The National Rifle Association is sick and tired of being the favorite whipping boy for every crackpot loon who decides to shoot up a school or public venue. So the NRA is taking the fight public and facing down their critics head-on. Tonight on CNN a townhall moderated by Jake Tapper will feature the NRA’s
The National Rifle Association is sick and tired of being the favorite whipping boy for every crackpot loon who decides to shoot up a school or public venue.
So the NRA is taking the fight public and facing down their critics head-on.
Tonight on CNN a townhall moderated by Jake Tapper will feature the NRA’s outspoken spox Dana Loesch who will join families of victims and students from Parkland, Florida, to discuss the obvious pink elephant in the room: gun control.
It will almost certainly be overflowing with emotional pleas, so it’ll be intriguing to watch if Loesch can navigation those rivers with simple, untainted facts.
We’ll keep you posted.
Here’s more from Redstate…
This evening at 9pm EST, Jake Tapper and CNN are hosting a town hall meeting with students and family members who were victims of the tragic shooting in Parkland, Florida, as well as politicians and public figures, on the subject of guns. The controversial town hall will include Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, as we reported yesterday.
But in a major move, and for the first time participating in this sort of discussion so close after a shooting, the NRA will have an official spokesperson present on their behalf. Dana Loesch, National Spokesperson for the NRA, will be there at the townhall, facing the families and America, discussing the issues of gun control, tragedy, safety and more.
The National Rifle Association will participate in CNN’s nationally televised town hall Wednesday with students, parents and community members who were affected by last week’s school shooting.
After a gunman took the lives of 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, lawmakers are facing renewed calls for legislation on gun reform.The NRA accepted CNN’s invitation to participate in the town hall and national spokeswoman Dana Loesch will represent the organization.
If you’re Nancy Pelosi, you’re getting a little nervous these days. Or, well, maybe not.
Pelosi’s ability to sense the political winds is legendary for being entirely insensitive.
That might be why she continues on her anti-tax cut ‘crumbs’ tour despite that polling shows a steady shift in favor of Republicans as we head into the thick of the midterm elections.
Dems are really excited about the prospect of retaking Congress, but the polls don’t seem to be cooperating.
According to Politico, that has members of Pelosi’s caucus beginning to reconsider whether her serial losses over four cycles is cause for a coup.
If Dems lose this opportunity to take the House, it could be the end for Pelosi.
And that’ll be unfortunate for Republicans since she’s clearly their best asset.
Here’s more from Hotair…
Should they be? As much as they bragged about coasting to a new House majority over the last several months, the sudden and repeated hits on the panic button might give observers whiplash. Politico reports that dissension has grown in the ranks as polling has reversed itself not just on the generic Congressional ballot but on the economy and Donald Trump himself.
Now many Democrats say they’re watching nervously as polls start to trend in Republicans’ favor — and worry they’re witnessing the beginning of a slow-motion train wreck that they have no idea how to stop.
There are still widespread disagreements within the diverse 193-member caucus about what campaign message Democrats should rally around in the final months before the midterms and even who should be the party’s chief messenger. …
“People get caught up in the anti-Trump messaging. That’s what the messaging has been,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.).
“The Democrats focus so much on Trump and the carnival that is around him that we don’t spend enough time talking about who we are and what we will do if the voters give us a chance in the majority.”
We should all cut Nancy Pelosi some slack.
After all, she’s having a hard enough time remembering which presidency we’re in.
So, it comes as no surprise that she’s entirely out of touch with reality and cannot possibly fathom how a couple thousand bucks is a big deal to a working American family.
That’s why she thinks it’s a fantastic idea to go across America criticizing Trump’s tax reform, which incidentally a majority of Americans approve.
But in Arizona this week, she got completely owned by a heckler who called BS.
As she was on her usual diatribe about how terrible tax cuts are, the heckler interrogated, “How much are you worth, Nancy?”
Her reply? “We’re not talking about that.”
But since she won’t tell you, we will.
She’s the wealthiest female in all of Congress at a net worth easily in the nine-figure range.
Hence, the ‘crumbs’.
Here’s more from Redstate…
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been one of the few Democrats actively speaking out against the GOP tax cuts, usually referring to the benefits that have come about from corporations to people as “crumbs.”
Calling it “crumbs” is at best laughable, and at worst a blatant lie. Corporations have been doing everything from giving out huge bonuses, to opening up employment programs that benefit its workers. Apple announced it was going to take the extra cash garnered from the tax cut to open up a second campus and create 20,000 more jobs.
Pelosi is famously one of the most out of touch politicians in Washington, and also one of the wealthiest. The House Minority Leader is currently worth $100 million dollars, and is hilariously fighting for $100,000 in tax breaks for herself as she seeks to eliminate tax breaks for the people.
This makes Pelosi’s talk about the GOP tax cuts being evil ridiculous to hear, and one person listening to her bash the people getting tax cuts during her town hall in Phoenix, Arizona a little bit too much.
“These are kitchen table issues for America’s families,” said Pelosi. “Most people are not in deadening poverty, but some are. Most people have to struggle to make ends meet.”
Nancy Pelosi Heckled At Town Hall While Criticizing Tax Reform: “How Much Are You Worth, Nancy?”
She replies: “We’re not talking about that.” pic.twitter.com/mF6ycp8Tg2
— Ryan Saavedra 🇺🇸 (@RealSaavedra) February 20, 2018
LA Times is reminding us that there’s no limit on stupid in this world.
In a column this week, the Times argued that mass shootings would be virtually eliminated if the AR-15 were banned by Congress.
The number of factual errors in the piece would probably warrant an entire book. But suffice it to say the AR-15 isn’t the only semi-auto rifle on the market.
What’s more, a quick Google search will turn up quite a few mass shootings in recent years in which a handgun was used.
Finally, anyone who’s actually shot both a semi-auto rifle and a handgun knows it’s much easier to fire and aim a handgun after recoil.
All that said, we’re thinking a ban on idiotic ideas might go along way in ending mass shootings.
Here’s more from Breitbart…
On February 19 the Los Angeles Times claimed that there would be no mass shooters if a “mass-shooting gun” like the AR-15 was banned.
The Times claimed Florida attacker Nickolas Cruz would not have been able to hurt or kill nearly as many people if he had been using a “six-shooter or pistol” instead of an AR-15. They tried to hedge their statement by limiting the pistol to “9 rounds,” which works out to ten rounds (counting one in the chamber), and has no bearing on the success of a mass public attacker.
For example, on April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho used a pistol to shoot and killed 32 people at Virginia Tech University. That is nearly twice as many as were killed in Florida, all killed with a handgun. And a Virginia Tech Review Panel determined that the capacity of the magazines used in the attack was not a determining factor in the outcome. This is because Cho had an important factor on his side–time. Gun-free zones give mass shooters all the time they need to pause, reload, and start shooting again. So the difference between having ten rounds and having 15 rounds is negligible.
It should also be noted that pistols were the gun of choice for numerous other high profile attackers, including the Fort Hood attacker (13 killed November 5, 2009), Giffords’ attacker (six killed January 8, 2011), another Fort Hood attacker (three killed April 2, 2014), the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal attack (nine killed Jun 17, 2015), and the Lafayette movie theater attacker (two killed July 23, 2015), among others.
According to a CNN column this week, sixteen-year-olds should have the right to vote.
The proof? They’re pro-gun control.
According to the author, teenage brains are fully developed and passionate about important issues, and that’s all that should be required of them.
Of course, for those of us with teenage children, we might beg to differ.
A quick read of the Federalist Papers might remind CNN of the many impediments to pure democracy which were intentionally built into the American republic to protect against raw political passions of the mob.
History aside, where was CNN when tens of thousands of teenagers marched on DC last month in support of the sanctity of life?
Here’s more from Redstate…
When it comes to atrocities that spark political debates, each side reaches for whatever advantage they can get to work in their favor. This includes so-called “news networks,” especially CNN, who after the Parkland shooting began to gather high school students who attended the school to asked them to talk about guns are. This naturally lead CNN to ponder the question of whether or not 15 through 17-year-old kids should be able to vote, since they would most definitely vote the right way.
“The real adults in the room are the youth from Parkland, Florida, who are speaking out about the need for meaningful gun control laws. They are proving that civic engagement among young people can make a difference. The ironic part? They can’t even vote yet,” wrote law professor and CNN contributor Joshua Douglas.
Douglas argues about how teen brains are fully developed, and how they’re proving that by calling out all the right politicians (just Republicans) to stop having such a close relationship with the NRA. Douglas argues that these kids are having rallies, because apparently having a rally warrants we take you seriously.
The New York Times is reporting a big headline about ‘swirling rumors in DC’ concerning the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.
We’ve heard this all before, however.
But the NYT is mum on what developments might be afoot that would justify the renewed rumors.
Some analysts argue that the second year of a presidency is typically when judges have retired.
But others argue that he’s hired new clerks for the upcoming term, potentially pointing to his intent to stay on at least another year.
Whatever the truth, it’s highly likely Kennedy will step down before 2020, which means Trump will get another pick on the Court to solidify its conservative leaning.
Here’s more from Newsmax…
Rumors that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy may retire are sweeping Washington, The New York Times is reporting.
It marks the second consecutive year the rumors have hit the nation’s capital.
Kennedy is 81 and was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the high court, the Times noted.
The newspaper said Kennedy has held the decisive vote in many of the court’s most contested cases. His retirement would give President Donald Trump the chance to move the court more to the right, according to the Times.
Kennedy is likely looking at many factors in making his decision, the newspaper said. Judicial experts believe those factors include party loyalty and the preservation of his judicial legacy.
And the newspaper noted justices usually prefer to retire when the sitting president is of the same party as the one who nominated them to the high court in the first place.
“If the incumbent president is of the same party as the president who nominated the justice to the court, and if the incumbent president is in the first two years of a four-year presidential term, then the justice has odds of resignation that are about 2.6 times higher than when these two conditions are not met,” it said.
President Trump ensured that the individual mandate — the core of Obamacare — was killed early this year which means even if taxpayers fail to get an approved plan, nothing will come of it.
And that seems to have cleared the way for states essentially to give Obamacare the middle finger–Idaho just became the first to do so.
According to Obamacare regs, all insurance companies across the land must offer plans that are compliant, which is why premiums have skyrocketed.
But Idaho’s move is simple: allow insurance companies in the state to offer non-compliant plans, which of course are much cheaper.
And Blue Cross of Idaho took the bait, which means more states will follow. So long Obamacare…
Here’s more from Washington Examiner…
Congressional Republicans failed to repeal or replace Obamacare. But one state has come up with a way to get around it. Idaho is dealing with Obamacare by just blowing it off. If it works, other states seem likely to follow.
Idaho’s Republican governor, Butch Otter, signed an executive order last year paving the way for non-Obamacare-compliant health insurance plans to be sold in his state, and Lt. Gov. Brad Little has since cobbled together what is sure to be the nation’s most controversial healthcare initiative. Their principal intention is to give the people of their state a way of avoiding Obamacare’s monstrous increases in insurance premiums. They want to put affordable insurance plans on the market again.
Obamacare’s spiraling premium increases have especially hurt middle-income consumers, who have had to pay the whole cost without getting the government subsidies that apply to poorer people. Those people have either gritted their teeth and bought expensive policies or, in many cases, chosen instead to break the law, pay the fine, and do without insurance. In Idaho, at least, they will be able to select from among plans that don’t fulfill all of Obamacare’s expensive criteria.
Surprise, surprise, Bill Clinton isn’t all that excited about sealed files related to the Monica Lewinsky scandal becoming unsealed.
What is surprising, however, is that CNN asked a federal court to unseal the files related to the grand jury subpoena and other court documents.
Slick Willy’s attorney, David Kendall (yes, THAT David Kendall, associated with the wiping of Hillary’s email server) is arguing to the court that his client would like to ‘present his position’ on the potential release.
Which should be assumed will be an argument against releasing details that might be, shall we say, a stain on his reputation.
Here’s more from Washington Examiner…
Former President Bill Clinton wants to weigh in on a federal court’s decision to unseal records surrounding the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal.
Clinton’s criminal defense attorney, David Kendall, said his client wants to “present his position” about revealing to the public records related to subpoenas over the 1998 grand jury investigation into his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
CNN requested that a federal court unseal the documents.
The records detail Clinton’s own grand jury subpoena and other court documents that include a grand jury investigation into leaks.
CNN said there is a good chance the judge will allow Clinton to participate should she invite the individual involved in the original subpoenas to offer comment and CNN and the Justice Department don’t reject Clinton’s request.
Just 72 hours after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced an investigation into the FBI’s failure to follow-up on tips about Nikolas Cruz, another shoe dropped.
During an interview over the weekend with Maria Bartiromo, he was asked directly whether there would an additional investigation into why the FBI presented the DNC-funded Steele dossier as evidence for the FISA warrant for Carter Page.
Sessions replied point-blank: “Every FISA warrant based on facts submitted to that court have to be accurate…That will be investigated and looked at.”
With all the investigations and investigations of investigations going on with the Federal Bureau of Investigations, there isn’t much bandwidth left for any real law enforcement.
Here’s more from Daily Caller…
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Sunday that the Department of Justice is investigating whether the FBI submitted accurate information about the infamous Steele dossier in order to obtain a surveillance warrant against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
Hillary is peddling a bold-faced lie. Yes, yes, we know that’s nothing new.
This headline is really more for our readers’ entertainment value because some lies are so blatantly untrue, one must suspend reality to ponder how Hillary thinks people will believe it.
But this is America.
Most folks will believe just about anything.
Enter Hillary’s anti-gun hysteria in which she tweeted after the Florida shooting that there have been at least 230 shootings since 2012.
She went on to detail that that amounts to 5 shootings per month.
It’s the same misleading statistics we saw from the Washington Post.
Factcheck: there have been 25 fatal shootings since Columbine…nearly 20 years ago.
Here’s more from Daily Caller…
Hillary Clinton tweeted out a misleading statistic in the aftermath of the deadly school shooting this week in Florida.
Clinton tweeted a claim that there have been “over 230” school shootings since the Sandy Hook shooting, which occurred in 2012. The statistic comes from the gun control group Everytown.
The statistic is misleading because it lumps in the discharge of all firearms in or around a school in that time period. The accidental discharge of legal firearms, shootings where no one was injured or present at the school and suicides all are included in the statistic. There have been 25 fatal school shootings since Columbine.