Gun Control Idiocy From Those Wacky Folks Over at ...Fox News

Here, I thought I had flown into Ohio, turns out, I overshot Ohio and ended up on the Bizarro planet. A little jet lagged and behind in my blogdasarian duties, I brought dinner back to the hotel and passed on an HBO movie where absolutely no one in the cast wore any clothes (okay, they were animated birds!), after having been assailed by a promo for Real Time with Bill Maher. (The primary problem being that Real Time isn't Real Funny!) Notice how many shows on HBO tout themselves as "Real"? Real Time, Real Sports, Real Sex. Reminds me of the lady who said, "Honey, if you have to hang a sign around your neck saying you is, then you ain't!" But, I digress...

So I watched a little bit of Special Report with Bret Baier, without Bret Baier. Charles Krauthammer was on the panel, so I thought it might not be too bad. I couldn't tell you of anything spectacular ventured on the program until this blonde, whom I surmise to be A. J. Stoddard, said something spectacularly ill informed.

Speaking of the Colorado theater shooting, she said of the ammunition he purchased, and I speak from memory, that "none of this ammunition is used for self defense."

Fancy that! I have a Glock .40 that I have personally used for self defense, which uses, wait for it, .40 cal ammunition. He carried an 870 Remington shotgun, which is an excellent home defense weapon, and an AR-15, chambered in .223. Some of you might be old enough to remember the LA riots, where Korean shopkeepers climbed up to the roofs of their shops, armed with guns very similar to the AR-15, to defend their property against looters and arsonists. I don't know if they ever had to fire a single shot, but their presence served as a deterrent.

Let's recap: All three varieties of ammunition have been used or could certainly be used for self defense. If you want to argue about the quantities of ammunition he ordered, that's another story. But, if you don't know what you're talking about, please educate yourself before you enter the adult world of discussions on firearms laws and regulations.

Which brings us to Bill O'Reilly. He hit the trifecta tonight. I almost never watch Mr. O, but after yet another lap of the channels available, I saw he was going to have Bernard Goldberg on, so I thought, Aha! Another bright spot.

So I turned it on in the background and looked up as Bill was launching into a rant. First, he made some crack about buying bazookas without the Federal government knowing about it*. This, of course, is patently absurd, particularly if you are speaking of a functional bazooka with ammunition. These are highly regulated devises that are not commonly available to civilians.

I thought it was just part of his "Shtick", that he was saying something so hyperbolic for comic effect. He followed that up with a statement that one can buy machine guns without the feds knowing about it. He generated quite a bit of faux outrage at this! Unfortunately for Bill, it isn't true. The only people who can purchase machine guns are those who have Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL).

These weapons are tightly regulated and FFLs are not easy, or inexpensive to obtain. I cannot explain why, buy Mr. O'Reilly was getting quite incensed over something that simply is not true.

He compounded the idiocy with a parting remark about how it is "irresponsible to take a six year old to a midnight showing of a movie to be killed", as if it were somehow responsible to take a six year old to a movie matinee to be killed.

Hindsight is 20/20 Bill. Except for one deranged person, taking a six year old to the movies is hardly the act of an irresponsible parent. Bad judgment? Maybe. I wouldn't have done it, but like your rhetoric about bazookas and machine guns, your use of the word "irresponsible" was, well, irresponsible.

* I heard the quote a second time. It was more like "terrorists can buy bazookas without the FBI knowiung about it. Sheesh!

Jack Lew, Obama's Chief of Flack, on Obamacare

Jack Lew, Chief of Flack for the Obama Administration was on Fox News Sunday this AM. He's a smooth talker, all right, but what he had to say had as much familiarity with the truth as Michael Jordan had with being chosen last for a pick up basketball game.

"One thing that's great about our system, is that we the Supreme Court rules, we have a final answer."

Really, Mr. Lew? Because the final answer from the Supreme Court was that Obamacare is a tax. Why do you keep denying this if the Supreme Court affirmed it in their "final answer"?

"We sent Congress plans, which if they were enacted, would have create a million new jobs: policemen, firemen, teachers..."

Noble professions, to be sure, but all on the government payroll. All of them funded by the private sector and all of them contributing to public sector unions, which contribute heavily (Read: almost exclusively) to Democrats. Since the federal government and many of the states , cities and counties are broke, the money to pay these employees and their benefits would have to be borrowed, and add to the National debt, or printed by the government, which leads to inflation. This president's plan, his "focus" if you will, is to spend more money from Washington to stimulate the economy and end the recession.

But, that's exactly what he's been promising and doing for the last almost four years. How would the next four years of doing the exact same thing be any different? Other than to perhaps, take America's credit rating down another notch?

"...the American people want the divisive debate on Healthcare to stop."

Stop??? It never even got good started before Congress by the barest of majorities and not in any way a bi-partisan bill, passed a 2000+ page bill that most of them had never read and the people they supposedly represent didn't have the time to read, or reflect on or give any feedback to their elected representatives.

A majority of the American public, when asked, say they not only don't like Obamacare, but want to see it repealed. Of course, you would prefer that the matter be settled, Mr. Lew. Obamacare and the economy, the crowning jewel of his first (and hopefully only) term and his primary responsibility after securing the national defense, are both colossal failures. (I was going to say national "borders", but we all know what a miserable job he's done at that, too!)

Jack Lew, like the Moooove-on people, wants us to "move on" from a discussion of Obamacare to its implementation. He even used those exact words: move on. That way, the Bamboozler-in-Chief could natter on about his "vision" for what he wants America to look like. And his "vision" is very flowery and full of high sounding words. Just words, as someone might say.

He wants to run on his "vision" because he cannot run on his record. His primary achievement has been to push a phony "healthcare" reform down the throats of the American people instead of addressing any of the problems with the cost of healthcare. Like tort reform, for example. Tort reform is opposed by the Democrat Party, which is a subsidiary of the Trial Lawyers Association, which doesn't want tort reform. (See: How John Edwards became a millionaire.)

During the interview, Jack Lew spoke of how much President Obama had lowered people's taxes. Lowering your income will certainly do that to you!

If you listen to the whole interview, you can here him lie about how Obama wants to "reach across the aisle" to work with Republicans (like he did when he rejected all their input and amendments to Obamacare) and the lie ( around 13:21)that "Fast and Furious" started in the Bush administration, when in fact the Bush program Wide Receiver had been shut down for two years before Obama, Holder and Co. ever started Fast and Furious.

I don't know about you, but whenever I catch someone in an obvious lie, I have a hard time believing anything that person says.

Now, I'm wondering...is his name really Jack Lew???


Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.