Poll: Chicago Residents Feel Less Safe with Concealed Carry Legal

1 Comment

This is from The Truth About Guns.

This is the place that elected men for Mayor as “Big Bill Thompson,

Richard J. Daley,Richard M. Daley and Rahm “The Ballrenia” Emanuel.

Chicago also supported Barack Obama. Enough Said.


I’ve written before about the difference between feeling safe and actually being safe, but it’s a concept around which most in the anti-gun population will never be able to wrap their heads. Their entire argument is based on emotion, so asking them to think rationally about the issue is like asking a cat to recite a Shakespeare sonnet. A new poll was released on Monday reinforcing this disconnect between logic and emotion in the Windy City, as apparently 55% of Chicago residents feel “less safe” now that concealed carry is legal.

According to the Chicago Tribune, 55 percent of poll-takers said they felt “less safe” with the law permitting licensed gun owners to bear hidden weapons in public. Meanwhile, 15 percent said they felt “more safe” and 30 percent said they were indifferent.

The numbers coincide with a rise in Chicago shootings this summer — headline-making cases include the tragic death of 11-year-old Shamiya Adams — and a decline in Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s job approval rating. The Trib reported last week that his rating slipped from 50 percent around this time last year to a current low of 35 percent, revealing significant dissatisfaction with how the incumbent Democrat — up for re-election this February — is handling the city’s myriad problems, crime being one of them. The mayor blames “economic stress” for his poor reviews.

There are two problems here.

First, despite Chicago residents having been conditioned over decades to fear “concealed carry killers” thanks to the civilian disarmament extremist crowd, people with a concealed carry permit are FAR less likely to commit a murder than even the police. In reality, Chicago citizens would be more justified in their lack of perceived safety if Rahm Emanuel put more cops on the streets as opposed to legalized concealed carry, but the population has been so well conditioned to think that all guns are evil and all gun owners are criminals that their perception of the situation in no way matches up with reality.

The second issue is that the NBC article conveniently correlates the availability of concealed carry permits with a “rise in Chicago shootings this summer.” I’ll give you a hint: no one involved in those incidents had a concealed carry permit. If someone with a legal concealed handgun permit went on a shooting spree in Chicago we’d hear about it non-stop from the Moms Demand Action crowd, but they have been oddly radio silent on this issue. NBC, just like the gun control establishment, believes that guns cause crime, and if we could just remove all firearms from the world then we would have finally achieved that utopian ideal where everyone is naturally good and kind to each other.

There’s just one problem: life is indeed nasty, brutish, and short. There really is true evil in the world, and the availability of firearms (on balance) does vastly more to allow individuals to protect themselves than contributes to the commission of crimes. But, of course, NBC doesn’t see it that way. To NBC and their ilk, firearms are a talisman of evil — a magical item that forces the holder to commit crimes. Without that firearm, those same criminals would have been perfect law-abiding angels helping old ladies across the street. I think not.

Perception is reality. It doesn’t matter if the crime rate plummets and murders become few and far between — we still have our rights on the chopping block so long as the public perceives our ability to defend ourselves as a threat to their safety. There is one silver lining to this story, namely that the percentage of people in Chicago scared of concealed carry is only 55%. While it’s a solid majority, it’s not everyone. With some luck, hopefully they too will start to realize that law abiding citizens are not the issue and come around on the gun rights issue. A man can dream, anyway…


Gun Violence May Cost America’s Most Famous Mayor His Job

1 Comment

This is from The Huffington Post.

I hope Rahm Emanuel gets his arrogant ass handed to him come election.

But if they elect the socialist pig Karen Lewis nothing will change this Jabba The Hut twin separated by birth will be worse.


It’s been another violent summer in Chicago.

More than 80 people were shot, 16 fatally, over the Fourth of July holiday weekend — the bloodiest weekend of 2014. In the two weekends that followed, a total of 76 people were shot, eight fatally.

Victims included 11-year-old Shamiya Adams, whose family is raising money for a funeral after the girl was killed by a stray bullet July 18 while making s’mores during a sleepover at a friend’s house. Shamiya didn’t make it to sixth grade.

Police charged an 18-year-old in Shamiya’s slaying, saying he fired aimlessly into a building to avenge a young friend’s beating in a fistfight.

As the toll of the bloodshed mounts, there are indications it may spread to Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s re-election, according to experts.

Two polls this month show Emanuel’s approval far below potential challengers. The headlines practically wrote themselves: “Rahmbo” is in trouble.

News coverage of Emanuel’s poll plunge failed to note that the survey showing the worst news for the mayor was conducted following the bloody Fourth of July weekend.

The city’s violence, back in the national spotlight two years after some news outletsincorrectly called Chicago America’s “murder capital,” is a major factor in Emanuel’s unpopularity, according to Dick Simpson, a University of Illinois-Chicago political science professor and former city alderman.

Violent crime typically dips during cold weather, coinciding with the mayoral election in February. But Simpson said he doesn’t believe voters’ attitudes on the problem will change significantly “unless there is some major break — and I don’t see what that would be.”

Emanuel’s popularity also has been plagued by mass closings of public schools, largely in black and Latino neighborhoods, and “the general problem of the perceived arrogance and unwillingness to have citizens involved in making decisions about the city,” Simpson said.

Still, Emanuel faces no announced challengers, and none of the likely contenders can rival the former White House chief of staff’s experience and fundraising prowess.

“The polls show Rahm is not invincible,” Simpson said. He noted that both Mayor Richard Daleys presided over the city for decades, taking on airs of invincibility, even though Chicago was plagued by even worse violence.

“But the old saying is, you can’t beat somebody with nobody,” Simpson added.

One potential challenger who topped Emanuel in the recent Chicago Sun-Times pollwas Karen Lewis, president of the Chicago Teachers Union. Lewis rescheduled her annual Hawaii vacation from December to July this year, saying she’s “seriously considering” challenging Emanuel.

The mayor’s office called the Sun-Times poll “laughable” when it came out. Chicago Teachers Union staff coordinator Jackson Potter said that reaction demonstrates “a general lack of respect for the will of the people in this administration.”

Potter said he “absolutely” believes violent crime will be a re-election liability for Emanuel.

“The buck stops with him because he’s the mayor,” Potter said. “He’s done a poor job and not reduced violence in a way that will make our neighborhoods safer in any credible fashion. We’ve had leadership by press release instead of substantive ideas that address the heartbreaking violence that permeates the streets in the city.”

Emanuel’s office and the Chicago Police Department have repeatedly noted that homicides this year are the least since 1963. On Monday, Emanuel hosted a closed-door summit on Chicago violence with community leaders and law enforcement officers. He also announced $10 million in new federal funding for two youth initiatives, including a dropout and violence-prevention program.

Mayoral spokesman Adam Collins acknowledged in a statement to HuffPost that “there’s still too much gun violence and much more work remains for everyone involved,” though the city has made progress.

“Mayor Emanuel has said there will be a time for politics, but what’s important today is continuing to make progress so every child has the opportunity for a bright future and everyone in every neighborhood can enjoy the same sense of safety,” Collins said in the statement. He added that the city has partnered with ministers and local leaders to provide opportunities for young people in crime-ridden areas.

Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said lax gun laws make crime-fighting “an uphill battle.”

“We will keep building on our strategy, putting more officers on the street, and proactively intervening in gang conflicts, and we are supported by the mayor’s investments in prevention programs for at-risk youth,” McCarthy said in a statement.

While the number of homicides and violent crime overall have dropped this year from 2013, the number of shootings has increased.

Some neighborhoods haven’t seen the decline. Yale University sociologist Andrew Papachristos told NPR violent crime worsened in some neighborhoods from 2011 to 2013.

The Rev. Corey Brooks, pastor at New Beginnings Church in the Woodlawn neighborhood, said communities like his haven’t noticed the progress the Emanuel administration touts.

“It’s always gunfire, always trauma, always situations that call for emergencies,” Brooks said. “It’s something we live under every single day on the south or west side of Chicago.”

Brooks agreed that city violence needs to be a “front and center” discussion as Emanuel seeks re-election. He said the mayor’s office has been reluctant to embrace ideas from the community and wants investment in community centers to teach conflict resolution and in interracial think-tank forums.

“I think if it’s not birthed in the mayor’s office or City Hall, they don’t take it into consideration,” Brooks told HuffPost. “What has to happen is for them to go outside of their office and consider other possibilities and solutions before anything else can be done.

“If not, we’re going to continue to see what we see every day: More violence.”

Racist rants from city employee to cost taxpayers $560,000

Leave a comment

This is from The Chicago Sun Times.

The Obama Media says that only the Tea Party members are the racists.

The Obama media says only the DemocRats are sensitive to minorities needs.

Then again the media is full of the stuff Bess Truman spent thirty years trying

to get Harry to call fertilizer.

Cash-strapped Chicago will spend $560,000 to compensate women victimized by the racist and sexist behavior of a Department of Transportation honcho whose uncle is a former Northwest Side congressman.

Joseph Annunzio was working as a $77,148-a-year CDOT supervisor when he was accused of calling female co-workers “bitches,” using the n-word, “mambo” and “Magilla the Gorilla” to address African Americans and for referring to immigrants as “f—ing foreigners.”

The nephew of former U.S. Rep. Frank Annunzio (D-Ill.) was further accused of parading around at an office holiday party with a red tablecloth over his head while calling himself the “grand wizard,” a title used by the leader of the Ku Klux Klan.

Ronda Mooney is one of the CDOT employees who will share in the settlement.

“It’s not the money — it’s the principle,” Mooney said Thursday. “We are all human. We should be treated with respect. To be violated like that, it was like we didn’t count. It was not right. It was not fair.”

Mooney, 50, of Chicago, said she continues to work as a senior data entry operator for CDOT.

Since Annunzio was fired, “it’s been much calmer,” she said.

Annunzio could not be reached for comment.

Then-Inspector General David Hoffman originally investigated the allegations and recommended that Annunzio be fired.

A hearing officer concurred, only to have the Human Resources Board overrule the firing and substitute a seven-month suspension on grounds that, while 11 co-workers did testify, targets of the “most egregious allegations” did not.

Hoffman then urged the city’s Law Department to appeal the case to overturn a decision that he warned could “seriously chill reporting of racism and sexism in city workplaces” — particularly when it involves supervisors “perceived to have clout.”

Ironically, the original complaint against Annunzio was filed by a woman with her own clout.

Patty Young was the girlfriend of William Beavers, the former Chicago alderman and Cook County commissioner who was recently sentenced to six months in prison after being convicted on federal tax evasion charges.

A circuit court judge upheld Annunzio’s firing. So did the Illinois Appellate Court.

In the sharply worded lower court ruling, then-Judge Leroy Martin Jr. wrote, “The record is replete with evidence that . . . Annunzio repeatedly made racist, derogatory and disparaging remarks” about underlings.

On Friday, the City Council’s Finance Committee is scheduled to approve a $560,000 settlement for Young, Donna Smith, Mooney and other women victimized by Annunzio’s racist and sexist behavior.

In a 2007 interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Annunzio acknowledged using vulgarity to get his points across to underlings. He also admitted that his use of the word “foreigners” to describe immigrants may have been insensitive.

But Annunzio insisted that he never once made racist, sexist or other demeaning remarks to co-workers. And he said the infamous tablecloth incident was made up out of whole cloth to get rid of him for cracking the whip.

At the time, Annunzio offered to take a lie detector test to prove his innocence.

“They accused me of jumping up and down like a monkey and wearing red hoods. They said it happened in one office, then in another office, then down the hall. It never happened,” he said at the time.

“It’s crazy. That’s why the stories are totally inconsistent.”

The $560,000 only adds to the mountain of settlement costs piled onto Chicago taxpayers in recent years.

The Sun-Times reported last month that Mayor Rahm Emanuel has shelled out $169 million to settle lawsuits against the city — $77.4 million of it this year alone — nearly triple the amount paid by the city during the final two years of former Mayor Richard M. Daley’s administration.

Corporation Counsel Stephen Patton attributed the spike at a time when the city can least afford it to two factors: Daley’s decision to “put the brakes” on settlements and Emanuel’s desire to cut the city’s losses and settle early cases taxpayers were destined to lose.

The tab under Emanuel rises to $247.4 million when you factor in the $78.4 million Chicago borrowed last year to compensate 6,000 African-American would-be firefighters bypassed by the city’s discriminatory handling of a 1995 entrance exam.

The Law Department did not include those damages in its response to the Sun-Times’ Freedom of Information request on grounds that it stemmed from “a court ruling — not a case we decided to settle” and because the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision pre-dated Emanuel.


Unveiled: Gun ban extremists’ secret playbook: Part 2

Leave a comment

This is from The Buckeye Firearms Association. 

The gun grabbers are definitely changing their vocabulary.

They are wanting to do what Eric Holder suggested to brainwash

people against guns.

Gun owners can’t allow the gun grabbers to change the language

to influence the low information voters and population.

Use this link to view part one.


A friend sent a very interesting document to me recently – one that is making its rounds through the gun rights community after having been leaked online.

Entitled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” it is an 80-page playbook designed to help anti-gun rights extremists learn why they continue to get beat, and how to change their message so as to fool the general public into thinking their mainstream views are actually supported by these anti-gun rights extremist groups.

“Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging” is based on a 2011 study conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, and was prepared by three Washington D.C.-based political consultants – Frank O’Brien of OMP, a direct marketing firm whose client list includes leftist organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the National Resources Defense Council, John Neffinger and Matthew Hut of KNP Communications, and Al Quinlan of the aforementioned Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, whose client list is a virtual who’s who of anti-gun politicians including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Rahm Emanuel, and Gabrielle Giffords, as well as anti-gun rights and leftist groups including Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Joyce Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, National Public Radio and the Sierra Club.

According to the introduction, the playbook was prepared in order to “help organizations and individuals choose effective arguments and language when communicating with the public on behalf of stronger public policies to prevent gun violence.”

In Part 1 of this series, I documented the weakness of what they believe is their three best arguments, their attempts to fool people by using code words to refer to their gun control agenda, their admission that the NRA is a mainstream group with broad public support, and their focus on using emotional scare-tactics, rather than facts, as a means of changing public opinion.

There is more – far more.

Exploiting active killer attacks

The playbook devotes an entire chapter to exploiting active killer incidents, coldly advocating using “pain and anguish,” “death, injury and heartache” to advance their gun control agenda.


The death, injury and heartache caused by gun violence are devastating – and that’s what makes people care about it and want to do something to end it.



One way to link our arguments to an event without being trapped by shifting circumstances is to ask questions – ones that point to approaches and policies that we favor, but that resonate with special emotional power at the time of a high-profile shooting.

I pray that the chilling way in which these gun control extremists discuss using “pain and anguish,” “death, injury and heartache” and that “special emotional power at the time of a high-profile shooting” disturbs everyone reading this as much as it does me.

We have long-observed on this website that, every time a mentally-ill person attacks unarmed victims in another gun free zone, these extremists run to the microphone to dance in the blood, suggesting “solutions” before even knowing the circumstances of the incident.

Now we know they’re just following the playbook:


There can be a tendency to adopt a quiet “wait and see” attitude when a high-profile gun violence incident happens. The truth is, the most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak. While we always want to be respectful of the situation, a self-imposed period of silence is never necessary.



We shouldn’t assume the facts.

But, we also shouldn’t argue ourselves into inaction while we await clarity about details.

The clearest course is to advance our core message about preventing gun violence independent of facts that may shift on us over time. (“While we don’t know the specifics of this tragedy, we know far too many people are killed by weak gun laws in this country.”)

Of course, once a fact is clearly established, it makes sense to rely on it to advance your case.

Even when the established facts don’t support their case, of course they just continue to advance the notion that their gun control initiatives should be passed anyways.

It bears noting that the playbook also makes special note of the NRA’s common practice of remaining silent in the days after these types of attacks. The NRA’s stated reason for this silence is to give respect to the grieving families and to have all the facts before commenting. But the authors of the playbook see this as the NRA giving them a wide open door:


The NRA’s communications stance during high-profile gun violence incidents is easy to describe: They go silent.

That’s because they know they have nothing to gain from being dragged into a conversation where both the facts and the emotional energy work against them.

We should freely and openly challenge their silent treatment approach.

“It’s no accident that, at times like this, the NRA disappears into the woodwork. That’s because they know that their reckless agenda is indefensible especially in the face of this kind of tragedy. That’s why they’ve gone into hiding.”

A number of years ago, Buckeye Firearms Association leaders recognized that “going silent” was synonymous with giving these extremists the floor after every one of these terrible attacks, and we decided “no more.” We adopted a policy of responding when the situation warranted. We will not sit by and let these extremists follow the playbook for days or weeks on end with no response, and I believe it is time the NRA adopt the same policy.

Stressing emotional arguments over fact-based ones is repeatedly stressed throughout the chapter advising the exploitation of active killer attacks:


A high-profile gun violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence. It opens the eyes and ears of folks who, in more “normal” circumstances, don’t pay much attention to the issue of gun violence prevention.

…[W]when talking to broader audiences, we want to make sure we meet them where they are. That means emphasizing emotion over policy prescriptions…



There is often a compelling case to be made for immediate action, pivoting from the emotion of a high-profile incident to calls for legislative action or specific policy changes. Those who seek to make that pivot have to be careful not to drain the emotional power out of the moment.

An emotionally-driven conversation about what can be done to prevent incidents such as the one at hand is engaging. A dry conversation about legislative process and policy is far less engaging.

The playbook also offers advice that anti-gun rights extremist groups followed in the wake of the school shooting in Chardon, Ohio:


In terms of building support, our goal at moments such as this should be to make a connection with someone that will be sustainable after the individual incident fades from memory. Among other things, that means framing our calls to action more broadly than a response to the individual situation at hand.

If we convince someone to act quickly in response to what has happened, we need to move just as quickly to broaden the conversation and pivot to a longer-term commitment to ending gun violence.

Regular readers of this website will recall how Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence (OCAGV), Center for American Progress (CAP), Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), and ProgressOhio created to gather contacts for future campaigns – but advertised the site merely as a way to share kind thoughts for victims of the shooting.

Speaking of victims, the playbook recommends “speak[ing] in a victim’s voice,” noting:

Many of the most active advocates and voices in the gun violence prevention movement are people who have personally lived through a life-changing gun violence experience. That painful reality gives such spokespeople special moral authority.

This page from the playbook was carried out this week exactly why we saw the sister of a victim from the Sandy Hook Elementary attack in Ohio this week as part of Mayor Bloomberg’s “No More Names” bus tour. How cold and calloused does one have to be to openly advise that anti-gun rights extremists use victims in this way, just to gain what they perceive as “special moral authority?”

Finally, the chapter offers advice on how to respond if they are called on the fact that they are politicizing a tragedy:


The worst thing to do in a situation like this is to apologize or disclaim an unworthy motivation. (“The last thing I want to do is politicize this situation” . . . “I’m not trying to take anyone’s gun away” . . . “I know this is a time for mourning and reflection, but”)

Your audience can’t be comfortable with what you’re saying if you signal your own discomfort.

Exploiting racial tension

According to the authors, “the clearest divide in the research is between white and nonwhite respondents.” Non-white respondents were much more likely to be susceptible to their anti-gun rights message than whites.

• A majority of non-white audiences report being or personally knowing someone who was a victim of gun violence. (39% for white and 51% for non-white respondents.)
• Non-white audiences are more than twice as likely to say they are likely to take action on reducing gun violence. (20% for white and 48% for non-white respondents.)
• Support for making gun laws stronger is substantially higher among non-white audiences. (44% for white and 71% for non-white respondents.)
• Non-whites are more likely to consider the NRA extreme. (32% for white and 45% for nonwhite respondents.)

The playbook even encourages readers to profile a person before engaging them on the subject. When talking to a minority…

Be alert that it is more likely than not you are talking to someone who has personal experience with gun violence.

Know that you go into the conversation with a strong presumption that the person not only favors stronger gun laws, but may be interested in acting against gun violence.

With those stereotypes in mind, then, what better way to push for their gun control agenda than to combine it with a fight over race?

Indeed, after reading the playbook, the media and gun ban extremists’ behavior over the past two years involving Florida resident George Zimmerman’s self-defense case are much more understandable.

The playbook contains an entire chapter devoted to Stand Your Ground laws. (While expressing a desire to rebrand SYG as “Shoot First” or “Kill at Will” laws, the authors acknowledge that SYG has gained broad usage and thus advise “we may need to use it as a reference point. But, we should quickly shift to language that positions our argument more persuasively.”)

The trouble for these gun ban extremists is that these laws actually make sense to the mainstream when they are accurately explained as establishing the self-defense standard that no person should have to overcome some legal “duty to retreat” when they are attacked. Indeed, as the playbook notes:

Another phrase that we should avoid whenever possible is “duty to retreat.” It may be an established legal principle, but in the public square, it sounds weak and hard to defend.

So since they’ve lost the battle to rebrand Stand Your Ground, and can’t be honest about what the laws do by mentioning the legal “duty to retreat,” these groups appear to have shifted their tactic to claiming the laws have something to do with race in order to attract people whom their research shows are likely to be a more sympathetic audience, and one more likely to become involved in the fight.

Hiding the anti-gun rights agenda for mainstream audiences

The chapter entitled “COMMUNICATING TO AUDIENCES THAT DISAGREE” might as well have been titled “making President Obama’s talking points work for you.” The authors admit that the desire to protect the Second Amendment rights is a mainstream position:

There are a lot of hostile audiences out there. Some regard any discussion of gun violence prevention as merely a pretext to infringe on their Second Amendment freedoms and/or way of life. Even mainstream audiences may have deep sympathies for these arguments.

As such, they have developed talking points to attempt to fool the mainstream into complacency:

There are a number of things you can do when confronted by an audience that may be unfriendly or even hostile to your arguments.

1. Remember, your goal is not to convince hostile audiences that you are right; your goal is to establish that you are a reasonable person who understands their point of view. Time spent demonstrating that you understand and sympathize with their concerns is time well spent.
2. When fielding a hostile question, always begin your answer by identifying a point (or points) of agreement with your audience. Examples of connecting language might include:
• We all deserve the right to be safe and free.
• For lots of Americans, when they were growing up, their dad had a hunting rifle. There’s a tradition of gun ownership in this country that we can all respect.
• Our Constitution and our laws are what keep us safe and free.
• We can all agree that military-style weapons should not be in the hands of criminals, terrorists, or people who are dangerously mentally ill.
3. Keep in mind the previous guidance about separating NRA members from their officials and lobbyists.
4. Remember that protecting people from gun crime is more appealing to male audiences than preventing gun violence.

Anyone who has paid even the slightest bit of attention to the debate over gun rights in this country since the attack at Sandy Hook (and beyond) will have heard these passive-sounding talking points repeated ad nauseum by everyone from the local gun ban extremist to the President of the United States. Recognize them for what they are – lies designed to fool you into putting your guard down.

The goal line

As I pointed out in Part 1 of this series, the playbook answers the question many have asked as to why the anti-gun rights extremists began floating proposals that would have done nothing to prevent the attack they claimed they were trying to prevent from happened again. In the sick attempt to take advantage of the deaths of little children, the extremists were simply floating up every gun control proposal they knew had tested well in polls – regardless of whether or not it could do a thing to stop someone from carrying out another such attack.

According to the playbook, the main gun control initiatives for which polling indicated people could be fooled into supporting are:

  • “Shoot First” Laws
  • Background Checks
  • “Assault Weapons”

The playbook also offered talking points on how to defend against efforts to pass nationwide concealed-carry reciprocity, and, interestingly, on the Fast & Furious gun-running scandal (apparently since they offer a section on how to fool people into supporting gun control as a means of addressing gun trafficking, they needed to provide a few defenses for the government’s own gun trafficking program).

Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging” is a must-read, not only for the grassroots gun rights advocate, but for any consumer of news media. This 80-page playbook should open the eyes of the country to the wool that is being pulled over them.


AFL-CIO tries to regroup as American support for unions declines

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

One reason for the unions decline is union officials greed.

Workers are tried of paying dues to finance the union leaders lavish

trips and life style.


It was an unexpected and blunt admission by one of the nation’s most powerful labor leaders: “We are in crisis, and we have to do things differently,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told USA Today last week.

His candid assessment heralds a change in strategy for the one-time labor giant.  It is now seeking to partner with other left-leaning organizations such as the NAACP and the Sierra Club to bolster its influence, and its lagging membership.

The idea would have been heretical in an earlier time when such partnerships meant solidarity under the union label and the obligation of union dues.

Under Trumka’s plan, there is no expectation that new AFL-CIO partners would join the federation.

“Hopefully, sometime,” Trumka told the paper. “First they’ll be partners at the local level. They’ll actually be in the structure of the local labor movement in some places but it will vary.” And as for paying union dues?

“Well, some may, some may not,” Trumka said.

If the strategy smacks of desperation, Cato Institute Senior fellow Chris Edwards says it should come as no surprise.

“Americans have rejected unionism,” Edwards says. “Particularly young people. If you look at the overall unionization rate, it’s seven percent but among young people, it’s just four percent which is remarkable.”

There is no single reason for labor’s precipitous decline. Technology and automation have decimated the ranks of blue-collar assembly workers.So has globalization and abundant cheap labor in the rapidly industrialized third world.

But some of labor’s wounds are self-inflicted. As it has turned to the public sector to make up for its private sector losses, unions have won increasingly generous pay and pension benefits. Those pension benefits are part of the reason that Detroit was forced into bankruptcy this summer, and why other cities are nearing the precipice of financial insolvency.

The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday documented the predicament of Chicago, where nine of ten city employees are unionized.  “Chicago has chronically under funded its pensions,” The Journal said.

Chicago’s pension liability grows year by year and reveals a wound that unions inflicted on themselves: electing Democrats to office who legislate favors for the unions which, in turn, finance the campaigns of their legislative enablers.

That cycle recently resulted in Mayor Rahm Emanuel laying off 2,100 Chicago education employees – 1,000 teachers among them.


Read more:


Unveiled: Gun ban extremists’ secret playbook: Part 1

Leave a comment

This is from The Buckeye Firearms Association.

The gun grabbers are definitely changing their vocabulary.

They are wanting to do what Eric Holder suggested to brainwash

people against guns.

Gun owners can’t allow the gun grabbers to change the language

to influence the low information population.

A friend sent a very interesting document to me recently – one that is making its rounds through the gun rights community after having been leaked online.

Entitled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” it is an 80-page playbook designed to help anti-gun rights extremists learn why they continue to get beat, and how to change their message so as to fool the general public into thinking their mainstream views are actually supported by these anti-gun rights extremist groups.

“Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging” is based on a 2011 study conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, and was prepared by three Washington D.C.-based political consultants – Frank O’Brien of OMP, a direct marketing firm whose client list includes leftist organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the National Resources Defense Council, John Neffinger and Matthew Hut of KNP Communications, and Al Quinlan of the aforementioned Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, whose client list is a virtual who’s who of anti-gun politicians including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Rahm Emanuel, and Gabrielle Giffords, as well as anti-gun rights and leftist groups including Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Joyce Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, National Public Radio and the Sierra Club.

According to the introduction, the guide was prepared in order to “help organizations and individuals choose effective arguments and language when communicating with the public on behalf of stronger public policies to prevent gun violence.”

Their very best arguments

According to the guide, “three key themes drive the most powerful arguments for gun violence prevention:”

ONE: The serious personal toll that gun violence takes on people’s lives.

Elsewhere in the guide, the point is made that “40% of respondents report that they or someone they know personally has been a victim of gun violence.” The trouble for the authors and their audience is that many of the people who become a victim of violence, or know someone who has been, rightfully conclude that only they, and no one else, are responsible for their own security. Indeed, it is precisely the exposure to violence that leads many people to become first-time gun owners.

TW0: People’s right to be free from violence in their communities.

We’ve looked, and still haven’t found that particular “right” in the constitution yet. It certainly isn’t listed next to “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

THREE: The changing nature of weapons towards more powerful, military-style ones that make us less safe.

This point is stressed again, and described as a “key message”:

The notion that today’s weapons are different in kind from what was available in the past is an especially powerful idea and helps make the case for new levels of concern and scrutiny around access to weapons.

This “key message” – the notion that today’s weapons are different is, as you likely know, afalse notion.

The truth, of course, is that military-style weapons have always dominated the civilian firearms marketplace – from the muskets that fought off Red Coats and brought home supper, to the pistols and rifles that started on the Civil War battlefield and eventually helped conquer the West, to the rifles that came home with Dough Boys and GIs in the World Wars. “More powerful?” Another false notion. World War I and World War II-era rifles were every bit as powerful as today’s military look-alike civilian models.

Elsewhere in the guide they address this issue again, stating that “we have to make clear to people that this isn’t a conversation about your grandfather’s hunting rifle.” The writers know that people will identify less with the anti-gun rights crowd if they sound like they’re trying to take away grandpa’s hunting rifle. The lesson for the good guys is this – grandpa’s hunting rifle was very likely a military rifle bought as surplus from World War I or World War II, so if those rifles are ok to have around, today’s modern sporting rifles should be any different.

The guide also notes that claims of law enforcement support for their policies is “crucial,” and asserts the “fact that policies advocated by the NRA put law enforcement officials at risk seriously weakens the NRA’s arguments.”

They couldn’t have been too pleased, then, when a 2013 survey of nearly 15,000 active and retired law enforcement officers showed that an overwhelming majority of America‘s policemen and women do NOT support Obama’s gun control agenda.

The authors of the guide also admit that the question of whether or not they will succeed in fooling people depends on the audience:

On the gun violence issue – as on most public issues – it pays to know as much as possible about who you are talking to.

The weight and power of the three key themes we have mentioned varies substantially by audience.

…[W]hen talking to men, it is important to know that they are much more motivated by protecting people from “gun crime” than preventing “gun violence.” Women are motivated by both.

Clearly, in spreading falsehoods like those above as “key messages,” they must think their audience is a fairly ignorant bunch.

If these are their most powerful arguments, it’s no wonder that they continue to lose.

How to deal with the NRA

The authors have a LOT to say about the NRA (an entire chapter, in fact) – including things they would never get caught admitting publicly:

When we are communicating with the general public, we need to be aware of the fact that, beyond our base, people have a positive impression of the organization and its role.


Whether to spend much time talking about the NRA depends upon whether we are talking to our base (where an NRA focus is often worthwhile) or broader audiences (where an NRA focus is far less likely to be helpful).


“The NRA is seen as a mainstream organization by most Americans although elements of our base see its leadership and organizational stance as extreme. Engaging the NRA as if it is one side of a political fight is counterproductive because it feeds into a view of the debate over gun violence as an unengaging interest group conflict.

It is far better to discuss the NRA in terms of the role its officials play in preventing people and communities from protecting themselves from the terrible personal toll that gun violence takes on people’s lives.

“The issue is how to talk about the NRA with different audiences, not how frequently to discuss the NRA.

Because of the organization’s name and identity, it is more powerful – especially when talking to the base – to discuss the specific NRA rather than the generic “gun lobby.”

I haven’t figured out how they expect people to argue that the NRA is “preventing people and communities from protecting themselves” with a straight face, but it is clear from the past nine months that their target audience hasn’t got this part dialed in all that well just yet.

Gotta make it scary sounding and scary looking

Perhaps the most comical line in the guide is this:

Advocates for gun violence prevention win the logical debate, but lose on more emotional terms.

Two pages later, they prove their own claim of having logic on their side wrong by encouraging the use of “powerful images” rather than “facts and statistics.”

Yes, you read that right. They are encouraging their audience to argue on their (supposed) weakest ground – emotion – rather than their (supposed) strongest footing – logic. Kind of puts the whole claim about winning the logical debate to bed, doesn’t it?

The point, it is clear, is to scare the weak-minded who have no use for facts and statistics. Consider a few more quotes:

Alarming facts open the door to action. And powerful stories put feeling and emotional energy behind those facts.


It’s not helpful to try to drown your audience in a flurry of facts and statistics.


It’s not just about words. Powerful and emotionally-engaging images are vitally important reinforcers of strong messages. For example, intimidating images of military-style weapons help bring to life the point that we are dealing with a different situation than in earlier times.

This idea is not a new one. In fact, Josh Sugarmann, who currently heads the anti-gun rights organization Violence Policy Center, wrote about how these groups planned to take advantage over public confusion over these guns way back in the 1980’s:

“Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.” -Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988

“Language Do’s and Don’ts” designed to fool the uninformed

Interspersed throughout the document are talking points designed to educate anti-gun rights extremists on how they can tailor their message to fool their audience into thinking they want something other than to ban guns, abolish self-defense rights, etc. We don’t have room to list them all, but following are just two examples:

DO talk about “preventing gun violence. DON’T talk about “gun control.”

(They’re synonyms, see, but some people don’t get that.)

DO advocate for “stronger” gun laws. DON’T use the term “stricter” gun laws.

(We want gun control laws as strict as can be, but again, it’s about fooling the uninformed.)

The goal line

In the wake of the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary, many wondered why the anti-gun rights extremists began floating proposals that would have done nothing to prevent the attack they claimed they were trying to prevent from happened again.

The guide provides the answer.

Here are some of the facts that met that test in the research:

• There are no background checks or ID requirements in most states for private sales, including private sales at gun shows.
• There are virtually no restrictions on the type of weapons available for purchase in America, including assault weapons and ammunition magazines that store up to 100 bullets and can shoot 20 rounds in 10 seconds.
• Police and law enforcement officers are more at risk, due to the availability and power of new weapons.
Reinforcing example: Police forces in places like Chicago and Miami are outfitting officers with assault weapons so that they aren’t outgunned by criminals.

Leaving aside the point that their “facts” aren’t facts at all (except for the one about police forces in Chicago – a place with the type of gun control laws they want to impose on the rest of the nation – just to keep up with the criminals illegally carrying illegal firearms), the evidence is clear:

In the sick attempt to take advantage of the deaths of little children, the extremists were simply floating up every gun control proposal they knew had tested well in polls – regardless of whether or not it could do a thing to stop someone from carrying out another such attack.

In the next chapter, we’ll discuss how the guide coldly advocates using the “pain and anguish,” “death, injury and heartache” of crime victims to advance their political agenda (including an entire chapter on how to capitalize on active killer incidents), expose why anti-gun rights extremists are trying to hard to make the gun control discussion about race, and reveal how talking points given in the guide are being used by President Obama and his allies in the anti-gun rights lobby each and every day.


Chicago lawmakers unanimously vote to beef up assault weapons ban

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

The land of Barack Milhous Capone Kardashian passes even

 useless more touchy feely legislation.

Yet they true problems for the gun violence will not be addressed.

The gangs are the cause of the violence.

The problem of fatherless homes will not be addressed.


CHICAGO –  Chicago’s City Council unanimously voted Wednesday to beef up its assault weapons ban with new measures that add strict penalties, prohibit more weapons and define “student safety zones,” changes that come in the wake of Illinois‘ new concealed carry law.

Illinois lawmakers approved a state law last week outlining who can carry concealed weapons in public after a federal appeals court ruled Illinois’ last-in-the-nation concealed carry ban unconstitutional. The new state law gave local entities 10 days to come up with new or updated gun laws of their own.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel called a rare special session Wednesday to deal with guns, the same day Cook County commissioners voted to strengthen the county assault weapons ban with tougher penalties.

Chicago already prohibits the sale and possession of the weapons and of high-capacity magazines. City council members approved measures Wednesday that outline more than 150 specific weapons that are prohibited, including any shotgun with a revolving cylinder and any semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds.

“There is absolutely no need for assault weapons; none,” said Alderman Latasha Thomas, according to Chicago’s WBBM Radio ( “The only thing it does is kill people. There’s absolutely no need for it. Banning assault weapons is the smart move for every city to do.”

The changes also deal with school safety, which has been a hot issue in Chicago since Emanuel began pushing for the closure of 50 schools and programs. Parents have raised concerns about children crossing gang lines, among other things.

The measures define “student safety zones,” and outlines stiffer penalties for gun crimes committed there. The zones are 1,000 feet from school grounds between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. when school is in session and what are being called safe passage routes. Those routes, which will be patrolled by safety advocates, have been outlined for children to get to school safely if there are closures.

“Safe passage to schools is a key component of ensuring each and every one of our children has access to a quality public education. This ordinance helps ensure our children can focus on their studies and not their safety while fulfilling their educational dreams,” Emanuel said in a statement.

Read more:


Email-Hate Mail: Liberals Put the “Moron” in the Oxymoron “Government Subsidies”

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

I am posting this article with out commentary. 


dhensley813 wrote: The city of Chicago really had no option but to curtail the benefits of retirees. It’s not as bankrupt as Detroit, but it was getting there. Obamacare wasn’t so much the reason the city cut retiree insurance, as the excuse it gave them to say that they weren’t really being dropped. – Obama Solves Mass-Layoff Problem by Laying Off Mass-Layoff Statistics Guys at BLS

Dear Comrade 813,

I think they had no choice once they negotiated a contract that allowed retirees to have benefits that the city knew it couldn’t afford.

That’s outrageous enough. But to make matters worse they are shifting the costs to the rest of us. And don’t forget the retirees who will have to shell out more money for fewer benefits.

This is of course why government employees should not be allowed to unionize. Ever.

If you want to get at the problem of money in politics, I have a one-word answer for you: Unions.

Imagine if unions gave money to GOP candidates, who then went and signed fat benefit contracts on behalf of the people who gave them money. And remember, Chicago’s current mayor is Obama’s made-man, former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who likely is as responsible for the passage of Obamacare as anyone alive.

And if you know anything about how economics works under the Rahm and Obama show, you’ll know that the fact that the combined cost of $277 million to taxpayers and citizens to save Chicago a $109 million next year is a benefit under the system.

As the Wall Journal reported earlier this year, more cities might be looking to do the same and shift costs from big cities to the federal government.

And that’s when the real hopey and changey stuff begins.

That means that there will be more state and city money in budgets available for the dues-paying, non-retired members of the government employee unions.

“All told, state and local governments are on the hook for between $700 billion and $1.5 trillion for retiree health benefits,” writesthe Journal, “and like Chicago most will soon be unable to afford even their minimum annual payments. Offloading the costs on Uncle Sam will look attractive since retiree health benefits don’t enjoy the legal protections that some states have bestowed upon pensions. Stockton, California intends to shed its $400 million unfunded liability for retiree benefits in bankruptcy.”

So while the responsible thing to was to reduce the benefits, Rahm chose to do it with the usual Obama flair, in the most irresponsible manner by passing along those costs to U.S. taxpayers.

In my opinion, the taxpayers of Chicago should have to clean up the mess.

And if you elect me president, I’ll take care of that on day number one ;-0.

Eliot Brenner, Director, Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote: Beyond our workload dropping precipitously for unforeseen reasons (cheap natural gas delaying nuclear plants), in 2012 the administration launched an effort to reduce the amount of space allocated to each worker. Our new building was just being finished and its layout was fixed. We are working steadily to reduce our footprint, closing satellite offices that had to be created during a significant rampup in employment that occurred until utilities decided to ask us to slow or stop work on some projects. – Vacant Buildings Now Cost Half Billion Dollars Plus, But Who’s Counting? Not the Government

Dear Comrade Brenner,

It’s terrible when unforeseen regulatory action affects any business like yours. But unlike a government agency, private businesses may shut down as a result, or layoff employees, or see their share price decrease. They don’t have the option of just asking the government to cover their losses.

Oh wait: I guess they DO have the option, but I’m against it, for obvious reasons. Where it not for your boss’ hostility to any power option beyond windmills and solar, perhaps companies would still be pursuing nuclear plants.

But who can blame them for not wanting to take the risk?

There are many unforeseen results that the American public has learned to live with as a result of government action.

For example, as youngster, I can remember when Washington Public Power Supply System bonds defaulted on $2.25 billion…in 1983. That’s the equivalent of about $5.25 billion today.

As you might be aware, the “Whoops” (WPPSS) bonds were issued to build five nuclear power plants in Washington State. As a result of government regulatory actions- including that of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission- and mob/court rule, the plants were never completed.

Do you know how much money a partially-completed nuclear power facility fetches in the open market at liquidation? Not much.


I know this because my father was one of the trustees for the bond issue and helped oversee the liquidation. Bondholders got stiffed.


It’s too bad we can’t do that with some government agencies right now. Forget the loss on investment.

We’d save a fortune in operations costs every year.

Take for example your empty building…Vacant Buildings Now Cost Half Billion Dollars Plus, But Who’s Counting? Not the Government

Matthew wrote: GET OVER IT! You people are as ignorant as you are loud. Why all this hate for our nations elected leader? Romney will never be president so deal with that and the fact that President Obama will be there until 2016. Not everyone in America is anti Obama.

Dear Comrade Matthew,

You are 100 percent wrong.

We are louder than we are ignorant.

Why do liberals automatically assume that just because we don’t like Obama; we don’t like his ideology, his pompous and arrogant demeanor; his inability to do anything without a teleprompter; his cover up of his academic record; his inability to take responsibility for anything that his administration does; his dismissive attitude towards accomplishments other than his own; his overestimation of his own intelligence; his ignorance of American history beyond his own bias; and finally, that we also don’t like his wife; that therefore we want Romney to be president?

Plus hate’s a strong word.

And some of us are just stronger than others.

Livestrong. That’s my motto.

Earl50 wrote: Another point that should be made here is the rise in s-corporations in the last 10-15 years that are taxed like a partnership. What this means is that the profits of the corporation are allocated to the shareholders per their ownership percentage and thus are included on their personal tax returns.– The Economic Illiteracy – or Lies- of the Huffington Post

Dear Earl,

Yes, I received many emails from readers about this.

Although I have no way of determining whether pass-through income like you describe has accounted for a larger share of government revenue, I do know that the share just from income taxes has remained fairly stable no matter what the tax rate has been.

My objection to the HuffPo’s article was that the guy they have hired as the chief finance editor has no idea how the tax code works or just forgot. This is a guy who apparently worked at the Wall Street Journal as a contributor for premiere features such as  “Heard on the Street,” “Ahead of the Tape,” and “Evening Wrap” columns.

So, not only are WSJ readers expected to get yesterday’s news tomorrow, but they also are expected to swallow expert commentary about money and markets by people who don’t seem to know anything about payroll taxes.

Here’s where the argument becomes more than just academic: Those who have real experience running businesses can NEVER forget the function of payroll taxes. Payroll taxes, combined with benefits, add an additional 30 percent to labor costs when you hire a full-time, regular employee.

Only someone who has never had to write that check can possibly forget it.

Englishlass wrote: What do you expect from someone that PROBABLY got his degree in JOURNALISM from some leftist liberal college full of ignorant liberals professors that NEVER worked a day in their lives? ALL he learned was how to spell his name correctly. – The Economic Illiteracy – or Lies- of the Huffington Post

Dear Lassie,

Gongloff got his degree in journalism from University of South Carolina.

Here’s the rest of his bio with my emendations:

His trenchant insights, [Really? Trenchant?] wry sense of humor [oh, maybe that was a parody of finance journalism], and nose for scoops will now be unleashed [Unleashed? What is he? A dog?] across our site in myriad [Myriad is one of those word that makes smart people seem dumbforms — via a morning newsletter, frequent posts throughout the day, and in television spots.

Mark brings a dozen years of experience covering financial markets and the economy, [I think someone needs to go back to school] having held prominent positions as a reporter, editor, columnist and blogger — first for CNN/Money and then for the Wall Street Journal. His ground-breaking work exploring the extent of the Fed’s special lending programs to banks during the financial crisis was cited in a congressional investigation [That’s kind of like a vanity press author citing his own work]. He was part of a team of finalists for the Scripps-Howard award for Web reporting on mortgage delinquencies in 2007. He authored or collaborated on several Page One stories for the Journal, contributed to its “Heard on the Street” column, and wrote both its “Evening Wrap” and “Ahead of the Tape” columns. Since August he has been the lead writer for the Journal’s MarketBeat blog, amassing record traffic. [Not anymore].

jdmeth wrote: So where did Apple’s 100 billion cash reserve come from? Tax avoidance maybe? – The Economic Illiteracy – or Lies- of the Huffington Post

Dear Comrade Lawyer Meth,

If you knew what “tax avoidance” was, you’d know that certainly Apple amassed $100 billion through “tax avoidance.” Tax avoidance isn’t a dirty word though. It’s what you do on your tax return, it’s what companies do on their tax returns, its what everyone does legally to limit the amount of money they pay in taxes.

What the hell is wrong with you liberals?

Breaking the law is now OK, but following the law is a crime?

It follows the rest of your thinking, which is just downright weird.

Islamic fundamentalists are OK even though they practice the most punishing type of oppression against women, but Christians aren’t OK because they don’t want to pay for Sandra Fluke’s birth control.

Seriously: How did you listen to Obama’s speech to the Irish about religious schools and peace without picturing him with a red, rubber nose, floppy shoes and an over-sized yellow tie?

Joe296 wrote: But, the employer part is deducted as an expense on the business income tax return so the government is subsidizing part of the amount the business is paying. – The Economic Illiteracy – or Lies- of the Huffington Post

Dear Comrade 269,

The government GETS subsidies; it doesn’t give them out.

Every dollar the government gets first starts out as a dollar in our private economy. The government taxes profits, not revenues.

Companies merely write off the entire labor expense, including wages, taxes and benefits when they do their taxes, just like they would deduct raw material or other expenses to determine profits.


You get to write off other taxes, like state taxes, when you do your federal tax return. Is that YOUR subsidy that you now owe me?

Pay up dude.

Or the next GOP president will put the NSA-IRS-M-O-U-S-E on you.


That’s it for this week.




DHS To America: We Own You

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

The Department Of Homeland Security is out of control.

I was afraid George W.Bush was opening a can of worms.

We need to elect a  President that will enforce the Constitution.That president must close down these rouge agencies.

By rouge agencies I mean DHS,IRS and the EPA to name a few.

homelandsecurityWhile Americans have been scandalized by stories of TSA thugs helping themselves to the electronic equipment of the passengers they are allegedly suppose to protect, a much worse violation of rights has been going on. As horrible as it is to have government thieves take your iPad, at least in theory they were not supposed to do so. Your iPad is your property and no one is supposed to take it.

But what about the data on your iPad, laptop, or any other electronic device?

In the case of stolen iPads, we are facing government agents who are dabbling in criminal activity that is not part of their official job. In the case of stealing all the data on your iPad, we are facing a criminal organization operating as an agency of our government. And now they have officially told us that that is what they do and there is nothing we can do about it. They have issued the memo: we own you.

Here is the background: on August 27, 2009 the Department of Homeland Slavemastery released a memo promising, “The DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) will also conduct a Civil Liberties Impact Assessment within 120 days.”

Now their assessment has been released three years later. Here is the executive summary sentence:

“We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits” (emphasis added)

So it is official. We can be searched without any basis for suspicion. The message from the Department of Humiliating Servitude is loud and clear: We own you.

 DHS is a criminal organization. Here is the law that applies:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

I am not going to waste the effort arguing that “papers” and “effects” includes electronic devices. That is covered by the word, “duh.”

But what I do hate is how much Obama and Napolitano get blamed for all this by conservative Republicans when it is patently obvious that Bush and Cheney were also ones, long before we heard it from Rahm Emanuel, who were not going to let an emergency go to waste. They and their cronies saddled us with this monstrosity; it has grown worse under Obama but he didn’t hatch it. The Republican Administration from 2001 to 2008 told us the Radical Islamists hated us “for our freedoms,” and then pursued a campaign of appeasement by getting rid of them one by one.

I’m not bitter. Most people throughout most of history have lived as slaves under government occupation. No reason I should expect myself or my children to be some kind of exceptions to the rule (though I believe some day no one on the planet will live under such regimes any more).

But I do bitterly resent having to pretend that this is still America. And I resent even more being expected to impute all the sins of the government to one party and treat the “opposite” party as the good guys. If you have eyes at all you know that this prison is being constructed by bipartisan builders.

When DHS tells us, “we own you,” they are speaking for both parties that share power in our bureausaurian government.

Read more:

Obama’s delight: Mayors prepare boycott of gun manufacturers in order to push for gun control

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

I would like to hear the Secret Service answer to carrying .38’s again.

Barack is stupider than I thought, 

All of the gun manufacturers need to tell these Mayors to pound sand.

What will these Mayors do if their gun and ammo supplies dry up?

By Larry KeaneNational Shooting Sports Foundation

Minnesota Public Radio reports that Mayor R.T. Rybak of Minneapolis has said that he and 60 other mayors are considering boycotts of gun makers who don’t agree to their sweeping list of  demands.  Taking a page from the Rahm Emanuel playbook, the mayors intend to use their police department purchasing power as leverage.

This is a re-hash of the Clinton Administration threat, spearheaded by then-HUD Secretary and now governor of New York Andrew Cuomo, to do the same with federal agencies.  Despite a successful court action by NSSF to counter the threat at the time, the idea was kicked up again in 2010 by disgraced former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who suggested that gun makers must cease and desist the sale of ALL semi-automatic firearms to escape this punishment.

Choosing a service sidearm for police agencies is serious business.  Law enforcement procurement officers will be less than pleased to learn that their political overseers seem to want them to go back to revolvers in order to make a point in the gun control debate.  In Minneapolis, the deputy chief said “ultimately, it is the chiefs decision what gun is going to be authorized for use by the department,” but the city attorney countered by saying “the city can always set reasonable specifications for the purchases it’s making.”

Mayor Rybak said he mentioned the idea to Barack Obama during a recent visit, and “Obama and his staff were delighted by the idea.”

By no coincidence, Obama is visiting Minneapolis on Monday, February 4th, for the first of a lengthy series of campaign-style gun control pep rallies.  Perhaps the mayor and the White House plan to try out the idea that very day, telling both the Secret Service and local law enforcement to turn in their semi-automatic pistols and carry only .38 snubnoses for event security.

If so, it’s safe to predict that “delight” is not the response they will receive.

Read more:

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: