January 9, 2013

“Biden: Obama Considering ‘Executive Order’ to Deal With Guns”

The Weekly Standard:

“The president is going to act,” said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. “There are executives orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”

Biden said that this is a moral issue and that “it’s critically important that we act.”

Biden talked also about taking responsible action. “As the president said, if you’re actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking. But I’m convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm’s way if we act responsibly.”

Biden, as he himself noted, helped write the Brady bill.

Bill Ayers figured he’d have to kill about 25 million of us to usher in Utopia. Obama, it increasingly seems, believes the same. And to precipitate the culling of the herd, he’s looking to start a civil war. Or rather, hoping that the bitterclingers will start it, so that he can rationalize the use of government force to protect us from ourselves.

Ironically, it’s the useful idiots that should be most afraid. Because it turns out Obama and his cabal never really cared about any of them. The little lefty ankle biters and Obama fanbois are all just pawns. This has always been about power, control, and the fundamental transformation necessary to secure and institutionalize that authoritarian infrastructure that is required to run a Marxist state.

That it’s come clothed in suits with flag lapel pins rather than adorned with thick mustaches and military fatigues is merely a matter of aesthetics.

Kind of like the definition of “assault rifle,” come to think about it.

(h/t sdferr)

Posted by Jeff G. @ 11:14am
57 comments | Trackback

Comments (57)

  1. Fusillade.

    Kinda pretty word, ain’t it?

  2. And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death…

  3. “As the president said, if you’re actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking.”

    Er, no. I’m sure implementing martial law and enforcing curfews would reduce the murder rate also, but I don’t want to live in that country. Buffoons.

  4. I posted the following at TTAG:

    The NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation shouldn’t have gone anywhere near the talks at the White House. By heading to these so-called “discussions” gun advocates are giving cover to issues that shouldn’t even be discussed.

    This White House has zero interest in our side, but is very interested in creating the political theater needed to make it look the White House tried to play honest broker, but the gun advocates were unreasonable.

    And got the following (predictable) response:

    I disagree. If we don’t look like we have or share any concerns, it makes it easy to dismiss our side as kooks. But by offering up constructive feedback and showing a compromise, it makes for nice photo ops and allows the WH and the Dems save face when this thing falls flat. Remember: nothing is worse than a cornered animal.

    All this time, yet Second Amendment advocates still think the White House is playing fair.

  5. Kinda pretty word, ain’t it?

    As is Insurrection.

  6. When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

  7. Ironically, it’s the useful idiots that should be most afraid. Because it turns out Obama and his cabal never really cared about any of them. The little lefty ankle biters and Obama fanbois are all just pawns. This has always been about power, control, and the fundamental transformation necessary to secure and institutionalize that authoritarian infrastructure that is required to run a Marxist state.

    What’s the opposite of mock-seriousness? Mock-levity? Mock-frivolousness? Anyways, after they lost Congress in ’94, Rush Limbaugh used to make the mock-frivolous point that we could never ever let the Democrats regain it, because for them it was all about power, and if they ever again got ahold of it, they’d see to it that they would never have to let it go.

  8. The problem (well, one of them) with “liberal” fascism is that it never stays liberal.

  9. As the president said, if you’re actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking.”

    Like a mother hunkered down in an attic with her children, who shoots her trespassing would be assailant/murderer?

  10. Is it wrong that my gut is clenching now?

  11. “As the president said, if you’re actions result in only saving one life…”

    It burnsssss usssssss…

  12. Vice President Biden perfectly captures the ludicrousness of zero tolerance policies where the perfect remains the mortal enemy of the good. Presumably after the dictatorial overreach of Executive Orders banning guns, they will move on to cars, baseball bats, eyeglass frames, pointed sticks, and anything else that the peasants could use to threaten their lordships. Hey, while they are it, why not ban lightning and floods by Executive Order? Move over Knut.

    I seriously hope this was just Joe being crazy Uncle Joe and not providing insight into potential actions under consideration by the Obama Administration.

  13. Is it wrong that my gut is clenching now?

    – Think of it as stage fright necessary before the”turnning”.

    – We should be cheering them on, not impeding their steps tp tyranny.

    – The only way out of this mess, other than the enevitable financisl collapse which could take awhile, is for the Left to finally go too far.

    – Maybe this is that moment.

  14. Is it wrong that my gut is clenching now?

    No.

  15. So, is the NRA going to pow wow with Biden, or have we finally reached the point where we can stop pretending we believe them when they pretend to be interested in hearing all sides of the argument?

  16. I seriously hope this was just Joe being crazy Uncle Joe and not providing insight into potential actions under consideration by the Obama Administration.

    Don’t. Hope, that is. It’s much simpler to take these as ‘prepared’ prefatory remarks, hence carefully written and vetted for content and message.

  17. As soon as a gun control organization jumps up and says: “Wait a minute, with all due respect, Mr. Biden, that’s going to far” then, yes, VP Biden was having a Biden moment.

    Until then, this is how the White House views the situation and is using “Crazy Uncle Joe” as cover.

  18. Pingback: Rule by Fiat

  19. …this is how the White House views the situation and is using “Crazy Uncle Joe” as cover.

    Barry’s measured, passive tone is a thorough juxtaposition designed by state of the art marketing speak.

    Having successfully vetted his Crazy Joe act over the previous four years and more, Biden is Bad Cop. It’s so transparent that the fool Blake encountered never saw it.

  20. It’s so transparent that the fool Blake encountered never saw it.

    That guy doesn’t realize he’s the one in the corner!

  21. they will move on to cars, baseball bats, eyeglass frames, pointed sticks, and anything else that the peasants could use to threaten their lordships.

    We really need toothbrush control right now, as shown in “Justified” last night.

  22. Say no more, geoffb, please. I haven’t watched it yet.

  23. I will not say any more.

  24. geoff, we only want reasonable regulation of assault toothbrushes, especially the fully automatic electric ones with the high capacity long life batteries.

  25. What’s the opposite of mock-seriousness? Mock-levity? Mock-frivolousness?

    We called it “Ha Ha Only Serious” back in my day.

  26. And it’s not toothbrush control — it’s toothbrush safety!

  27. Bill Ayers figured he’d have to kill about 25 million of us to usher in Utopia

    Shit, that was 40 years ago.

    They’re probably thinking a 100 million now…

  28. BigBangHunter wrote:

    - We should be cheering them on, not impeding their steps tp tyranny.

    – The only way out of this mess, other than the enevitable financisl collapse which could take awhile, is for the Left to finally go too far.

    – Maybe this is that moment.

    Maybe this is a strategy we should adopt: allow the Left to propose and try to implement it’s radical schemes.

    Sam Adams always prayed for the British to get more oppressive and, when they did, he always was ready to take advantage of the anger of the colonists.

  29. allow the Left to propose and try to implement it’s radical schemes.

    Not when it comes to the second amendment. There’s no recovering once that’s lost.

  30. Obama’s new pick for Secretary of the Treasury is Jack Lew.

    http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2013/01/hes-ready-for-the-clown-suit.html

    His signature is a bit loopy to say the very least.

  31. His signature is a bit loopy to say the very least.

    As long as it doesn’t somehow offend Mohammad’s warriors for Allah, he should be good to go.

  32. Let them try, LBascom, and, when they do, resist en masse.

  33. @paleomerus: So, “we have to pass this legislation before we can see whats in it” can bite progs in the butt? How tragic. ;-)

  34. If they don’t respect the constitution then why would they respect their own laws? But it sure is damned weird. Is the news even real any more? The whole universe seems like a big troll lately.

  35. They’re doing their best to prevent another preference cascade from working against them. On guns though, I think they’ve already failed.

  36. McGenee, I have to wonder if the current administration has included civil war in their calculations.

    Seriously, does the administration fear civil war, discount the possibility of civil war, or welcome civil war?

    As of right now, I don’t think the White House fears civil war.

    Which leaves us with the Administration discounting the possibility or welcoming civil war.

    Either possibility means the Administration thinks it can move to consolidate power.

    By discounting the possibility of civil war, the administration thinks we’re a bunch of sheep to be herded toward a totalitarian State.

    By welcoming civil war, the administration thinks such an event leads to complete control.

    Great, I just depressed myself for the rest of the day.

  37. *McGehee

  38. I think the White House and its inhabitants live in an alternative universe, one not shared by those who have kids in college, mortagages and loads of bills. We’ve been moving toward the vanishing Middle Class for over 30 years and I think we’re just about there.

    When you ain’t got nothing, you got nothing to lose as the old saw says. They better sleep with one eye open.

  39. I think they’re discounting the possibility. Just like after the 2010 elections when I was sure Obama would stay the course, I think his arrogance informs his thinking about the future more than anything else. He and his ‘rrhoids look at the Beltway culture and assume it reflects the rest of the country. And they assume that since The Chicago Way has cowed the Beltwayites it will work everywhere.

    Most “civil wars” in recent decades have been upscale coups d’etat. They’ve taken place mostly in the afflicted nation’s capital between factions of the ruling elite; Obama seems to have headed off anything like that. Others have tended to be insurrections by outgunned hinterland types, usually in a place where the resources to carry out protracted resistance aren’t really available. To some extent the American Civil War could be characterized as a hybrid, where there were elites on the opposing side, but they were outgunned hinterland elites.

    Most assessments seem convinced that any attempt at an insurrection in America today would be suppressed rapidly. Given the military manpower at Washington’s command it would be able to throw a lot of people at an insurrection even after weeding out units thought to be at risk of sympathizing with the rebels. I have little doubt there would be mutinies in the ranks and National Guard units would defy redeployments that would take them away from their home states. The question is whether the munitions and materiel currently under NG control would be enough to resist a determined attack by regular troops obeying the National Command Authority.

    I think if it came to a real CW the issue would be a lot closer than Washington believes, but it doesn’t need to be over in a day to still end in Washington’s favor.

    I don’t think the Obamarrhoids welcome civil war. They would much rather achieve their ends without it. But I think they do believe if it came to that they would prevail. I wish I could say I’m sure they wouldn’t.

    But I also can’t say for sure they would.

  40. I came up with a matrix years ago about how people decide to do things decent people wouldn’t do. They:

        1) don’t know how bad the decision they’re making is, or
        2) don’t care, or
        3) don’t mind.

    The difference between (2) and (3) is that in (3) they may see the fallout as beneficial to their cause, while in (2) they would consider it a problem that could nevertheless be solved.

    Blake, in your question you accounted for (1) and (3) in addition to one in which the Obamarrhoids actually have at least one foot in the real world (fear a civil war).

    In my response I concluded that (2) was the correct answer. I’ve rarely found this matrix to be inapplicable.

  41. Is it not because of the looming fracture and distinct likelihood many would take up the cause of the king in the divide of peoples (here, in the analog, King Obazma), the intervening step of the Declaration of Independence, making clear the origins of the rupture and potentially swaying a great mass to the cause of Revolution, was, if not an entirely necessary step, nevertheless a step which works greatly to the ultimate outcome? Something similar today, it may be, would also be found well warranted, in order to increase the possibility of a refusal of orders from the ‘National Command Authority’ on grounds of right.

  42. McGehee,

    What I find appalling is that, accepting all three of my premises (not that I think the White House fears CW) I still come up with a 2/3 chance things go very badly.

  43. Blake, just think of it as, it’s been awhile since the Tree of Liberty had a drink. But then, I do tend to a dark sense of humor.

    Sdferr, I think that’s a very good point. I wonder though whether the sheer ubiquity of arguments that would be available in these times would help with that — or muddy the waters?

  44. ” . . .whether the sheer ubiquity of arguments that would be available in these times would help with that — or muddy the waters?”

    I don’t know McG.

    Part of the deal which may cause the argument to stick out as significant is the whole ‘civil’ ginning up of state conventions to elect delegates to send to a national convention, the formality of these associated motions of civil action and discourse, and the subsequent solemnity of the proceedings. This stuff by itself ought to exude the notion “folks, this shit is getting serious: pay attention”, but can’t be guaranteed to do.

  45. This stuff by itself ought to exude the notion “folks, this shit is getting serious: pay attention”,

    Later maybe, Honey Boo Boo is on, and the Academy Awards are coming up…

  46. Sdferr, the 1776 Declaration was drafted by a Congress empaneled to support a war already in progress. It was the war rather than the Congress, I think, that sent the message that the shit was, in fact, real.

  47. This is true McG, undeniably so. But then (I jest, of course — or of curse) news moved slowly in those days.

  48. Whereas now it appears to move not at all…

  49. But to be serious about it, the distant location of the imperial power, the genuine slowness of communication, afforded the colonists some greater leisure to address the questions and to make and re-make persuasive argument (after all, the 1776 Convention had been preceded by others contemplating, though not taking as not ripe, the same action) to bring along the fence-sitters in the populace.

    Whereas today? The speed of movement (C-17s!), the speed of communication, the quickness with which the Federal powers can marshal forces would seem to me to preclude the possibility of any leisure the colonists might have been afforded.

  50. As you speculate upon any sort of civil war, no matter how large or small, happening in the US, what do you think America’s enemies will do? I don’t think Sun Tzu would believe they would sit patiently on the sidelines while we sort things out and then go on pretty much as before.

  51. Oh, and what was it Argaorn said to King Theoden? “Open war is upon you whether you would risk it or not.”

  52. I don’t think Sun Tzu would believe they would sit patiently on the sidelines while we sort things out

    I would think a foe of the country would be happy to let us war on each other, so has to have a diminished enemy in the future at no cost to them. It’s our European allies of Washington that would likely be bad for the revolutionaries…

  53. Better to keep the battle going on as long as possible to weaken the survivor.

    Much of the rest of the world really is going to wake up one day and finally realize how much they miss US.

  54. “Much of the rest of the world really is going to wake up one day and finally realize how much they miss US.”

    Like when they have to develop clue water navies to protect their shipping.

  55. blue water, not clue water.

  56. “Clue water navy” sort of works, palaeomerus.

Leave a Reply