CARREY RUNS CRYING TO HUFFINGTON POST

He's the clown who called gun rights supporters "heartless motherfuckers."  He's the douchebag who used his media pals to promote a song attacking the late Charlton Heston, who conveniently is unable to defend himself. He foolishly attacked Fox News, the only television outlet which dares to add conservative voices to the media mix.

Now he's feeling misunderstood and abused.  This is typical proglodyte behavior: Attack, attack and attack some more, then sob hysterically when the victims of your attacks start fighting back and hitting even harder.  So he turns to HuffPo, begging for sympathy:

For those who say I'm a hypocrite because I have an armed bodyguard, lets make one thing clear: No one in my employ is allowed to carry a large magazine and NO ONE IS ASKING ANYONE TO GIVE UP THEIR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, though it is in the vested interests of those who profit by gun sales to make it seem so. It's just the type of arms, the easy access and the means with which to cause massive devastation to good and innocent people that I hope we can limit. It's the quality of mercy, the tiniest spark of empathy that I know lives in every one of us that I wish to ignite in you.

And to the bullies who will try to marginalize and discredit me by saying, "Shut up, you're just an actor," while they brag about what a great president the ACTOR Ronald Reagan was, who threaten me with the demise of my acting career and much worse, I say SO BE IT! How shallow do they think I am? I would trade my money, my fame, my reputation and legacy if there were the slightest chance of preventing the anguish of another Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, or Sandy Hook Elementary School. I ask you, truly, what manner of human being would not?

I have been aghast at the level of hatred heaped upon me, my family and the people I work with over a mere difference of opinion on this issue. Perhaps my words were a bit harsh at the onset, but calling someone a "Motherfucker" is far different than wishing them to die. It is shocking to see this concerted effort to brutally intimidate anyone who speaks of a compassionate compromise.

These thugs, though menacing, are a minority but they will have their way if good people don't step forward now and make a difference. Every American has the right to speak their mind. Every American has the right to bear arms. But it is up to every American to draw the line when it comes to the type of guns that are considered a reasonable means of self-defense.

First of all, it's not gun manufacturers or the NRA that scares gun owners, it's politicians like Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden and Michael Bloomberg who do that.  They are aided and abetted by Hollyweird liberal hypocrites like Carrey.  Of course, he's only trying to reach that "tiniest spark of empathy" inside all of us "heartless motherfuckers." So, gee whiz, why is everybody so mad?

I love how he dares compare himself to Ronald Reagan who, by the way, stopped being an actor and entered the world of politics, not as a dilettante like Ashley Judd but as a serious advocate of reform.  When Jim Carrey gets elected governor and then president of the United States then maybe he'll have more credibility. 

As for the death threats, we only have his self-serving complaints to go on.  If he thinks he's been genuinely threatened then let him go to the authorities.  I'm not holding my breath waiting to hear about that, though.  Pretending to receive "death threats" is a technique straight out of the left-wing nutjob handbook; even for those who already have armed guards to protect them.

As I always say, these clueless, hateful hypocrites can never be allowed to go unchallenged when they willingly abandon the civility that they themselves demand of others.  They only have the money to pay their handlers and bodyguards because we the people patronize their films.  These self-absorbed, self-deluding freaks will not be allowed to insult us without consequences.  We won't be silenced, shamed or intimidated.  Now that his lame attempts to troll the American people have failed, I want to offer him one last piece of advice: Don't ask "How shallow do you think I am?" ever again.  I guarantee you won't like the answer.

VIRTUAL STATE OF THE UNION, PT. 1

As always, V-POTUS Bill Whittle does an excellent job of explaining the Conservative - no, the common sense - view of an issue.  In this case, the topic involves gun rights.  

One of the cutesy "arguments" that proglodyte gun-grabbing wingnuts of the Left like to employ these days to counter the reality of our Second Amendment rights is to say: "But don't children have a right to not be murdered in their school?" Or in the case of this MSNBC discussion, "Shouldn't we also have freedom from people who have guns?"

Whittle reminds us that this argument works both ways:

In October of 2007, Amanda Collins was walking to her car after a night class at the University of Nevada at Reno. Amanda had a concealed carry permit for her 9mm Glock that she carried for self-defense. Unfortunately for Amanda, UNR is, like most college campuses, a gun-free zone. So, like the law-abiding citizen that she is, she did not have her gun with her in this gun-free zone when she was attacked by James Biela. Biela raped her on the UNR campus, less than 300 yards from the Campus Police Office. He then walked away, and a few months later, this human predator went on to murder 19-year-old Brianna Dennison.  Amanda Collins went on to say, quote, "I know, having been the first victim, that Brianna Dennison would still be alive, had I been able to defend myself that night." Unquote.

Therefore, I am directing the Virtual Attorney General to aggressively challenge any gun control laws that violate Amanda Collins's right not to be raped, and Brianna Dennison's right not to be murdered.  You are not forced to abandon your First Amendment right when you enter Chicago and New York , or your Fifth Amendment right when you walk onto a college campus.  As Virtual President I will veto on the spot, without hesitation but with a great deal of pleasure, any and all attempts to destroy any of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Because their arguments are so simplistic and child-like, it's not hard to anticipate a proglodyte's response to the premise that if Amanda Collins had been able to carry her gun on campus that she could have defended herself and prevented the rape.  They'll say: The rapist caught her by surprise and had his gun to her head before she could reach for hers.  Therefore, what's the point of carrying the gun?  It didn't help her defend herself, did it?  That's true enough.  But that very same argument can be applied to the squishy, ineffective alternatives offered by the Left.  Having been caught by surprise, how would a call box or a whistle have done Amanda any good?  

This is Brianna Dennison.  Didn't she have a right to NOT be raped and murdered?

NRA AD HIGHLIGHTS ANTI-GUN HYPOCRISY

GUNS, GOD & THE CONSTITUTION

DISCRIMINATION AT BANK OF AMERICA

It ain't liberal if it ain't hypocritical!

There are multiple problems with this story. The behavior of Bank of America is one.  The unhinged anti-gun mania of liberals that leads to this kind of abuse is another.  And, perhaps most annoying of all, the inevitable lack of interest by the Establishment Media.  So what else is new?

You might think that a professional outfit such as Bank of America operated based on stated policy and not caprice. But not according to owner of American Spirit Arms Joe Sirochman.
  
On his Facebook page, Sirochman tells of his adventures with the banking giant. Like other gun dealers and manufacturers, his business is booming currently - Internet orders are up 500 percent. This caused there to be an unusual number of deposits made to his business' BoA account via his website's E-commerce system, triggering an account freeze. This may not seem strange, as banks have security systems that temporarily freeze accounts when detecting anomalous activity. This happened to me once after using my debit card to make an unusual series of purchases; the freeze was irritating, but nothing a few minutes on the phone didn't remedy. But this is where Sirochman's story takes a bizarre turn. He writes (edited for style):

After countless hours on the phone with Bank of America, I finally got a manager in the right department who told me the reason that the deposits were on hold for further review. Her exact words were:

"We believe you should not be selling guns and parts on the Internet."

Ask yourself this question: What if the social issue in question was abortion, rather than the Second Amendment?  What if a high-profile company like Bank of America behaved this way because it didn't think that its customers should be involved in promoting abortions?  Do you think the Establishment Media would get involved then? 

It's not hard to imagine headlines about fanatics at Bank of America punishing women because they are "pro-choice."  Or perhaps even more to the point, giving a doctor or clinic that performs abortions a hard time because of the work they do.  The media would be all over it and shrieking at the very idea that such discrimination was being applied to an otherwise good customer or client.   

Even though the gun dealer in question is not doing anything illegal or immoral, somebody at Bank of America feels free to harass him.  And why? Because it probably didn't even occur to the person or persons responsible for this discrimination that what they are doing is hypocritical and wrong.  Because who is going to expose them for what they are?  The media? Not likely.

And the media will remain silent because guns are a "Republican" thing for them and, therefore, not worth the effort of honest journalism.  The Establishment Media is not interested in being an independent Fourth Estate any longer.  It is merely a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party and is highly selective - and hypocritical - in deciding what deserves coverage and what doesn't.

WHAT MEDIA MALPRACTICE HAS CAUSED

It's come to this: 

Law enforcement officials from a New York region where a local paper published a map identifying gun owners say prisoners are using the information to intimidate guards.

Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco, who spoke at a news conference flanked by other county officials, said the Journal News' decision to post an online map of names and addresses of handgun owners Dec. 23 has put law enforcement officers in danger. 

"They have inmates coming up to them and telling them exactly where they live. That's not acceptable to me," Falco said, according to Newsday.

This is no small matter.  Being locked up is no barrier for a gang member who can have his fellow bangers on the outside use the map to find the guard and his family where they live.  That's women and children.  By its irresponsible actions, the Journal News has literally placed more children in harm's way.  How on earth is this justified? Except, apparently, that as members of families that own guns they no longer deserve any protection from society.  That's the sick, twisted perspective of anti-gun fanatics like the ones running things at the Journal News.

Another important point that has been made over the past week is that in addition to outing legal gun owners to those who might wish them harm, this grotesque publicity stunt has left those homes in which there are no guns vulnerable to burglars and home invaders.  By highlighting where the guns are located, the newspaper has also highlighted where there are NO guns and, guess what?  That's priceless information for criminals looking for the softest targets.  Don't believe it?  Well, read what a career criminal has to say about it:

“That was the most asinine article I’ve ever seen,” said Walter T. Shaw, 65, a former burglar and jewel thief who the FBI blames for more than 3,000 break-ins that netted some $70 million in the 1960s and 1970s. “Having a list of who has a gun is like gold - why rob that house when you can hit the one next door, where there are no guns?

"What they did was insanity," added Shaw, author of "License to Steal," a book about his criminal career.

Consequently, people who were not on the list because they haven't owned guns previously now feel obliged to buy a gun in order to protect their families:

Aron Wieder (D-Spring Valley) called the publication of the list "irresponsible journalism" and said he now fears for his safety because the map broadcast that he does not have a gun license. At the news conference Friday morning, he handed a $150 certified check and a completed pistol permit application to Rockland County Clerk Paul Piperato.

"I never owned a gun but now I have no choice," Wieder said. "I have been exposed as someone that has no gun. And I'll do anything, anything to protect my family."

And in the face of a torrent of justifiable outrage, the fanatics at the Journal News not only said that they would not take down the current list, but would seek to add to it.

This is a long way from being over.  Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Here's an example of why criminals are so pleased with what the Journal News has done.  The criminal in this story wishes he'd known that there was a gun in the house!  Georgia Mother Shoots Home Intruder Five Times After Being Cornered in Attic.

MEDIA MALPRACTICE

The outrageous publicity stunt and promotional strategy perpetrated by the Westchester, NY, Journal News last week is still in the news.  As everybody now knows, the newspaper's editorial board decided to use FOIA to publish the names and addresses of all legal gun owners in Westchester and Rockland counties.

The map indicates the addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. Each dot represents an individual permit holder licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver. The data does not include owners of long guns — rifles or shotguns — which can be purchased without a permit. Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, just that they are licensed to do so. 

Worse than that, the newspaper provided an interactive map pinpointing the locations. This meant that not only are the addresses available but anybody online can easily use the map to take a look at the house in question.  

In their misguided and mean-spirited rush to punish legal gun owners by treating them like registered sex offenders the people at the Journal News apparently failed to realize that many of these people have good reason to both own guns and maintain some privacy concerning their whereabouts.  That would include members of law enforcement and judges as well as women and children who are hiding from violent ex-husbands or boyfriends who might want to track them down and hurt or even kill them.

I'd like to think that these people at the Journal News simply failed to realize the consequences of their rash act.  However, the sad reality is that these fanatics view legal gun owners as the enemy and, therefore, are not deserving of consideration, even if it means exposing them to life-threatening situations.  

The American Left, which thoroughly dominates the mainstream media, no longer believes, if it ever did, in the concept of reasonable and respectable people disagreeing in good faith on core issues; it increasingly demonstrates that it believes all opposition to its own outlook and policies must never be tolerated, but only eradicated. Its opposition is never to be engaged on the level of ideas, but only ridiculed and held up as evil. The Left has done nothing but demonize its opposition for years.

Here is a transcript of the conversation a concerned blogger had with somebody at the newspaper...   

From Big Fur Hat of iOwnTheWorld:

I just got off the phone with a guy who picked up the Breaking News tip line at the Urinal News- er… Journal News. That number is 914.694.5077

Here are some notes from our conversation:

Big Fur Hat (BFH): Does the Journal News stand by their decision to publish the names and addresses of gun permit owners?

Journal News (JN): There’s been no change.

BFH: What was the motive of publishing this map?

JN: The motive was clearly stated at the time of publication

BFH: Can you spell it out for me what the motive was?

JN:  It was spelled out when we published it.

BFH: I didn’t see that. I saw the map.

JN: If you haven’t seen it then why are you calling?

BFH: For your…

JN: What does it have to do with you if you haven’t seen it and you’re not affected by it?

BFH: No, no no, I haven’t seen what you say is the reason you published the map. I’ve seen the map. I haven’t seen your stated reason. I don’t know where to go to read that. Why can’t you just state the reason now?

JN: One of the roles of journalists is to report publicly available information on timely issues, even if it is unpopular. We knew providing the information in the database in the context of our story would be controversial, but we thought that sharing the information about gun permits in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting.

BFH: What is the import of that?

JN: We felt that it was important for people to know about that.

BFH: Know about what?

...long hesitation...

JN: The information that was imparted.

BFH: Well, what are people supposed to do with that information?

JN: It’s up to them.

BFH: So you’re putting that information out there as a public service and you don’t care what people do with that information?

JN: I have no comment and I’m not going to let you bait me…

BFH: no no no… wait, one last thing. I’ve made some phone calls to some of the people on the map, and 30% of the people were ex-detectives, judges and attorneys. (Full disclosure – I called 3 people and one was an ex-detective who was very upset. One other person I called did his own research and uncovered several attorneys, judges and members of law enforcement.) Do you care that you put this information out about people who spent a lifetime keeping certain information non-public?

JN: The information is legally available and public.

BFH: Ya, but what is legally available and what is right morally and ethically are two different things. Do you have any opinion on that?

JN: My opinion is not an issue here.

BFH: Is the Journal news going to continue with this style sheet, publishing FOIA information, are you going to put out anything other than gun permits, perhaps people who are HIV positive? That would be a “public service.”

JN: I have no idea..

BFH: Would that be a public service?

JN:... I wouldn’t reveal our plans to you even if I did know.

BFH: Would that serve the public?

...long hesitation...

JN: I have no comment.

BFH: What about people who are gay? Would that serve the public?

...long hesitation...

JN: You know the answer to that.

BFH: No I don’t. I’m asking you, the Journal News is educating me.

JN: I have no comment for you. If you have a (unintelligible) to answer I’d be happy to answer it, otherwise I will say goodbye to you and have a good day. (His voice sounded like he wanted me to die a thousand deaths.)

BFH: hmmm… wow

JN: (click)

DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION! NO SURRENDER!

IT WASN'T "GUN CULTURE"...IT WAS THIS MONSTER!

ANTI-GUN HYPOCRITES LOVE TO EXPLOIT DEATH

THE LEFT'S SOLUTION: BLAME BITTER CLINGERS

Allahpundit and I are on the same wavelength here as to why the Left can't be trusted when it comes to doing something about guns.  It's difficult to get the anti-gun fanatics to face the facts about guns and mass shootings honestly.  It's especially difficult to take them seriously when loudmouths on their side are making death threats.  Remember when the Left whined about the lack of civility in our political discourse these days following the Tuscon shooting?  As we've now witnessed countless times since then, their idea of "civility" is for those who have opinions with which they disagree to sit down and shut up.

The key passage in Allahpundit's article is this:

But look. With this issue even more so than with other issues, a huge part of the stubbornness and vitriol comes from cultural divisions and suspicions about the other side’s motives, not from policy disagreements. I understand the left’s point about high-capacity magazines; banning them might very well drop the death toll at some of these horrors. It’s not crazy to think so. The best counterargument is the slippery-slope argument and I’ve never thought much of slippery-slope arguments outside the free-speech context.

The truth, though, is that I don’t trust them and find the media groupthink on this subject endlessly irritating. It takes a lot to get a New Yorker to stick up for rural America, but their disdain for “gun culture” is often transparently a function of their disdain for rural culture. The One’s condescending bitter-clinger remarks were a classic expression of it. Much of the mindless “gun control” table-pounding without specifics feels like an ostentatious way for the table-pounder to simply show how much he/she cares, especially vis-a-vis the heartless conservative. And the flailing panicky vacuousness of the Do Something!!!! response, however understandable in the aftermath of Sandy Hook shellshock, grates especially coming from the self-styled "Party of Science."

As Tim Carney noted earlier, some of Our Moral Superiors who are pounding the table for “gun control” can’t even tell you what a semiautomatic or an “assault rifle” is. They’ve shown no compunction about demagoging other mass shootings for their political ends, no matter how thin the evidence was to support their conclusions. We were presented on Friday with a very unusual, very specific fact pattern from a mass killing committed by someone with a very unusual, very specific set of mental problems, and yet the big “scientific” recommendation tonight on MSNBC was to keep an eye on your kid in case he’s shooting too many aliens on the Xbox.

IT'S TIME TO DEAL WITH REAL PROBLEMS

The ghoulish Left-wing tactic of screeching about banning guns - even within minutes of the breaking news - is a way to put those who disagree with that idea on the defensive and equate a defense of the Second Amendment with a lack of grief for the victims.  The point of it is to make it seem as though all defenders of the Second Amendment, all those who own guns legally, are in effect guilty of the crimes committed by Adam Lanza.  Which means that our horror and sorrow is illegitimate in the eyes of self-aggrandizing foreigners such as Piers Morgan.

Calling for a gun ban represents no sacrifice for people like him so it's an easy call to make, with the added bonus of providing some scant evidence that they actually give a damn about society in general. Guns are viewed as a "right-wing" phenomenon and so going after the guns is essentially an assault on the "right-wing" itself.  It's not about curbing gun deaths or mass shootings because they know that criminals and madmen will not observe any laws prohibiting gun ownership.  It's about scoring points against the political enemy, pure and simple, with no cost to their side.  

The only real result of a gun ban would be to leave law-abiding citizens unprotected in their homes.  That works just fine for limousine liberals and clueless celebrities who rely on handlers to do their thinking for them and armed bodyguards to protect them.  The rest of us are on our own.

It's also why very few on the Left are motivated to talk about the problem of mental health in this country.  Guns don't make people become murderers.  Criminality does that. And so does mental illness, which is something that a significant number of mass murderers have in common.  But there is no political capital to be gained in pushing that agenda.  Much more satisfying for the Left to go after the guns and in doing so weaken that pesky Constitution that so often obstructs the path to the kind of totalitarianism they crave.

On the subject of our national mental health crisis, here's an article by Mona Charen that she wrote back in July after the shootings in Aurora, Colorado:

For years, mental-health authorities assured us that the mentally ill were no more dangerous than the average person. That’s true of most, but not all. As Dr. E. Fuller Torrey documents in his essential book, The Insanity Offense, rates of violence among the untreated mentally ill are significantly higher than among the general population and also much higher than among those receiving medication. Between 5 and 10 percent of the untreated seriously mentally ill will commit violent crimes in any given year, accounting for at least 5 percent of homicides in the United States (a huge number in a nation of more than 300 million). For rampage crimes such as the Aurora attack, the percentage of mentally ill perpetrators is much greater, as high as 50 percent.

Since the 1960s, when deinstitutionalization became intellectually fashionable and fiscally alluring to states looking to save money, the mentally ill have been dumped onto the streets. Today, 95 percent of the inpatient beds that were available for psychiatric patients in 1955 are gone. The Treatment Advocacy Center explains that “the consequences of the severe shortage of public psychiatric beds include increased homelessness; the incarceration of mentally ill individuals in jails and prisons; emergency rooms being overrun with patients waiting for a psychiatric bed; and an increase in violent behavior, including homicides, in communities across the nation.” Imagine if we treated the mentally retarded this way.

In many cases of mental illness, a belief that one is not in need of treatment is part of the sickness. Yet most studies show that the majority of those who are medicated against their wishes retroactively approve and believe it should be done again if necessary. In New York, 62 percent reported that being ordered by a court into treatment was a good thing for them.

And a failure in dealing effectively with mental illness is only part of a larger issue: the moral decay of society:
  

It should come as no surprise that the rate of mass shootings at schools and in other public places is increasing. The surge has nothing to do with guns, which have been widely available in the U.S. for years. Gun control laws have been increasing. Instead, there is a direct correlation between the increase in violence and the gradual degradation of morals, ethics and parenting. We are cultivating mental illness in our society.

Parents are allowing television and video games to increasingly babysit their children, even though both have become full of gratuitous violence. A New York Times study of rampage killers found that six of them were into violent video games. Research shows that violent video games and television desensitize people and promote aggressive behavior, despite claims to the contrary. A research scientist at the University of Michigan found that television was responsible for 10% of youth violence. Parents today are neglecting their children, and when things don't go well, rushing to get divorced instead of trying to work things out first. Children suffer emotionally when their parents fight or split up. Parents are ignoring their children so much they don't even see the warning signs that something might be wrong. The New York Times study found that 63 of 100 rampage killers had made threats of violence before the event.

Parents are no longer taking their children to church, where they would learn stability and morals. Fewer than 20% of Americans now regularly attend church. Every year there are 3000 fewer churches across the U.S, even though the population is growing. God and morality have been taken out of the public schools and replaced with political correctness and non-judgmentalism. “Public virtues” are no longer taught in today's schools. People who do not attend church are more likely than churchgoers to have stress and to be less optimistic about the future. When parents split up and there is no father to take the children regularly to church, the children are much less likely to become regular churchgoers than if their mother regularly takes them.

The New York Times study found that at least half the killers in 100 rampage attacks showed signs of serious mental health problems. 48 killers were formally diagnosed with mental illness, often schizophrenia. The mentally ill used to be kept in hospitals, where they were not a danger to others. Beginning in the 1950s in California, the ACLU successfully filed lawsuits to take the mentally ill out of hospitals, known as “deinstitutionalization.” By the 1980s, most state-run mental health hospitals had closed.

Now, most of the mentally ill are out on the streets or in prison. The laws have been changed to state that the mentally ill cannot be hospitalized until they've already attacked someone. As a result, more mentally ill people are incarcerated than in hospitals, with the seriously mentally ill three times more likely to end up behind bars than hospitalized. More than half of all people in prison report that they have mental health problems, and more than 40 percent of the seriously mentally ill have been in jail or prison. A study at the University of South Florida found that the highest users of criminal justice and mental health services were 97 people who had been arrested 2,200 times. It is ludicrous that those 97 people are not contained for their safety and others in mental health hospitals.

The 22-year old Oregon shopping mall gunman who killed two people earlier this week is sadly typical of the rampage murderers the decay of society has spawned. He had this written on his Facebook page, "I'm the conductor of my choo choo train. I may be young but I have lived one crazy life so far." One of his friends said he raised himself; his mother died at childbirth, he never met his father, and he left his aunt's home at age 14.

The left will use the high level of emotion stirred up by this past week's two rampage killings to push through new gun control laws. Liberal New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg called upon President Obama to enact tougher gun control laws immediately after Friday's mass shooting at an elementary school in Connecticut. Yet demanding more gun control laws will not solve anything. Gun control advocates have already increased the number of laws around the country requiring background checks, waiting periods for purchases, and tracking of firearms. Many of the rampage killers obtained guns illegally. If they can't obtain guns, deranged individuals will find other ways to commit mass murders – by setting fires, making bombs or running people over with vehicles. One day after the shootings in Connecticut, a man in Beijing stabbed 22 primary school students with a knife.

The left should not be allowed to dominate the dialogue after these tragic events with a red herring argument for gun control, in order to sneakily distract Americans from blaming them for what they have wrought. Americans who believe in traditional values must speak up and denounce the degradation of society's morals as the root of the problem behind these rampages, or the tragedies will continue to escalate.

REALITY CHECK FOR ANTI-GUN WINGNUTS

THE TRUTH ABOUT ERIC HOLDER, BARACK OBAMA AND FAST & FURIOUS

President Obama personally inserted himself into the Fast & Furious gun-running scandal after he extended executive privilege over certain DOJ documentation. Was Fast & Furious merely a botched BATF operation, or a deliberate effort to undermine the Second Amendment by manufacturing "evidence" as part of a propaganda campaign?

Panama Barack, arms dealer

In keeping with the standard "fake but accurate" praxis of the Left, it seems highly likely that President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder initiated an operation specifically designed to funnel weapons to Mexican drug cartels, knowing perfectly well that Mexican lives would be lost.  This, of course, would then allow the administration to do two things: Push for stricter gun control laws and provide "evidence" to support the usual "blame America first" meme.  This is turn would provide Obama with an opportunity to apologize once again to the world on our behalf and offer to give away just a bit more of our sovereignty in order to make amends.



Is the Left obsessed with brainwashing people because the ideology simply can't stand the disinfecting light of day?  The Left has always understood that manipulation, brainwashing and other forms of coercion are essential to achieving their goals.  That's why they are always worrying about "messaging."  Their repeated failures couldn't possibly be due to the moral bankruptcy of their ideology so it must be that the rest of us are simply too unintelligent, too ignorant and (most of all) too bigoted and racist to comprehend the brilliance of their schemes vision.  And so they stand up and pat themselves on the back for nonsense like this: Here is a video of Eric Holder promoting a public campaign to "really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."