person from any state can qualify for a Texasconcealed handgun license (CHL).

Singed House Bill 322 (Hupp) which reduces all fees for a concealed handgun license for military members and veterans by 50 percent and lowers the age from 21 to 18 for members of the military or veterans to obtain a concealed handgun license.

Signed House Bill 685 (Rose) which exempts military members and veterans from taking the range portion of the concealed handgun licensing process if they had been weapons certified in the military within the past five years prior to application for the license.

Signed House Bill 1483 (Frost) which expanded methods by which applicants for a concealed handgun license may pay the fees to include personal check, cash, and credit card. Currently only cashiers checks and money orders are accepted.

Signed House Bill 823 (Keel) which allows for concealed carry in a privately owned vehicle, without having to obtain a permit from the government.

Signed House Bill 1038 (Isett) which reduces the fee for renewal of a canceled handgun permit for senior citizen by 50 percent. The current renewal fee for a senior citizen is $70 for a four-year renewal period and this bill will reduce that fee to $35 for those 60 years of age or older.

Signed Senate Bill 734 (Williams) which restricts the ability of a city to prohibit the discharge of firearms on large pieces of land in their extraterritorial jurisdiction.

2007

Signed House Bill 233 (Ritter) which waives CHL fees for active duty military.

Signed House Bill 991 (Rose) which protected the privacy and safety of CHL holders by restricting access to such records, thus keeping names of permit holder from being made public.

Signed House Bill 1815 (Isett) which expands constitutional carry by allowing the carrying a handgun on one’s own premises or premises under one’s control, and between a premises and a car under one’s control, as well as in a vehicle under one’s control.  Defines premises to include recreational vehicles such as a motor home.

Signed House Bill 1839 (Bonnen) which eases renewal requirements after the third renewal of a CHL.

Signed Senate Bill 112 (Carona) which prohibits the seizure by police of lawfully carried and possessed firearms during a disaster.

Signed Senate Bill 322 (Duell), not allowing foster homes to prohibit firearms and ammunition.

Signed Senate Bill 378 (Wentworth), a castle doctrine bill removing the requirement to retreat before using deadly force against an attacker in one’s home, auto or place of business.

Signed Senate Bill 535 (Hegar) which prohibits the Lower Colorado River Authority from adopting rules against concealed carry or self-defense.

2009

Signed House Bill 2664 (Ritter), creating a defense to prosecution for the offense of unlawful carrying of a handgun by a license holder on the premises of certain businesses.

Signed Senate Bill 1188 (Estes) which expands the number of states from which Texans can purchase long guns.

Signed Senate Bill 1236 (Seliger), requiring that a person charged with a domestic violence misdemeanor offense be notified that upon conviction they may lose their right to possess a firearm.

Signed Senate Bill 1742 (Shapiro) which expands the authorities of cities to regulate the discharge of firearms outside of city limits (GOA opposes).

2011

Signed House Bill 25 (Guillen), extending the right to carry on a boat or watercraft with the necessity of a CHL.

Signed House Bill 1595 (Isaac) which protects shooting ranges from frivolous lawsuits.

Signed House Bill 2127 (Garen) which restricts the ability of certain cities to prohibit shooting.

Signed House Bill 2560 (Sheffield) which allows foster parents with a CHL to carry in an automobile with children present.

Signed Senate Bill 321 (Hegar) which allows Texans with a concealed carry permit to keep their firearm in locked glove boxes in their automobile while at place of employment.

Communications Theory, Culture War, Editorial, Elite Media, Lies

Video: How reporters “wow” you with pure B.S.

Leave a comment

This video from The Onion shows you just how elite media over-hype works and how they get you to care about news that really isn’t news at all. You will see the techniques that are designed to generate an emotional response and suggest the editorial point of view into your mind with very little facts at all. This is perhaps the most important video The Onion has ever done.

Econ, Editorial, Stuck on Stupid, True Talking Points

Kicking the Can Down the Road in Europe

Leave a comment

The Federal Reserve pumping dollars into Europe is just a mild kicking of the can down the road. There is no way that Greece, Italy etc will get the political will to embrace the austerity and capitalist policies necessary for them to have a chance to pay their debts.

Of course loaning them more money even cheaper puts our dollar at further risk.  It seems that what the Federal Reserve  is trying to do is delay the Euro collapse until after the election.

AP:

FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — The central banks of the wealthiest countries, trying to prevent a debt crisis in Europe from exploding into a global panic, swept in Wednesday to shore up the world financial system by making it easier for banks to borrow American dollars.

Stock markets around the world roared their approval. The Dow Jones industrial average rose almost 500 points, its best day in two and a half years. Stocks climbed 5 percent in Germany and more than 4 percent in France.

Central banks will make it cheaper for commercial banks in their countries to borrow dollars, the dominant currency of trade. It was the most extraordinary coordinated effort by the central banks since they cut interest rates together in October 2008, at the depths of the financial crisis.

But while it should ease borrowing for banks, it does little to solve the underlying problem of mountains of government debt in Europe, leaving markets still waiting for a permanent fix. European leaders gather next week for a summit on the debt crisis.

The Euro banks are so over leveraged that as confidence in the Euro declines more and more people will pull their money out and buy gold, silver, or dollars, BUT the banks have loaned out so much money to governments that they could not possibly pay off the depositors. Unless something changes in a big way, the Euro seems finished.