Only a few weeks after the Sandy Hook shooting, some conservative organizations are promoting a national Gun Appreciation Day to be observed on January 19, 2013. This holiday is meant to demonstrate the Americans' unwavering dedication to guns and their devotion to the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. However, since this holiday has never been marked before, there is, understandably, some confusion on how exactly this day should be celebrated.
Daily Archives: January 18, 2013
Firearms enthusiasts around the country are being encouraged to head down to their local gun shops on Saturday, constitutions and American flags in hand, to send a message to President Barack Obama about Second Amendment rights — and, of course, to buy more guns.
The event is being billed as Gun Appreciation Day and has backing from white supremacist group American Third Position (A3P), Media Matters reported on Friday.
In its mission statement, A3P writes that it “believes that government policy in the United States discriminates against white Americans, the majority population, and that white Americans need their own political party to fight this discrimination.”
It goes on, saying that the group aims to “stop the immigrant invasion” in order to put “America first!”
In an email to The Huffington Post last year, A3P’s chairman candidly admitted to his white nationalism, saying that he found it a “just and proper position for all white people to hold.”
Gun Appreciation Day has raised some eyebrows for reasons apart from its questionable ties. The event’s founder, Larry Ward has rejected claims that he’s an extremist, but earlier this week he sparked outrage when he suggested that slavery could have been prevented in the United States if African Americans were allowed to carry guns.
“I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with me if he were alive today that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country’s founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history,” Ward said.
- Gun Appreciation Day Is Sponsored By A White Nationalist Party (mediamatters.org)
- ‘Gun Appreciation Day’ chairman: Slavery wouldn’t have happened if slaves were armed (rawstory.com)
- Larry Ward, Gun Appreciation Day Organizer: Dipshit Unchained (balloon-juice.com)
- FOCUS | Arming Black People Would Have Prevented Slavery? (readersupportednews.org)
- ‘Gun Appreciation Day’ Creator Attacked For Views on Arms And Slaves (atlantablackstar.com)
- ‘Gun Appreciation Day’ founder argues slavery could have been prevented with guns (thegrio.com)
- Larry Ward, Gun Appreciation Day Founder, Says Armed African Americans Could’ve Prevented Slavery (VIDEO) (kzawadzki88.wordpress.com)
- ‘Gun Appreciation Day’ Leader To CNN: If Blacks Had Guns, They Never Would Have Been Slaves (mediaite.com)
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie gets it right, once again…
Speaking out against an advertisement recently released by the National Rifle Association, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie slams the NRA, criticizing their use of the President’s children as an example to cite the hypocrisy in gun control elitism due to the First Family’s protection from the Secret Service. ”I’m a father who is a public figure, who has four children and my children had no choice realistically in what I decided to do with my career and what affect that has had on their lives.” The criticisms come as the gun control debate intensifies, drawing ire from both sides as the issues that cause gun violence are brought up to debate.
- Chris Christie Slams ‘Reprehensible’ NRA For ‘Dragging People’s Children’ Into Gun Control Debate (mediaite.com)
- New Jersey Governor Christie slams NRA ad as ‘reprehensible’ (news.yahoo.com)
- Chris Christie Slams NRA, Ad Against Obama (thehollywoodgossip.com)
- Christie: NRA Ad on Obama Daughters ‘Reprehensible’ (washington.cbslocal.com)
- Christie: NRA is ‘reprehensible’ for targeting Obama’s daughters (rawstory.com)
- Christie slams NRA’s Obama daughters ad (politico.com)
I love John Aravosis‘…
Right-wingers like Matt Drudge and Michelle Malkin are terribly upset that President Obama had children at a photo op yesterday about gun violence in America.
In fact, the President was joined by four children who wrote him letters after Sandy Hook, so they were relevant to the event:
Malkin called the photo opp “child abuse.” Whereas Drudge likened it to Hitler and Stalin using children as props in photos and drawings. Drudge even showed images of Hitler and Stalin with kids to get the point across.
Which got me wondering: What other nazi tyrants used children as props in presidential photo ops?
And here are some more:
And here’s Comrades Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, Reagan (again), Harding, W. Bush (again), Clinton, Reagan (yet again), Nixon, Ford, Kennedy, Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Garfield, Taft, HW Bush, and Lincoln.
Phew. I’m glad we cleared that up.
- Drudge Links Obama To Hitler, Stalin Using “Children As Props” (mediamatters.org)
- “The right to shoot tyrants, not deer” (fabiusmaximus.com)
- Drudge Links Obama and Hitler on Gun Control. Left Cries, “Foul!” (teapartyeconomist.com)
- The use of children in politics – if you find it persuasive, you’d better sharpen up. (althouse.blogspot.com)
- Hitler and Gun Control (lewrockwell.com)
- Drudge: Armed guards will protect Obama when he announces gun control initiative (twitchy.com)
- Tyrants Using Children as Props and Propaganda (conservativeread.com)
- Tyrants Always Use Children … Typical Perverts (gds44.wordpress.com)
Is there any wonder why the POTUS picked Fox News the least in his first term news conferences?
Ironically, while I’ve routinely avoided Fox News for many years now, I stopped watching ABC after the 2008 debate in which George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson openly hammered then candidate Barack Obama on every question.
Conversely, their questions to Hillary Clinton were softballs in comparison to the questions they lobbed at Obama.
The University of Minnesota’s Eric Ostermeier tallied up the number of questions each member of the White House press corp had been able to ask during all of Obama’s first term press conferences. ABC, CBS, the Associated Press and NBC led the pack, with ABC having been selected for questioning 29 times over 36 solo press conferences. (Overall, reporters have had fewer chances to ask questionsthan any White House press corps since Ronald Reagan’s.)
It makes sense that the wires and broadcast networks have had the most opportunities to question Obama. They traditionally are the first to be called on at any press conference, and their reach is bigger than any other outlet.
Bloomberg — whose business-oriented audience would likely be one Obama wanted to target during the depths of the recession — was also a winner, being selected 20 times.
Fox News, though it has a reach that far outstrips its competitors and sometimes rivals the broadcast networks, was in ninth place on the list, having been called on 14 times. CNN, by comparison, was called on 16 times. Ostermeier said the network had been “shunned,” which may be overstating things a bit.
When Obama has called on Fox News, he often winds up verbally sparring with its reporters in one way or another.
NBC’s Chuck Todd and ABC’s Jake Tapper (now at CNN) were called on the most of any reporters — they each got 23 chances to question Obama.
Read the full study here.
- Is the White House freezing Fox out of pressers? (hotair.com)
- Obama Still Shuns Fox News (politicalwire.com)
- President Obama Avoids Fox News At Press Conferences [STUDY] (valuewalk.com)
- Study: Obama ‘shuns’ Fox News at pressers (politico.com)
- Fox News ‘shunned’ at Obama news conferences? (washingtonpost.com)
- Obama ‘Shuns’ Fox at Press Conferences (newser.com)
- Rise of the Left: Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnnell Beat Fox for an Entire Week (kaystreet.wordpress.com)
Loose lips sink ships - is an American English idiom meaning “beware of unguarded talk”.
In this case it may very well sink the GOP’s nefarious and partisan gerrymandering efforts.
In law, intent is everything. It will be interesting to see how the Courts look at this GOP revelation…
In a classic Kinsley gaffe, the Republican State Leadership Committee released a report boasting that the only reason the GOP controls the House of Representatives is because they gerrymandered congressional districts in blue states.
The RSLC’s admission came in a shockingly candid report entitled, “How a Strategy of Targeting State Legislative Races in 2010 Led to a Republican U.S. House Majority in 2013″. It details how the group spent $30 million in the 2010 election cycle to sweep up low-cost state legislature races in blue states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Their efforts were so successful, in fact, that Republicans went from controlling both legislative chambers in 14 states before Election Day to 25 states afterward.
In turn, the new Republican majorities would be tasked with redrawing congressional districts for the 2012 election. “The rationale was straightforward,” the report reads. “Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn.”
This effort paid off in spades. As the RSLC’s report concedes (and ThinkProgress hasdocumented extensively), a majority of Americans voted for Democratic congressional candidates on Election Day, but only through the miracle of gerrymandering did Republicans wind up controlling the House. From the report:
Farther down-ballot, aggregated numbers show voters pulled the lever for Republicans only 49 percent of the time in congressional races, suggesting that 2012 could have been a repeat of 2008, when voters gave control of the White House and both chambers of Congress to Democrats.
But, as we see today, that was not the case. Instead, Republicans enjoy a 33-seat margin in the U.S. House seated yesterday in the 113th Congress, having endured Democratic successes atop the ticket and over one million more votes cast for Democratic House candidates than Republicans. The only analogous election in recent political history in which this aberration has taken place was immediately after reapportionment in 1972, when Democrats held a 50 seat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives while losing the presidency and the popular congressional vote by 2.6 million votes.
The report credits gerrymandered maps in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin with allowing Republicans to overcome a 1.1 million popular-vote deficit. In Ohio, for instance, Republicans won 12 out of 16 House races “despite voters casting only 52 percent of their vote for Republican congressional candidates.” The situation was even more egregious to the north. “Michiganders cast over 240,000 more votes for Democratic congressional candidates than Republicans, but still elected a 9-5 Republican delegation to Congress.”
Though party officials typically dance around the unseemly issue of gerrymandering, this report is surprisingly candid and unabashed. The RSLC, after all, is tasked with winning control of state legislatures in large part so they can redraw congressional maps to the GOP’s benefit after redistricting. Because most states allow partisan redistricting, its understandable that the RSLC would release a report boasting of its gerrymandering success that “paved the way to Republicans retaining a U.S. House majority in 2012.”