Moms Demand used trick photography to inflate the number of people that showed up to their protest. Let's not forget that the person Bloomberg hired to run the group is a professional PR figurehead. What amazes me is why Bloomberg keeps paying for it when it doesn't seem to be, you know, fooling anyone.
He gave a speech to the NRA convention recently in which he said he was extremely pro-Second Amendment.
But in 2013 he said something different.
And in explaining the difference, he said:
Nice try, Ben, and we appreciate the effort, but here's the thing.
You were wrong in 2013. You said you wouldn't want someone to have a semi-automatic weapon in the midst of a lot of people because it might fall into the hands of a crazy person. That suggests you don't support 2nd Amendment rights for those living in urban areas. And if you don't support 2nd Amendment rights for everyone, it's not really a right, is it? Worse, your wording suggests you don't understand what semi-automatic means in a firearm context. Hint: It doesn't mean machine gun. One bullet per trigger pull, just like a revolver.
And then you said, in 2015, that you did not change your views. Even though from what you are saying, it does sort of sound like you are changing your views, or rather, trying to pretend your new pander is the truth while your old views, probably those you still hold in your secret heart, are not.
We had a guy with a similar opinion once. His name was Zumbo, and he called AR-15 rifles "terrorist rifles" and didn't approve of people hunting with them. He lost his job for it, but he went out and he learned and he made his way back into the community because he admitted his error and honestly changed his views.
Ben, we don't like being lied to, and we're good at spotting it when it happens. You need to be honest with us if you want us to consider you. And that means admitting that you said something stupid and explaining how and why you changed your opinion.
Lerner volunteered to take blame, pushed IG to back off
She volunteered to take the blame, but when called before Congress, she took the 5th instead. And emails recently released indicate Lerner was pressing the IG to change the targeting conclusion in its report and trying to argue that delaying a group's application did not itself constitute discriminating against that group. It would be one thing if Lerner was simply seeking to protect her subordinates; but her continued, repeated emphasis on hiding things from Congressional investigators and educating employees on the "harm" that can come from full disclosure to Congress is strong evidence that Lerner knew what she and her employees were doing was wrong and would be discovered by Congress if they investigated. She sought repeatedly to instruct and train employees to conceal information, in these new emails seeking a training program, and in earlier emails seeking to ensure that the IRS instant messaging system was not archived and was thus safe.
This. combined with her taking the 5th before Congress, constitutes substantial evidence of a guilty conscience. The repeated emphasis on avoiding disclosure bolsters the argument that she deliberately destroyed her hard drive to avoid the disclosure she feared.
For those gun owners who are found of the parable of the three boxes, and especially for those gun control activists who think gun owners are racists, Wikipedia claims that saying originated with Douglass:
And I hope the feminists are paying attention, because the same person who cites Frederick Douglass in support of Democrats also has this to say about women:
Such respect for the female governor of a state and Vice Presidential candidate.
I'm glad that Obama supporters are starting to consider that Obama may be wrong, now that it's too late. Is it too much to hope for that they take a closer look at how the history of their party compares to their professed ideas, and stop discounting people who care about the rights enshrined in our Constitution as moose hunters?
In all honesty, I can respect a man who would rather bet on an untried first-term Senator than McCain. McCain was a known mediocrity. Romney was a known squish. But anyone paying attention could understand that Obama was a known quantity even before his first term, and by his reelection campaign, it was plain as day what he wanted.
On the gun control side of things, I've often noticed that the people who complain the most about the horrible things that people would do if they had a weapon at a bad moment in their lives and lost their temper... are often the people who have a problem restraining their temper in the first place. It never occurs to them that other people don't have quite the same issues remaining in control of their temper; instead they assume everyone else is prone to irrational, impulsive, violent behavior the same way they are.
I would say that you can avoid this kind of thing by declining to hire crazy people, but they seem to avoid showing the crazy until after they are hired, and it's probably illegal to discriminate against crazy people in hiring too.
Maybe it would work to say "I hired a man named John, not a woman named Tamara. When John stopped showing up for work, he was fired."
House Panel demands environment group's communications with EPA head
It's mainly news because Congress has apparently caught on to the fact that officials in Obama's administration are quite willing to withhold their communications on any pretext or no pretext at all. It also sheds some light on the "dark money" issue the left keeps yelling about:
In other words, what Lerner was angry about was her subordinates in Cincinnati putting things into emails and documents that were discoverable to Congress and looked bad... in other words, angry they got caught. She was perfectly fine with what they were actually doing, targeting political opponents of the President.
In other words, her subordinates are writing about specific Congresspeople and political parties in connection with the targeting. Are they saying things like "Senator X asked me to shut this group down" or "Representative Y is supported heavily by this group"? That would certainly be very embarrassing for the IRS and Congress, as well as clearly illegal. And Lerner's emphasis is not on behaving properly but on making sure nothing is written down that can be found out by Congress.
It might just be possible that the differences in test scores are the result of individual differences rather than a biased test. Mind you, it's also possible the test could be biased somehow. I'm no expert on fireperson testing. But I'd want to see some specific sources of test bias and an explanation of how that bias is improper before I agreed to throw out the existing test and replace it at much time, trouble, and expense.
For example: If the fireman test requires you to lift and carry a mannequin weighing 200lbs, a lot more men will pass that part of the test than women. Is it biased? Not really; the standard is the same, but inherent gender differences are going to make it harder for women to pass. Should we lower the standards to allow more women? Or do we want emergency responders to be the best possible emergency responders even if that means there are more men than women carrying people out of burning buildings?
On the other hand, if candidates are being tripped up by test questions on the average velocity of a swallow in flight, those test questions can probably be safely discarded.
The point is that waving the percentage around is insufficient. You have to actually prove the there is improper bias rather than simply picking the best people for the job.
Many state governments confiscating and destroying guns
They do the confiscating following a domestic violence restraining order or mental health issue, and then refuse to return the guns when the owners resolve the charges. Or, they charge storage fees more than the value of the gun; or they destroy the guns and bet that the legal fees to recover their value just aren't worth it. Many of the states are relying on a Department of Justice letter requiring that owners prove their ownership through registration records or receipts, but most states don't have registration systems and won't honor receipts given at the time of confiscation. The result is, once confiscated, most guns are never returned.
Except anti-gun states honor neither amendment in this case. The courts will have to apply pressure until police departments shape up.
Leaving aside the fact that there was someone there with a camera, which Slager probably did not notice until after the fact, why would Slager think he could get away with shooting someone 8 times in the back while they were running away?
I suspect in large part it's because he wasn't thinking. There seems to have been a fight, and the officer appears to make the decision to draw and fire even as the victim is making the decision to run. It takes time to recognize that the threat has ceased. The result is tragic, possibly even justified if the victim had struggled for the officer's taser and the officer had fired during the fight, but not premeditated.. and definitely not justified once the victim is running away.
See, this is the thing. The law is almost entirely a matter of cooperation. We don't go through our lives paying taxes, obeying traffic laws, and without murdering everyone around us because there are police who will step in and prevent such actions. We follow the law because, mostly, everyone agrees that the law is a rough approximation of the right thing to do, and that it's generally to our benefit to follow it so that everyone else does also. One of the assumptions built into that social model is that the law will be enforced impartially; that it doesn't matter if a police officer likes you personally or not, you will be safe from him if you follow the law.
The IRS is now widely considered to have violated that rule of impartial behavior, and that means people are that much less inclined to cooperate with them. Since there's no way the IRS can audit everyone, and documents are filed voluntarily, without cooperation our tax system becomes a lot more difficult to manage.
Let's play the substitution game. If George W Bush or one of his chief staffers invited two dozen journalists and staff members to have dinner at his house, would it not be a conflict of interest for them? Wouldn't they be criticized for accepting the invitation?
Rather than considering the Iran deal as what it is, a treaty which requires the Senate's consent by a two-thirds majority, the legislation will instead require the Senate to vote to impose sanctions on Iran if it disapproves of any deal the President reaches. Instead of holding an up-or-down vote on the treaty, if this legislation passes -- at this writing, it passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously -- the deal will be considered in effect unless and until the Senate, and possibly the House as well, vote to reimpose sanctions. Such a vote would require a majority of the House, a majority of the Senate, plus 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, and 67 votes to overcome a veto... instead of Obama needing to convince 67 Senators to vote yes for his treaty to have any effect whatsoever.
In short, the Senate has surrendered the treaty power to Obama if it passes this legislation.
Contact your Senators. Tell them to oppose this legislation. Tell them why, because many of them have been told by their leadership that this legislation limits Obama rather than enables him. Demand an up-or-down vote on any agreements Obama purports to make with Iran, with two-thirds of the Senators present concurring in order to pass, and demand your Senator vote NO.
Why should you demand a NO vote, aside from the whole surrender of Constitutional powers to the President issue?
If we cannot demand that our negotiating partner in this purported agreement stop committing acts of terrorism against us, how can we possibly trust them to honor this agreement?