ANYTHING, that Obama got behind that we think would be Good For Us, WILL BE INCREDIBLY BAD.
Name ONE THING that wasn't twisted to support the Police State Corporate Stated perpetual Warfare state. Just one thing of any consequence, just one. The MOST effective Evil doesn't hold your and my values as anything other then weaknesses to be exploited. At least with GWB we expected every move to be as evil as can be...but holding out hope for change in a person or system that only gives results psychotics enjoy, is the beaten mother syndrome as we the kids allow those that represent us to then imprison, torture and murder the population for the world, becasue of it. Scott > Hi. " Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States" is > an > invaluable study just put out by Ezra Klein in the Washington Post. I'd > send it to you if it weren't 935 Kilobytes! I urge you to check it out, > for > the amazing graphs alone; at > http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about- > guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/ > - Ed > > > > <http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/dont-be-afraid-mr-president-you-c > an-take-gun-lobby?akid=9806.78931.YOIkRv&rd=1&src=newsletter761596&t=3> > http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/dont-be-afraid-mr-president-you-ca > n-take-gun-lobby?akid=9806.78931.YOIkRv&rd=1&src=newsletter761596&t=3 > > Don't Be Afraid, Mr. President -- You Can Take on the Gun Lobby > > Salon/ By Steve Karnacki > > Barack Obama and his party have been too terrified of angering gun owners > to > realize they can win without them. > December 15, 2012 | > > <http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/photo_ > 1355517158052-7-0_7.jpg> > > A grieving President Barack Obama wiped away tears and struggled to > compose > himself Friday as he mourned the dead in the Connecticut school shooting. > Photo Credit: AFP > > > > There's no disputing that the Democratic Party has regressed dramatically > on > the issue of gun violence over the past two decades. When a shooting > rampage > on the Long Island Railroad killed six people and injured 19 others in > December 1993, Bill Clinton responded immediately by calling > <http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/barack_obama_bill_clinton_and_guns/> for > specific legislative action to prevent future tragedies. Contrast that > with > the response <http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-gun-control-2012-12> > of > White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Friday to a question about > whether > the carnage in Connecticut might prompt President Obama to pursue gun > control measures. "I'm sure there will be another day for discussion of > the > usual Washington policy debates," Carney said, "but I don't think today is > that day." > > It can be hard to remember now, but well into the 1990s, national > Democrats > proudly associated themselves with gun control, championing laws that > restricted access to deadly weapons. Under Clinton, the Brady Bill, which > mandated a five-day waiting period for the purchase of handgun, was > passed, > and so was a ban on assault weapons. The 1996 Democratic Convention that > nominated Clinton for a second term featured Jim and Sarah Brady as > primetime speakers. > > The years since then, however, have been marked by a steady and thus far > enduring Democratic retreat on the issue, with the Second Amendment crowd > now largely dictating the terms of public discussion and Democrats mainly > trying to avoid their wrath. Consider Obama's record on guns, which > includes > one > <http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57477652/major-garrett-obama-has-exp > anded-not-reduced-gun-rights/> achievement : a law making it easier to > carry > concealed weapons in national parks. > > While the violent crime rate that fed the gun control zeal of the '90s is > much lower today, horrifying mass shootings seem to be on the rise. Six of > the 12 deadliest sprees in American history have > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/deadliest-us-shootings/ >> taken place just since 2007. In his own remarks Friday, delivered a few > hours after Carney's, Obama seemed to hint that the latest deadly outburst > might actually shake him and his party from their defensive crouch on > guns. > "[W]e're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to > prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of politics," the president > said. > > What that means is anyone's guess right now. It appears that the > Connecticut > killer used several weapons, at > <http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/17017680-418/assault-rifle-used-in-conn- > shooting-seen-on-chicago-streets.html> least one of which would be illegal > if the assault weapons ban - which the Republican Congress refused to > reauthorize in 2004 - were still in effect. Obama is on the record > supporting the ban's reinstatement; might he now demand action? Or will he > pursue other policy changes? Or maybe he'll just end up doing what leaders > of his party have done for more than a decade now: nothing. > > The Democrats' cowardice on guns traces back to the fateful election of > 2000. Clinton, despite his aggressive pursuit of gun control measures, > fared > relatively well with rural gun-owning populations in his 1996 reelection > campaign. But those same voters turned hard on Al Gore in '00, shifting > Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee to the > Republican > column. A victory in any one of those states - all of which Clinton > carried > twice - would have made Gore president. Democrats concluded that they'd > scared off rural, lower-income white voters who had traditionally > supported > them - and that guns were the big reason why. A new consensus emerged: Gun > control could no longer be a central component of Democratic messaging. So > it was that John Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008 and 2012 did their best > to > ignore the issue. Kerry went so far as to embark > <http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&tbo=d&biw=1600&bih=791&tbm > =isch&tbnid=JlkPyoyVsr4WuM:&imgrefurl=http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/60 > 63&docid=PPAqc1H3hhrAbM&imgurl=http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4044300 > 0/jpg/_40443187_041021_kerry203body.jpg&w=203&h=152&ei=kQXMUPihEsmT0QG9roH4B > w&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=291&sig=115306991911563486148&page=1&tbnh=121&tbnw=162& > start=0&ndsp=37&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:0,i:109&tx=38&ty=34> on a goose hunt in > rural Ohio just before Election Day. > > In terms of political strategy, there's been one obvious shortcoming to > this > approach: It hasn't worked. Kerry did no better than Gore in West > Virginia, > Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and Arkansas, and Obama has failed to win > any > of those states in two elections now. What's more, there's been no > <http://www.salon.com/2012/04/13/when_democrats_gave_up_on_guns/> > improvement in Democratic support among gun owners in any election since > 2000. As Nate > <http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/111151/could-newtown-change-gun-control > -politics> Cohn pointed out Friday, the lesson Democrats should be drawing > from Obama's two victories is that they can win nationally without the > pro-gun vote. The Democratic coalition continues to evolve and grow, and > the > rural white voters who were key to its success generations ago have become > a > reliably Republican constituency. > > What's more, Democrats continue to be painted as the party of gun > confiscators by the NRA and its allies. Even though there was nothing in > Obama's first term record for them to object to, the NRA bitterly fought > his > reelection this year, treating him as if he were Michael Douglas > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCsGMwHGINI> ' character in "The American > President ." In other words, Democrats are already paying the political > price that comes with being the gun control party. So if they believe in > it, > why not just say it - and act on it? > > The answer typically provided to this question is that there are a number > of > Democrats in Congress from states with large gun-owning populations - > think > Joe Manchin and Jon Tester - and that the party's current posture makes it > possible for them to win. But a better way of understanding the success of > these Democrats is that it's come in spite of the national party's > reputation. Democrats like Manchin and Tester are already winning over > voters who believe national Democrats want to take their guns away; this > challenge will be exactly the same if national Democrats actually do start > pursuing gun control again. > > There were a few > <http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2012/12/ny-pols-express-horr > or-send-prayers-in-wake-of-newtown-connecticut-school-mass> notable > Democratc voices on Friday demanding that the party recommit itself to > tackling gun violence. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a Long Island Democrat who > entered politics in response to her husband's death in the '93 LIRR > tragedy, > said > <http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/12/mccarthy-i-will-embarrass-obama- > on-gun-controls-152047.html> Friday that she will be pushing "full force" > for new gun laws in Obama's second term - and that she's willing to > "embarrass" the president if necessary. > > McCarthy, it should be noted, was showcased by her national party when she > first ran for Congress in 1996. Her story of turning her loss into a > crusade > for gun control was one with which Democrats very much wanted to be > associated. As her congressional career progressed, McCarthy became a > lonely > voice, on Capitol Hill and within the Democratic Party. But the spike in > mass shootings has given her a new audience and an opportunity win new > allies (and to win back old ones) - and to exert real pressure on Obama to > get serious. We'll know soon enough if Obama is really feeling the heat. > > > _____ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2634/5956 - Release Date: 12/13/12 > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:laamn-unsubscr...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:laamn-subscr...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:laamn-dig...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:laamn-ow...@egroups.com?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:la...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/laamn@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: laamn-dig...@yahoogroups.com laamn-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: laamn-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
