David Limbaugh: The Left Says We Can’t Get Over Obama’s Black – “No, I Can’t Get Over He’s a Marxist”

How Obama’s gun ‘order’ will backfire

Among the 23 “executive actions” President Obama announced yesterday amidst great fanfare (and shameless exploitation of children) is this:

“Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”

Obama may want to put a hold on that one, until he comes to grips with what happened the last time a U.S. president tried it.

During the late ’70s, President Jimmy Carter and his inner circle determined to push through comprehensive new federal gun-control legislation. They decided the best way to grease the congressional skids would be to have a massive scientific study conducted which, in the end, would proclaim that gun-control laws were effective in reducing crime.

So the Carter folks handed out a major gun-control research grant to University of Massachusetts sociology professor James D. Wright and his colleagues Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly. They spent four years and lots of tax dollars to produce what would be the most comprehensive, critical study of gun control ever undertaken. In 1981, they published the results of their research – an exhaustive, three-volume work titled “Under the Gun.”

There was only one problem.

Their findings, summarized starkly by co-author Wright, were that “Gun control laws do not reduce crime.”

“When Wright, Rossi and Daly produced their report for the National Institute of Justice, they delivered a document quite different from the one they had expected to write,” explained David Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute and co-author of the law school textbook, “Firearms Law and the Second Amendment.” “Carefully reviewing all existing research to date, the three scholars found no persuasive scholarly evidence that America’s 20,000 gun-control laws had reduced criminal violence.”

Among their many findings:

Read more here.

Y’all come to Texas

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has a message for New York gun owners: Come to Texas, and bring your guns with you.

“Texas is better than New York, and New York just gave us another excuse to say that,” Abbott, a Republican, said on Thursday, after ads extolling Texas appeared on several media websites.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, signed sweeping gun-control legislation earlier this week expanding the state’s ban on assault weapons and putting limits on ammunition capacity in the wake of last month’s school shootings in Connecticut.

Abbott, a possible candidate for governor of Texas in next year’s election, used campaign money to buy ads on websites of news organizations in New York City and Albany.

One ad says in classic Western script: “WANTED: Law abiding New York gun owners seeking lower taxes and greater opportunities.”

Clicking on the ad leads to a Facebook page touting the virtues of Texas, including the fact that the state has no income tax so “you’ll be able to keep more of what you earn and use that extra money to buy more ammo.”

Abbott told Reuters the ads are a “way to tweak our liberal friends up in the Northeast.”

“It is tongue in cheek, but there is a deeper message here,” he said. “Texas really does stand as the last bastion of ultimate freedom in this country. Over the last decade, more than 4 million people moved to this state, and one reason is freedom and one reason is economic opportunity.”

Read more here.

Obama Violating His Oath as President & Trying to Build an ‘Imperial Presidency’

NRA President David Keene appeared on the Jay Severin Show today on TheBlaze radio network to discuss the president’s push for gun control, and immediately went for the jugular in describing President Obama’s agenda.

“This really is, in terms of the Second Amendment, this is it. This is the battle that we’ve been concerned about. It’s the war that we knew was coming, and it’s the war we warned people about as we approached this last fall’s election,” Keene told Severin. “[Obama’s] been an anti-Second Amendment activist as a private citizen, as a state legislator, as a United States Senator, and then tried to cloak it all during his campaigns because he was afraid of the backlash from those who are strong second amendment supporters. Now that he’s elected – reelected – and he doesn’t have to face the voters again, he’s indicated a willingness to do what he’s always wanted to do, which is to gut the Second Amendment.”

“Do you have any doubt that President Obama’s and his political base’s goal is to at least severely diminish and, more likely, effectively abolish Second Amendment rights?” Severin asked.

“I don’t think there’s any question about that. You know, in the past, he has said, both publicly and privately, that he doesn’t believe any American has a right as a private citizen to own any kind of a firearm,” Keene replied. “He’s voted for, at lower levels, legislation that would’ve abolished anything except a single-fire shotgun rifle. He’s said that handguns should not be manufactured, sold, traded or owned or possessed in the United States. This is not a fellow who’s interested in nipping at the fringes of the Second Amendment. This is a fellow who, if he has his druthers, would drive a stake right into the heart of the right to private ownership of firearms in this country, and of the second amendment to our Constitution.”

Read more here.

Libs Have No Interest in Chicago Gun Violence or Child Victims of the Economy

RUSH: My adopted hometown, Sacramento, California. Hi, Judy. I’m glad you called. Welcome.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. It’s a pleasure to talk to you.

RUSH: Thank you.

CALLER: You’re the first person I heard. I turned on my radio just a minute ago, and I was listening, and I thought, it strictly is using the kids. They’re there to learn. I understand writing letters is learning, but I’d like to see a few letters from these children, how their homes are changing. Maybe they’re living in their car now. Maybe they’ve lost their home. Maybe their dad is driving two hours to work.

RUSH: Let me tell you why I took your call, Judy. Let me tell you why. Because you don’t know this. That’s why I wanted to take the call so I could tell you. You are thinking exactly as I am. I had a miniature monologue prepared on this very thing today. I look up at the call board, and I see you on the line, and Snerdley has written, “These kids should be writing to Obama to tell ’em their fathers don’t have jobs.” That’s what your point is. Instead of writing about, “I don’t want to die. I don’t want to die. Please take guns out of people’s hands.” How about my daddy needing a job? You are so right about it. Because what are we talking about here? What hurts children.

The regime and the media are joining forces to try to create the notion, and people believe it, by the way, that their children are at risk in school every day. We are subjecting our children to violence and harm, and we must do something. And of course only the federal government can do things. But the truth of the matter is, our children, go to Chicago and talk to them. Speaking of the media, just yesterday or the day before, another 14-year-old, another 15-year-old, black kids killed in Chicago. Where’s the media? Why isn’t the media reporting on this? Is it because it’s black-on-black crime and that isn’t a story?

The teenage death rate by virtue of guns in Chicago is dwarfing what happened at Newtown. We’re talking 500-a-year, minimum, in Chicago. Where is the media? Where is the consciousness raising? Where are the children writing letters from Chicago? Where are those letters? Is Obama receiving them? Does anybody care if it does not happen somewhere in the Northeast? Does nobody care if it’s one or two kids a day instead of 25 or 30 in one day? Does nobody care if it’s black-on-black crime? If white people were shooting the black kids in Chicago, would the media be there?

If gun violence and children at risk because of gun violence is the number one story, then how in the name of Sam Hill can the media not be in Chicago every day? Why doesn’t every media outlet have a Chicago bureau, and why isn’t what’s happening in the Chicago leading the news every night? If the objective is to control guns, if the objective is to control violence, if the objective is to register owners, if the objective is to find out everybody’s got a gun, prevent the sale of certain sizes, types of guns, why isn’t anybody in Chicago?

Is it up to me to answer these questions? That’s not gonna dovetail well with my attempt to keep a low-profile. Answering the questions that I just asked about where is the media in Chicago dealing with the gun violence there is not gonna fit well with my low profile effort. It’s not gonna fit well with my effort not to be threatening to people, 24-year-old girls, women. Well, I guess maybe one of the reasons is there is a Democrat mayor in Chicago and we’re not gonna use the media to highlight trouble anywhere where a Democrat runs the show. “Mr. Limbaugh, that is patently absurd. That so silly. I mean, the media is highlighting Newtown, Connecticut, and the Democrats run Connecticut. Obama is a Democrat.”

Read more here.

Health care law ‘like fascism’

The CEO of Whole Foods compared President Obama’s health care law to “fascism” in a radio interview on Wednesday, a turnabout from earlier comments in which he compared the signature reforms to socialism.

“Technically speaking, it’s more like fascism,” John Mackey told NPR’s Morning Edition. “Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. In fascism, the government doesn’t own the means of production, but they do control it — and that’s what’s happening with our health care programs and these reforms.”

Read more here.

Sen. Rand Paul Introducing Bill to ‘Nullify’ Obama’s Executive Action on Guns

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says he plans to introduce a bill next week that “will nullify anything the president does that smacks of legislation.”

Paul spoke with Sean Hannity Wednesday night, hours after President Obama signed 23 executive orders on gun control.

Paul said several of those executive orders appear to be a case of Obama writing new law.

“That cannot happen,” Paul said. “The court struck (President Bill) Clinton down for trying this, and I’m afraid that President Obama may have this king complex sort of developing, and we’re going to make sure that it doesn’t happen.”

Read more here.

Obama ‘wants people to snap’

President Obama’s newly announced gun-control initiatives are intended as “revenge” against many Americans, as he’s pushing them “to snap,” claims top-rated radio host Rush Limbaugh.

“I think he wants people to snap. I think Obama is challenging everybody’s sanity,” Limbaugh said on his show Wednesday afternoon. “Obama [is] literally pushing people to snap, attacking the very sanity of the country.”

Obama announced a sweeping set of directives he intends will cut down on Americans’ access to guns, setting the stage for a constitutional battle with states where lawmakers already are openly defying the latest power grab by the White House.

His plan would demand federal access to the details every time an uncle sells a .22 to a nephew, would ban some weapons outright through a limit on ammunition capacity, would waive medical privacy laws in some cases so individuals can be reported, and others.

Coming on the heels of a recent birth-control mandate, Limbaugh noted, “All of this is so in our face. Everything that people hold dear is under assault. Deliberately making people upset. This is not what presidents do.”

Speculating why Obama is taking this action, Limbaugh said, “Maybe this is about revenge. Obama used that word when he was on the campaign trail prior to the election. He told his supporters in Ohio to go vote and get their revenge. Revenge against who? Well, obviously the people that disagree with Obama. But who are those people? He clearly knows who they are, and I think the root of this … can be found in the comment that Obama made when he thought he was off the records at a fundraiser in San Francisco when he talked about the ‘bitter clingers.’”

Read more here.

White Guilt 101

At a small high school in a quaint Wisconsin town, students are learning geometry, chemistry and, of course, that white people have historically oppressed minorities and continue to do so in the present day.

The curriculum on “American Diversity” at Delavan-Darien High School allegedly teaches students that white skin confers a set of unfair privileges, the Daily Mail reports.

“There is not space here to list all the ways in which white privilege plays out in our lives, but it is clear that I will carry this privilege with me until the day white supremacy is erased from society,” declares University of Texas professor Robert Jensen Jensen in one paper assigned to students.

The ideas presented in the course come from a broader academic movement called critical race theory. According to Fox News, “white privilege” was defined in the class as a “set of advantages that are believed to be enjoyed by white people beyond those commonly experienced by non-white people in the same social, political, and economic spaces.”

Another assignment asked students to visit the toy aisle at the local Wal-Mart.

“They were told to go and count the number of dolls that were representative of blacks as opposed to whites,” said one parent, according to Fox News.

The anonymous parent reportedly became disturbed when she perused some of her 18-year-old son’s course material.

“I felt it was indoctrination,” she told Fox News. “This is a radical left agenda and ideology that is now embedded in our school.”

Read more here.

%d bloggers like this: