Barack Obama, surrounded by kids, spoke to the American people on Wednesday to tell them about the many gun restrictions he's putting in place by Executive decree - and the larger ones he wants Congress to pass - in order to help non-aborted children live long enough to pay off the trillion-dollar debts he's running up.
The president's actions were theoretically spurred by the many letters he receives from children, which is certainly credible as most of his policies appear to be directed by those who are totally unschooled in math, history, or the Constitution.
Unfortunately, none of the president's announced initiatives do much other than disarm responsible gun owners, which is likely his actual objective. He failed to address, in any meaningful way, the greater problem of psychotic maniacs - who, unsurprisingly, are frequently found at the scene of mass murders (and occasionally storming our undefended consulates in Libya, or mowing down enemies of the Mexican drug cartels using DOJ-supplied weapons).
The president did, however, recommend much more stringent background checks and psychological profiling for anyone who wants to buy a gun.
Hope n' Change would like to suggest that in the future, that same standard should be applied to the man who controls our nuclear arsenal.
33 comments:
Crocodile tears. Does the hypocrite-in-chief really think that people buy his drama? well,.. I guess he DID get re-elected.
No bang for the buck... especially if he goes deer hunting...
Love today's cartoons, Stilton. In the county I live in, trying to get a gun permit is nearly impossible. They take only 30 applications a day, and are only open in the morning. Forget background checks, just keep reducing the number of applications taken per day, and the president's agenda is served!
I have not delved into minute of the twenty-three talking point's hypocritical morass that obviously was compiled by those of academia acclaim as two items were duplicated, though one was disguised in such verbiage that the 'unwashed masses' and the fawning media could not help to be impressed - somewhat akin to using inter-fibrous friction fastener instead of nail. Bottom line, nothing really new, just more blathering, berating, dead horse beating and sanctimonious bluster from the nattering nabob that is our dear leader.
The proposals that will be brought before Congress must be fought tooth and nail for they (based on preliminary leaks) infringe on the rights guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment. Exactly what is an 'assault rifle'? There is no definition - perfect example was sticking a black fiber stock with a pistol grip on a bolt action .22 caused the media to id it as an assault rifle. Banning high capacity magazines will accomplish what? I agree that a 100 capacity mag might be arguable, but a 10 round (or even more ridiculous - NY's 7 round) limit is beyond stupid. In my CHL class, we were taught that you use the weapon to make the person attacking you to stop, period. That may be accomplished with one round, or it may take many - example was the housewife in GA that shot the intruder 5+ times in the head, neck and face and he still kept coming - those who are high on drugs such as angel dust are not going to be stopped by one round, even if it is a .45 ACP hollow-point. Add the fact that the majority responding to an assault on their safety due to nerves, adrenaline, fear, will probably not hit their target accurately on the first shot. Again, the purpose of the weapon was to make the person attacking you or your loved ones to stop.
Nice use of that juvenile "hide the flip" photo.
Background doesn't check out indeed. The first president that couldn't get a security clearance to be a janitor at Lockheed Martin.
SJ - Another cartoon illustrating O's ability to use emotion to get away with by-passing Congress. He & his handlers know that the use of emotion (during emotional times) is effective - as in never let an emergency go to waste..to do those things they wouldn't otherwise be able to do...
@ Velcro - his crocodile tears are most effective.
@TrickyRicky - you express all of our dismay over glossing over who he really is (by the MSM & all of the celebrities) because if The People had known, he wouldn't have been President. His "background" check would have made him ineligible. Such hypocrisy.
On one of the supposed "news" shows this morning, they had a piece on the new Selena Gomez movie. Seems that another squeaky-clean Disney kid is following the cheap, tired misogynistic Hollywood script for young girls that wish to be "taken seriously" as "artists", by flushing away her wholesome image by transforming her into yet another teen slut.
Seems that her new movie features plenty of the expected cheap T&A, along with gratuitous gunplay.
Interestingly, the focus on the conversation was how she looked in a bikini. There was not a peep from anyone about the idea of Hollywood promoting a film featuring a young, hip, sexy teen-star running about recklessly with semi-automatic guns only weeks after Sandy Hook, and in the midst of the great gun debate.
And yet, they won't hesitate to judge and label anyone associated with the NRA as "dangerous".
Amazing.
@Velcro- The voters buy his act, and we pay for everything else. It's sort of a lose-lose situation.
@Velcro- Barry has never hunted for anything other than votes.
@SusieBee- What country do you live in? It sounds like they're setting the bureaucratic model for Obama.
@SeaDog52- I really think that Obama's dog and pony show wasn't about changing gun violence, but simply a chance for him to grandstand and say (as he did) that "real change" will only happen when Congress (ie, the GOP House) do something about it. In this way, he neatly hangs the blame for future shootings on the Republicans - which is his only real goal. The man couldn't give two farts about the dead of Sandy Hook or the Constitution.
Regarding guns, if I were in a situation in which I needed to defend myself or my family, I'd want as many bullets as possible for the reasons you outline.
@K Grover- I've seen Barry give us all that one-finger salute far more often than I've seen him salute anyone or anything else.
@TrickyRicky- I doubt that Barry would pass any legitimate mental health test, either.
@Irene Peduto- For B. Hussein to frame his arguments as a means to "protect children" (while surrounded by the Von Trapp family) is the lowest of the low.
What about the dead from Fast & Furious? What about some straight answers on the dead in Benghazi? Howzabout addressing the fact that Rahm "Little Obama" Emmanual is now mayor of the most bloodsoaked city in our nation?
This is all so far beyond hypocrisy that I'm starting to think we need a whole new word to describe it.
@John the Econ- This is what Hollywood does: it adds sex and violence to anything remotely popular in order to sell, sell, sell - and cares nothing about the lives destroyed along the way.
We are living in a sick, confused society.
@Stilton, is it any wonder why Hollywood portrays all capitalists as money-grubbing exploiters of people and the planet? After all, that's how they conduct business, and since they all know that they're the smartest people on the planet, they can assume that everyone else on the planet is even worse.
They happily exploit the weak and stupid, and then toss them like used condoms when they're done with them.
And these are the people who we allow to define our culture.
That is why I cannot entertain any discussion of dismembering the 2nd Amendment without dismembering the 1st. Hey, isn't all supposed to be about compromise?
The cartoon was good, but I REALLY loved the first two paragraphs of the accompanying commentary. Succinct, scathing and spot-on accurate.
Sound familliar?
The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. ”
-Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403
Salesman of the year is at it again. I've been asked for advice by three people in the past week, who figure they'd better get while they can, before things get crazy expensive / are no longer available...
I believe that 0 bama is the second photo is showing his true feelings. Not by any alleged tears, but rather by the way he is holding his hand. He is giving the American law-abiding citizens a collective bird.
Perhaps all true American conservatives on the floor of the Senate could wipe the "tears" from their eyes as he enters the chambers for his SOTU address. After all the death of America as we know it should cause tears.
It's funny (in that sad way,) for me to see the "protects children" argument misused again, and how many people are upset about it being used in the gun discussion. True, it's a horrendous ploy. Quoting Hilter, and Stalin, and other miscreants who used it -- good idea. And well, it's a tough argument to fight, alas, precisely because it's so amorphous.
I have experience with it -- for decades this was the argument used to stomp gay folks -- to protect the children. Which kids? They never quite said, any kids I suppose. It's still trotted out to stop gay marriage. Yes, gay marriage will somehow harm children, it's said, repeatedly. Our very existence or a nice word said about us, too -- dangerous to kids. We're old hands at this argument. So, welcome to the club.
Yet, this is not a new argument in American politics -- and is just as scurrilous used for guns as for gays -- or for any other matter. But, when two seemingly disparate groups are targeted with the same mumbo-jumbo I'd say it's weird political bedtimes.
Other than that bit of commonality, I do want to stress that I am wholly against any attempt by the president to take away guns from anyone; nor do I think for a moment that the guns are doing any killing, and well, I support you all here on this, even if I have no gun. Yet. Though, I can report that gun sales among even us are up too (we keep some anecdotal tracking, to be sure.)
A slight shift in perspective that struck while reading the letters section of the WSJ.
...We should understand that the Second Amendment does not confer a right to bear arms; that right is pre-existent. The Second Amendment FORBIDS* government from abridging that right.
*Emphasis added.
From the same letter.
"With respect th protecting our children: In other areas where we intend to create a "weapon free zone(courts, airports), we have locked doors, metal detectors and multiple armed guards. Any "weapon free zone" that lacks these is little more than an imaginary bubble where predators may be assured of the lack of armed resistance. It is no coincidence that the most notorious mass killings(includ8ng the one in Norway) occur in such imaginary bubbles of protection. A less costly option is to allow responsible adults to be legally armed on campus."
@John the Econ- I've had firsthand experience from inside the entertainment industry, and everything you say squares with my personal recollections.
And you raise an interesting question: if the Left thinks the 2nd Amendment should be defined and limited based only on those who abuse it, then why not the 1st Amendment too? Because no one uses "free speech" to lie so fluently, eagerly, and viciously as the Left.
@Red Fairman- Thank you, Red. It gets harder and harder to write the commentary without simply devolving into a spew of angry expletives. Mind you, I still do that in the privacy of my office (grin).
@Mike Porter- I believe Obama is having Bill Ayres work a similar phrase into his next autobiography: "Dreams From My Fatherland."
@Pete(Detroit)- I know a number of people who've never had more than a casual interest in owning a gun who are now in a big hurry to get one. Not because they see crime increasing, but because they see oppression coming.
@American Cowboy- There's a lovely picture on the Internet of an anonymous American hero losting two fingers upward at Barry's huge "Darth Bus" campaign vehicle. I'd love to get the opportunity to do the same.
@Jim Hlavac- Whatever the issue, it's never really about the kids. If Barry gave a rat's hiney about kids, he wouldn't eagerly abort them, refer to them as "punishments," or sentence them to prison-like schools which do nothing other than trap children in a life of government dependency.
@It's No Gouda- Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. The Second Amendment isn't a rescindable gift to the rabble, it's a strict (and entirely necessary) limitation on government power.
If only we had a more honest media -- at this point, I'd even take the Clinton media, they may not have hounded him like they did Bush the Younger, but they weren't wiping his nose and backside all the time, either.
The stones on the Dems amaze me. This Administration lets several hundred Mexican citizens die, abandons an Ambassador and other citizens to die to a terrorist attack (that they refuse to categorize as such), and then have the audacity to chip away at the Second Amendment?
How people do not see Obama as the Tyrant in Waiting he clearly is, well, that's beyond me.
So, we need to make sure guns and ammo don't fall into the wrong hands? We need more background checks? Sounds great - let's start with the unvetted POTUS. Let's unseal those school and passport records to start. Let us see the media expend a tenth of the effort on vetting President Full of Crap that they spent on Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney.
Microbes. Wretched little germs is what they all are.
I appreciate your humor in pointing out that Obama could not, in reality, pass a background check to buy a gun. The American people did not do a real background check on him but merely bought the story he peddled because it would be racist to ask any questions. The really sad fact is he will be protected by guns the rest of his pathetic natural life.
@Mike Porter,
The similarities are extremely disturbing. Hitler was also a proponent of abortion at the whim of the mother.
I wish I could save the children... from the ones who use the "save the children" argument.
The "It's for the children..." line was used repeatedly by the Teacher's Union. So many of the parents weren't aware that their children were pawns in the political process. Have you heard the ads on the radio now about school bus accidents in the NY City Schools? Seems the busses were driven by non-pros who couldn't be trusted to get the children to school. The Union playbook sounds so much like this Admin.
Most of the true mass evil in the world has been done in the name of "the children".
@Earl Allison, the Obama media and Clinton media are one-in-the-same; It was during the Clinton years that them liberals in the MSM honed and mastered their technique, be it from deeming yesterday's lies as "inoperative" in light of new lies, to going along with the narrative that "oral sex" isn't really sex.
Try that one on your wife and see how well it goes!
Mornin'! Come thru the time warp with me if youd care to...coupla new posts I hope you enjoy!
Pry, thankfully Ms. Pelosi was only "R" rated; I don't think I could have taken the eye candy of an "X" rated optic. ;-)
@Earl Allison- well said.
@ShellyMay21- I think it's a good idea to have Obama protected by guns for the rest of his life. Because if he was ever tragically martyred, every city in America would have to rename some street in the slums "Barack Obama Blvd."
@Colby- When life isn't sacred, decisions become surprisingly easy.
@Richard- Saving children is important, and saving them from the policies of Obama and the Left is way more critical than saving them from guns.
@Irene Peduto- Sometimes, "it's for the children" is true. Like when my wife and I moved to make sure my daughter would be in a good school system. And like when I became a conservative because I saw what liberalism was doing to children and families. And when I (foolishly?) banked my earnings and limited the size of my family to make sure I could always pay the bills.
Which is why I'm so strongly offended when Obama and others use the "it's for the children" argument when they so blithely hurt children with every policy decision.
@John the Econ- If oral sex isn't really sex, then how do we know that Oral Roberts is really Roberts?
@PRY- Outstanding, even if I now need eye bleach! Readers, check Pry's latest cartoons right here.
@Grafton Cheddar- In the words of the Supreme Court, I may not be able to define obscenity, but I know it when I see it. And it includes Nancy Pelosi in any state of dress or undress.
Yeh, that's a sight for no man's eyes! Almost went blind drawing it!
Feeling depressed? Having a bad day? Just remember - somewhere out there is Mr. Pelosi
So I see that funneling money to the Obama inguinal is now a free-for-all. Corporate 1%-ers are bidding to be able to sit near the President.
Heard an Obama spokeshole say that it's "highly transparent".
Transparently hypocritical for the world's most ethical administration. Again, a fine demonstration that Democrats are just fine with big corporate dollars, as long as it flows to them, the ultimate "rent seekers".
Thanks spammer. More URLs for the blacklist. We too genuinely appreciate your contribution.
@PRY- We appreciate your sacrifice. As well as your discretion.
@Pete(Detroit)- The mind boggles.
@John the Econ- The Bamster is doing everything short of putting signs on the Whitehouse lawn saying "Bribes Accepted Here." As you point out, this is one of the very few instances of actual transparency in Barry's administration (or, for that matter, his life).
By the way, I cleaned up the SPAM comments. I do a lot of that behind the scenes, but sometimes a few sneak through - but only temporarily.
Post a Comment