Why is Anti-American "newscaster" Lou Dobbs Pushing Radical Propaganda About The Bill of Rights

Why is Anti-American "newscaster" Lou Dobbs Pushing Radical Propaganda About The Bill of Rights

Fox Business host Lou Dobbs pushed the extreme conspiracy theory that President Obama wants to destroy the Second Amendment as a first step in eliminating the entire Bill of Rights. But Obama has consistently voiced his support for the Second Amendment, including during the Monday press conference that Dobbs referenced on his show.

During his program, Dobbs aired a partial clip of Obama saying at the press conference, "The issue here is not whether or not we believe in the Second Amendment. The issue is: Are there some sensible steps that we can take to make sure that somebody like the individual in Newtown can't walk into a school -- "

Dobbs responded by claiming that Obama is "so committed to constraining or dismissing outright our Second Amendment rights, it makes you wonder why he's not ridding the Constitution of the First Amendment as well." He later said, "You've got to wonder why the president doesn't double down in his assault on the Constitution, taking on not only the Second, but the First Amendment, the Fourth, the Fourteenth." Dobbs then suggested that the reason Obama has "begun with the Second Amendment" is because "[w]ithout our rights under the Second Amendment, removing the rest of our Bill of Rights would be a lot easier."

The context of Obama's comments clearly shows that Obama was not "dismissing outright" Second Amendment rights.

In response to a reporter's question about potential government actions to reduce gun violence, Obama said, in part, "I think that those of us who look at this problem have repeatedly said that responsible gun owners, people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship, they don't have anything to worry about." He also said that he believes we can reduce gun violence "in a sensible way that comports with the Second Amendment."

And while Obama has not yet outlined specific executive actions he will take to strengthen gun laws, none of the possible executive actions reportedly offered by the Justice Department involve restrictions on weapons that law-abiding Americans may purchase.

There is reality; some executive orders that improve on background checks and some loopholes in the law. Then there is the fevered paranoia and lies of anti-American zealots like Lou Dobbs. Has anyone checked Dobb's birth certificate. He can't be an American. Real patriots stand up for what is best for the country and sensible gun safety regulations are just that.

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

Conservative columnist George Will states that making it easier for people to vote is like Nazism

Conservative columnist George Will states that making it easier for people to vote  is like Nazism

George Will argues in his Washington Post column today that what he terms the Justice Department's "drive to federalize voter registration" is an unnecessarily complex answer to "the non-problem of people choosing not to vote," and that high voter turnout isn't all it's cracked up to be, citing the German elections of the early 1930s that resulted in Nazi dictatorship.

Describing "obvious reasons for non-voting," he writes:

    [T]he stakes of politics are agreeably low because constitutional rights and other essential elements of happiness are not menaced by elections. Those who think high voter turnout indicates civic health should note that in three German elections, 1932-33, turnout averaged more than 86 percent, reflecting the terrible stakes: The elections decided which mobs would rule the streets and who would inhabit concentration camps.

There's a lot to unpack here, but I'll try to keep it brief. Germany in the early 1930s was reeling from the global depression, increasingly bitter over the outcome of World War I and the punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles, and overrun by extremist parties with their own paramilitary wings brawling in the streets and shooting at each other outside political rallies. Anti-Semitism was widespread, everyone hated the Weimar government, and nostalgia for the heady days of the Kaiser led most people to actually yearn for a dictatorship of some form. And in this toxic political environment, the Nazis managed to prevail over the other extremist groups -- largely due to popular support, but also through conspiracy and outright intimidation.

None of that, however, is an argument against the high voter turnout as a sign of "civic health." It's an argument against war, depression, anti-Semitism, Nazis, Communists, and political violence. Will could just as easily have argued that representative government, or elections themselves, aren't a sign of "civic health," given how they were misused and perverted by Hitler and his associates.

But that's not the only bit of illogic Will brings to bear. Federalized voter registration, Will argues, is "a step toward making voting mandatory." Here's his vision for how that comes to pass:

    Notice the perverse dialectic by which Washington aggrandizes its power: It promises to ameliorate problems exacerbated by its supposedly ameliorative policies. Notice, too, the logic of [Assistant Attorney General Thomas] Perez's thesis that "our democracy is stronger when more people have a say in electing their leaders." Therefore the public good would be served by penalizing nonvoting, as Australia, Belgium and at least 10 other countries do. Liberals love mandates (e.g., health insurance). Why not mandatory voting?

Keep in mind that the only argument the Justice Department has made is that it should be easier for people who want to vote to cast their ballot. From this, Will has divined an intention on the part of the government to impel people to vote, based on the obvious truth that "liberals love mandates," as demonstrated by the health care law that, notably, has precisely nothing to do with elections, voting, or anything remotely related to the topic at hand.

Will's take on and ignorance of history is typical of conservatives. Up becomes down, losing equals winning and taking away individual freedom is the ideal of the conservative movement's concept of freedom.

Radical Republican Group Tells Congressional Conservatives To Hold Hurricane Sandy Relief Package Hostage

Radical Republican Group Tells Congressional Conservatives To Hold Hurricane Sandy Relief Package Hostage

Club For Growth, a conservative advocacy group, is urging Republicans to vote against the $60 billion Hurricane Sandy relief package that the Senate plans to take up this week, according to a statement on its web site.

The group, which scores congressional votes to document lawmakers’ conservative stances, issued a “Key Vote Alert” this afternoon telling Republicans it would hold a vote in favor of the relief package against them. The statement also calls on lawmakers to offset any money spent for disaster relief with spending cuts:

    The Club for Growth urges all Senators to vote “NO” on the Hurricane Sandy relief bill (HR 1) scheduled for consideration in the upper chamber this week. The vote on final passage, and perhaps procedural votes, will be included in the Club’s 2012 Congressional Scorecard.

    When a natural disaster occurs, there is a textbook response by Congress – they cobble together an overpriced bill that isn’t paid for, there’s no accountability or oversight, and it’s filled with pork. This proposal is no different.

    If lawmakers are interested in improving the bill, they should release the funds in installments to make sure the resources are spent wisely. They should also strip out all immaterial line items, and fully offset all expenditures with spending cuts elsewhere. Serious reform would also include a way for the states to take over the responsibility for future disaster relief funding so that accountability is more localized.

Republicans have made a habit of holding disaster relief hostage to spending cuts in the aftermath of recent natural disasters, like the tornadoes that devastated Joplin, Missouri last spring and Hurricane Irene, which pummeled the East Coast last fall. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) also threatened to hold disaster relief hostage to spending cuts after an earthquake struck his home state, and Republicans reneged on their support of a deal to fund disaster relief last year.

Multiple Republicans have already indicated that they would not support the relief package without equal spending cuts from other programs.

This is what made America great? Conservatives stab working Americans in the back to advance some murky agenda and teach us all a lesson about money. We're not spending the money because someone misbehaved, we're spending it because it is good for people, good for the economy and the decent thing to do after a national catastrophe.  

3,500 Comments Later, Racist Conservatives Apparently Don't Like Jamie Foxx & Django Very Much

How Walmart Helped Make Newtown Shooter's AR-15 the Most Popular Assault Weapon in America

Tea Party Nation Attacks Teachers over CT School Shooting

10 Arguments Radical Gun Fetishists Make, and Why They're Wrong

10 Arguments Radical Gun Fetishists Make, and Why They're Wrong

2. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Maybe, but people with guns kill many, many more people than they would if they didn't have guns, and guns designed to kill as many people as possible. We don't know if the murderer in Newtown was suffering from a suicidal depression, but many mass shooters in the past were. And guess what? People suffer from suicidal depression everywhere in the world. People get angry and upset everywhere in the world. But there aren't mass shootings every few weeks in England or Costa Rica or Japan, and the reason is that people in those places who have these impulses don't have an easy way to access lethal weapons and unlimited ammunition. But if you want to kill large numbers of people and you happen to be an American, you'll find it easy to do.
3. If only everybody around was armed, an ordinary civilian could take out a mass killer before he got too far.

If that were true, then how come it never happens? The truth is that in a chaotic situation, even highly trained police officers often kill bystanders. The idea that some accountant who spent a few hours at the range would suddenly turn into Jason Bourne and take out the killer without doing more harm than good has no basis in reality.
4. We don't need more laws, we just need to enforce the laws we have.

The people who say this are the same ones who fight to make sure that existing laws are as weak and ineffectual as possible. Our current gun laws are riddled with loopholes and allow people to amass enormous arsenals of military-style weapons with virtually no restrictions.
5. Criminals will always find a way to get guns no matter what measures we take, so what's the point?

The question isn't whether we could snap our fingers and make every gun disappear. It's whether we can make it harder for criminals to get guns, and harder for an unbalanced person with murderous intent to kill so many people. The goal is to reduce violence as much as possible. There's no other problem for which we'd say if we can't solve it completely and forever we shouldn't even try.
6. The Constitution says I have a right to own guns.

Yes it does, but for some reason gun advocates think that the right to bear arms is the only constitutional right that is virtually without limit. You have the right to practice your religion, but not if your religion involves human sacrifice. You have the right to free speech, but you can still be prosecuted for incitement or conspiracy, and you can be sued for libel. Every right is subject to limitation when it begins to threaten others, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that even though there is an individual right to gun ownership, the government can put reasonable restrictions on that right.

We do have the right to have guns. That in no way means that we cannot have sensible gun laws - background checks, limiting the size of ammo clips, or having gun free zones. Better gun laws will not solve the problem by itself,  In the Wake of Another Mass Shooting, Let's Talk About America's Dangerously Gutted Mental Healthcare System

Contrary To Fox's Reporting, Fox's Krauthammer Admits Right-To-Work "Can Lead To Lower Wages"