Dear NYT Editorial Board, The AR-15 Does Not Fire In ‘Rapid Bursts’

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

The New York Times is a mouthpiece for  Michael Bloomberg and his band of miscreants.

The Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this month almost made me forget about this fancy piece of fiction from The New York Times editorial board, which is that the AR-15 is an automatic weapon. The board was voicing their support for Americans to sue the gun industry; it’s a position that would certainly be abused by anti-gun liberals to litigate the gun manufacturers out of existence. We cannot let that happen. This nauseating March 4 op-ed was written as the families of Sandy Hook wait to hear if their lawsuit against Remington Arms can move forward:

The world recoiled in horror in 2012 when 20 Connecticut schoolchildren and six adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School by a deranged teenager using a military-style assault rifle to fire 154 rounds in less than five minutes. The weapon was a Bushmaster AR-15 semiautomatic rifle adapted from its original role as a battlefield weapon. The AR-15, which is designed to inflict maximum casualties with rapid bursts, should never have been available for purchase by civilians.

The op-ed was about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which Sen. Bernie Sanders voted for in 2005 when he was a member of the House of Representatives, that bars gun manufacturers and gun dealers from any legal action if their products are unknowingly used in felonious activities. It’s a fantastic piece of legislation that further protects our oldest civil right.

Lastly, let’s point out the AR_15 rifle is a semiautomatic weapons system. It fires one round per trigger pull, not “rapid bursts.” To make things more embarrassing, the Times used semiautomatic and rapid bursts in the same sentence. Nomenclature is key when discussing Second Amendment matters–and the liberal media has proven with metronomic regularity that they know nothing about firearms. Granted, I have made some errors in the nomenclature myself, but have always strived to read, understand, and correct the record if someone points out an error. Of course, don’t expect the liberal media or anti-gun liberals to bother doing their homework, or offer corrections for that matter.

Our own Bob Owens over at Bearing Arms took the Times  to the woodshed over this editorial, accused them of lying (which is true), and offered numerous occasions where the AR-15 rifle is used for self-defense, target practice, hunting (he noted that they can be chambered in 30 different calibers for different game animals), and competitive shooting. Millions of Americans own AR-15s. This is nothing more than an egregious assault on our Second Amendment freedoms using the courts since liberals can’t beat us on the legislative end. There’s simply no real room to maneuver. Republicans control two-thirds of the governorships, 66/99 legislatures (the most ever), and have the most lawmakers elected into office since 1920.

Nevertheless, I’ll let Mr. Owens explain a little bit of history to The New York Times:

There has never been a single criminal homicide committed in the United States with a legally-obtained assault rifle, which are heavily-regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Assault rifles have been outlawed for manufacture for the civilian market since the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. That is correct: assault rifles have not been made for the civilian market at any price for 30 years.

The evil perpetrator of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre used the most common and popular semi-automatic rifle sold in the United States, which is not a military assault rifle capable of burst fire.


he 5+ million AR-15s in civilian hands do not have the capability to fire “bursts” in fully automatic mode. They are semi-automatic. One trigger press fires one bullet, and one bullet only.

This self-loading firearm technology was invented in the 1880s and has been in common use for more than one hundred and thirty years. Semi-automatics were adopted for sporting use for two full generations—roughly forty years—before the U.S. military became the first army in the world to adopt semi-automatic rifles for general issue in the 1930s.

Today, semi-automatic is the most action type for rifles and handguns, and is poised to become the most common kind of action for shotguns (presently, only pump action shotguns are more commonly sold).


New York Times stunned to find out who Trump supporters are


This is from Liberty UnYielding.

What The New York Times found out shoots holes in their narrative that Trump supporters are only angry bigoted white men. 

Add this to the list of things Donald Trump’s candidacy for president is exposing: the mainstream media’s false, self-deceived narrative about who and what the American people are.

Journalist David Barstowwent to check out a Trump headquarters in Tampa, which is on Armenia Avenue in the old Garcia y Vega cigar factory building (I remember it well).  To his surprise, he found an “unlikely melting pot”: a very ethnically diverse group of people working there.

Perhaps to his surprise as well, he found that they are the people hardest hit by the recession “of 2008.”  Most of the people Barstow talked to have a business loss, foreclosure, or job loss – with industry transformation – in their histories over the last decade.

In some ways, their woes fit the narrative the New York Times has embraced; e.g., that the TARP financial rescue effort backed the big banks, but did little if anything for the small property-owner.

In other ways, their experience is live evidence against the narrative of the MSM.  You couldn’t prove by them that there’s been an economic recovery.  Whatever the “recovery” may consist of, according to the economists who work for government and public institutions, it doesn’t offer these Trump supporters opportunities to improve their lot.  As far as they can tell, good jobs are being outsourced, illegals are flooding the economy, and for those in middle age, or as a senior, eating down your own fast-declining assets so you can survive on a wage-job in retail, without benefits, is the new normal.

They don’t think this because they read it in a blog post somewhere.  They think it because they’re the people who had the jobs and the businesses before, and they want them now, and they have directly experienced the outsourcing, the illegals increasingly everywhere around them, the unavailability of any opportunities beyond less-than-full-time wage jobs.

These, in short, are the Americans I know.  I’m betting they’re the ones you know too.  And in Tampa, at the Trump HQ in the old cigar factory, few of them are “white.”

This next has to be the big surprise for the MSM.  Instead of concluding what an NYT reporter would illogically conclude – that we need yet more progressive-collectivist government intervention to fix these problems – the ethnically diverse folks at Trump HQ want to control our borders, get back to work themselves in an economy that rewards work, as it once did, and make America great again.

They don’t think America isn’t great.  They think what’s been happening to America in recent years isn’t great.

NYT reporters really need to get out of the city more.  This is the American people’s reality: this diverse, middle-class, frustrated, hanging on, hopeful but wary Trump HQ in Tampa.  It’s my neighborhood, my neighbors, my little town in inland Southern California.  It’s probably yours too.

It hasn’t caused me to want to vote for Trump, because I don’t actually think Trump holds the key to restoring the conditions of freedom that make America America.  But then, I started out with grounded knowledge of the philosophy of liberty that animated our Founders.  The interest in it, and the cues on where to go to get smart about it, came more from my parents than from my formal education.  Whether you are black, white, or Hispanic, your story is probably some version of that (maybe it was grandparents, if not parents, or other relatives), if you have the same grounding in the Founders’ philosophy of liberty.

It has been such a long time since our schools transmitted that grounding that there are a whole lot of Americans today who know viscerally that there is something better – better than the false civic religion of political correctness – but don’t know what it is.

It’s not enough to think respectfully but vaguely of the Founders.  You have to understand what their thought process and philosophy were, to know why America was so great until so recently.  You have to know how to listen for that philosophy itself.

And I think most Americans – more than 50% — don’t know how to do that today.  They literally don’t know how to understand what the candidates with systematic philosophies are saying.  There are quite a few people with native mental resistance to the socialist nonsense spouted full-bore by Bernie Sanders.  But they don’t recognize the same system of ideas in what Hillary Clinton – or Barack Obama – says.

Likewise, they don’t realize, even though they’re smart, hard-working, well-meaning people, that guys like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have been outlining the systematic reasons why the American economy used to function so much better.  Less regulation, less attempted government control of outcomes, more freedom – there are philosophically, politically systematic reasons for wanting these things.  They aren’t the special pleading of a crony-capitalist class; in fact, they are anathema to cronyism.  The big antidote to cronyism is actually more freedom and less regulation.

Trump’s specialty, meanwhile, is functioning within an economy whose conditions are set for him by someone else.  And he knows how to be predatory, competitive, and get a better deal under such conditions.  But he doesn’t know how to be impartial and try to foster conditions – not special advantages, but basic conditions – that are generically good for everyone.

What he does do is talk unabashedly about making America great again.  Which is what millions of struggling middle-class Americans of all races and backgrounds want.  These folks don’t despise America the way the New York Times does.  They don’t think America is the problem.  They think America is the solution, and they want America back.

No, they don’t fit the NYT’s laughably stereotypical profile of “people of color” as being “down for the revolution” and hating whitey.  As far as they’re concerned, they might as well be whitey – at least in the terms NYTinvidiously defines whitey by (as if whitey is the only one who believes in working for his own living, and having that produce real rewards).

Ethnically diverse people in America are the great middle class.  To a greater extent than anywhere, ever, on earth, they always have been.



This is from Breitbarts Big Government. 

No one can force me to accept the sodomites and their lifestyle.

I will never be mean and hateful toward them and their lifestyle, but I will continue to condemn it.

 Isaiah 5:20King James Version (KJV)

20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

In the wake of the Indiana donnybrook over religious liberty, which somehow was transformed overnight into a question of gay rights, it couldn’t be long before the New York Times weighed in against Christians.

Yet who could have expected the draconian measures the Times would propose? Either Christians fully embrace the gay lifestyle, or you will be coerced into doing so.

Op-ed writer Frank Bruni, onetime Times restaurant critic and a gay activist, has writtenthat Christians who hold on to “ossified,” biblically-based beliefs regarding sexual morality have no place at America’s table and are deserving of no particular regard.

In one fell swoop, Bruni trashes all believing Christians as “bigots,” saying that Christians’ negative moral assessment of homosexual relations is “a choice” that “prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.”

In other words, if you still cling to your benighted views and your “ancient texts,” you are living in the past and your views merit no respect.

Bruni’s solution to the impasse is not some sort of goodwill compromise or a treaty of mutual respect, but a take-no-prisoners ultimatum to Christians to abandon their beliefs or else. When Bruni says that Christians’ understanding of sexual morality is “a choice,” what he means is that there is a way out without completely losing face: just embrace the new morality preached by mainstream liberal churches that see nothing wrong with any sexual arrangement you are comfortable with. Then we will accept you.

As a food critic, NY Times writer Frank Bruni was entertaining and occasionally informative. As an op-ed columnist he is adolescent and often repetitive. But as a theologian, he is simply abysmal.

Bruni takes it upon himself to explain how the Bible can be interpreted to read that God is really fine with sodomy and that all that antiquated stuff against adultery, fornication, and “men lying with other men” is a quaint vestige of an archaic worldview that went out definitively with Freud.

The scary part about Bruni’s essay is not his awkward attempt at playing the biblical scholar, but the undertone of evident disdain for Christians and his proposal that those who resist should be forcibly reeducated.

In Christians’ refusal to bend with the times, Bruni sees not faithfulness to God but willful obstinacy that must be broken.

“So our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity,” Bruni writes.

But what if Christians don’t want to change? What if they don’t want to “bow to the enlightenments of modernity”? What if they are convinced that the modern worldview is not necessarily the most enlightened path when it comes to the ultimate meaning of life and death, time and eternity?

“Religion,” writes Bruni, “is going to be the final holdout and most stubborn refuge for homophobia. It will give license to discrimination.”

And thus it must be stamped out.

Bruni cites fellow gay activist Mitchell Gold, founder of the advocacy group Faith in America, as saying that church leaders must be made to take homosexuality off the sin list. “His commandment is worthy — and warranted,” writes Bruni.

So now government should be dictating belief to churches and enforcing theological orthodoxy? Now politicians and courts will be telling Christians what they are allowed to consider as sinful? Isn’t this what America was founded to escape from?

People are already talking about forcing churches to perform same-sex weddings, whether they like it or not, or get out of the marriage business. Christians founded America and yet now the minority gay lobby is trying to tell them they are personae non gratae and their beliefs are no longer welcome.

America has a grand tradition of tolerance and religious freedom, respect for a diversity of beliefs, and an honest engagement with ideas of all sorts. It seems that some would like to force all Americans to walk in lockstep, marching to the same drummer.

Sincere Christians have no problem accepting other people with all their sins, inclinations, and struggles, fully understanding that they are in no way superior to the next guy and no better in God’s eyes.

But attempts to force them to abandon their ethical standards and their principles reveal not open-mindedness or fairness, but intolerance, chauvinism, and hate.

These are the attitudes that have no place in America.

What’s Good for the Stalkers…

Leave a comment

Hat Tip To Murphy’s Law@Lagniappe’s Lair.


One of the seamier aspects of the whole Leftist mess in Ferguson, MO has been the relentless stalking of Officer Darren Wilson by some members of the media. One who has been among the worst of these media stalkers is Julie Bosman, writer for the New York Times.

Going by a search of her recent bylines, it appears as if she’s pretty much devoted her energies exclusively to shadowing Officer Wilson and posting every rumor about him and as much of his personal information as she can find. It doesn’t seem to matter to her that he’s not been accused of any crime.

No, he was actually the vicitim in this case, the victim of an unprovoked attack by a drug-smoking store-robbing savage named Mike Brown, who had the bad judgement to attack an armed police officer. Brown wound up dead and other savages have been running amuck, attacking people and destroying public and private property all across the country (but primarily in places where liberals dominate).

Now no reputable reporter or news agency would ever deem it proper to post a rape victim’s home address, or the typical survivor of a serious assault. That sort of thing would be beyond the pale and decent society would be outraged. But no one can accuse Julie Bosman of being reputable (or the New York Times of being much of a news agency) because she ferreted out officer Wilson’s marriage license and put his new home address in one of her yellow-journalistic screeds, and her hack editors saw no problem with it, approving it for publication.

So I figure that if crime victims and/or police officers who just do their jobs can have their information made public by sensationalism-seeking “journalists”, those same journalists are probably fair game for the same sort of thing.

So, joining bloggers like Mr. Garibaldi and, I wish to help anyone who has a real or imagined grudge or just wants fifteen minutes of fame by giving the the addresses of Julie Bosman and her henchman, Campbell Robertson.

Julie Bosman can be found at 5620 N Wayne Ave #2, Chicago, IL 60660. Click the link for a nice picture of her place.
Campbell Robertson can be similarly located at 1113 N Dupre St., New Orleans, LA 70119.

And if you happen to find yourselves in those areas, they look like this:

I don’t get to Chicago or New Orleans terribly often these days, but if anything happens to Officer Wilson or his home, I may have to make it a point to visit both cities, just to express my disdain in a manner that would make the typical Ferguson protester proud.

Liberals Think the Secret Service Doesn’t Want to Protect Obama Because He’s Black


This is from Rush

You can not make up a story this stupid only liberals could come up with this kind of idiocy.


RUSH: Have you heard this?  A couple members of the Congressional Black Caucasians — one of them is Elijah Cummings, the other one is Emanuel Cleaver — are running around, and they are saying that their constituents (who would obviously be African-Americans) are asking them if the Secret Service is purposely letting people in the White House because Obama’s black and they don’t care as much about protecting him.

You know where that story is?  That story is in the — dadelut dadelut dadelut, wait for it — the New York Times.  So the crowd at Zabar’s this morning got up, read the New York Times, “Wow. Holy cow!  The Secret Service might have actually let those bad guys in there ’cause Obama’s black?  Really?”  Unbelievable.  Never mind the fact that the Reverend Jackson has run for president and had a Secret Service detail.

He’s still walking and breathing and talking about it.  Reverend Sharpton had a Secret Service detail. Much as many people thought it was a waste of money and time, he got one.  He’s still alive.  He’s still living and breathing and talking.  Why don’t they go ask those guys about it?  But, oh, no.  Because we’ve got to have the possibility — and all it is is a possibility.

In fact, Emanuel Cleaver and Elijah Cummings told the New York Times, “Oh, of course that’s not the case.”  They’re telling their constituents this.  “Of course that’s not the case. The Secret Service would never do that.”  But then they say (chuckling), “But we can understand why our constituents think it.”  It’s just unreal.  Just unreal.


Random Thoughts

Leave a comment

This is by Dr.Thomas Sowell in Town Hall.


Random thoughts on the passing scene:

I don’t know why we are spending our hard-earned money paying taxes to support a criminal justice system, when issues of guilt and innocence are being determined on television — and even punishment is being meted out by CNN’s showing the home and address of the policeman accused in the Ferguson, Missouri shooting.

One of the big differences between Democrats and Republicans is that we at least know what the Democrats stand for, whether we agree with it or not. But, for Republicans, we have to guess.

It is amazing how many otherwise sane people want Israel to become the first nation in history to respond to military attacks by restricting what they do, so that it is “proportionate” to the damage inflicted by the attacks.

Amid all the things being said on all sides about the massive, illegal influx of children from countries in Central America, we have yet to hear some American parent saying, “I don’t owe it to anybody to have my child exposed to diseases brought into this country, no matter what problems exist in other countries!”

Two headlines in the August 10th New York Times speak volumes about Barack Obama. The top headline reads: “Iraq Strikes May Last Months, Obama Says.” A secondary headline reads: “No Ground Force Will Be Sent, He Repeats.” Time was when enemy spies had to risk their lives to acquire such information. Now all they have to do is read the headlines.

It is amazing how many people think they are doing blacks a favor by exempting them from standards that others are expected to meet.

If you want to know who was the greatest baseball player of all time, please check out the pitcher who led the American League with the lowest earned run average in 1916. He was the only ballplayer who could do it all, including stealing home.

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was a hawk compared to Barack Obama. At least Chamberlain was building up his country’s military forces while trying to appease Hitler. Obama is cutting back on our military forces while our enemies around the world are expanding theirs.

Medical authorities who are trying to reassure us that safeguards will prevent the spread of Ebola in the United States may be unconvincing to those of us who remember how they lied about whether AIDS could be transmitted by blood transfusions. They may be telling the truth this time, but credibility is one of those things that are far easier to maintain than to repair.

Too many people in Washington are full of themselves, among other things that they are full of.

However common it may be in politics to “split the difference” when making decisions, it is unconscionable to send American troops into a war zone in numbers too small to defend themselves. The smug and smirking contempt of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, when he began testifying before a Congressional committee in the IRS scandal investigation, told us all we needed to know, even if we never get the information that was supposedly “lost” when Lois Lerner’s computer supposedly crashed.

Ted Williams’ great career was interrupted twice by military service — once during World War II and again when he returned to the Marine Corps during the Korean war. What sports star today would voluntarily interrupt a Hall of Fame career to go fight for America, after having already served in the military?

Despite TV pundits who say that public opinion polls show Barack Obama is in trouble, the president is not in the slightest trouble. He is doing whatever he feels like doing, regardless of the Constitution and regardless of how many people don’t like it, because he is virtually impeachment-proof. The country is in huge trouble and real danger because of his policies, but he is not.

One of the most frustrating aspects of watching television news programs that feature debates is the guests who sidestep any question that gets to the heart of the issue at hand, and just go off on a tangent, repeating their standard talking points. That’s usually a good time to change the channel or turn off the TV.

If politics were like sports, we could ask Israel to trade us Benjamin Netanyahu for Barack Obama. Of course, we would have to throw in trillions of dollars to get Israel to agree to the deal, but it would be money well spent.

Those Who Oppose Homosexuality Should be ‘Ruthlessly’ Stamped Out


This is from Godfather Politics.

This is going to get real ugly.


It’s shocking how 1.6 percent of the population – I’m speaking of LGBTers – are controlling our culture. Years ago they told us over and over again that a person’s choice in sex partners shouldn’t matter.

Now it seems that’s all that matters. Michael Sam feels compelled to tell the world that he has sex with other men, and he and his fellow-LGBTers demand that we accept his choice in sex partners or else. While Sam said that “everyone is entitled to their own opinions,” that’s not the way it’s working out.

It’s gotten so bad that a person can’t express an opinion on the subject without being assaulted through numerous media channels.

Voting your conscience on same-sex marriage, as the CEO of Mozilla did when Proposition 8 was up for a vote in California and passed with a majority of votes, got him canned from the company he founded.

Keep in mind that where a man sticks his penis is not the same as being born with black skin. There are all types of sexual behaviors that are considered abnormal and criminal. Some people have positive opinions about them and most have negative opinions. Once immoral and irrational sexual behavior like same-sex sexuality has been “defined down,” other sexual taboos have fallen with it.

It’s already happening with pedophilia, polyandry, incest, and polygamy.

How many times have you heard LGBTers argue that love should not be forbidden? I don’t know anybody who wants to forbid or outlaw love. I love a lot of people. But the LBGT issue isn’t about love; it’s about legitimizing certain types of sexual behaviors, relationships, and transitions (transgenders).

Any contrary opinion can lead to dire legal complications. Laws are being used against people that Michael Sam says should be entitled to their opinions.

We’ve seen it with the baker who is being forced to acknowledge the legitimacy of same-sex marriages in a state where its Constitution does not recognize same-sex weddings. How is that right? Some made-up governing body in the state of Colorado is requiring him and his staff to undergo (im)moral and irrational retraining.

Then there’s Bob Eschliman, a veteran news editor, who was fired for criticizing a pro-homosexual bible titled the “Queen James Bible.”

The following is from George Orwell’s 1984. It describes those who have adopted the position that same-sex sexuality is rational and anybody who refuses to say so will be reprogrammed:

“You are a slow learner, Winston.”

“How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.”

“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”

This brings me to the latest from the world of liberal toleration and freedom of thought. It’s something right out of 1984.

Josh Barro, writing in the New York Times, demonstrates that Orwell’s warming not only wasn’t heeded, but there are people who have adopted the tactics of Big Brother and view them as morally normative if the cause is their own. For them, 1984 is an instruction manual.

Barro tweeted the following as reported by Owen Strachan:

“Anti-LGBT attitudes are terrible for people in all sorts of communities. They linger and oppress, and we need to stamp them out, ruthlessly.”

Remind you of anything?

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.”

boot stamping on face forever

That’s also from 1984.

Erick Erickson of Red State “wrote a brief response to Barro’s tweet, to which Barro replied that he thinks that ‘we should make anti-LGBT views shameful like segregation. Not saying we should off people.’”

Orwell didn’t mean by the stomping boot analogy that people should be killed if they did not comply, although some might be for the good of the cause. The point being made was that every means possible (not just permissible) will be taken to ensure compliance. That’s what the LGBTers are trying to do.

It’s time that people like Tony Dungy stop apologizing for their opinions.

New York Times plays the bully, gets punched out

Leave a comment

This is from Joe For America.

Wal-Mart- 1 N.Y.Slimes-0



New York Times columnist Timothy Egan recently decided he’d like to play in the big leagues. Or maybe, because he writes for the New York Times, he mistakenly thought he WAS in the big leagues. He wrote column called The Corporate Daddy, and it was a rehash of every progressive complaint about Walmart.

Here’s just a taste.

Walmart is a net drain on taxpayers,” wrote Egan in the missive, adding that the company forces “employees into public assistance with its poverty-wage structure.

It turns out, we’re sure to the surprise of Mr. Egan, that Walmart isn’t afraid of a bully. Even if the bully buys paper by the forest and ink by the rail car load. David Tovar is the director of corporate relations for Walmart. Here’s his response.

We are the largest tax payer in America. Can we see your math?

We see more associates move off of public assistance as a result of their job at Walmart…

We especially enjoy the school marm flavor of Mr. Tovar’s excellent edits. It’s kind of like a 3rd grade teacher grading a late assignment from a disinterested pupil.

This mess was written by a highly paid columnist for what is supposed to be “the” major newspaper in the US, if not the world. He has editors who are supposed to fact check his work, apparently his editors don’t do much more than the hummingbird who occasionally drops my to vet our work. We’re going to have get better hummer food, our little guy is grossly underpaid.

Come to think of it so are we. Or, in fairness, perhaps Tim Egan is just grossly overpaid.



Dem Congressman Gets Creepy, Sings to Himself to Avoid Obamacare Questions

1 Comment

This is from The Daily Surge.

It is amazing the things DemocRats do to avoid answering questions about Obamacare.


Democrat Rep. Luis Gutierrez really didn’t want to answer questions about President Obama repeatedly changing major portions of Obamacare without congressional authorization. In fact, rather than give his take on the myriad delays issued to the health-care law, Gutierrez instead whistled strange melodies to himself and scurried to his vehicle.


“If the Affordable Care Act is so affordable, why does the White House keep delaying it without congressional approval?” Daily Surge publisher Jason Mattera asked the Illinois Congressman.

The usually verbose Gutierrez had nothing substantive to say: “Call the office” and “I don’t have time” were his initial responses. Gutierrez was also asked if individuals, not just the business community, should be granted relief from Obamacare’s onerous mandates.

Then things got weird. And by weird we mean that Congressman Gutierrez started blurting out tunes to himself after Mattera questioned him on how many more Obamacare delays Americans could expect.

In 2010, Gutierrez argued that the law would make coverage “more accessible and affordable.” While those claims have turned out to be false, the Congressman wasn’t concerned that the President has usurped, well, Congress by unilaterally rewriting a law passed by Gutierrez and his colleagues.

All told, the terribly misnamed “Affordable Care Act”  has been suspended more than 15 times in the past year alone, according to the New York Times, actions that have been called unconstitutional by constitutional lawyers who are generally supportive of the President. Unlike businesses — now enjoying their second delay to the employer mandate — the vast majority of individuals who do not comply with the law’s edicts by March 31 face penalties.

How’s that for fair?

Oh, and be sure to watch Gutierrez try to play “Bumper Cars” with Mattera in the beginning of the video, and even touch his face like a creeper.  And there was also the part where Gutierrez’s perplexed staffer tries (unsuccessfully) to block the camera.

John Dingell to Retire After Nearly 60 Years in House

1 Comment

This is from the New York Times.

Little Johnny Dingell like so other DemocRats opting to retire rather than getting embarrassed trying to get reelected.

DemocRats are abandoning Obamacare like rats from a sinking ship.

Dingell’s wife is considering a run for her husband’s House seat so they can keep Detroit on the DemocRat Plantation.

WASHINGTON — Representative John D. Dingell Jr., Democrat of Michigan, the longest-serving member of Congress in history, on Monday was expected to announce that he will not seek re-election in 2014, and will leave Congress in 2015.

Mr. Dingell, 87, has served in the House for more than 58 years, under 11 presidents.

He made his first appearance on the House floor at the age of 6, when his father was elected in 1933; he went on to become a congressional page; and after his father died in 1955 he successfully ran for his seat at the age of 29.

Mr. Dingell, a former Democratic powerhouse, asserted jurisdiction over vast expanses of federal policy as the intimidating chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. In 2008 his fellow Democrats ousted him from the committee chairmanship, where he had reigned as the top Democrat for nearly 30 years.

His wife of more than three decades, Deborah, is a power in her own right in Washington, has served as an auto industry executive and is a close adviser to her husband. She recently considered, but ultimately decided against, a Senate bid. There is speculation she might run to fill his seat when he retires.



WASHINGTON — Representative John D. Dingell Jr., Democrat of Michigan, the longest-serving member of Congress in history, on Monday was expected to announce that he will not seek re-election in 2014, and will leave Congress in 2015.

Mr. Dingell, 87, has served in the House for more than 58 years, under 11 presidents.

He made his first appearance on the House floor at the age of 6, when his father was elected in 1933; he went on to become a congressional page; and after his father died in 1955 he successfully ran for his seat at the age of 29.

Mr. Dingell, a former Democratic powerhouse, asserted jurisdiction over vast expanses of federal policy as the intimidating chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. In 2008 his fellow Democrats ousted him from the committee chairmanship, where he had reigned as the top Democrat for nearly 30 years.

His wife of more than three decades, Deborah, is a power in her own right in Washington, has served as an auto industry executive and is a close adviser to her husband. She recently considered, but ultimately decided against, a Senate bid. There is speculation she might run to fill his seat when he retires.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: