Monthly Archives: January 2013

Video: Al Gore’s ‘World Hypocrisy’ Book Tour Off to a Rough Start

Al Gore’s latest move in selling his “Current” network to Al Jazeera, which is controlled by an oil emirate, is too much hypocrisy for even his usual “friendlies” in the media to ignore, as he’s finding out on his latest book tour.

Here’s a compilation clip. It’s just too bad none of these media tools can take the whole sham out to its logical conclusion enough to wonder: If Gore’s so incredibly full of BS in denying there’s even a hint of hypocrisy in this, maybe the entire cart-load of apocalyptic global warming wares he’s hawking is all a lie too. But at least it’s nice to see the Goracle getting lightly slapped around a little for a change:

The Pro-Second Amendment Side Needs a Shift in How They Argue Their Case

The Senate Judiciary Committee has been having hearings on gun control. On the pro gun control side, Gabby Giffords, victim of a crazed gunman, said “too many children are dying.” At a hearing in Connecticut, the father of a child murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary gave similar testimony (and gave some in the blinded-by-bias media a chance to show off their mad video editing skillz).

And on the pro Second Amendment side we most often hear testimony from Wayne LaPierre, somebody else from the NRA, or lawyers arguing on behalf of the Second Amendment. They make arguments on constitutional grounds and even speak about people whose lives are saved because they had guns — but where are those people? Ask them to come forward at hearings and press conferences.

Let’s face it, the left usually kicks the right’s ass when it comes to emotional arguments that are designed to tug at the heart so aggressively that onlookers are too distracted to use their heads to think through what’s actually being presented to them (and that’s not necessarily a bad thing as we pride ourselves on being on the side of reason). However, emotional arguments can be constructed without selling out on the logic and common sense end of things, and that’s where the right needs to do a better job.

There certainly are no shortages of children (and adults) whose lives have been saved because of gun ownership. Almost every day there’s a story. Here’s one from just the day before yesterday:

A home invasion suspect was arrested at a hospital after a mother shot him during the crime at a Montgomery County home, deputies said Wednesday.

Erin, who asked to be identified only by her first name, told Local 2 she was putting her 6-year-old son to bed when she heard a loud noise coming from her bedroom on Mink Lake Drive Friday night.

“I threw the cover over my son and I took off running, screaming to the living room to let my dogs out,” she said.

Erin said she turned around and saw three masked men, pointing a gun right at her.

The woman had a gun — at least two actually — and it didn’t end well for one of the criminals. The other two fled, and the mother and her son were unharmed as a result.

Why can’t people like this be asked to testify against gun control? I’m sure some would agree to. Find mothers and fathers with children who can honestly say “if some of the more radical gun control measures you’re proposing were the law, my son, daughter and I would more than likely be dead right now.” I know, I know… a tragedy that happened is more newsworthy to the MSM than a tragedy that was averted (especially if they think the former helps push a liberal agenda and the latter a conservative one), but the pro Second Amendment side needs to more effectively address the method with which they’re being demonized.

Or… should we adhere to the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” rule? After all, the NRA has a higher popularity rating than President Obama (file that under “things you’ll never learn on the mainstream network newscasts”) and it’s looking like Dianne Feinstein’s gun control bill is DOA in the Senate — even Harry Reid won’t support it. Given all that, should the pro-Second Amendment side leave well enough alone? In my opinion that would be a fatal error.

Update: Gun rights advocates should also feature people like this man more as a reminder that the Second Amendment wasn’t written with hunting in mind.

Zimbabwe Has $217 in the Bank; Considering Transferring Balance to a Different Bank Just for the Free Tote Bag

Adding even more pressure to the situation, the minimum balance requirement on Zimbabwe’s checking account at the Harare Bank & Distrust is $200.

From AFP:

After paying public workers’ salaries last week, the balance in cash-strapped Zimbabwe’s government public account stood at just $217, Finance Minister Tendai Biti said Tuesday.

“Last week when we paid civil servants there was $217 (left) in government coffers,” Biti told journalists in the capital Harare, claiming some of them had healthier bank balances than the state.

“The government finances are in paralysis state at the present moment. We are failing to meet our targets.”

Mugabe probably raided the accounts again. But that won’t stop them from asking everybody else to pay for their election:

Zimbabwe’s government has warned it does not have enough money to fund a constitutional referendum and elections expected this year.

Biti said that left no choice but to ask the donors for cash.

“We will be approaching the international community,” he said.

Zimbabwe’s elections agency says it will need $104 million to organize the election — and probably another $100 million to rig it.

Three words of advice for you, Zimbabwe: Trillion. Dollar. Coin.

Associated Press: US Economy Posts ‘Stunning’ Drop… Unexpectedly!

null

If the AP thinks it’s getting bad now, wait until the economy starts to fully absorb Obamacare. Or should I say, until Obamacare starts to absorb the economy.

Bring on the “unexpectedly” for the 48th straight month:

The U.S. economy posted a stunning drop of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter, defying expectations for slow growth and possibly providing incentive for more Federal Reserve stimulus.

The economy shrank from October through December for the first time since the recession ended, hurt by the biggest cut in defense spending in 40 years, fewer exports and sluggish growth in company stockpiles.

The Commerce Department said Wednesday that the economy contracted at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter. That’s a sharp slowdown from the 3.1 percent growth rate in the July-September quarter.

The surprise contraction could raise fears about the economy’s ability to handle tax increases that took effect in January and looming spending cuts.

Let me get this straight… in September of 2012, the Federal Reserve launched QE3 in order to “rev up the economy.” In the 4th quarter the economy posted a “stunning drop,” and in reaction the first thing the Fed is talking about is doing another round of “quantitative easing”?

What’s the definition of insanity again?

Surprise: Lib ‘Boyfriend’ of Top Fundraiser for ‘Rich Need to Pay Their Fair Share’ President Owes $1.2 Million in Back Taxes

When Anna Wintour said “don’t be late,” she wasn’t referring to her boyfriend’s tax payments.

The Vogue editor and possible US Ambassador to the UK held some high dollar fundraisers for Barack Obama prior to last November’s election. A good part of Obama’s platform was how the rich need to “pay their fair share,” and obviously Wintour agreed with that sentiment as evidenced by her strong support for Obama’s campaign.

If Wintour wants people to pay their fair share, she can start by lecturing her “boyfriend”:

J. Shelby Bryan, the long-term boyfriend of Anna Wintour, the Vogue editor in contention to be Barack Obama’s next ambassador to Britain, owes the US government more than $1.2 million (£760,000) in taxes.

Mr Bryan, a former adviser to Bill Clinton who helped raise funds for Mr Obama’s re-election campaign, has owed the money to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) since 2006, according to court filings obtained by The Daily Telegraph from Texas.

Mr Bryan, who has been in a relationship with Ms Wintour since 1999, was also pursued for outstanding Texas property taxes, and has had energy companies he owns in the state chided by local authorities for falling behind on their financial filings.

The findings may threaten Ms Wintour’s confirmation as a US ambassador if nominated by Mr Obama.

As usual, the rules as written by rich libs apply to everybody… except rich libs.

But maybe Bryan has just been too distracted to focus on paying taxes. I mean, could you blame him?

Michael Bloomberg’s Crack Hypocrisy-Protection Unit Keeps Nosy Reporter With Gun Control Question at Bay

I love it when BS hypocrites like Michael Bloomberg get called out, but he sure doesn’t:

In the video, Bloomberg is seen surrounded by security. Mattera approaches Bloomberg and asks, “In the spirit of gun control, will you disarm your entire security team?”

Bloomberg’s reply: “Uh, you, we’ll get right back to you.”

“Why can you defend yourself but not the majority of Americans?” Mattera asks as the mayor walks away. “Look at the team of security you’ve got. And you’re an advocate for gun control?”

The video goes on from there, with one member of Captain Nosalt’s security team following Mattera down the street trying to get more information from him — no doubt so the mayor could later perform a full “Big Gulp, smoking and trans-fat” background check on him… in the interest of Mattera’s health of course:

If Mattera wants to get Bloomberg’s undivided attention, next time he should send somebody with a nicer ass.

CBS Sunday Morning: ‘Is the Constitution Truly Worthy of Reverence in Which Most Americans Hold It?’ — Georgetown Law Prof: ‘Nah, Let’s Give Up on the Constitution’

Ever notice how these “we can get rid of the Constitution” types are always the same ones who run to the courts to claim First Amendment protections any time somebody tries to put a muzzle on them?

Here’s just one part from the Georgetown Prof’s justification for doing away with much of the Constitution:

For example, most of our greatest Presidents — Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts — had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.

Hey, he forgot one. Wait, no he didn’t, because he qualified his statement with the word “greatest.” I stand corrected.

Presidents successfully skirting the Constitution don’t signal a problem with the Constitution — it’s a sign that there’s something wrong with the other two branches that are supposed to keep the president in check and often don’t.

The entire transcript is at Newsbusters.

Gridiron Control? Football Will Have to Change to Reduce Some of the Violence, Says Obama

obamafootball

We already know that if President Obama had a son, he’d look like Trayvon, but now we know that Obama’s hypothetical son would also probably not be allowed to play football:

“I’m a big football fan, but I have to tell you if I had a son, I’d have to think long and hard before I let him play football,” says the president of the United States, the father of two young girls. “And I think that those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence. In some cases, that may make it a little bit less exciting, but it will be a whole lot better for the players, and those of us who are fans maybe won’t have to examine our consciences quite as much.”

Do we have “football control” to look forward to? Dianne Feinstein’s gun control bill probably would outlaw use of the “shotgun formation,” but there is obviously more work to be done.

Hey, did the guy who once voted to keep third trimester abortions legal just say football makes him examine his conscience?

For some reason I’m now assuming that Obama’s next big push will be to allow college football players to unionize… for their own safety:

“I tend to be more worried about college players than NFL players in the sense that the NFL players have a union, they’re grown men, they can make some of these decisions on their own, and most of them are well-compensated for the violence they do to their bodies.”

I’m sure an excited Richard Trumka has already been on the phone to the White House giving Obama his proposal to unionize NCAA football players.

Naturally: Dianne Feinstein’s Gun Control Bill Exempts People Like… Dianne Feinstein

When writing anti-gun legislation, prudent politicians will always keep the personal wants, needs and safety of themselves and the people who protect them first in mind by exempting themselves from their terrible ideas. Such is the case with Dianne Feinstein’s “assault weapons ban” bill:

Finally, the bill includes a number of exemptions: It exempts more than 2,200 hunting and sporting weapons; any gun manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action; any weapons used by government officials and law enforcement; and any weapons legally owned as of the date of the bill’s enactment.

Why the need to exempt government officials? Hasn’t Feinstein heard that the best weapon for personal protection is the ol’ double barrel shotgun, which isn’t on the list of guns specified in the legislation?

Speaking of hypocrites, the Daily Caller had a flashback to 1986 about a former bodyguard for one of the biggest gun control proponents ever to stumble down the halls of Congress — Ted Kennedy:

“Sen. Edward Kennedy’s private bodyguard, hired for a trip to South America, was arrested last week when he arrived at the Capitol with two submachine guns and ammunition, officials said Tuesday,” according to UPI.

“The bodyguard was identified as Charles Stein, 47, a former police officer in San Fernando, Calif., who has worked for the Massachusetts Democrat in the past, providing security on overseas trips. He was released on his own recognizance after appearing in court,” according to UPI.
[…]
“Police, however, confiscated the two submachine guns — an Italian Beretta and an Israeli Uzi — and 146 rounds of ammunition. They also detained Stein, charging him with possession of weapons without a license. … The Washington Post quoted a source who said of the weapons, ‘We’re talking a small army,’” according to UPI.

It’s okay though, because Ted was a government official and their lives are far more valuable and worth defending than yours or mine. They tell us that every day. It’s as true today as it was in 1986.