The Leftist opponents of the 2nd Amendment have slowly started to crawl away from the term "gun control" and have chosen to adopt terms like "gun safety" and "gun responsibility" instead. As is always the case, Leftists can't begin a new assault on our liberties without first undergoing yet another burst of Orwellian word subversion. Talking about "gun safety" is just a nice way of portraying what they are really doing: relentlessly exploiting the tragic murders of 20 children in order to push a political agenda that they were eagerly pushing before Sandy Hook. This is not a response to what happened so much as it is a golden opportunity for further exploitation.
It's sad to say, but in their undersized hearts they wait in anticipation of the next tragedy in hopes that it will finally be "the one" that helps them achieve their goals. Marxists have always relied on the sensitivities of "useful idiots." But they also rely heavily on "useful victims." Note my emphasis on the word "useful." This is because not all victims are seen by the Left as "useful." Victims who do not serve their purposes; who do not help them advance their political and ideological agenda, are callously ignored. Hence the grotesque and shameful lack of emphathy for the victims of live-birth butcher Kermit Gosnell.
Veteran stands up for 2nd Amendment at Chicago anti-gun forum
After enduring hours of derision and mockery by the panelists at a Chicago-area guns "forum" Sunday, one man in the audience stood up and addressed the crowd, identified himself as a veteran, and proceeded to give a straightforward but passionate defense of his support for the First and Second Amendments.
The forum, despite having been marketed by the organizers from the New Trier Democrats as a "space for real conversation," had until then allowed for anything but discussion.
Countless snide remarks and dubious facts were placed on powerpoint slides as the audience, largely filled with NRA supporters, were repeatedly “shushed” and told to write any questions down for a later Q&A.
Still, as time went on, and especially after speaker Bill Jenkins placed a photograph of Nazi paraphernalia on the screen with the caption, "this is what a gun show looks like," and after he had put a picture of a chihuahua with the words "this is what I think the NRA really is" up, the crowd had nearly had it.
Finally, when panelist Lee Goodman of the Stop Concealed Carry Coalition responded to a question about the original reasons for including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights by saying "it didn’t matter [what their intentions were]," it was enough for the combat veteran to speak up.
And here is further footage from the event.
Note the smug condescension from the panelists. In addition to insinuating that 2nd Amendment advocates are "racist" and comparing them to Nazis and chihuahuas, the big lie was repeated: That concern over their activities constitutes "hysteria." They're not after anybody's guns, right?
Wrong. But in true Leftist fashion they are content to advance their goals incrementally. They know they can't get the guns today but they have every intention of laying the track - picture in your mind how a railway is created, track after track, mile after mile - for achieving their goal in the future. That's why they must never be underestimated and never, ever, trusted.
 |
| Elisabeth Hasselbeck |
So the word on the street is that Elisabeth Hasselbeck will not be returning to ABC's The View. That has not been confirmed yet. Unlike Joy Behar, who's departure has been announced, there has been no official statement from either Hasselbeck or the show.
If it IS true, the mystery is whether or not she is leaving voluntarily or being forced out. I believe that she is walking away from the show and the rumors of her being "fired" are nothing more than one final, mean-spirited jab at the youngest, most attractive and lone Conservative member of the panel of co-hosts.
The show debuted on August 11, 1997, featuring four co-hosts: Meredith Vieira, Star Jones, Debbie Matenopoulos, and Barbara Walters. Joy Behar started out as a part-time member of the group, subbing for Walters. Eventually Behar became a regular with Walters being the optional fifth member of the panel. Vieira was the original moderator.
The first member to leave the show was Matenopoulos who left in 1998 when her contract was not renewed. Following her departure, Lisa Ling was announced as the new co-host, beating out Rachel Campos-Duffy and Lauren Sanchez who competed in an on-air try-out to fill the vacated seat. Ling departed in 2002 to host National Geographic Explorer. Hasselbeck, a former Survivor contestant, joined the panel in 2003 after she, Campos-Duffy and Erin Hershey Presley were the finalists in a competition that ended with each of the three getting a week-long on-air tryout.
Since her arrival, the show has waved goodbye to Vieira and Jones in 2006 and, most famously, Rosie O'Donnell in 2007. O'Donnell had been brought on the previous year to take over as moderator. Whoopi Goldberg was chosen to replace O'Donnell as moderator. The slot previously occupied by Jones was filled by Sherri Shepherd.
O'Donnell's presence as moderator also doubled the number of comics on the panel (Behar being the other). Those two naturally took a humorous but cynical look at politics and taboo subjects that had been deliberately avoided in the past. During this time the humor was laced with an extra dose of liberal bias and was frequently offensive to anybody who didn't share O'Donnell's ideology.
O'Donnell had thoroughly negative opinions of President Bush and the war in Iraq. O'Donnell was also - and still is - a 9/11 "truther" who thinks that the Bush administration orchestrated the attacks. O'Donnell even went so far as to claim that "radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam."
Hasselbeck, the only Conservative among the hosts and out-numbered by three or four to one, had a choice of either playing along, keeping quiet or taking an opposing point of view. To her credit, Hasselbeck mostly took a stand and voiced her opinions, which naturally led to the others ganging up on her. O'Donnell in particular, as you might expect, delighted in doing this. And yet, after announcing in April 2007 that she would be leaving the show, O'Donnell still managed to portray herself as the poor, harassed "victim." This led to the famous final spat between her and Hasselbeck:
For the record, the Iraqi death toll talking point mentioned by O'Donnell was bogus. And so was Rosie's whine about how "they" were viciously ganging up on her. A comic, surrounded by her liberal allies on the panel and cheered by the Left-wingers everywhere, felt victimized? A few months after the spat, as Hasselbeck was going on maternity leave, the liberal Boston Globe put things into perspective:
When Elisabeth Hasselbeck bade farewell to her cohosts on "The View" Tuesday, it was all hugs, well-wishes, and baby-product endorsements. But as Hasselbeck begins her 2 1/2-month maternity leave, the political landscape is shifting, as well. America's most dangerous conservative - or so some liberals see it - is leaving TV for a while.
Hasselbeck, the apple-cheeked blonde with the football-player husband, consistently draws a brand of hatred from the left that Hillary Clinton generates from the right; "screechmonger" is one of the more printable slurs hurled at her from the blogosphere. Barry Manilow has called her "offensive." Alicia Silverstone once refused to touch her. And that an America's sweetheart-type would generate such vitriol says a lot about the state of debate in a polarized country.
~*~*~*~
Hasselbeck didn't start her career with politics in mind. The Rhode
Island native first gained national fame as Elisabeth Filarski, a
23-year-old Newton resident who competed on the second installment of
CBS's "Survivor." She parlayed a final-four finish into a job hosting
the Style Network show "The Look for Less." In November 2003, she won a
coveted slot as the designated "young person" on "The View's" all-female
panel.
Hasselbeck quickly emerged as the show's resident
conservative. She spoke out for President George W. Bush during the 2004
election campaign, had a prime-time speaking gig at that year's
Republican National Convention, and attended a White House state dinner
with Queen Elizabeth. When Rosie O'Donnell began a yearlong stint as the
show's moderator last fall, her frequent spats with Hasselbeck - which
at least once landed Hasselbeck in tears - made the YouTube rounds.
They
also solidified Hasselbeck's image as a victim; her cohosts on "The
View" tend to lecture her or treat her with gentle condescension.
"Elisabeth, calm down, dear," Barbara Walters said one day last year,
after Hasselbeck delivered a passionate rant against the morning-after
pill. Earlier this week, when Hasselbeck criticized Republican pork
barrel spending, cohost Joy Behar shouted, "Very good, Elisabeth," and
Walters chimed in with, "Now that's a milestone!"
The attitude toward Hasselbeck was also highlighted by Hollywood douchebag publicist Howard Bragman, when commenting on what Whoopi brought to the line-up:
"She is exactly what the show needs," said Hollywood publicist Howard
Bragman. "She is a beloved brand name; she is outspoken; she has done
this before, she is a person of color; she is as far left as Rosie; she
lives in New York; and she can kick Elizabeth Hasselbeck's ass."
Got that? On a show where the ratio is always at least 3-to-1 if not 4-to-1 in favor of liberals, it's Hasselbeck who needs an ass-kicking. Proglodytes.
So now we come to last Friday. In an exclusive, UsMagazine.com reported that after nine seasons on the show Hasselbeck's contract would not be renewed because "viewers found her too extreme and right wing":
The people have spoken. Elisabeth Hasselbeck, one of the five cohorts of ABC's daytime talk show The View, will not be returning to the couch next season, following hot on the footsteps of fellow cohost Joy Behar, a source tells Us Weekly.
According to the source, the show's resident conservative voice is being ousted after market research revealed that she isn't popular with TV audiences.
"The viewers they polled all said she was too extreme and right wing," the insider tells Us. "People did not watch the show because of Elisabeth. So they told her yesterday her contract would not be renewed."
When reached for comment, a rep for the show told Us in a statement: "Elisabeth Hasselbeck is a valued member of The View and has a long term contract."
I have no doubt that there are plenty of the show's liberal fans who feel exactly the way the anonymous source says they do. They don't appreciate Hasselbeck's point of view anymore than I appreciate Bob Beckel's point of view on The Five (which Roger Ailes has confirmed was inspired by The View's format). But I don't believe the show has suffered a significant loss of viewers at any time during Hasselbeck's time on the show. I'd guess it's just the opposite, to be honest.
Furthermore, if the negativity aimed at Hasselbeck is so prevalent, how do they explain this? It certainly looks as though opinions of Hasselbeck are basically split down the middle. How many Left-wing nutjobs did they pack into these alleged focus groups?
The question of whether Hasselbeck is being pushed out or is walking away voluntarily is significant. If she is "too extreme and right-wing" for the viewers then there is almost nobody who could fill her spot. It would basically be a case of the show bowing to the bias of slightly more than half their audience and deciding that there simply won't be a Conservative on the panel. She is hardly extreme in her views. It only seems that way to those who are suffering from Kool-aid-induced mania and can't even tolerate one dissenting voice on a four- or five-person panel. It's pathetic.
On the other hand, if she is leaving voluntarily, as Behar and others have done, then it's fair to assume that the show's producers (of which the last original member, Barbara Walters, is one) would look for another Conservative to fill the spot. If that were to happen I personally would LOVE for it to be Rachel Campos-Duffy. Hopefully (assuming she still wants it) the third time would be the charm.
There is a third possibility. It may be that The View itself is headed to oblivion. Barbara Walters may be the next one to call it quits. Until ABC makes an official announcement, the speculation will continue. Stay tuned!
 |
| Apparently some fans of The View have PHSD: Post Hasselbeck Stress Disorder |
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan has a theory about the easy availability of birth control that is...interesting, to say the least.
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan says white people are promoting birth control for black women because they fear becoming a minority in the United States.
Farrakhan spoke Saturday at Fountain Street Church in Grand Rapids, invited by the Grand Rapids Community College Black Student Union.
He says white Americans will lose their majority by 2050 and says they've introduced birth control to black women "because they don't want no more black babies."
MLive.com reports Farrakhan says he opposes same-sex relationships. He says he isn't "homophobic" and isn't "afraid of people who choose a lifestyle that's different" but rather is afraid for them.
The Chicago-based Farrakhan says women's role is to stay home and raise children with strong moral values.
He also says he isn't anti-Semitic.
A short article but loaded with provocative, racially-motivated statements and accusations made by a prominent religious leader about birth control, same-sex marriage, the homosexual lifestyle and a woman's role in society. His sermon was delivered on Saturday. As of late Monday night I haven't been able to find a single article or press release from NARAL, NOW, the Establishment Media, the Left blogosphere or Planned Parenthood condemning his statements. Where's Sandra Fluke? This isn't exactly a new departure for Farrakhan and the NOI, either.
Now compare that with this and ask yourself why it is that some groups get targeted while others don't. Why do some groups generate banner headlines while others scarcely get a mention? Is it cowardice? After all, the Nation of Islam, unlike the Catholic Church for instance, would not hesitate to protect itself and strike back, perhaps violently. Being glitter-bombed is not something Farrakhan has to worry about.
And what about on college campuses? On February 20th, the University of New Mexico student government organization, the Associated Students of UNM, passed a resolution which recommended removing Chick-fil-A from the student union due to the "company’s divisive history of contributions." Chick-fil-A must be shunned, apparently, because Dan Cathy exercises his First Amendment rights.
Last Wednesday, UNM's Student Union Building (SUB) board, which is comprised of administrators, alumni, and student representatives, voted 8-3, in favor of keeping the restaurant. Prior to the vote, LGBT student activists insisted that the mere presence of Chick-fil-A on campus made them feel "unsafe."
A group of liberal students at the University of New Mexico tried their best to get Chick-fil-A kicked off campus because they claimed the eatery made them feel "unsafe." The students even took to theatrics, such as crying and hyperventilating, before a vote was held on whether the restaurant could stay or not- despite a majority of students having no problem with them on campus. Gay students claimed that they even felt threatened by the mere sight of students and faculty carrying bags with the Chick-fil-A logo on them.
This is becoming a popular tactic of LGBT activists: linking the reality of anti-gay violence and bullying with mere opposition to aspects of the LGBT agenda, in this case same-sex marriage. It's a deliberate attempt to equate gay-bashing with the exercising of one's First Amendment rights. As far as they are concerned, there's no difference between a predator who attacks gays in a park and a man like Dan Cathy, which means that Dan Cathy, in their opinion, deserves the same kind of treatment as a violent criminal. It's obscene. But that didn't stop activists from continuing the charade.
"Students started expressing to me they felt unsafe to go into their own campus union building," Sen. Miquela Ortiz of the Associated Students of UNM said. "When they said they felt uncomfortable on campus, I felt it was an issue that I should bring up."
"Please look at this from a moral standpoint," said Brittany Arneson, a student against having Chick-fil-A on campus. "Look at the kids that are here that are telling you, 'I do not feel safe on this campus anymore.'"
Think about what they are trying to do here. They're claiming that a business, by its mere presence, is making them "feel unsafe" and therefore should be driven off campus. They "feel" unsafe... I'm sorry, but while there are plenty of crimes being committed on college campuses that would make all kinds of students feel unsafe, the mere physical presence of a fast-food franchise is not one of them.
All you have to do to realize how silly and, indeed, harmful these kinds of accusations are, just apply the same "I feel unsafe" argument to groups of people rather than a business. What if white students started protesting and complaining that the presence of black people on campus made them "feel unsafe" and that said black people should be driven off campus. Or if Asian students claimed that Latinos on campus made them "feel unsafe" and should therefore be banned.
Or what if hetero students claimed that the mere presence of LGBT students on campus made them "feel unsafe" and that they should be removed. How would that complaint be received? We all know the answer to that one. And we also know that suppressing First Amendment rights is wrong. So is scapegoating entire groups of people in order to silence them or have them removed.
As always, the Left shamelessly insists on demonizing others for activities that they themselves engage in all the time. It is called projection. It is facilitated by the cancer of political correctness.
 |
| 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.
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.
