And as you would expect, one of its first releases relies on a contrived emotional appeal, as if accidental death from handguns were reason enough to take away our unalienable right to secure our lives and property, as outlined in the Second Amendment.
This reminds me of the infamous anti-Goldwater ad, as well as the legion of ads run against Ronald Reagan — or “Ronny Raygun,” as those clever wags on the left thought so amusing. And who ran those? LBJ, one of the most deplorable men ever elected, and Jimmy Carter, whose anti-semitism and feckless foreign policy, combined with his moronic economic endeavors, left us with radical Islam, stagflation, and an avuncular suggestion that we embrace the new normal of communism and layer up in sweaters.
It’s excruciatingly forced and cynical. Mostly because the same kind of ad can be run for just about every product, including, say, unsecured feather dusters used to tickle siblings, who then fall down stairs and break their necks. Or distracted Bloomberg body guards, who accidentally shoot the prick in the back of his limo because they mistake him for an intruder, and his lobster fork for an assault knife.
We’re treated as easily manipulable morons by people like Bloomberg, who seems to believe his intelligence is so transcendent that it simply must find a way to be dumbed down so that ordinary hicks can appreciate it. And I tire of it, just as I tire of so many wealthy leftists who believe wealth is evidence of genius, such that they should have control over important national and even Constitutional authorities.
From The Truth About Guns (h/t geoff B and serr8d):
“Michael R. Bloomberg, making his first major political investment since leaving office, plans to spend $50 million this year building a nationwide grass-roots network to motivate voters who feel strongly about curbing gun violence,” nytimes.com reports, unfamiliar with the expression “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.” Apparently Everytown will be “an organization he hopes can eventually outmuscle the National Rifle Association.” How’s that you ask? “The plans call for a restructuring of the gun control groups he funds, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. They will be brought under one new umbrella group called Everytown for Gun Safety.” [...]
[...] Not to put too fine a point on it, Mayor Bloomberg’s a nasty piece of work. Americans don’t like big city bullies, which is as good a description of Michael Bloomberg as I can muster. But don’t take my word for it . . .
Mr. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, said gun control advocates need to learn from the N.R.A. and punish those politicians who fail to support their agenda — even Democrats whose positions otherwise align with his own.
“They say, ‘We don’t care. We’re going to go after you,’ ” he said of the N.R.A. “ ‘If you don’t vote with us we’re going to go after your kids and your grandkids and your great-grandkids. And we’re never going to stop.’ ”
He added: “We’ve got to make them afraid of us.” . . .
What gives this story life: Bloomberg’s money. Specifically, he’s switching his anti-gun financial focus from campaign-related ads to “often-unseen field operations that have been effective for groups like the N.R.A. in driving single-issue, like-minded voters to the polls.” And you thought a boat was a hole in the water into which you dump money. No way is that enough cash to affect change in the political landscape regarding firearms freedom. The Times is less incredulous.
The $50 million could be significant: In recent years, the N.R.A. has spent only $20 million annually on political activities. The political groups affiliated with the billionaire Koch brothers, who are seeking to help Republicans take over the Senate, have spent about $30 million in the last six months
The group will zero in on 15 target states, from places like Colorado and Washington State, where gun control initiatives have advanced recently, to territory that is likely to be more hostile like Texas, Montana and Indiana. They have set a goal of signing up one million new supporters this year on top of the 1.5 million they already have.
Wait, what? Bloomberg’s gun control groups have 1.5 million supporters? I don’t think so – unless you define “supporters” as Facebook Likes and names on a mailing list. Combined. Multiplied by 10. Seriously, why would the Times repeat that obvious lie? For the same reason they end their announcement article with this gem:
Mr. Bloomberg was introspective as he spoke, and seemed both restless and wistful. When he sat down for the interview, it was a few days before his 50th college reunion. His mortality has started dawning on him, at 72. And he admitted he was a bit taken aback by how many of his former classmates had been appearing in the “in memoriam” pages of his school newsletter.
But if he senses that he may not have as much time left as he would like, he has little doubt about what would await him at a Judgment Day. Pointing to his work on gun safety, obesity and smoking cessation, he said with a grin: “I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close.”
That’s as close to a dictionary definition of hubris as you’ll find. No matter how much money you have, pride goeth before a fall. And for that may the Lord make us truly grateful.
I think the NRA has just been given a wonderful gift by one of its most arrogant nemeses, namely, that quote, which they — along with all lovers of liberty and choice — should annotate and spread as indicative of the leftist nannystate mindset, which reeks of assignation of itself to a kind of secular godhead: “I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. [By infringing on the liberties of my fellow man, because I know better than they, and they need to have someone like me teach them how to be responsible humans] I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close.”
Well, Mr Bloomberg, thanks for your service to the Church. For that, you can have yourself buried in a platinum casket. And yet you’ll still moulder in the ground like the rest of us — your enormous, ego-driven tombstone a testament to your own self-aggrandizement and unbridled arrogance.
Run all the ads you want. You won’t take our guns. The efforts in Colorado you pushed led to a pair of recalls and a movement to break from the state by large swaths of the population living outside the regions lorded over by lying Democrats who were willing to break their campaign pledges for the Cause.
In the end, maybe “immigration reform” will be the undoing of the Second Amendment as a legal imperative. But it won’t get guns out of the hands of those who know how tyrants operate. So go ahead, turn us all into outlaws.
Chicks dig outlaws almost as much as ordinary humans hate pompous, presumptuous, arrogant would-be gods like Bloomberg.
Conflict of interest, you say? Why, balderdash. Twas but a simple misunderstanding, surely. An accidental oversight. Of which we’ll be told Cantor had no direct knowledge. PJM:
On a local website co-managed by Shaun Kenney, the newly appointed executive director of the Virginia GOP, a colleague of Kenney’s admitted last night that Kenney’s political fundraising and consulting firm is employed by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.
Cantor is now campaigning to retain his seat in Virginia’s 7th Congressional District. Cantor’s challenger for the GOP primary on June 10 — Dave Brat — is politically on Cantor’s right, and is thus receiving national interest from conservative/Tea Party groups that are disappointed with Cantor’s record as majority leader.
The magnitude of the revelation can not be overstated: GOP voters in Virginia’s 7th District have just learned that the person appointed to manage the primary election season for the party is being paid by one of the candidates. And, in addition to the disqualification of Kenney as a fair arbiter of the primary, the financial ties obviously raise the question of whether Cantor, the most powerful Republican in Virginia, had Kenney installed as executive director.
Further, the article revealing the financial ties attempts to describe a longstanding relationship between Cantor and the partners at K6 Consulting. However, this appears to be irrelevant. Cantor’s own financial disclosures for 2013-2014 do not include any records of payments made to K6 Consulting or any other entity tied to Shaun Kenney. The article claims that the upcoming FEC financial disclosure will reveal that K6 is employed by Cantor.
Unless Cantor’s financial disclosures were incomplete, K6 Consulting signed a contract with Cantor just in the past few weeks or months, as Kenney was being selected as executive director.
Indeed, this matches with what I have heard from multiple sources.
Last week, I was told that in recent weeks Shaun Kenney was overheard on more than one occasion — and at two different locations — claiming that “he had landed the big fish, Cantor.” The two locations were the Republican Party of Virginia Headquarters and the Richmond General Assembly Building.
Notes Brat, in response to the article (and listed in one of several updates):
“Since no Democratic challenger has emerged from that party’s own primary process, the GOP primary election on June 10 will result in the next U.S. Representative for Virginia’s 7th Congressional District.
Yet with this revelation, any pretense of fairness regarding that June 10th election has been dashed.
We now ask Republican Party of Virginia Chairman Pat Mullins to explain how and why Shaun Kenney was appointed Executive Director.
We are also calling for an independent investigation into the financial relationship between Eric Cantor, Shaun Kenney, and the Republican Party of Virginia.”
Question: will there be blowback — with Cantor’s establishement cronies, attendant remoras attached to one of the apex predators in the House, willing to break their sucking, sycophantic grip and form their own school of hide and retreat? Or will they just try to ride this out as the bombast of a primary challenger who hasn’t any right to challenge one of the foremost members of the House leadership in the first place? Because, well, that’s just not done, you see. Regardless of how corrupt and manipulative the incumbent sonofabitch is, and regardless of how he fails to truly represent his base constituency once he makes it to DC.
He’s a sure thing, and we need to win to fight.
I know this because Ann Coulter and Karl Rove, among others, keep telling me this — just as they kept telling me that Mitt Romney was conservative, or that Chris Christie was the future of the party, whereas rabble rousers like the Jr Senator from Texas and the Jr Senator from Utah need to stop harming the party with their idealism and inexperience in negotiating the Ways of DC.
But here’s the thing about GOP establishment politicians: make the fire hot enough, and they’ll begin to realize that they are indeed frogs in a pot, and — because they are nothing if not committed to their own political survival (the left’s pols will take one for the team, because to do so promotes the Cause) — they may just hop away. Or swim away. Depending on which of my metaphors you prefer. If either.
So. Time to turn up the heat.
I’m convinced the GOP lost the Virginia Senate race because they would rather see Terry McCauliff in the Senate than someone like Cuccinelli. The same can be said of Richard Mourdoch in Indiana. And countless others. There is, after all, a reason the GOP leadership and its big money donor hold conclaves to discuss how they can neuter and defeat the TEA Party conservatives, not how they can effectively combat big government statism. Because the truth is, they like big government statism, and they can raise money by setting themselves up as the only viable option to run against it.
It’s a shell game. And we’re the suckers on the street corner who are never supposed to find the pea.
On his show last night, Mark Levin referenced a fascinating 2002 study by Ron Utt, PhD, that — using the government’s own data — showed developed land in the US was, at the time, 5.2 % in the contiguous 48 states; and that even that figure was likely high. From the study:
According to the most widely available land use survey/report recently published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),16 only 5.2 percent of the land in the 48 contiguous states is considered developed, and this figure may overstate the scope of residential and commercial development, since other federal surveys suggest that the true amount of such land may be under 4.0 percent. [....]
But even the NRI estimate may overstate the true scope of the amount of developed (human-occupied) land in the United States. USDA’s definition of “developed” land also includes the amount of land in rural areas devoted to highways, roads, railroad right-of-ways, power transmission lines, pipelines, etc., which represent ribbons of developed land use traversing otherwise undeveloped and unoccupied rural areas to connect one urbanized area to another, or a farm house with a major road. In and of themselves, such uses do not represent “development” as the term has come to be defined, as denoting areas of permanent human habitation and occupation. When such uninhabited forms of public infrastructure are removed from the USDA’s tally of “developed” land, whatever land remains is technically referred to as “urbanized.” In providing a measurement of the amount of urbanized land in the continental United States, the federal government offers a choice of two estimates derived from two separate federal surveys of land use patterns.
Using the land use estimates reported by the NRI survey for 1997, urbanized areas accounted for just 4.0 percent of the land in the continental United States (3.2 percent if Alaska is included).17 Moreover, that 4.0 percent of the land was home to approximately 75 percent of the population. Adding to this total the amount of rural areas identified as containing residential housing (which the USDA defines as one housing unit per 10 acres or more) brings these loosely inhabited areas of the continental United States to 7.3 percent.
Other federal land use estimates suggest that urbanized areas account for an even smaller amount of land than found in the NRI survey. The USDA conducts another land use survey, called the Census of Agriculture, every five years. Unlike the NRI survey, which is based on a national sample of land use patterns (and therefore potentially more prone to error),19 the Census of Agriculture is conducted as an enumeration, and the use to which every bit of land is put is measured, tabulated, and reported. According to the USDA Economic Research Service, in 1997 this survey found that “urbanized” land accounted for no more than 3.4 percent of all of the land in the continental United States.[...]
Thus, after nearly 400 years of unmanaged development and rabbit-like population growth, somewhere between 3.4 percent and 5.2 percent of land in the continental United States has been consumed, according to the several federal surveys measuring the use of that land.
Those with a skeptical view of the federal findings on land use patterns may argue that the inclusion of the vast empty spaces of America’s mountainous West and the sparsely populated farmland in the Midwest tend to make the national average look better than it is. In their view, the older and heavily urbanized states on the East and West Coasts would show unacceptably high levels of developed land and fast-disappearing woods and meadows. But that perception is largely untrue. Many of the states whose settlement goes back for most of the four centuries of the American experience still maintain very large shares of undeveloped land [...].
In both New York and Virginia, which were settled in the early 1600s, nearly 90 percent of the land is still undeveloped, while in Pennsylvania the share is over 85 percent, and in Maryland it is over 80 percent. In contrast, both New Jersey and Rhode Island’s developed shares hover at around one-third of the available land–some of the highest shares in the nation but still leaving both states with about two-thirds of their land undeveloped or in agricultural use.
Despite the evidence on land use, and for reasons hard to explain, the contrived crisis in land use has become an object of worry for some federal Cabinet-level departments. It has also become a high policy priority for environmental groups and academics, a concern of journalists, a reason for Senators to encourage a federal land planning program, a justification for local officials to violate property rights and discourage homeownership, and a rationale for terrorism on the part of a lunatic fringe obsessed with trees and dirt–all of this because just 5.2 percent of America’s land has been developed.
However trivial the pace of development thus far, as revealed by the data, the aggressive promotion of smart growth policies by some in the media and a gross misrepresentation of the facts by many environmentalists threaten the freedom of ordinary Americans to choose living arrangements that best suit their needs. In a growing number of counties and states, Americans’ preferences are being pre-empted as restrictive land use practices are imposed in order to redirect lifestyle choices. Their decisions are confined by rules promulgated by environmental and artistic elites eager to save American families from their pedestrian tastes and philistine choices.
A prominent new urbanist advocate, James Howard Kunstler, spoke for many of the elites eager to save ordinary Americans from their graceless state of fashion-impaired lifestyles when he complained:
When we drive around and look at all this cartoon architecture and other junk that we’ve smeared all over the landscape, we register it as ugliness. This ugliness is the surface expression of deeper problems–problems that relate to the issue of our national character. The highway strip is not just a sequence of eyesores. The pattern it represents is also economically catastrophic, an environmental calamity, socially devastating, and spiritually degrading.20
Of course, one might counter “urban advocate” James Howard Kunstler’s argument with a pithy retort along the lines of, “and we give a fuck what informs your own particular aesthetic because…”? But why bother. As one of our betters, he’s not answerable to us. We are just individual strokes of the landscape that he and his like wish to move around on their “spiritual” and “social” canvas. And we need to be corralled, centralized, stacked, and controlled. For the Greater Good. Of themselves.
What we have here, as Levin noted last night and as you’ve read me and others argue for quite some time now, is an attempt by the academic, leftist, bureaucratic elite, through the pretense of “environmental protection” or “protecting natural resources,” to nationalize private property.
Which is why this standoff between a rancher in Nevada is so compelling to so many of us: it’s not that we are opposed to rule of law; it’s that we’re opposed to the unfair and essentially capricious and / or vindictive usage of laws that are unequally applied, defiling the basic foundation of our country’s founding, equality before a (stable) law. Not to mention, exculpatory elements within federal land ownership claims that favor people like Mr Bundy.
The original pretense for the federal government turning the federal land on which Mr Bundy’s cattle has grazed for nearly a century and a half into “conservation land” — land that could not be used by humans, for the most part, be they off-roaders or ranchers or farmers (solar farms? Well, that’s a different story. Because PROGRESS!) — was the supposed endangerment of the desert tortoise. But because that species is no longer endangered, by what authority does the BLM and its federal partners in the environmental protection movement, claim to keep restrictive control over that land? And the answer is simple: government moves in only one direction, left, and we have no countervailing force in power to check it. Which is why we either use a convention of the states to rob these extra-legal bureaucracies of their powers; or else we elect enough strict constitutionalists who would be able to articulate the danger to private property we are facing, and then have the support of enough of the populace to defund entire segments of the administrative state.
As we watch governmental bureaucracies go after rain buckets and puddles or stock ponds on people’s private property (all water leads to other water, which eventually leads to “navigable waters” over which they claim jurisdiction) or try to have spilled milk and dust labeled ecologically sinister and therefore justifiably ended through lawsuits or outright takeovers of private land, what we are really seeing is the Marxist long game to rid the country of private property (save for the sprawling acreage owned by the elites themselves).
But if you listen to the prevailing narrative, regurgitated by politicians and the media alike, we’re eating up all our resources, littering the country with the “blight” of “urban sprawl” or “strip malls,” and that but for the noble bureaucrats, we’d soon be out of space, and we’d all be facing shortages of food, water, etc.
The truth, however, is precisely the opposite: federal control over land, which is being used to take land from private owners who produce food, or energy, etc., is creating a completely phony and economically unnecessary burden on citizens of the US.
This land is your land; this land is my land. This land is not the Interior Department’s, or the EPA’s, or NOA’s.
Say what you want about the civil disobedience being deployed by Mr Bundy in the slimy world of cronyism that marks so much of Nevada politics; but the fact is, the stand he’s taking, while it may eschew federal court rulings, is nonetheless worth supporting, if only because it draws attention to the draconian means the federal bureaucracies are prepared to use to harass individual private property owners — even as the amount of undeveloped land in the US remains at about 95%, a staggering figure. As was the 200 armed enforcement officers with weapons the government deployed to try to neutralize this heretic.
Conservationists, it turns out, are nothing more than hoarders. Only they’ve been able to justify it by selling the nobility of their cause to a gullible public, using as its source of narrative transmission politicians from both parties, and the demagoguery of the media and the academy.
On the plus side, when shit hits the fan, 95% of the country is a lot of undeveloped land to try to police. But then, maybe that’s why the left is so keen on drone usage.
A lawsuit? How about just cutting to the chase and pass a bill abolishing the goddamn thing in favor of a flat tax — at least until we can get a convention of the states convened wherein an amendment for a repeal of the income tax and its replacement with a fair tax can gain momentum.
This agency is the partisan police arm of an horrific health insurance charade that fundamentally changes the relationship between the individual and the government. I don’t want it ticked off at its “tormenters.” I want it gone. Sleeping with the fishes. Leave the gun, grab the cannolis.
But, baby steps, I suppose.
Isn’t that always the way?
Following remarks Senate Majority leader Harry Reid made at the University of Nevada, Reno on Monday, the Nevada Democrat told Reno’s KRNV TV his thoughts on the cattle controversy in Gold Butte. “Well, it’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over,” Reid said.
There is no question that there were a lot of things going on down there with breaking the law,” Reid said. “And that is not over yet. We can’t let that continue. So I’m sure it is not the end of it.”
Translation: only Congressmen, Attorney’s General, IRS employees, NSA employees, Secretaries of State, Presidents, and those who make law are allowed to be above it.
Well, that, and illegal aliens.
Uppity ranchers? Time to put a boot on their throats. Because Yes We Can.
Gee. What a shocker.
Of course, here, elites are classified by wealth, giving he whole study a kind of Marxist feel, with undertones that speak to “income inequality” (read: a condition of liberty) — whereas if there weren’t politicians willing to be directed or “nudged” by bribery or other favors from cronies in our current corporatist system, money wouldn’t much matter.
The problem is not money. The problem is that government has more and more of a say over who can get it and how, and who cannot and why. And this is the case because we now have a class of professional politician, something the founders and framers, who advocated for rotational citizen government, couldn’t possibly foresee. (Carrier air conditioning may have inadvertently given us this fresh hell, even as it is one of the greatest inventions of all times, insofar as DC was for the longest time just a horribly humid bit of swampland outside Maryland and Virginia, a place people went to pick up mosquito-borne illnesses and small paychecks as servants to the people).
Reinstituting our Constitutional protections and returning to a true free market system would greatly alter what I’m going to now start referring to as “input inequality.” Which is far more crucial to representative government than the Marxist claptrap that underpins the softened language of radical egalitarianism being sold to us by the progressives and some timid Republicans.
“University calls the amount of white people on campus a ‘failure,’ asks for ideas on how to have fewer”
Looking for ways to limit whites on campus isn’t racism, you see. It’s a push for “diversity” — because, let’s face it, all white people have the same ideas, same social experiences, same nurtured backgrounds, and are essentially carbon copies of one another, a kind of pale horde, indistinguishable from one another and therefore, because of sheer numbers, overdetermined on university campuses.
To argue otherwise just proves how racist you are. QED!
A school-wide questionnaire at Western Washington University (WWU) asked the community “How do we make sure that in future years ‘we are not as white as we are today?’”
The question, released through the communications and marketing department’s daily newsletter Western Today, comes on the heels of admonishments given in multiple convocation addresses by WWU President Bruce Shepard for the university’s “failure” to be less white.
“Every year, from this stage and at this time, you have heard me say that, if in decades ahead, we are as white as we are today, we will have failed as university,” Shepard said in the 2012 speech.
And in a recent blog post on WWU’s website, Shepard echoes these sentiments, saying those who do not agree “have not thought through the implications of what is ahead for us or, more perniciously, assume we can continue unchanged.”
Listening to this pablum, or the incoherent race baiting of people like Nancy Pelosi, who sequester themselves in the most gentrified of areas, freezing out the minority element they claim to champion but truly despise, save for how they can use them as props in election year demagoguery, leads me to believe that, yes, Chris Matthews is absolutely correct: Racism is all around us, and we’re swimming in it.
Of course, what he doesn’t tell you that it is he and the progressive race-baiters and race hustlers and identity politics front groups that make up that particular mire we’re increasingly being forced to paddle through.
I suppose one could argue that we still have a relatively free press, but what one can also argue is that — because it’s a press that has become an arm of progressive activism and big government — the freedom it has is being used not as a check on the powerful, but rather as a propaganda arm for them.
Which says to me that we need, institutionally, to begin teaching our children that the press is necessarily biased; and that any “news source” that doesn’t admit upfront to its political biases cannot and should not be trusted — nor should it be subsidized in any way by taxpayer money.
All of which is a general prelude to a story that is, in the scheme of things, rather a small one, although fitting given that it’s tax day. Chicago Sun-Times:
Nahshon Shelton didn’t want to pay the 22-cent tax on his $1.79 two-liter of Pepsi on Saturday afternoon, Chicago Police said.
So he allegedly pulled a blue-steel Intratec .22-caliber submachine gun out of his Gucci satchel inside the convenience store in the 4000 block of West Madison Street where they tried to make him pay it — and he threatened to kill everyone there, a prosecutor said.
This “is my neighborhood, I’m tax exempt!” he would later allegedly tell the cops. “Man, you know what, I’ll keep it real. I had to put them in their place.”
Shelton, 36, of the 4200 block of West Carroll, was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and having an invalid FOID card.
Assistant State’s Attorney Claire Savaglio said police saw Shelton yelling at the victims when they answered a report of a man with a gun there.
“I’m going to shoot you in the head three times,” Shelton allegedly told one person.
“I’m going to smoke your ass,” he allegedly told another.
Savaglio said the whole thing was caught on video surveillance. She said Shelton’s gun had eight live rounds in one magazine, five live rounds in another and one in the chamber.
It might be enjoyable to make a game out of this piece of reporting — here, done by staff reporter Jon Seidel — in which we as readers spot the errors, but really, who has the time? So let’s just get to it. The way the story is written suggests that Shelton already had a felony conviction, meaning that he was ineligible for a FOID card. That is, as a felon, his having a gun was itself already against the law in Illinois.
Second, if you do a search for an “Intratec .22-caliber submachine gun” (blue steel or no) you’ll find that nearly every mention of such a thing is a reworking of this story by a media that is either too lazy to do any research (and astonishingly uninformed about firearms), or else has as its agenda to make the kind of gun this felon was carrying seem all the more sinister.
Here are the facts: the Intratec .22 caliber “submachine gun” is nothing more than a .22 caliber semi-automatic pistol in a gaudy mostly plastic shell.
To put that into perspective, my wife owns a nickel-plated .22 Walther as her carry piece, a Christmas present from me (because the baby Jesus would want us to be able to defend ourselves), and no one anywhere at anytime ever who has even the most rudimentary knowledge of hand guns would mistake a .22 Walther for a sub machine gun, which is a fully automatic rifle.
And not only is it onerous for a citizen (much less a felon) to legally obtain an automatic weapon of any sort, but the only way that this particular plinker could be turned into a machine pistol, which still wouldn’t be a “submachine gun,” would be by way of machining and filing, something that I doubt was done to this weapon, which, if used automatically, would have been out of ammo in less than a second. Which is why one of the very few .22 submachine guns deployed in the US is uses a drum, not a magazine system.
The fact that so many news services, including some overseas, “reported” that this felon threatened people with a “submachine gun” just goes to show, yet again, that the contemporary news media isn’t. Instead, it’s an extension of the left’s agenda, in this case, to gut the 2nd Amendment to make controlling the masses less dangerous for our new plantation overseers. Because there is no way any self-respecting journalist could get this wrong. It is, therefore, intentional.
So, then. What’s not mentioned in the accouint? Is who this guy, who was indignant about paying a tax on his soda, voted for — and whether or not whomever he voted for (assuming he votes or purports to support any political party) represents a tax cut agenda.
Because that’s the story here. If you have to find one amid the load of propaganda masquerading as journalism.
(h/t Geoff B)
I wonder: did the people — the vast majority Democrats or more avowed leftists / Marxists / socialists / communists — who actually attended the speech denouncing photo IDs as Republican tools of racist voter suppression, have to show a photo ID in order to attend the speech denouncing photo IDs as Republican tools of racist suppression?
And if so, wouldn’t that make the National Action Network, Obama, Holder, and all those who cheer when Obama suggests Republicans are aiming to suppress the vote themselves racists?
Of course they are. Some know it. Others are too dumb to realize it.
But it is what it is.
Because saying “we lied, and it worked, and now we control just about every aspect of the progressive plan to ‘de-grow’ the private sector,” is just a bit too candid. CNS NEWS:
Seven months after being subpoenaed by Congress, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy conceded that her agency does not have – and cannot produce – all of the scientific data used for decades to justify numerous rules and regulations under the Clean Air Act.
In a March 7th letter to House Science, Space and Technology Committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), McCarthy admitted that EPA cannot produce all of the original data from the 1993 Harvard Six Cities Study (HSC) and the American Cancer Society’s (ACS) 1995 Cancer Prevention Study II, which is currently housed at New York University.
Both studies concluded that fine airborne particles measuring 2.5 micrograms or less (PM2.5) – 1/30th the diameter of a human hair – are killing thousands of Americans every year.
These epidemiological studies are cited by EPA as the scientific foundation for clean air regulations that restrict particulate emissions from vehicles, power plants and factories.
The agency has recently come under fire for exposing volunteers to concentrated levels of particulate matter without informing them of the risks, a practice Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), chairman of the House Science Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, called “despicable.”
The full committee, which issued its first subpoena in 21 years last August after being stonewalled by the EPA for two years, wanted the raw data from the studies so that their results could be replicated by independent researchers. (See EPA subpoena.pdf)
However, despite “multiple interactions with the third party owners of the research data in an effort to obtain that data,” McCarthy wrote, some of the data subpoenaed by the committee “are not (and were not) in the possession, custody or control of the EPA, nor are they within the authority to obtain data that the agency identified.”
“EPA has not withheld any data in our possession that is responsive to the subpoena,” McCarthy stated. “The EPA acknowledges, however, that the data provided are not sufficient in themselves to replicate the analyses in the epidemiological studies, nor would they allow for the one to one mapping of each pollutant and ecological variable to each subject.” (See EPA letter to Smith March 7 2014 (1).pdf)
CNSNews.com asked EPA whether the agency had turned over any data from the Harvard Six Cities and American Cancer Society studies in response to the subpoena.
A committee staff member confirmed to CNSNews.com that “EPA gave us what they have of both studies, which is a significant amount of data, but not sufficient” to allow independent reproduction or verification of results.
“We’re at a point where EPA has conceded that they don’t have in their possession the data necessary to fully comply, and in some cases, never did possess the data,” he added.
The subpoena was issued as the EPA moves to finalize strict new regulations that could place 90 percent of the U.S. population in non-attainment areas and impose an additional $90 billion annual burden on the U.S. economy.
However, two newer studies cast doubts on the original research.
Stanley Young and Jessie Xia of the National Institute of Statistical Sciences published a paper last year questioning the EPA’s reliance on the Harvard and Cancer Society studies, both of which found that breathing fine particulate matter (PM2.5) resulted in increased mortality.
“There is no significant association of PM2.5 with longevity in the west of the United States,”Young and Xia noted, adding that “our findings call into question the claim made by the original researchers.” (See young080113.pdf)
Another recent study by Johns Hopkins-trained biostatistician Steve Milloy that attempted to duplicate EPA’s findings also found “no correlation between changes in ambient PM2.5 mortality” and any cause of death in California between 2007 and 2010.
“Virtually every regulation proposed by the Obama administration has been justified by nontransparent data and unverifiable claims,” committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said in February, denouncing what he called EPA’s “secret science.”
“The American people foot the bill for EPA’s costly regulations, and they have a right to see the underlying science. Costly environmental regulations should be based on publicly available data so that independent scientists can verify the EPA’s claims.”
Smith and Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) have introduced the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014, which would prohibit EPA from “proposing, finalizing or disseminating regulations based upon scientific information that is not publically available in a manner sufficient for independent scientific analysis.”
HR 4012, which would amend the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978, states that “the Administrator shall not propose, finalize, or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support such covered action is (A) specifically identified; and (B) publicly available in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.”
Congress is expected to review the bill this summer, and it’s something that we as conservatives and classical liberals should make sure gets passed by a unified GOP vote in the House; and then if Harry Reid tries to stop it, the GOP — and in particular, those Visigothic Hobbit types who have been calling upon Congress to rein in the EPA, which has become one of the enforcement arms of the progressive march through our institutions — should hit them hard with their own tactics, talking about the need for “transparency” and then citing the two new studies as the prevailing “settled science” showing that the EPA used bogus studies to justify its onerous, job killing regulations for over 2 decades.
This also dovetails nicely with one of Mark Levin’s liberty amendments, which would allow states to vote to overturn economically burdensome regulations.
Of course, the GOP leadership tends to be softer on such messaging, fearful they’ll be labeled “deniers” with respect to global whateverthehellitscallednowwhenhumansfuckuptheworld, but again, they needn’t worry: conservatives, libertarians, and TEA Party hicks are prepared to do the heavy listing. From CEI:
The White House got it wrong. But the good news is they have a chance to set the record straight.
The trouble started when the White House put out a two-minute video that included claims that recent cold spells in the U.S. are linked to global warming. CEI attorneys Sam Kazman and Hans Bader today filed a formal request under the Information Quality Act for the White House to correct the erroneous claims in question:
“In reality, as we explain below, the evidence (including the conclusions of peer-reviewed scholarly articles) indicates that the kind of extreme cold experienced in the United States this past winter is not linked to global warming.”
For example: “[White House Science Advisor John] Holdren’s claim of ‘a growing body of evidence’ is contradicted by recent peer-reviewed studies. These studies find that that global warming is not leading to increased atmospheric winter blocking, much less causing an increase in winter cold waves or cold weather.”
View a write up of the matter on Globalwarming.org
(h/t Christine Hall)
You can read the Information Quality Act correction request here.
This to me seems like a good way to tamp down on the serial lying that gets tossed off as established truth with respect to the transnational progressive’s dream of using global climate change as a springboard for vast realignments of national wealth and power — if only because it will perhaps wake up a sufficient number of Americans to the fact that a lot of our policy is based on lies, half-truths, and “science” funded by governmental grants that, amazingly, always seem to align with governmental policy preferences with respect to anthropomorphic weather change.