Obama Administration Eyeing Gun Control 'Under the Radar,' Groups Warn

FOXNEWS.com:

The Obama administration, after keeping gun control on the back burner for over two years, is prompting concern among gun rights groups that it's slowly starting to squeeze the trigger on tighter regulation.


In the wake of the January shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others, President Obama remained mostly quiet on the firearms front as lawmakers clamored for new restrictions. But the president has since made a public call for tougher background checks. The Justice Department launched a series of meetings with officials and advocates to examine gun control policy. And while gun-control bills in Congress have languished, the administration has started to chip around the edges with its own proposals.


"They're doing a pretty good job ... as Obama has said, 'under the radar.' There's a lot going on under that radar," Gun Owners of America Director Larry Pratt said, referring to a remark Obama reportedly made in a private meeting with gun control advocates. "They've shown us how much they are prepared to do through regulation."


Pratt pointed to two proposals in particular. Under one proposed rule from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, dealers in four Southwestern states would be required to report multiple sales to the same person of certain kinds of rifles. The proposed requirement -- which would apply to dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas -- is open for comment until the end of May. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence claims the change would help the ATF "crack down" on Mexico's gunrunners.


In addition, ATF released a study in January that looked at criteria for restricting the importation of certain shotguns. The authors were working off a 1968 law that restricts gun imports but exempts firearms used for "sporting purposes." The report, then, tried to define which features on shotguns are not suitable for "sporting purposes" and therefore not importable -- among the features they flagged are folding stocks, magazines over five rounds and "light enhancing devices."


The National Rifle Association has come out strong against this study.


Pratt said the shotgun restrictions, if approved, could lead to broader restrictions on other imported long guns -- at a time when the administration is trying to reduce federal regulations. Pratt also cited a decision last year to block the sale of U.S.-made antique rifles by the South Korean government to gun collectors in America. The State Department said at the time it was concerned the guns could fall into the wrong hands.


These smaller-scale proposals come in lieu of sweeping restrictions like the assault-weapons ban Obama supported as a candidate but has not pursued as president. Another proposal on the table calls for banning high-capacity magazines, but it has not advanced in Congress.

When it comes to gun control in this country, this is what frustrates me to no end about the Right: the sheer and stupid paranoia that develops anytime someone mentions doing something right about gun safety. I don't think that most people, Democrats included, have a problem with law-abiding citizens owning guns. It's lax gun laws and the like that lead to nuts like Jerad Loughner and/or criminals in general that must be changed. Thus, our leadership needs to step up, so give Barry credit for standing up to the NRA bullies and the rest of the far-Right crazies here. And hey, if they force Barry to go around Congress to make sure a Virginia Tech massacre or a Tuscon shooting doesn't happen again, much less save a life or two or three at the same time...then so be it.

Rep. Peter King: Rudy Giuliani ‘Very Close’ To Running For President; ‘Very Much’ Wants It

Speaking from experience (he was my hometown of NYC mayor for 8 long years), Rudy Giuliani is a racist, an egomaniac, an opportunist and just an all-around prick. That said he has no chance of ever being President, but why he keeps wasting people's time with this nonsense shouldn't surprise anyone who knows him.

Barney Frank Admits To Helping Lover Land Job at Mortgage Giant in ’91

The fact that Barney Frank would refer to criticism of him using his influence as a pol to get his boyfriend hired for a job as "nonsense" proves once again just how much of a hypocrite liberal politicians are on....everything:

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank admitted he helped his ex-lover land a lucrative post with Fannie Mae in the early 1990s while the Newton Democrat was on a committee that regulated the lending giant — but he called questions of a potential ethical conflict “nonsense.”


“If it is (a conflict of interest), then much of Washington is involved (in conflicts),” Frank told the Herald last night. “It is a common thing in Washington for members of Congress to have spouses work for the federal government. There is no rule against it at all.”


Frank said he helped his former longtime companion, Herb Moses, land a job at Fannie Mae in 1991 after Moses graduated with a master’s degree in business administration from Dartmouth College. Frank said he was approached by a Fannie Mae executive and vouched for Moses, who formerly worked as an economist in the Department of Agriculture.


“(The executive) said, ‘Herb applied for a job,’ and I said, ‘Yeah, I think he’d be great. He’s an economist and he’s got an MBA,’ ” Frank said, recounting the conversation. “He was hired to an entry-level position.”


Asked if he should have disclosed his efforts to help Moses land the job at Fannie Mae, Frank said: “It was widely known. It was out there in the public. It’s nonsense.”


Congressional Republicans pounced on the embarrassing revelation.


“Just when you think you’ve heard the worst, Democrats in Massachusetts take shameless politics to a new low,” said Tory Mazzola, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “The fact that Barney Frank didn’t see this as a conflict of interest is alarming by itself, but it’s so deceitful that it really shows voters that he’s not looking out for them in Washington.”


Moses, who lived with Frank in Washington at the time, worked for Fannie until 1998, when he left the mortgage behemoth. Moses, who could not be reached for comment, and Frank split up that year.

Supreme Court Backs Arizona Immigration Law That Punishes Businesses

Liberals will never admit it, but there is no country in the world that has lax immigration rules like the U.S. does. So not only has illegal immigration long remained a big problem in this country, but it's a huge burden on our economy and is a big reason why unemployment for minorities here stays high. Give credit to Gov. Jan Brewer and Arizona for not only taking on this problem, but doing it the right way as the high court just conceded:

The Supreme Court has backed an Arizona law that punishes businesses hiring illegal immigrants, a law that opponents, including the Obama administration, say steps on traditional federal oversight over immigration matters.


The 5-3 ruling Thursday is a victory for supporters of immigration reform on the state level.


It was the first high court challenge to a variety of recent state laws cracking down on illegal immigrants, an issue that has become a political lightning rod.


The outcome could serve as a judicial warm-up for a separate high-profile challenge to a more controversial Arizona immigration reform law working its way through lower courts. That statute would, among other things, give local police a greater role in arresting suspected illegal immigrants.


The hiring case turned on whether state law tramples on federal authority.


"Arizona has taken the route least likely to cause tension with federal law," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. "It relies solely on the federal government's own determination of who is an unauthorized alien, and it requires Arizona employers to use the federal government's own system for checking employee status."


Arizona passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act in 2007, allowing the state to suspend the licenses of businesses that "intentionally or knowingly" violate work-eligibility verification requirements. Companies would be required under that law to use E-Verify, a federal database to check the documentation of current and prospective employees. That database had been created by Congress as a voluntary, discretionary resource.

Former U.S. AG Michael Mukasey calls Eric Holder’s Prosecution of CIA agents “outrageous”

Source

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Calls Laura Ingraham A ‘Right-Wing Slut’

Yet, another example of of the kind of toxic, hypocritical talk that goes on liberal radio and why when compared to its conservative counterparts it continues to be an utter fail:

Yeah. Apparently Ed Schultz has forgotten that he’s not on Saturday Night Live. And that it isn’t 1978. Yesterday on his radio show, Schultz decided to call Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” Now, before you get all up in arms, Schultz did clarify his statement. He followed it by calling her a “talk slut.” That’s better, right? No.


Here’s his comments:


“And what do the Republicans thinking about? They’re not thinking about their next-door neighbor. They’re just thinking about how much this is going to cost. President Obama is going to be visiting Joplin, Mo., on Sunday but you know what they’re talking about, like this right-wing slut, what’s her name?, Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she’s a talk slut. You see, she was, back in the day, praising President Reagan when he was drinking a beer overseas. But now that Obama’s doing it, they’re working him over.”


Schultz was discussing Ingraham’s comments about President Obama’s trip to Europe and…you know what? The backstory really doesn’t matter here. What was he thinking? I can’t think of any possible situation where it would be ok for him to call a woman a slut. I don’t know. Maybe if Ingraham herself had walked into the studio wearing a shirt with the words “Hey, please call me a slut” written in big letters. Even then it would be a bad idea.


Look, if you don’t agree with something the woman says, you can feel free to call her an “idiot” or a “jerk” or a “big, stupid poop-face.” Whatever you want. Just don’t call her a slut, you big, stupid poop-face!


For the billionth time, when insulting someone in the media, don’t use a word that has negative connotations connected to their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, of unchangeable physical features or handicaps. Why is this so damn difficult to understand? Ed, weren’t you just yelling at Eric Bolling for saying the President drank “forties?”

UPDATE: MSNBC Suspends Ed Schultz Over 'Unacceptable' Remarks

Supreme Court Orders Release Of 33,000 Prison Inmates In California

Of course, if they hadn't done the crime they wouldn't have to worry about "harsh" conditions. But then the only people who sympathize with criminals are liberals so at least they're happy:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that California must drastically reduce its prison population to relieve severe overcrowding that has exposed inmates to increased violence, disease and death.


The decision, however, doesn't mean the prison gates will swing open in an uncontrolled release.


The high court's decision calls on the state to cut the population to no more than 110,000 inmates, meaning California will have to shed some 33,000 inmates to comply over the next two years. State officials can accomplish that by transferring inmates to local jails or releasing them.


The 5-4 ruling revealed a sharp divide on the court between Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.


Kennedy wrote for the majority and described dismal conditions where prisoners are denied minimal care and suicidal inmates are held in "telephone-booth sized cages without toilets."


"A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society," Kennedy wrote, joined by the court's four Democrat-appointed justices.


Scalia read a blistering dissent from the bench in which he called the ruling "perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation's history" and said it would require the release of a "staggering number" of convicted felons.


The ruling also raised concerns among California lawmakers and attorneys general from 18 states who argued that a decision ordering the reduction of California's inmate population infringes on states' rights and could leave their prisons open to similar lawsuits.


It's "a historic attack on the constitutional rights of states and the liberty of all Californians," said former state Sen. George Runner, who had intervened in the lawsuit on behalf of legislative Republicans. It will result in "flooding our neighborhoods with criminals."

Mediaite Destroys New York Magazine's Hit Piece On FOX News, Roger Ailes

Calling out BS when you see it, that's what journalists are supposed to do and Mediaite's Colby Hall does a great job here:

In the political debates regularly covered here at Mediaite, this New York Magazine story would fairly be described as “the other story.” Not the explosive one on Roger Ailes and Fox News that we have, thus far, written three pieces about, but the one on Media Matters founder David Brock. His story as a conservative turncoat is a fascinating one, replete with apologies for his errant ways and his new commitment to taking down the group he once represented. But much of the piece focuses on his near obsession with Fox News which he says has transformed “into something that isn’t even recognizable as a form of media.”


So one would think that in a landmine filled topic like this one, author Jason Zengerle would take great care to avoid broad generalizations and instead stay focused on facts and storytelling, in the way that Gabriel Sherman admirably did with his piece on Ailes. Nope. Penning a soft, glowing portrait of Brock is one thing, but vastly overstating Media Matters influence is far more biased. After all, media…matters, am I right?


First he points out that “What began in 2004 as a ten- person shop with a $3 million annual budget now has around 90 employees and plans to spend $15 million this year.” That is striking and demonstrates the enormous fundraising operation that they have created. But that is not translating into readers. With that budget and staff, they should be about the size of a site like Politico, but the numbers tell a far different story. According to web traffic evaluator, Quantcast, Politico averages 5.6 million monthly unique visitors, Media Matters a mere 646,200. Even if you give Media Matters the benefit of the doubt and double that number, they are still doing a fraction of the traffic of sites its size (at 1.3 million, it would still be far smaller than little Mediaite, with ten times the staff). That’s something that clearly should have been pointed out in the story.


But its not just the author’s unwillingness to dig into their true influence, but he gives them credit for events for which Media Matters cannot legitimately claim responsibility.


The article states:


Last month, Media Matters scored what it considers to be its biggest victory to date against Fox when the news channel and Glenn Beck decided to end his show. Beck had become the face of the Media Matters anti-Fox campaign. Not only did the group keep a running tally of Beck’s most offensive statements, but it was also part of an effort to persuade more than 300 advertisers to boycott Beck’s show—which, Brock believes, is what ultimately convinced Fox that it could no longer afford to have Beck on its air.


Its true that Media Matters helped engage in a campaign against Beck that had some impact. But to quote, without further context, Brock’s assertion that Media Matters “ultimately convinced Fox” to get rid of Beck shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Fox and its often quirky personalities.


Yes there was an advertising boycott primarily led by Color of Change, but there are a myriad of complicated relationships (and, yes politics) that went in to Beck’s announced split from Fox News. To assert that the decision was a direct reaction to Media Matters’ “convincing” of Fox News executives is almost a laughable conceit.


But maybe the most egregious journalistic faux pas was in Zengerie’s broad assertion that “over time, Brock and his group have come to be viewed as relatively responsible arbiters.”


Huh? As we have noted here at Mediaite, Media Matters has struggled to be taken seriously by anyone apart from their own loyal following. That is not to say that we do not trust their investigative pieces. We often do. But, as we have reported before, the vast majority of their stories fall on deaf ears because they are not viewed as responsible arbiters.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 5/23/11

Mitch Daniels Decides Not To Run For President

Coping With Doomdays That Don't Happen

Obama Rejects Controversy Over His Stance On Middle East Peace Talks

Herman Cain Is Running For President

Newt Gingrich vs. Paul Ryan

Prices At Gas Pump Painful For 4 In 10 Americans

'Gay' Lifestyle = Higher Cancer Rates

NYTimes Issues Another Slanted Attack Against Catholic Church

Palin Fundraiser, Home Purchase Fuel Speculation Of 2012 Run

From Social Security To Food Benefits, It's Welfare Gone Wild

Professor Under Fire For Calling Black Women Ugly In Article

Paul Ryan Schools David Gregory: 'I Don't Consult Polls to Tell Me What My Principles Are or Policies Should Be'

Part 2



Source