Category: gum rights

The Patriot Post ·
Daily Digest
Oct. 27, 2014

“[America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.” –John Quincy Adams, Speech to the House of Representatives, 1821

Political Fight Over Ebola Quarantine
In the wake of the doctor in New York City testing positive for Ebola1, the governors of New York and New Jersey imposed mandatory quarantine policies for health workers who had contact with Ebola patients. Facing public backlash coupled with pressure from the White House (because the quarantine “doesn’t comport with science”), however, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo backed off2. Not surprisingly, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie held firm. Of course, the reason the governors placed strict requirements on those coming in from Ebola-plagued countries is not because of the threat of additional infections, which is minimal, but because the fear generated by all the media hype over Ebola3 can result in significant disruption. The new state measures are designed to negate that disruption. And, as The Wall Street Journal put it in an editorial4, “[I]f it weren’t for the Administration’s incompetence in handling Ebola risks on U.S. soil, maybe the state leaders wouldn’t have felt they had to take matters into their own hands.”

Washington School Shooter Broke Law When Picking Up Gun
Like so many other school shootings that make national headlines, we don’t know why the shooter at the Marysville Washington High School killed two people and severely injured three more on Oct. 24. Also like other shootings, the killer turned his weapon on himself. We do know that when the 14-year-old picked up his father’s Beretta .40-caliber handgun, he broke the law5 because it’s illegal for him to possess the gun and ammunition, carry the gun to school and, of course, open fire. As always, the Left’s pundits point to the gun and label it the source of all social ills. As Hot Air’s Jazz Shaw says, it took all of three minutes6 for a Huffington Post reporter to tweet, “By the way, there are two background check measures on the ballot in Washington this year.” What no one can understand is the freshman’s mental state, why the homecoming prince7 descended to murder. But one thing is clear: The gun didn’t make him do it. More…8

You Didn’t Build That, Part II
At a Boston rally for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley, Hillary Clinton echoed Barack Obama’s famous “you didn’t build that9” line in reference to businesses and jobs. Only she was perhaps even more explicit. “Don’t let anybody tell you that, uh, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” Clinton said. “You know that old theory, ‘trickle-down economics,’” she sneered. “That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.” For good measure, she added, “You know, one of the things my husband says when people say, ‘Well, what did you bring to Washington?’ [is], ‘Well, I brought arithmetic.’” Clinton is clearly trying to move left to head off a challenge from Elizabeth Warren10. But it’s also interesting to note that her husband benefitted from what we call “Reaganomics” – supply and demand economics that gets government out of the way and lets people keep more of their hard-earned money. Reagan’s policies11 set off a two-decade economic boom. Clinton is suggesting we continue Obama’s policies of taxing and spending, and that’s hardly a reason to vote for her.

FEC to Study Regulating Political Speech on Internet
The liberals on the Federal Election Commission are eyeing political speech. First, they wanted to regulate books12. Now, they want to go after the videos, blogs and websites of the Internet. Ann Ravel, vice chair of the FEC, announced13 that the commission will look into regulating the Internet because “a reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due.” Ravel wants to go after a “loophole” exempting political groups who distribute political ads for free across the Internet, insisting these ads must be disclosed to the FEC. But Lee Goodman, the FEC chairman, says these proposed regulations could entangle news sites, blogs or web forums. The Internet has been to political speech like ridesharing service Uber has been to the taxi industry – disruptive to the heavily regulated systems of the past. Doesn’t the FEC have more important things to do, like discouraging voter fraud14 and ensuring the reliability of voting technology15, than tampering with the freedom of speech? More…16

Idaho Wedding Chapel Doesn’t Have to Perform Same-Sex Marriages
A city in Idaho decided the religious beliefs of business owners are enough to prevent the city from slapping a non-discrimination charge against the business. Last week, the owners of the Hitching Post, a wedding chapel in Coeur d’Alene, sued the city17 because they would have faced a misdemeanor charge if they refused to marry same-sex couples. “But now the city is backing off and has determined the Knapps can say no,” writes Scott Shackford at Reason Magazine. “Unfortunately the reason is not because a wedding ceremony is not a right and nobody of any race, sexual orientation, or religion should be able to demand that somebody must bless (in any definition of the word) their relationship. Rather, the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance doesn’t specify that a business has to be a non-profit in order to claim a religious-based exemption from the law.” The city, of course, danced a legal two-step to avoid litigation, so the problem of same-sex non-discrimination laws hunting those practicing religious freedom will still be decided. More…18

For more, visit Right Hooks19.

‘Lone Wolf Attack’? Wrong!
By Mark Alexander

After the latest Islamist assault in New York20, let us reiterate the proper interpretation of such attacks.

As noted in my recent column, Islamic Jihad – Target USA21, the most likely near-term form of attack against military and civilian personnel on our turf will be similar to the conventional Islamist assaults in the Middle East – homicidal bombings or mass shootings. This type of attack is low tech but effective in terms of achieving instilling public fear with the long-term goal of extorting policy change. However, a note of caution about the predictable “analysis” that will follow these attacks. Government and media analysts alike will assert there is “no known connection between the assailant and Islamist terrorist groups.” That assertion is patently false.

Recall that in 2009, after Nidal Malik Hasan, yelling “Allahu Akbar,” killed 14 people (including an unborn child) and wounded 30 others at Ft. Hood, The New York Times opined: “[It is] important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions from the fact that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the Middle East. President Obama was right when he told Americans, ‘we don’t know all the answers yet’ and cautioned everyone against ‘jumping to conclusions.’”

Well, we do “know all the answers” now, and the conclusion is that these acts are directly tied to Islam. Yet the Obama administration and its media outlets insist the Ft. Hood attack, like the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, were not tied to established Islamic terrorist groups. They offer the same errant analysis of the 2009 murder of two American soldiers outside a military recruiting center in Little Rock, Arkansas, and conspiracies to detonate bombs in Times Square and the NYC subway system. The result is that Islamist ideology is allowed to propagate and flourish across our nation unabated.

However, these attacks and those to come were and will be directly tied to worldwide Jihad by way of the Qur’an, the foundational fabric linking all Islamist violence. Fact is, American Islamists, such as Louis Farrakhan, Anwar al-Awlaki, Sheikh Ibrahim and other self-appointed clerics, have galvanized their following by preaching hatred for America. And other American Muslin leaders, who would like to be perceived as legitimate representatives of Islam, offer little condemnation of Islamic violence. Their silence is deafening.

Describing Islamist assailants as “lone wolf” actors or “radicalized” constitutes a lethal misunderstanding of the Jihadi threat22. Describing their attacks as “criminal activity” or “workplace violence” is asinine.

The Real Racists Oppose Voter ID
There is no intellectually sound argument against having proper ID to vote – which is quite predictably why the American Left must resort to emotional demagoguery to fight it. Equally unsurprising, playing the race card is their most reliable vehicle for doing so. Yet stunning testimony against North Carolina’s election laws reveal that it is leftists themselves who are willing23 to disparage black Americans and Hispanics to pursue their agenda.

According to expert witnesses retained by the Justice Department (DOJ) and, yes, the NAACP, it is racist to assume minorities can be treated like everyone else – because they are “less sophisticated.”

Read the rest here14.

A Tale of Excused Abuse at the IRS
As we consider the political and legal implications of the IRS’s targeting of Tea Party and Patriot groups, it’s worth taking a trip down memory lane. Watergate offers worthwhile comparisons.

Months of congressional hearings, investigations, resignations, firings and blatant lies ended with the U.S. House Judiciary Committee passing articles of impeachment, resulting in the first and only resignation of a U.S. president on Aug. 8, 1974. The American people watched despicable acts of political maneuvering, criminal activity and absolute corrupt leadership end with a bi-partisan show of rebuke and remedy.

Until recently, history would’ve likely reserved the caption “most corrupt U.S. president” for Richard Nixon. But Barack Obama seems determined to take over that mantle.

Read the rest here24.

Obfuscation Reaches Fast and Furious Levels
Since the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in late 2010 showed that Operation Fast and Furious was far worse than completely botched25, the Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder has been plotting to cover its tracks and limit the negative political ramifications. The “most transparent administration in history” has been so opaque that several people and groups, including former CBS reporter Sheryl Attkisson and Judicial Watch, have filed Freedom of Information Act requests for documents regarding the scandal just to get to the bottom of it.

Needless to say, the Holder Justice Department was not forthcoming with these documents.

Read the rest here26.

For more, visit Right Analysis19.

Peggy Noonan: Can Obama Find Thumpin’ to Say?27
Larry Kudlow: The Optimistic GOP Story Everyone Is Missing28
George Will: Done in by John Doe29
Stephen Moore: Meet the New Class Warrior in Chief30
Tony Perkins: California ups the Abortion Ante31
For more, visit Right Opinion32.

The Gipper: “A friend of mine was asked to a costume ball a short time ago. He slapped some egg on his face and went as a liberal economist.”

Columnist Peggy Noonan: “We have criticized Republican lack of a higher meaning. Strangely absent this cycle are candidates who make us believe the one thing every American wants to believe, is desperate to believe: We can come back. America can pump out jobs again, boom again, be a beacon. Here’s the plan, here’s the policy, ‘Let’s do this thing.’ Republicans fail to connect their own dots. But Democrats this year – what a rhetorical, emotional and policy disaster. In ‘08 they were on fire with hope, in ’12 they were keep the faith, stay the course. This year they are surly. They are unloving and unlovable. It’s race and gender politics, it’s wheelchairs, it’s endless defensiveness about voting for or with the president. Republicans may have failed to unite, but the Democrats divide. … On Nov. 5, Mr. Obama will have to say something that shows he gets it. That shows without saying that he’s humbled, that he isn’t living in a bubble. Here’s the problem. The qualities required of such a statement – humility, self-awareness, sensitivity to the public mood – are sort of the opposite of what the president brings to the table.”

Economist Larry Kudlow: “Let me weigh in on the first two bills that the GOP should put on Obama’s desk. The Republicans should start with energy by legislating a Keystone Pipeline Authorization Act … and include energy reforms that would open federal lands to development and drilling and remove all restrictions to energy exports. … Who loses? Our enemy Vladimir Putin and his client state Iran. And if Obama kowtows again to the left-wing enviros, so be it. It’s a 2016 GOP agenda item. Second would be a business tax-reform plan that would slash the corporate tax rate to 20 percent, stop the double taxation of foreign profits and allow small business S-corps (including unborn start-ups, which are America’s real job creators) to take advantage of the new lower corporate tax rate. … A new Republican Congress should message that they’re tired of obsessing about Obama’s mistakes. Everybody knows about those. The trick now is to focus on solutions. On change. On saying, ‘We can do this. We can fix this.’”

Twitter satirist @weknowwhatsbest: “Hillary told a crowd, ‘Businesses and corporations don’t create jobs.’ She forgot to add, ‘…when Democrats control the economy.’”

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform – Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen – standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.



After 30 Years Of Lies, NY Times Admits “Assault Weapons Are A Myth”
Posted by Bob Owens on September 13, 2014 at 8:44 am
Share on Facebook 17K 18K SHARES

In a stunning op-ed released Friday, the NY Times finally admitted that “assault weapons” are a made-up political term fabricated by anti-gun Democrats.

Op-ed writer Lois Beckett also admitted that once the term was manufactured and used to outlaw a class of weapons that dishonest anti-gun Democrats had used to con an entire nation, nothing happened.

It was much the same in the early 1990s when Democrats created and then banned a category of guns they called “assault weapons.” America was then suffering from a spike in gun crime and it seemed like a problem threatening everyone. Gun murders each year had been climbing: 11,000, then 13,000, then 17,000.

Democrats decided to push for a ban of what seemed like the most dangerous guns in America: assault weapons, which were presented by the media as the gun of choice for drug dealers and criminals, and which many in law enforcement wanted to get off the streets.

This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban.

Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of murders each year, but gun control advocates had failed to interest enough of the public in a handgun ban. Handguns were the weapons most likely to kill you, but they were associated by the public with self-defense. (In 2008, the Supreme Court said there was a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.)

Banning sales of military-style weapons resonated with both legislators and the public: Civilians did not need to own guns designed for use in war zones.

On Sept. 13, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban into law. It barred the manufacture and sale of new guns with military features and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. But the law allowed those who already owned these guns — an estimated 1.5 million of them — to keep their weapons.

The policy proved costly. Mr. Clinton blamed the ban for Democratic losses in 1994. Crime fell, but when the ban expired, a detailed study found no proof that it had contributed to the decline.

They created and then banned a class of weapons.

“Assault weapons” is a made-up term, used to scare citizens into thinking that military weapons were commonly being sold and used on the streets of the United States. Thanks to a dishonest and incompetent media, millions of Americans thought (and still think) that machine guns could simply be purchased at the local gun store. The reality that the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act outlawed the manufacture of automatic weapons for the civilian market in 1986, was always hushed up.

Yes, it has been 28 years since a single machine gun was manufactured for the American public. There are no assault rifles being sold in the United States. There are only firearms that look like weapons of war, but which lack their ability to fire multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger.

These firearms—AR-15s, AKMs and similar rifles—while incredibly popular with America’s law-abiding gun culture, simply aren’t used in many crimes. This should be surprising, since they are now among the most popular firearms sold in the United States in the past decade. The AR-15, in particular, is the most popular rifle sold in the United States year after year, and there are ten times as many in civilian hands as there are visually similar M4/M16 assault rifles in the entire U.S military.

But career criminals don’t want long guns. They want firearms that are compact and easy to conceal.

The op-ed concludes that violent homicides are primarily a poverty issue disproportionately concentrated among small groups of particularly violent young men, a stunning and rare admission that poverty and the drug trade are the primary problem driving murder, not access to firearms.

Don’t expect this sort of stunning admission of the facts to mark a change in cover from the Times, however. The brief bout of lucidity will quickly fade behind the veil of Alzheimer’s liberalism, and we’ll hear the rest of the deranged gaggle of op-ed writers to quickly fall back into the mantra of “Guns are bad, the NRA is evil, we need more taxes, government, citizen control, etc.”

Still… it’s nice to see that every once in a while a real and honest thought can escape from the morass of Manhattan, however fleeting that honest thought may be.

The Patriot Post ·
Daily Digest
Aug. 7, 2014

“Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” –Elbridge Gerry, Debate, United States House of Representatives, 1789

When Asked About Executive Power, Obama Mentions ‘Constitution’
Barack Obama was asked by ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl, “Has Congress’ inability to do anything significant given you a green light to push the limits of executive power?” Obama even managed to mention the word “Constitution” in his response. Obama replied, “I never have a green light. I’m bound by the Constitution. I’m bound by the separation of powers.” But then he skittered off into imperial-president land as he continued. “What I’m consistently going to do is, whenever I have the legal authorities to make progress on behalf of the middle class and folks working to get to the middle class. … I’m going to seize those opportunities and that’s what I think the American people expect me to do.” Ha! Obama said “legal authorities!” He should reread Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution and remember that it grants him legal authority to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and reconsider his actions on, say, immigration. More…1

Russia May Be Preparing to Invade Ukraine
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine reached a new level of concern after NATO warned that Russian troops amassed on the Ukrainian border may be preparing for a military offensive. NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu said, “We’re not going to guess what’s on Russia’s mind, but we can see what Russia is doing on the ground – and that is of great concern. Russia has amassed around 20,000 combat-ready troops on Ukraine’s eastern border.” She adds Russia may be preparing to exploit “a humanitarian or peace-keeping mission as an excuse to send troops into Eastern Ukraine.” Recent events explain Russia’s behavior. According to Reuters, “With fighting escalating and rebels losing ground in the weeks since a Malaysian airliner was shot down2 over separatist-held territory, Russia has announced military exercises this week in the border region.” Russian President Vladimir Putin won’t sit idly by while Ukraine makes gains. The question is: What kind of sternly worded warning will the Obama administration send this time? More…3

Kerry: More Farmland Exacerbates Global Warming
State Secretary John Kerry, addressing the U.S.-Africa Summit, claimed that global warming will be worsened by developing more farms and praised Africa for limiting the amount of land allocated for agriculture. “Certain agricultural processes can actually release carbon pollution and help contribute to the problem [of global warming] in the first place,” he explained. “It’s a twisted circle. Always complicated. But we also know there are ways to change that. For example, rather than convert natural areas to new farmland – a process that typically releases significant amounts of carbon pollution – we can instead concentrate our efforts on making existing farmlands more productive. Now this is an area where African leaders have actually been … significantly ahead of the game for some time.” Yes, and that’s evidently worked quite well for poor, hungry Africans and their economies.

Still Awaiting Comments From Obama on Maj. Gen. Greene
On Tuesday, the news broke4 that Maj. Gen. Harold Greene died in a “green on blue” attack in Afghanistan. That day, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest stated, “The thoughts and prayers of those of us here at the White House are with the family of the general, are with the soldiers and the family of those who were injured in this attack.” But that was it from the White House. An officer falls in a foreign field, the highest-ranking officer since 9/11, and Barack Obama himself has remained mum. Like his administration’s cover-up of the Benghazi attack in 2012, this green on blue attack doesn’t fit Obama’s foreign policy narrative. More…5

25 Million Uninsured Americans May Escape ObamaCare Penalty
The plethora of unilateral changes to ObamaCare may let millions of uninsured Americans facing fines off the hook. Fox News reports, “A new congressional report has estimated that more than 25 million Americans without health insurance will not be made to pay a penalty in 2016 due to an exploding number of ObamaCare exemptions.” The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation anticipate four million Americans will be subject to penalty fees, which is down by nearly two million from the last study. According to Fox, “The Obama administration has … added exemptions for hardships like domestic violence, property damage suffered in a fire or flood, or having a health plan canceled when ObamaCare came into effect this past October 1.” Additionally, “Residents of 21 states who have opted not to expand their Medicaid program under the health law may also be exempt from the penalty.” Wasn’t the point of the penalty to ensure health care for everyone and to keep people from exploiting the system? This administration sure has an interesting definition of “success” when 25 million are getting away with opting out of ObamaCare. More…6

For more, visit Right Hooks7.

Don’t Miss Alexander’s Column
Read The REAL Pandemic Threat: BioBombers8, on why Ebola is not our worst fear.

If you’d like to receive Alexander’s Column by email, update your subscription here9.

Debunking the ‘97% Consensus’ & Why Global Cooling May Loom
It’s summertime – that time of year when man-made global warming alarmism hits full throttle; when simmering heat coincides with the loudest clamoring of impending doom and the need to “take action.”

One of the more popular talking points now used by Democrats, including the president himself, asserts that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics have no credibility because the overwhelming “scientific consensus” believe global warming poses an unequivocal threat. Multiple studies have come to this conclusion, which the Left now view as sanctimonious.

In May, Heartland Institute’s Joe Bast and climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer co-authored an article in The Wall Street Journal, “The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’10,” exposing these studies as a sham. They found that “[t]he so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.” The researchers presented ambiguous questions to form a bias and even excluded prominent scientists at odds with their agenda. Bast and Spencer point out that one study didn’t even “include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.”

But perhaps the most telling example of deception is found in a study led by alarmist John Cook. His scholarly review11 used test groups with opinions on both sides of the issue, or none at all, who were instructed to analyze more than 10,000 peer-reviewed articles. According to the study, “Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

Michael Stroup of the National Center for Policy Analysis explains12 why this study is nothing more than a bunch of hot air:

“Focus on that conditional phrase, ‘among the papers expressing a position on AGW.’ [Emphasis added] On page 3 of this study, a simple time series chart shows that OVER HALF of these articles did NOT express an opinion on AGW at all. Further, the percentage of these no-opinion climate articles GREW to well over 60% over the period of study. Meanwhile, the percentage of articles that expressly support the AGW theory FELL from around 50% to well below 40%. This is a far cry from 97%. If less than 40% of all published climate studies explicitly support AGW, does this actually constitute a ‘consensus view’ by the climate science community?”
Unfortunately, such shameful practice is all too common and sets a dangerous precedent in a field where open-mindedness is essential and constant inquisitions imperative.

This would all be amusing if not for the severe ramifications being imposed by policymakers. A severe energy crisis13 may occur as soon as this winter thanks to the regulatory state stifling the energy sector, and cash-strapped Americans may be forced to chose between putting a meal on the table or heating their homes.

To add insult to injury, if current solar projections14 are any indication, the globe may be entering a new period of global cooling. SI meteorologist Paul Dorian writes:

“It appears that the solar maximum phase for solar cycle 24 may have been reached and it is not very impressive. … In fact, this solar cycle continues to rank among the weakest on record which continues the recent trend for increasingly weaker cycles. … There have been two notable historical periods with decades-long episodes of low solar activity. The first period is known as the ‘Maunder Minimum’ … and it lasted from around 1645 to 1715. The second one is referred to as the ‘Dalton Minimum’ … and it lasted from about 1790 to 1830. Both of these historical periods coincided with below-normal global temperatures in an era now referred to by many as the ‘Little Ice Age.’”
“If this trend continues for the next couple of cycles,” Dorian surmises, “then there would likely be more talk of another ‘grand minimum’ for the sun.”

It goes without saying that a cooler climate has far more debilitating effects on agriculture than a warmer one. Only time will tell, but at this rate, climate alarmists may soon be spewing “global warming” hubris through the chattering of teeth.

Time Will Dictate Impact of U.S.-Africa Summit
With the largest U.S.-Africa summit now in the history books, the question turns from the summit’s purpose to its outcomes, and how the latter may or may not achieve the former.

Nearly 50 leaders from the continent of Africa – or, as Vice President Biden would say, “the nation of Africa”15 – along with business and civil society leaders gathered in Washington, DC, this week at the invitation of Barack Obama for the stated purpose of “investing in the next generation.” Specifically, the White House said16 the summit would “build on the progress made since the President’s trip to Africa last summer, advance the Administration’s focus on trade and investment in Africa, and highlight America’s commitment to Africa’s security, its democratic development, and its people.”

Before the summit even began, the Obama administration set out to lower expectations in light of previous China-Africa summits. Not to worry, though: Given the president’s smashing foreign policy successes to date, our expectations weren’t too high to begin with. And we were not disappointed.

While highlighting the plight of hunger in Africa, for example, Secretary of State John Kerry balanced his concern with the call not to create more farms in Africa17, because doing so would add more “carbon pollution.” While claiming a commitment to democratic development and the African people, the administration failed to involve human rights organizations in important roundtable discussions. And while announcing an investment in “clean energy,” the administration perhaps missed the message that experts agree coal and natural gas18 are key to meeting the pressing power needs faced by more than half of Africa’s population.

Truth be told, the summit was less about building on progress and more about playing catch-up with China in a trade race in which the U.S. has lagged far behind. While China-Africa trade amounts to $200 billion, annual trade relations between the U.S. and Africa stand at around $85 billion – and only about one percent of U.S. exports go to Africa.

The commercial trade deals announced at the summit, while substantial, will barely begin to close the gap. On Tuesday, U.S. and African leaders unveiled $14 billion in agreements targeting areas including energy, aviation, banking and construction. Additionally, the U.S. government pledged $7 billion to promote trade and investment in Africa and another $12 billion to fund Obama’s Power Africa initiative (which includes clean energy funding).

Despite the fanfare, not all attendees were blissfully optimistic. Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki, for example, said19 economic development apart from social and political justice will not solve problems, and South African President Jacob Zuma said the economic initiatives don’t go far enough. Meanwhile, others expressed concern that focusing on Africa’s problems would discourage economic investment.

One likely and positive follow-up to the summit will be the renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which was first enacted in 2000 and is set to expire next year. Although U.S.-Africa trade has a long way to go, much of what has been accomplished has been the result of AGOA. Yet, even without the summit, AGOA would have been renewed, returning us to the question of whether outcomes will meet ambitions.

In a press conference last night, Obama announced20 that leaders had agreed to a “new peacekeeping rapid response project” as well as to exploring partnerships to fight financial corruption. All worthy aims, but worthy aims alone are meaningless.

As the Heritage Foundation notes21, during Obama’s first campaign for president, one of his senior advisors outlined Obama’s three-part agenda for Africa: accelerate its integration into the global economy, enhance regional peace and security, strengthen democracy and accountability, and reduce poverty. Since the campaign, however, Obama has done little in pursuit of these aims, choosing instead to continue existing policies.

The U.S.-Africa summit offered an exceptional opportunity for the president to give feet to political rhetoric, and only time will tell if the event the president called “extraordinary” will prove to be so. Words are easy; actions demand more. And although the administration claimed success (as is to be expected), as House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA) rightly noted20, true judgment can be made only “when the words on paper and the hours of talking are implemented and acted upon.”

For more, visit Right Analysis7.

Stephen Moore: Don’t Cry for Argentina – Cry for Us22
George Will: The Reason for Watergate?23
Jonah Goldberg: WWI Demons Live24
Arnold Ahlert: America: Unprepared for War25
R. Emmett Tyrrell: Philanthropy Over Politics26
For more, visit Right Opinion27.

Mark Twain (1835-1910): “We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men every day who don’t know anything and can’t read.”

Economist Stephen Moore: “[The] headline in the Los Angeles Times – ‘Argentina Defaults on International Debt’ – spooked me, as it did investors. The stock market tanked on the news. All Americans should feel the same apprehension. … Is the day coming when America looks like Argentina? … Probably not any time in the short term. Hopefully never. But the parallels here are not encouraging. Argentina has printed money. Our Fed has created at least $3 trillion through QE1, QE2, and QE3. Their economy has been growing tepidly and shrank in the first quarter of 2014; we’re stuck in a 2 percent growth paradigm. Yet no one in Washington is doing anything about it. … Our interest rates today, thankfully, are low. But if rates rise by two percentage points more than projected … the debt rises by another $3 trillion or so over ten years. Interest payments on the debt could become the single largest expenditure in the federal budget. … Argentines only have themselves to blame. So will we, if we don’t act soon to balance the budget and grow the economy.”

Columnist George Will: “June 17, 1971, was four days after The New York Times began publishing the leaked ‘Pentagon Papers,’ the classified Defense Department history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. [Richard] Nixon worried that further leaks … would reveal his role in sabotaging negotiations that might have shortened the war. This fear caused Nixon to create the Special Investigations Unit – aka ‘the plumbers’ – and to direct an aide to devise other proposals… This aide suggested using the IRS against political adversaries, but added: ‘The truth is we don’t have any reliable political friends at IRS. … We won’t be … in a position of effective leverage until such time as we have complete and total control of the top three slots at IRS.’ Forty years later, the IRS has punished conservative groups, and evidence that might prove its criminality has been destroyed. Happy anniversary.”

Humorist Frank J. Fleming: “People on Israel’s side expect adult behavior from both. People on the Palestinian side seem to expect adult behavior from only one. Is the pro-Palestinian side racist against the Palestinians and don’t think they can be held to the same standard as Israelis?”

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform – Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen – standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.



» NJ considering bill that would ban many rifles » News — GOPUSA

winchester_22On Monday, the New Jersey Assembly’s Law and Public Safety Committee is scheduled to hold a public hearing about a bill that reduces the maximum magazine from capacity from 15 to 10, but in effect goes even further. Since the legislation covers both detachable and fixed magazines, it has the effect of banning popular, low-caliber rifles.

The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs gave the draft legislation to top firearms experts in the country to determine what guns would fall under the expanded ban.

They discovered that the bill would affect tube-fed, semi- automatic rifles because the magazine cannot be separated from the gun.

Thus, the experts found that at least 43 common rifles would suddenly be considered a prohibited “assault firearm,” such as the .22 caliber Marlin Model 60, Remington Nylon 66 and Winchester 190.

Just having one such gun would turn a law-abiding owner into a felon overnight.

Possession of an “assault firearm” is a second-degree crime in New Jersey. The penalty is up to 10 years in jail and a mandatory minimum sentence of three to five years, with no chance of parole.

“This bill is a gun ban, there’s no question about that,” Scott Bach, the executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, told me in an interview.

“If it becomes law, it would have zero impact on crime because criminals don’t follow bans. It would only affect legal gun owners by essentially tying their hands when they need to defend their lives.”

Even worse, the bill has no grandfather clause and no amnesty period. So as soon as this legislation becomes law, everyone in possession of these rifles is automatically a felon and the guns are subject to seizure by the government.

Remember just last May, these same legislators were caught on a hot microphone saying, “We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”

Mr. Bach said, “For years anti-gun Democrats have claimed that they have no agenda to ban and confiscate guns. But last year their true agenda was revealed on that hot mic. This bill is another step in that process.”

The timing of this drastic legislation is not by accident. New Jersey Democrats are determined to make Gov. Chris Christie squirm. Their objective is to make the potential Republican presidential candidate choose between local emotional pleas and national pro-gun voters.

State Senate President Steve Sweeney has had families of Newtown, Conn., school shooting at public events over the past few weeks to encourage passage.

It’s most likely that this radical bill will pass the Assembly and the Senate in the next few months. So, Mr. Christie’s veto power is the only thing that can stop the outright attack on gun owners and the Second Amendment.


Daily Digest

Feb. 20, 2014


“Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honor, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions.” –John Adams, letter to Mercy Warren, 1776


Not Another ‘Red Line’

Foreign policy neophyte Barack Obama once again made a bone-headed pronouncement about world affairs, this time addressing the violence in Ukraine. “[W]e’re going to be watching closely and we expect the Ukrainian government to show restraint, to not resort to violence in dealing with peaceful protesters,” he said Wednesday. “We’ve also said we expect peaceful protesters to remain peaceful.” He added, “[T]here will be consequences if people step over the line.” Unfortunately, everyone knows that Obama speaks loudly and forgets his stick, especially when the nation in question is in any way associated with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, which Ukraine’s government is. Just like his “red line” with Syria, this latest warning is huff and bluster that will only weaken U.S. standing in the world.

Tea Party Turns Five

Yesterday was the fifth anniversary of CNBC’s Rick Santelli reporting from the Chicago stock exchange floor and calling for a new “Tea Party.”1 He was specifically opposed to Barack Obama’s “stimulus,” bailouts and other massive spending growth. “A lot of people have been credited with starting the modern-day tea party but make no mistake, it was Rick Santelli,” said Glenn Beck. “His off the cuff monologue spoke the words that millions of Americans felt but could not nor dare not speak.” The Tea Party remains a force in the GOP, and is the reason the party swept to victory in the House in 2010. We hope the movement can regain that momentum this fall, retake the Senate, and restore some fiscal sanity to Washington.

Insurance Tax Will Raise Premiums

Before ObamaCare was passed, Barack Obama repeatedly told us that his new law would save the average family $2,500 a year on their health insurance premiums. Wrong. A new study2 by Robert Book of the American Action Forum shows that the annual tax on health insurance companies based on their market share will inevitably be passed on to consumers. As a result, he says, it “will result in a premium increase of $60 to $160 per person in 2014, rising to $100-$300 by 2018, for the average insured individual – and over $260 per family in 2014, rising to over $450 in 2018, for families with employer-sponsored, fully-insured coverage.” Once again, we see all too clearly that the BIG Lie was calling ObamaCare the “Affordable” Care Act.

$100 Billion in Bad Payments

The federal government wastes a lot of money, that much is inarguable. But thanks to Veronique de Rugy and Jason Fichtner3, we have some new detail, specifically on various welfare programs and wrongful recipients. Medicare fee-for-service is the worst offender in nominal terms, with nearly $30 billion in improper spending in 2012 alone. But the Earned Income Tax Credit is worse in percentage terms – de Rugy writes that it’s “responsible for $12.6 billion in improper payments, almost a quarter of what the program spent in 2012.” In conclusion, she says, “The reality is that federal spending has grown too massive to be adequately overseen, and the resultant waste, fraud, and abuse squanders public resources and undermines trust in government.”

Report Dramatizes Shootings

new report4 released by Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun groups Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in American (MDA) and Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) claims that, “In the fourteen months since the mass shooting in Newtown, CT, there have been at least 44 school shootings including fatal and nonfatal assaults, suicides, and unintentional shootings – an average of more than three a month. These school shootings resulted in 28 deaths and 37 non-fatal gunshot injuries.” This data however is highly misleading. “Included in the numbers are [11] suicides,” explains columnist John Lott. “Also included are late night shootings in school parking lots, on other school grounds or even offschool property, often involving gangs. As ‘shootings,’ they also include any incident where shots were fired, even when nobody was injured.” They also fail to mention that the overall number of school shootings continues to decrease.

For more, visit Right Hooks5.


Report: Minimum Wage Increase Decreases Employment


Conservatives have argued for years that raising the minimum wage leads to a decrease in employment among those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder, an argument leftists vehemently deny. But a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that a proposed minimum wage increase to $10.10 an hour by 2016 would eliminate 500,000 jobs despite the prospect of enhanced economic activity overall. While that’s a bad scenario, even the best number the CBO could come up with was the increased minimum wage would lead to a “very slight decrease” in employment. Their worst case projection is that one million jobs may be lost.

It’s also worth considering that the increased economic activity, once losses from those who were furloughed, business owners making less profit, and overall higher costs due to the inflationary effects of an artificial wage hike are factored in, would result in a paltry $2 billion increase in real income overall. In part, this is because just 19% of these additional earnings would accrue to families below the poverty line; meanwhile 29% would go to families who make three times the poverty level. In other words, many of those workers who actually make minimum wage – representing less than 2% of the workforce – are those just entering the workforce, meaning they most likely still live with their parents and supplement a far larger household income. The CBO estimates just 2% of those who live in poverty will be lifted out of it by a minimum wage increase. But how many non-minimum wage earners will be forced into poverty by the increased costs?

So why would we engage in what commentator Charles Krauthammer called8“a transfer of wealth from some low-income earners to other low-income earners”? Simple – it’s an election year and goodies have to flow freely to those who typically vote Democrat. Either they’ll get a raise or they’ll be enjoying many months’ worth of unemployment payments, a win-win for the lazy and statists everywhere.

Working Out the Details of NSA Reform


High-ranking members of the intelligence community and civil liberties advocates are trying to figure out just how the government will go about implementing the changes Barak Obama recently proposed9 for the NSA. But what they’ve come up with doesn’t instill a lot of confidence. Obama called for a number of changes to the government’s intelligence gathering infrastructure, including a prohibition on spying on allied leaders and restrictions on gathering and holding data on non-citizens overseas. Both restrictions can, of course, be rescinded if there is a compelling national security purpose – a loophole so broad a Mack truck could drive through it.

One slightly more troubling proposal includes the creation of a privacy advocate that would have a voice in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which currently only hears the government’s side of any national security issue. Injecting a third party into this area of the intelligence infrastructure is fraught with problems. National security information could be compromised and legal proceedings could severely gum up legitimate investigations. Just imagine the damage that could be done if the ACLU had a voice in a FISA court.

The biggest issue of debate, however, is just what to do with the massive amounts of data collected by the NSA’s phone surveillance program. The president proposed putting the collected information in a third-party repository that the NSA would have to seek permission in order to access. No one is sure exactly what this would look like, but telecommunications companies want no part of it. There is no way to guarantee the safety of the data in the hands of a private enterprise, considering the data hacks that take place in the private sector these days. And if the third-party is some quasi public-private institution (think Fannie Mae for spies), who is to say that the operation can be run without leaks, political shenanigans or costly bureaucratic error?

Little mention is made about what to do with the data the NSA currently possesses; these plans are all concerned with future changes, not retroactive ones. However, The Wall Street Journal reports10, “The government is considering enlarging the National Security Agency’s controversial collection of Americans’ phone records – an unintended consequence of lawsuits seeking to stop the surveillance program.”

Meanwhile, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper argued this week that none of this would be necessary had the American public been aware of the NSA surveillance program from the start. Clapper thinks that Americans would have been fine with the extent of the program if the government had just explained its necessity right after 9/11. This, of course, doesn’t excuse his lying to Congress last year about the existence of the program, but that’s okay, too, because Clapper still believes the program is constitutional and effective, despite growing evidence that it is neither.

For more, visit Right Analysis5.




Columnist Ann Coulter: “Our extremely progressive tax system, where nearly half the country pays no income tax at all, and the other half pays about 40 percent of their income, may not be fair. But most people also don’t think it’s fair to tax a guy making $80,000 a year the identical amount as one making $80 million a year. That’s exactly what Obamacare does. With Obamacare, the Democratic Party has foisted the most regressive tax possible on America. This ruthless assault on the middle class is all so we can have a health care system more like every other country has. Until now, the United States has had the highest survival rates in the world for heart disease, cancer and diabetes. … So across the world, we’ll all be equal, dying of cancer, heart disease and diabetes as often as everyone else. It’s not that Obama doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism; it’s that he wants to end it.”

Columnist Ben Shapiro: “[I]f consumerism and virtue are allied, there is no place left for the Marxist critique of capitalism – namely that capitalism makes people less compassionate, more selfish, and ethically meager. And so consumerism must be severed from virtue (very few leftists critique Americans’ propensity for spending cash on Lady Gaga concerts) so that it can be castigated as sin more broadly. In a world in which consumerism is the greatest of all sins, America is the greatest of all sinners, which, of course, is the point of the anti-consumerist critique from the left: to target America. Global warming represents the latest apocalyptic consequence threatened by the leftist gods for the great iniquity of buying things, developing products, and competing in the global marketplace. And America must be called to heel by the great preachers in Washington, D.C., and Hollywood.”

Justice John Marshall Harlan (1899-1971): “In view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”

Columnist Cal Thomas: “Republicans have a lot of problems, but chief among them is that they are known more for what they are against. They hate President Obama, Obamacare, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Some Republicans don’t even like each other. What and who do they like? What are they for? Where are examples of their policies working – creating jobs, improving lives, lowering deficits and taxes, cutting spending and reducing the size and reach of government? (Hint: States have the answer, not Washington.)”

Humorist Frank J. Fleming: “If you needed the CBO to tell you a minimum wage increase would cost jobs, please stay out of politics.”

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform – Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen – standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.


Irresponsible lawmakers cause citizen revolt

By Washington Times (DC) February 20, 2014 12:29 pm
        Laws are more than just symbolic gestures. Connecticut’s General Assembly must come to grips with this truth before its recent effort to “save lives” ends up destroying them.

State law enforcement officials are now in the difficult position of dealing with one of the most widely flouted laws since the end of the 55 miles-per-hour speed limit and Prohibition. If it’s really serious, the state will have to find space to imprison 300,000 residents for the next five years.

The first article of the Connecticut Constitution couldn’t be more clear. “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state,” it says.

Busybodies at the Capitol in Hartford decided that “every” doesn’t really mean every, and it banned the semi-automatic rifles that would be most useful in defense of the state. As of Jan. 1, owners of arms that have a menacing appearance had to submit registration paperwork to the state.

Only about 50,000 did so. There’s no way to know how many “assault rifles” remain unregistered, but the best guess is that the new “gun safety” law instantly created 300,000 felons.

Eager to exploit the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, easily frightened lawmakers rushed to add yet more hurdles to gun ownership in the state. Those wishing to possess a pistol already had to pay fees, take tests and fill out paperwork to obtain a firearms-purchase permit.

Separate permission from the state was required just to buy ammunition in a process that must be repeated every five years. Bearing arms outside the home requires another permit that the state may, or may not, issue at its discretion.

None of these hurdles prevent crime. The alleged perpetrator of the Newtown massacre obtained his weapons by murdering his own mother, in violation of the law. That’s what criminals do.

Reality is of little interest to Connecticut politicians when they’re intent on making a statement. They thought that they could compel everyone to think as they do about gun control by threatening those who disagree with a felony. It didn’t work.

Faced with 300,000 potential offenders, officials must decide whether to ignore the new law, or enforce it by sending SWAT teams to raid the homes of anyone suspected of owning the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15.

As author Radley Balko documented in “The Rise of the Warrior Cop,” sending squads crashing through doors unannounced in the middle of the night frequently results in death and injury for innocent bystanders.

Even family pets aren’t spared. Rampaging cops in Prince George’s County, Md., for example, killed Chase and Payton, the gentle Labrador retrievers belonging to Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo. The cops expected to find drugs in the raid; instead, they terrorized an innocent family.

Repeating similar scenes 300,000 times in Connecticut would create the very “gun violence” that the misguided registration law was supposed to prevent. Even if all of these citizens turned themselves in peacefully, it would bankrupt the state.

Currently, Connecticut’s 15 prisons hold 16,839 behind bars at an annual cost of $620 million. Full compliance with the gun law would exceed the entire state budget at $55 billion.

We hope that calmer heads prevail in Hartford. Respect for the law is essential for society, but this presupposes the laws themselves are worthy of respect.

The General Assembly must do what Congress did in repealing the speed limit in 1995 and the states did in ending Prohibition in 1933. If it saves just one life, it’s worth it.


Obama-Kerry United Nations Treaty Requires US To Hand Over American Gun Registrations

21 January 2014 / 358 Comments


Did you know this? During September of 2013, John Kerry “on behalf of President Obama and the United States of America”, said (lied?) at the United Nations in New York,

“This treaty will not diminish anyone’s freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes. Make no mistake, we would never think about supporting a treaty that is inconsistent with the rights of Americans … to be able to exercise their guaranteed rights under our constitution.”

But here’s where he misled you about the UN Arms Trade Treaty…

The New American reports that the UN Arms Trade Treaty was written in secret by the Obama/Hillary Clinton State Department, along with Russia, China, France and Britain.

Not exactly a lineup of champions of liberty.

What does the treaty actually say?

Article 2 defines the conventional arms covered, which include battle tanks, 
artillery systems, combat aircraft, 
attack helicopters, warships, missiles — and “small arms and light weapons.

Article 3 of the treaty places UN prohibitions on “ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms (including small arms) covered under Article 2.”

Article 4 puts all “parts and components” of weapons (including small arms) within the scheme.

Read More:


The Extreme ‘Centrist’

What Mike Bloomberg has in common with Guns & Ammo.




January 7, 2014
The New York Times has uncovered a journalistic scandal. It seems that–get ready for it–a gun magazine has an editorial policy that is hostile to gun control.

This merited the Times’s attention because the magazine, Guns & Ammo, made a personnel decision on the basis of its editorial views. Dick Metcalf, described by the Times as “one of the country’s pre-eminent gun journalists,” lost his position as a columnist for the magazine after he wrote a column titled “Let’s Talk Limits”: ” ‘The fact is,’ wrote Mr. Metcalf, who has taught history at Cornell and Yale, ‘all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.’ ”

That provoked a “backlash” that “was swift, and fierce.” Readers threatened to cancel their subscriptions, and according to Metcalf (in the Times’s paraphrase), “his editor called to tell him that two major gun manufacturers had said ‘in no uncertain terms’ that they could no longer do business with InterMedia Outdoors,” which publishes the magazine. The company axed him from both the column and a TV show it produced.

According to the Times, the story “sheds light on the close-knit world of gun journalism, where editors and reporters say there is little room for nuance in the debate over gun laws”:

Moderate voices that might broaden the discussion from within are silenced. When writers stray from the party line promoting an absolutist view of an unfettered right to bear arms, their publications–often under pressure from advertisers–excommunicate them.

“We are locked in a struggle with powerful forces in this country who will do anything to destroy the Second Amendment,” said Richard Venola, a former editor of Guns & Ammo. “The time for ceding some rational points is gone.”

Well, this column always has plenty of room for nuance, so here goes.

Assuming that the Times’s account is substantially accurate, it seems to us Metcalf was treated awfully shabbily. His editors “approved the column before it went to press,” according to the Times, and it speaks poorly of them that they did not stand behind it in the absence of any new information calling its credibility into question.

That said, the column itself was not exactly a triumph of logic. Here’s how Metcalf fleshed out his central point:

The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be. Freedom of speech is regulated. You cannot falsely and deliberately shout, “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion is regulated. A church cannot practice human sacrifice. Freedom of assembly is regulated. People who don’t like you can’t gather an “anti-you” demonstration on your front lawn. And it is illegal for convicted felons or the clinically insane to keep and bear arms.

Every sentence of this is problematic. In the first place, his claim that all constitutional rights are regulated is easily falsifiable. Try to come up with an example of a law or regulation that limits the Third Amendment right against the peacetime quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner’s consent.

More important, the examples he gives of “regulation” of First Amendment rights are not that at all. They are, instead, generally applicable criminal laws. The “freedom of religion” example illustrates the point most clearly. A murderer who raised a free-exercise defense would be laughed out of court. But a Second Amendment defense would be equally frivolous. No gun-rights absolutist claims that the right to keep and bear arms entails the right to use them to murder others in cold blood.

The denial of gun rights to felons and mental patients, by contrast, can be described as a regulation, and the Supreme Court more or less affirmed its constitutionality in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). But imagine an equivalent rule applied to First Amendment rights. A blanket ban on speech, worship or public assembly by felons or mental patients would be plainly unconstitutional. Contrary to Metcalf, the Second Amendment right is unique, not typical, in the degree to which it is subject to regulation.

Further, this column generally agrees with Venola’s give-no-ground position, though on pragmatic grounds rather than principled ones. If we thought the antigun side of the debate were interested in good-faith compromise, we’d be all for it. The dishonesty of their debating tactics, their ghoulish and opportunistic use of horrific crimes like the Newtown massacre to advance their agenda, and the onerous (and likely unconstitutional) regulations that exist in places where they hold political sway–such as New York City, where we live–persuade us otherwise.

Anyway, why should gun magazines give voice to “moderate voices that might broaden the discussion from within”? Has the Times editorial page, a leading voice on the other side, done the same?

As we pondered that question, we realized we’d read recently about an actual scenario that posed a similar question in reverse. Last month Laura Bennett had a feature story in The New Republic on Bloomberg View, Michael Bloomberg’s op-ed operation. Bloomberg, in addition to having just stepped down after 12 years as mayor of New York, is one of America’s most fanatical antigun activists.

Shut up, he explained.Associated Press

Last June, Bennett reports, editor David Shipley “hired the popular blogger Megan McArdle even though, in the wake of the Newtown massacre, she had written a controversial op-ed about the impracticality of gun control. According to one columnist, View editors just hoped [Mike] Bloomberg hadn’t read it.”

The parallel isn’t exact. Whereas Metcalf was fired for deviating from the party line on guns, McArdle was hired in spite of it. Then again, evidently her hiring happened without the boss’s knowledge, and as far as we know, she hasn’t written about the topic for Bloomberg View. (Most of her work is on ObamaCare, and it is generally excellent.)

But it turns out that Bloomberg imposes at least one stricture on his columnists that is very similar to Guns & Ammo’s de facto ban on advocacy of gun regulations. Reports Bennett: “At a dinner for columnists at the Palm, the mayor promised not to censor anyone, assuring them that they could, within limits–one of which was advocating against a woman’s right to choose–write whatever they wanted.” The only difference is that unlike “a woman’s right to choose” (a euphemism for abortion), the right to keep and bear arms is in the text of the Constitution.

Actually, there’s one other difference. Bloomberg’s ban would be analogous to Guns & Ammo’s if he were running a special-interest publication for which freedom of abortion was central to its worldview, say Ms.

By contrast, as indicated by the ex-mayor’s promise that in general columnists could “write whatever they wanted,” Bloomberg View is supposed to be general-interest and heterodox. According to Bennett, it falls short of that not because it has a distinct point of view but because it lacks one: “The output of Bloomberg View has been mostly flat–a particularly bloodless kind of centrism.”

But wait. What kind of “centrism” is it that permits the expression of only one side when it comes to the most polarizing and contentious question in politics? (And are Bloomberg View columnists permitted to dissent from left-liberal orthodoxy on gun control, or for that matter global warmism?)

Bloomberg has as much right to dictate editorial policy as Guns & Ammo’s owners do. But his ban is more objectionable than theirs. Whereas the latter are asserting a specific point of view in response to the demands of their particular market, the former seeks to marginalize half the population and decree his own extreme point of view to be the “centrist” one.

Stockman slams Cornyn’s Bloomberg Bill
> Cornyn to introduce gun control bill modeled after Bloomberg anti-gun initiative
> Cornyn bill is nearly identical to Obama Executive Order issued last week
> ‘Cornyn’s Bloomberg Bill is the Holy Grail of gun control’
> ‘Unable to ban guns they are now banning law-abiding gun owners, and Cornyn is leading the charge’
> ‘Cornyn’s Bloomberg Bill puts veterans on a lifetime gun ban list if they went through post-combat counseling’

WASHINGTON — Congressman Steve Stockman announced Wednesday he is organizing opposition to an anti-gun control bill to be introduced this year by U.S. Senators John Cornyn and Lindsay Graham, which appears to closely follow an Executive Order issued last Friday by President Barack Obama.

Cornyn announced the bill in an interview this month with traditionally liberal “Texas Monthly” magazine.  According to Cornyn the “Graham-Cornyn Mental Health and Criminal Justice Reform Act” expands the National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) system to include Americans who have sought treatment for mental health issues.  The bill seems to be nearly identical to an Executive Order issued last Friday by Obama.

“Cornyn’s Bloomberg Bill is the Holy Grail of gun control,” said Stockman. “Cornyn’s Bloomberg Bill is an aggressive expansion of the anti-gun agenda.  Unable to ban guns they are now banning law-abiding gun owners, and Cornyn is leading the charge.”

“John Cornyn has opened a new front in the Left’s War on Guns by now seeking to ban law-abiding gun owners. Cornyn’s Bloomberg Bill is the same gun control bill demanded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and appears to be nearly identical to Barack Obama’s latest Executive Order,” said Stockman. “With Republicans like Cornyn who needs Democrats?”

Cornyn’s examples of those to be stripped of their Second Amendment rights under his bill were people who sought treatment, but had no criminal record and had never been deemed a threat by doctors or a court.

“It throws millions of Americans on a lifetime gun ban list without a court hearing or due process of law.  Even worse, Cornyn’s Bloomberg Bill strips military veterans of their constitutional rights just for speaking to a medical professional about their combat experience,” said Stockman. “There is nothing more un-American than stripping law-abiding veterans of their constitutional rights.”

Last year Stockman introduced the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act (HR 577,) which requires that a judge issue an order that an individual is a danger to self or others before a veteran’s ability to receive or transport guns is taken away.

Stockman, along with Senator Rand Paul, also introduced the Restore the Constitution Act ( HR 410) which nullifies and prohibits funding of any executive action that oversteps the President’s constitutional authority.

“It’s a stark contrast.  John Cornyn’s bill would follow Obama’s Order and ban many law-abiding veterans from owning guns.  My bills block Obama’s orders and protect veterans by banning the government from taking their guns away,” said Stockman.

Stockman is endorsed by Gun Owners of America and has a 100% lifetime rating from the NRA.