Wednesday, January 16, 2013

OT: Drudge Report's Portrayal of Obama's "Executive Orders" for Gun Control


The site has always been very good at portraying TPTB in the most unkind light, and today is no exception.



The link under Stalin's portrait ("FLASHBACK: Tyrants Who Have Used Children As Props...") goes here, the source for Hitler's and Stalin's portraits. The site also has pictures of China's Chairman Mao, North Korea's Kim Il-Sung, Cuba's Fidel Castro, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez (who looks like he's about to eat these kids).

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Philippe said :
Sorry Mr Admin, but I feel like I'm loosing my English - not my native language.
What do you mean ?
I know you don't like Obama, and I respect this, first as you have the right to think your own way, and second because you have done a very good job at covering - or uncovering the Fuku and nuke problems.
But is Obama anykind of tyrant - I don't believe so.
Was'nt it chidren that were killed in the recent events ?
I feel I also don't understand what's happenning in the US anylonger, and it makes me very sad, realy.
I thought of Obama as a soft reformist - without any great hopes in him, but who would have to deal with such huge powers that nothing great was to be expected, only a few moves in what I supposed were in the right way. What I read in the US press is he's bashed down from both - or all sides, as a communist, as a traitor, not to speak about his negro half.
And now a tyrant ?
No, I can't take that.
With all my respect,
Philippe.

Vyse Legendaire said...

<- Anon

Children and adults were killed. However, it is not guns that killed, but a combination of factors like:

- disarmed school zone
- Gunman on SSRIs most likely
- Culture of violence that refuses to see its own psychotic reflection in the mirror.

Is Obama a tyrant? He is a fully corrupt individual who has no interest except his own 'legacy' which won't exist thanks to the banality of that self-infatuation. 'Gun violence' debate is a canard to distract from the failure of legitimacy in the Empire...

netudiant said...

Well, it is also fair to note that much bad legislation, particularly relating to censorship, has been slipped through under the guise of 'child protection'. So it is fair to be especially cynical when a hard boiled politician such as Obama stages a childrens show.
In this instance, the laws proposed simply add more intrusive government supervision and also create an opening for compelling doctors to breach patient confidentiality on no tangible evidence. For a government that has arrogated the right to kill citizens without trial and that is stretching the definition of terrorist to encompass almost any dissent, that is an open door to criminalize medical communications.
Assault weapons are not the killers in the US, the overwhelming bulk of the roughly 1000/month gun murders are done with cheap unregistered handguns that this law will not touch. So what is the real gain from this effort?

Anonymous said...

@Philippe

Just about anytime a president uses executive orders to bypass congress they are called a tyrant Obama isn't the first. A lot of the anger over EO's comes from the fact that there is no constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders. This is the clause presidents have used since the early days to rule by fiat.

"Clause 1: Executive Power

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Clause one is a "vesting clause," similar to other clauses in Articles One and Three, but it vests the power to execute the instructions of Congress, which has the exclusive power to make laws; "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

The head of the Executive Branch is the President of the United States. The President and the Vice President are elected every four years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

I know English isn't your first language but I doubt you'd think the language granting the power of executive orders is clear. In my reading it seems pretty explicit that only congress has the power to enact law I don't see where it grants the president the right to issue decrees.

Also few want to remember Obama presided over the "Fast and Furious debacle where the ATF allowed 100's of weapons to be bought by a handful of criminal "straw buyers" who sold the weapons directly to criminal enterprises. These weapons started to show up at crime scenes in both Mexico and the US. If Obama wants to stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals he needs to start with himself. It wasn't a problem until an undercover cop was killed with one of these guns then came the finger pointing. Why didn't Obama gather the families of his fast and furious victims in a press conference to apologize for his deadly mistake and to pop out a few EO's on the matter?

People are going to argue that stiffer background checks wouldn't have stopped the school shooting the shooter used a weapon legally owned by his mother who he killed. Another of the 23 EO's looks to weaken Dr. patient confidentiality rules so Drs. can report their patients to law enforcement. What that law will do is make crazy people less likely to seek treatment or be honest with their Dr. when they are being treated. Here is a list of the 23 EO's most of them are do nothing feel good stuff that wouldn't have stopped any shooting. The mental health provisions will only serve to complicate treatment. Would you be honest about your feelings with someone if you knew they were encouraged to report threats of violence? Anger is a human emotion that mental health professionals deal with all the time people say stuff they don't mean to act upon if they are forced to bottle up these feelings they will be more likely to act on them. Crazy doesn't equal stupid the people who are predisposed to actual violence will quickly learn to keep it to themselves until after they have legally bought their arsenal (or stolen it) as was the case in Conn.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/01/16/read_president_obama_s_new_proposed_executive_orders_and_legislation_on.html

One of the health provisions I don't see is a study on recent school shooters and the behavioral drugs many of them were on. There is rumors that many school shooters were on prescription drugs known to make some patients suicidal but the government doesn't want to look because it would call the whole mental health industry into question if a correlation was found.

Anonymous said...

Philippe said
at anon 6: 59 AM
thank you, I could not understand this. And then I understand the dark humour.
Here in France we also have an "article 49" that enables the President to take orders that the Houses do not want to vote for, and it angers everyone - except those in power.

Anonymous said...

Here is an interesting list of the history of school violence in the US the media would have you think this problem just popped up during Obama's presidency but it has a long history. And yes, there was less violence in the old days because there were less people in the US.

http://www.k12academics.com/school-shootings/history-school-shootings-united-states

Did you know that the largest loss of life in a school was due to a school administrator and they used explosives?

"May 18, 1927 Bath, Michigan School treasurer Andrew Kehoe, after killing his wife and destroying his house and farm, blew up the Bath Consolidated School by detonating dynamite in the basement of the school, killing 38 people, mostly children. He then pulled up to the school in his Ford car, then blew the car up, killing himself and four others. Only one shot was fired in order to detonate dynamite in the car. This was deadliest act of mass murder at a school in the United States"

Or how about the good old days when kids legally took guns to school?

"An April 30, 1866 editorial in the New York Times argued against students carrying pistols, citing "...pistols being dropped on the floor at balls or being exploded in very inconvenient ways. A boy of 12 has his pantaloons made with a pistol pocket; and this at a boarding-school filled with boys, who, we suppose, do or wish to do the same thing. We would advise parents to look into it, and learn whether shooting is to be a part of the scholastic course which may be practiced on their boys; or else we advise them to see that their own boys are properly armed with the most approved and deadly-pistol, and that there may be an equal chance at least of their shooting as of being shot."

Hell a kid even shot his teacher but the teacher must have been a dick because the kid was acquitted.

" November 2, 1853 Louisville, Kentucky A student, Matthew Ward, bought a self-cocking pistol in the morning, went to school and killed Schoolmaster Mr. Butler for excessively punishing his brother the day before. Even though he shot the Schoolmaster point blank in front of his classmates, he was acquitted."

Post a Comment