Gutting Voting Rights: Supreme Court Gives Racist Republicans Just What They Wanted

This morning the Supreme Court issued their decision on one of the most highly anticipated cases of the year. The Court ruled that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, that provides for review of potentially discriminatory practices in jurisdictions with a history of voter suppression, is no longer necessary.

The Court justified the decision by citing the provision’s effectiveness. The logic there is peculiar, to say the least. It’s an argument for eliminating those things in the law that work best. Would the Justices signing onto this decision ever suggest that, since laws prohibiting murder resulted in a noticeable decline in victim deaths, that those laws are unnecessary and should be dispensed with?

The Voting Rights Act has been doing precisely what it was intended to do for nearly fifty years. It was reauthorized in 2006 with overwhelming support in congress (98-0 in the senate, 390-33 in the House) and signed by George W. Bush. For the Court to overturn the will of the people in this regard tags them as just the sort of activist jurists that right-wingers usually assail. The Act’s usefulness was demonstrated just last year when numerous localities tried, but failed, to implement voter suppression schemes. Here are a few of the cases that were struck down:

Unfortunately, many other examples exist of racist legislation prevailing within states that have dominant GOP representation. The fact that so many attempts to sideline citizens, whether successful or not, have taken place is evidence of the continuing need for vigilance. Initiatives that inhibit registration, reduce voting opportunities, or require extraordinary measures to exercise the right to vote, are still in place or are being pursued.

War on Voting
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

The GOP has been surprisingly open about their desire to limit voting to predominantly white, conservative constituencies. Here is what some of their leading lights have had to say on the subject:

John Stossel (Fox News): “Let’s stop saying everyone should vote.”
Rush Limbaugh: “If people cannot even feed and clothe themselves, should they be allowed to vote?”
Roger Vadum: “Registering [the poor] to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American.”
Judson Phillips (Tea Party Nation): “If you’re not a property owner, I’m sorry, but property owners have a little bit more of a vested stake in the community than not property owners do.”
Steve Doocy (Fox News): “With 47% of Americans not paying taxes – 47% – should those who don’t pay be allowed to vote?”

It is also notable that coverage on Fox News of the Court’s decision didn’t run until 20 minutes into their 11:00am (et) broadcast and lasted for about one minute. It followed stories about Edward Snowden, the IRS, George Zimmerman, Benghazi, the Massachusetts senate race, and Snowden again. Obviously Fox needed some time to determine how they were going to spin this news. So they simply announced that the decision was handed down and then waited for further instructions from Roger Ailes or other opinion czars at the network.

While technically this decision throws much of the responsibility for future voting rights back to congress, the reality is that congress in its current form is such a dysfunctional heap of failure, that any reasonable attempts to remedy the damage done to democracy by the Court’s action are doomed to suffer from the same partisan obstructionism that has plagued Washington ever since the GOP decided that its top priority was to destroy President Obama. The only hope would be for the people to rise up and return control of the House to Democrats in 2014. That’s tall order, but one worth pursuing.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Zimmerman Defense Lawyer Makes Callous Attempt At Comedy

In one of the most stunningly idiotic opening statements ever presented in a court of law, Don West, co-counsel for the defense of George Zimmerman, somehow managed to conclude that it would be appropriate to tell a knock-knock joke at the commencement of a murder trial with the parents of the deceased teenage victim sitting a few feet away (video below). West prefaced his turn at comedy by saying that “Sometimes it is necessary to laugh to keep from crying.” This was obviously not one of those times as West proceeded to strike out with the stunned jury.

West: Knock knock. Who’s there? George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? All right. Good. You’re on the Jury.

George Zimmerman
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

The only plausible explanation for this severe mental aberration is that the defense is already trying to set up a cause for appeal based on incompetent counsel. The jury sat in such abject silence after the alleged joke that West beseeched them for a response pleading “Nothing?” Then, after a break, the lawyer returned to continue his opening remarks, but started off with an apology and blaming his delivery for the lack of comedic punch.

That apology is further evidence that West has no idea what was wrong with his tasteless behavior. This was not a problem resulting from the joke not being funny enough, or that it was delivered poorly. The problem was that it was a joke. The problem was that a murder trial is not the same as open mike night the Laugh Factory.

What’s worse is that the point of this particular joke is an overt insult to the members of the jury. It was a slap at the ignorance of the panel for their having been selected based on how little they knew about current events. He was telling the jury that they were sitting in this courtroom because they are a bunch of morons who never heard of a notorious criminal defendant.

That’s not exactly the best way to win over an audience. It’s probably premature to presume that this counsel has permanently lost credibility with the jury, but he certainly has dug himself a deep hole that will take considerable effort to climb out of. If this flub signals anything, it’s that the defense has very little of substance to hang their case on, so from the outset they are throwing up irrelevancies and distractions. Look for more of that in the coming weeks.


Fox News And Donald Trump Use Snowden Story To Revive Birther Claims

No one is surprised anymore when Fox News brazenly brandishes their rightist leanings or promotes Republican candidates and causes. Anyone who is paying attention recognizes that Fox is the PR arm of the GOP. But having established that fact, Fox is now swinging for the fences and attempting to take the mantle of fringe fictionalists from the likes of Glenn Beck and Alex Jones.

The media is clearly obsessed with this new melodrama revolving around Edward Snowden and the international chase scene that has reporters racking up frequent flier miles and dreams of sky-high ratings. They would like nothing better than a helicopter hovering over a white Bronco as it tracks Snowden to some exotic tropical sanctuary. Every media whore in the business is weighing in.

Sarah Palin

So it goes without saying that this morning on Fox & Friends, the kiddies on the curvy couch hosted national joke and Hair Club for Dicks spokesman, Donald Trump, to discuss the Snowden affair. Trump wasted no time in sensationalizing the matter with his typically shallow analysis by calling for Snowden (who has been convicted of nothing) to be executed and blaming Obama for everything. But Trump’s outraged is not reserved for Snowden alone. When he was asked what he thought about the newspapers that published Snowden’s documents, Trump said that it was “disgraceful.” So he is not only opposed to whistleblowers, he also opposes journalists. He even managed to inject a swipe at Climate Change when he mentioned some nonsense about magazine covers in the 1920’s reporting global cooling.

However, the focus was squarely on Snowden as Trump implied that America is weak and in danger of imminent extinction. Although, in the minds of these extremist right-wingers, America is always mortally threatened by whatever their issue du jour might be, whether it’s health care, immigration, or totalitarian bicycles (seriously). But the wheels really came off the interview when Trump segued from Snowden’s flight to his favorite subject, the President’s birth certificate.

Trump: You know the only thing we don’t seem to get are the records from the President. Isn’t that interesting?
Brian Kilmeade: Yeah, no one leaks that.
Steve Doocy: Yeah, where are those?

Yeah! How come that Kenyan socialist Muslim doesn’t release his records – again? Why is continuing to deceive the American people about his foreign nativity and his phony academic resume? And when will he come clean about his real father being former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers? And what his Marxist upbringing, his gay husband, and his alien reptilian body that lies beneath that human costume he wears?

America wants to know. And thank God for Fox News – the only media outlet courageous enough to ask these questions. As for Snowden, if he really wants to gain some credibility with the Free Speech crowd, he should show up in Red Square wearing a Free Pussy Riot t-shirt while he’s in Russia.

Snowden - Pussy Riot


Floundering GOP Senate Candidate Turns To Republican PR (aka Fox News) For Help

The race to fill John Kerry’s senate seat in Massachusetts has never been much of contest. Democrat Ed Markey has led Republican Gabriel Gomez from the start and in the few days left before next Tuesday’s election, he has expanded to his lead to up to 20 points in some polls. But that hasn’t stopped Fox News from brazenly trying to manipulate the outcome by juicing their coverage of the race in favor of Gomez.

Fox News

Having concluded that their efforts to boost the Gomez candidacy with phony polling analysis and swipes at Markey, Fox News is ramping up their game in a last ditch attempt to put their man in the senate. Tomorrow, on Fox News Sunday, they will feature an interview with Gomez, just two days before the election. That’s a pretty generous donation of valuable air time on a nationally televised program. Any candidate would be thrilled to get that much free publicity.

However, Ed Markey isn’t so fortunate. The “fair and balanced” folks at Fox will only be hosting Gomez at this critical juncture in the campaign. In fact, Markey has not been on Fox at any time during this campaign, while Gomez has been featured multiple times. And Fox always allows Gomez to advertise his web site and plead for donations.

The booking of Gomez on Fox News Sunday is just another example of how Fox has established itself as the PR agency for the Republican Party. There is no more reliable ally for GOP candidates, particularly when they are desperate and appear to be trailing badly. And even when the candidate isn’t available, the Fox anchors and pundits are there to lavish praise on them and to smear their Democratic opponents. It’s a valuable service/scam for which the candidate doesn’t have to shell out a single penny.


Fox News Hires CNN’s Washed Out Media Analyst Howard Kurtz

Howard Kurtz

Chalk up another acquisition by Fox News of an outcast from some other news network. As has been noted here at News Corpse, Fox “seems to regard the discards of other networks as their richest vein of new talent.” Today it was announced that Fox has scooped up CNN’s media analyst Howard Kurtz, who was recently censured by CNN, and jettisoned by The Daily Beast, for “sloppy” reporting that disparaged Jason Collins, the newly out NBA player. So of course Fox News would leap at the chance to add Kurtz to their roster. Other recent rejects by CNN that have joined Fox include Erick Erickson, Lou Dobbs, and Tucker Carlson.

Kurtz has a spotty reputation at CNN where he has, on occasion, had some profound commentaries that expose media hypocrisy and bias. But he has just as often proven to be a tool of the Washington villagers who dismisses serious failings and neglects the shortcomings of his colleagues. He is the ultimate insider who is married to a right-wing PR consultant, a fact that he does not disclose when reporting on related matters. In statements marking the new relationship, Fox and Kurtz were typically effusive of one another:

Fox VP Michael Clemente: Howie is the most accomplished media reporter in the country.
Kurtz: I’m excited to be bringing my independent brand of media criticism to Fox News. […] I hope to add a new dimension to Fox’s coverage and have some fun while diving into the passionate debates about the press and politics.

Not everyone at Fox has the same opinion of Kurtz as Clemente does. Sean Hannity sneered that Kurtz was a “nitwit,” and railed that “I don’t like him. He’s full of crap. He thinks he’s a sanctimonious, self-righteous, phony establishment journalist.” Bill O’Reilly, upset that Kurtz had criticized his epically erroneous analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision on ObamaCare, said “Kurtz does the bidding of Media Matters, and, I don’t know, maybe I should just ignore that and, as you say, move along down the highway, but it certainly disturbs me a little bit.” It should be noted that associating Kurtz with Media Matters is about the worst thing that O’Reilly could ever say about anyone. He regards Media Matters as “vicious, far-left, dishonest, smear merchants.” The question now is, will Kurtz provide fair and balanced coverage of those programs as a Fox News anchor?

On Fox, Kurtz will assume the anchor role on Fox News Watch, a weekend program that is distinguished by its panel of five devout conservatives against one alleged liberal. The five conservatives (Judith Miller, James Pinkerton, Cal Thomas, Richard Grenall, and host Jon Scott) are weekly regulars while the “liberal” seems to be whatever phony they can manage to scrape up that week. If they stick to this format it should be an easy transition for Kurtz who is used to covering for Fox’s biased reporting.

Full disclosure: I was once mentioned in a Kurtz column when he was with the Washington Post. Kurtz was aggregating reactions from a Laura Bush speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner:

The colorfully named News Corpse says the media should take a deep breath:

“The humor-challenged media is tripping all over itself to to praise the First Lady’s appearance before the White House Correspondents’ Association. Apparently their funny bone twitches uncontrollably at the sight of Laura being able to read from a sheet of prepared jokes. The talk in the television press has ranged from, ‘ Get this woman her own show .’ to, ‘ Maybe she should run against Hillary .’. . . .

“I suppose it’s too much to ask that the people who brought us Monica Lewinsky, Chandra Levy, Michael Jackson, Terri Schiavo, the Old Pope, the New Pope, and Jennifer ‘Runaway Bride’ Wilbanks, would suddenly chose to avoid blowing things up beyond all sense of proportion.”

Colorfully named? Maybe Kurtz will get the joke now that he is working in the News Corp empire. And just so nobody forgets, this is what Fox News thinks about their new colleague:


GOP Rep Says Laws Prohibiting Animal Cruelty Are ‘Exactly What Our Founding Fathers Wanted To Avoid’

In 2008 California passed the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act with a 63% majority. The new law established humane confinement standards for certain farm animals including egg-laying hens. A subsequent law extended the standards to all eggs imported from other states for sale in California. Now, this democratic expression of compassion is being attacked by Steve King, a Tea Party congressman from Iowa who thinks the Founding Fathers advocated liberty and animal torture for all.

Steve King
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

King has proposed an amendment to a pending federal farm bill that would supersede California’s law and allow farmers in other states to sell eggs in California regardless of their inhumane practices. In justifying this amendment, King argues that states must not be allowed to set local standards and that the federal government should intervene and force states to comply with a national set of rules. Such decisions at the state level that protect animal welfare are, he says, “exactly what our founding fathers wanted to avoid.” That contradicts his position on just about every other law where he believes the feds should stay out of the state’s business. He is a fierce proponent of state’s rights, for instance, when it comes to abortion or gun registration.

King is a confirmed birther who has long held positions that advance animal cruelty. He is a vocal advocate of legalizing dog fights, which he believes are no different than professional boxing among humans who have the luxury of deciding for themselves whether to participate and are not murdered if they lose. King even voted against a law to ban children from dog fighting events. However, there is a certain perverse consistency in his philosophy. Just as he opposes legislation to address violence against animals, King also opposed the Violence Against Women Act. Apparently women, in King’s view, are no better than animals, a position he has also taken with regard to immigrants.

King’s opinion that the California statute violates the commerce clause of the Constitution is unfounded. But worse, it perpetuates a practice of cruelty that compassionate Americans have the right to reject. It also contradicts his core belief system with regard to what he would call “big government.” Thus, it demonstrates a measure of hypocrisy that exceeds all reason. And when he brings the Founding Fathers into it, he just sounds delusional.

[Update] Stephen Colbert added his voice to this issue last night with a brilliant segment that rips King apart.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

For God’s Sake, Do Not Take Financial Advice From Fox News

It has already been well established that Fox News is a round-the-clock lie factory (see Fox Nation vs. Reality), but in case anyone was ever curious about whether that distinction extended to their business channel, the Fox Business Network, you no longer need to wonder. This morning’s interview of FBN reporter Lauren Simonetti on Fox & Friends First has summarily resolved this question.

Fox News

The segment raised the issue of golfer Phil Mickleson’s recent showing at the U.S. Open where he came in second. It was the sixth time Mickleson fell just shy of victory at the event he has never managed to win. As a consolation, Fox News crunched some numbers and concluded that Mickleson was better off placing second because, according to their math, he would be poorer had he won. Here is Simonetti’s brilliant analysis (video):

“Sometimes coming in second pays off in the end. […] We broke down the numbers with the help of some tax gurus, for how much he could save, and the answer is $400,000 on taxes. […] So all in all, he’s $400,000 richer, I guess.”

Guess again. Simonetti’s logic revolved around the fact that had Mickleson won he would have earned an additional $3 million in prize money and bonuses on his sponsorships. The tax bill for that would have been about $400,000. Of course, that would still mean that after taxes Mickleson would be ahead by $2,600,000. But in the Fox universe, being able to avoid a $400k tax bite makes you $400k richer even though in the real world that the rest of us inhabit, you are actually $2.6 million poorer.

I really have to sympathize with the losers who have been duped by Fox into thinking that their business network is a reputable place to get information and advice. The irony is that Fox’s counsel is creating more financially deprived people who will necessarily have to rely on the government services that Fox so viscerally hate.

On the bright side (as Fox would say) is the fact that hardly anyone watches the network. After six years they are still a distant competitor to the business leader CNBC. That should mitigate the effect of the bad financial advice they disseminate along with their climate change denial, tax cut obsession, anti-ObamaCare hype, and general ultra-rightist propaganda. And remember, FBN was launched with a promise by its CEO, Rupert Murdoch, that it would be openly biased in favor of the corporatists saying that…

“…a Fox channel would be ‘more business-friendly than CNBC.’ That channel ‘leap[s] on every scandal, or what they think is a scandal.”

And Mr. Murdoch knows a thing or two about leaping on every scandal (i.e. Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, NSA, birth certificate, ACORN, etc.). Murdoch’s Fox News leaps on scandals like a horny teenager at whorehouse.


Why Does James O’Keefe Hate Poor People So Much?

James O'KeefeWith every video that James O’Keefe releases, he seems to make an even bigger fool of himself. His juvenile antics get more pathetic and he falls farther short of any objective that he claims to be pursuing. Apparently, he has no one close to him who cares about his disintegrating reputation. Or perhaps his closest associates are even more idiotic than he is. Because there is no other explanation for how he could publish his new video humiliation.

The project is another “undercover” operation wherein O’Keefe and his cohorts set out to prove something that doesn’t actually prove anything. His modus operandi consists mainly of alleging that some criminal activity is rampant because he is attempting to commit the very crime he is alleging. Never mind that there is no evidence that anyone else is doing so. Here is how I previously analogized this absurdity when O’Keefe pulled a similar stunt:

This phony exercise by the O’Keefee is something like walking into a convenience store, pulling out a banana and demanding all the cash from the register, then posting the video of the “robbery” online along with a conclusion that holdups at banana-point are a serious national problem and that laws must be enacted to prevent them. Of course, to the best of my knowledge, there are very few banana-related crimes, and the act of pretending to commit one is not an argument for stricter law enforcement to protect innocent citizens from felonious fruit.

In his latest charade, O’keefe sends his minions out to inquire about participating in the “Lifeline” phone program that provides free service to financially disadvantaged people so that they can seek employment and have access to emergency services. It is a program that began in the Reagan administration and was expanded during the Bush years to include cell phones. Nevertheless, O’Keefe, and most of the dishonest cretins in the conservative press, derisively refer to the program as Obamaphones.

O’Keefe’s video on YouTube (unedited version) has a headline that is patently false saying: “Uncovered: ‘Obama Phones’ Sold to Buy Drugs and Louis Vuittons.” Actually, there were no phones sold for drugs or anything else. In fact, not a single person in O’Keefe’s crew was able to acquire a phone at all. The only thing that was uncovered was that O’Keefe is still the pathological liar he has always been. The video begins with a voiceover of O’Keefe asking a series of questions:

“Would these Obamaphone workers tell us to take phones we don’t actually need? Would they tell us these phones are sold to buy drugs? Would they tell us to sell the phones and break the law?”

To make a long, boring story short, the answers are “No,” “No,” and “No.” But that doesn’t stop O’Keefe from falsely accusing Obama of some illicit activity and producing cutesy video of his helpmates thanking the President for phones and designer handbags. To repeat, they didn’t get any of those things or any other things. They left empty handed in every one of their lame attempts to establish some sort of wrongdoing.

The real purpose of this, and just about everything that O’Keefe does, is to disparage people who are already suffering under the burdens of unemployment, low-income, disability, and other financial hardships. He seems to have a perverse dedication to bringing more misery to people who have had more than their share. A recounting of his past escapades reveals a decidedly sadistic streak to his activism. In addition to attacking this program designed to help people get off of welfare by aiding them in their job search, O’Keefe has gone after groups that help low-income citizens in a variety of ways, including…

  • Voter registration.
  • Home mortgage lending.
  • Homeless facilities.
  • Gun violence.
  • Union representation.
  • Immigration status.
  • Medicaid services.
  • Public broadcasting.

In almost every instance, O’Keefe’s projects attack people and programs aimed at helping the less fortunate. This cannot be a coincidence. He clearly has a deep and abiding disgust for the poor. What can turn someone into such a mechanically compassionless crusader against folks who are already struggling through adversity?

This is a window into the dark soul of James O’Keefe. The only criminal convictions that have ever resulted from his scams were against him and his accomplices. And aside from the poor, O’Keefe seems to have a fetish for targeting women. One of the few projects that wasn’t an overt assault on the poor was a perverse scheme to seduce a CNN reporter that failed when his own colleague couldn’t go through with it and spilled the beans to the reporter. Another involved his illegal entry into the office of Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu. And then there was the bizarre affair where he was accused by a colleague of harassment that may have included drugging her and kidnapping her.

Throughout his short career O’Keefe has succeeded in developing a persona that is disturbing, immoral, dishonest, and unlawful. And on top of that he has an obvious commitment to tormenting disadvantaged Americans and maligning the government services designed to provide them some limited form of relief. This would be bad enough by itself, but he goes about it with an air of arrogance and privilege that exposes his innate prejudice, which is just further evidence of the depravity of his character. The real story about James O’Keefe is what a sleazy, misogynistic, slimeball he is, and how blatantly his projects reflect that.


Fox News On Credibility: With Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, And Stuttering Jesse Watters

Bizarro World is contemplating a lawsuit against Fox News for infringing on their patented methods of presenting a worldview that is wholly inconsistent with reality.

Fox News

For more evidence of this credibility gap, get the acclaimed ebook:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Community’s Assault on Truth

Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, anchor Chris Wallace interviewed former vice-president Dick Cheney and asked him to comment on the NSA surveillance program. Cheney, after saying that he doesn’t “pay a lot of attention to what Barack Obama says,” and admitting that he’s “not a fan,” launches into this mind-boggling absurdity:

“The problem is the guy has failed to be forthright and honest and credible on things like Benghazi and the IRS. So, he’s got no credibility.”

For Cheney to impugn the credibility of anyone takes the balls of a wooly mammoth. It was Cheney who said that he knew exactly where Saddam Hussein was hiding his chemical weapons (“…in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”) It was Cheney who insisted that there was “overwhelming evidence” of a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda and that a meeting between 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence official was “pretty well confirmed.” It was Cheney who declared that Saddam “has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” None of these things were true, but the consequences of his lies were more than 4,000 dead American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians.

Also yesterday, on Fox & Friends Sunday, there was an Idiot-palooza fest with the three co-hosts. Let’s just let the kids on the curvy couch speak speak for themselves:

Clayton Morris: Let’s say that Snowden had spilled the beans during the Bush administration. How would this be different? I don’t think there’d be a hubbub like there is now. [Certainly not on Fox News, there wouldn’t]
Alisyn Camerota: And the mood and the days after 9/11 was possibly much more trusting of government. [Because people always trust government right after it fails to prevent the worst terrorist attack in history]
Jesse Watters: You didn’t really have that kind of credibility crisis during the Bush administration than the way you have right now. [See Dick Cheney above]

And not to be left out, the newest Fox News Contributor (actually just a retread who begged to return to the fold), Sarah Palin, appeared on Fox & Friends this morning to explain why the Obama administration cannot be believed or trusted to manage national security. Palin’s perspective on the issue of the NSA conducting broadly intrusive surveillance on innocent Americans was that it is perfectly OK if you like the administration that is doing the intruding.

These are the people Fox News has chosen to be their spokespersons for credibility. And while it may seem like an amazingly stupid choice, it isn’t really much worse than their regular lineup of hacks and fabulists. Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and the rest routinely spew rhetoric at least as demented as this. Just wait for the next appearance of contributors like Allen West or Donald Trump. Credibility is a word that none of these cretins can even define.


Gunarchy: How The NRA-Theists Have Descended Into Madness

Ever since the gruesome killings in Newtown, CT, there has been a rancorous debate over the 2nd Amendment and the role of firearms in our society. Last week was the six month anniversary of Newtown and most Americans have come to terms with a common sense approach that would subject prospective gun buyers to a simple and quick background check in order to assure that they are not violent felons or mentally unstable. Unfortunately, this rational initiative has been supplanted in the news cycle by a bevy of trumped-up scandals that don’t have nearly the real-world impact on the lives of average Americans.

Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook
Gunarchy

The UN recently released for signatures an arms treaty that would curb access to weapons by terrorists and rogue nations, but the advocates of unfettered access to firearms are already circling the wagons to oppose it. They have abandoned all respect for reason and empathy. The magnitude of their fixation on the broadest possible interpretation of gun rights has exceeded all boundaries of rational thought. They promote a near-total absence of laws regulating gun ownership that amounts to what could be called gunarchy (gun+anarchy). To say that some of their arguments border on lunacy would not be an overstatement. The following examples reveal just how devoted the NRA congregation is to their mission.

The UN Arms Trade And National Sovereignty Abolition Treaty

The United Nations recently approved an international treaty aimed at prohibiting the free-flow of military-grade weapons between oppressive dictatorships and terrorist organizations. This treaty was supported by more than 170 member-states with only Syria, Iran, and North Korea dissenting. Nevertheless, the gunarchists in congress decided to align themselves with that elite trio of naysayers and blocked ratification in the senate. The reason given was that this treaty had the potential to infringe on the sovereignty of the United States, despite the fact that such an infringement was explicitly prohibited in the treaty. So while the UN attempts to make the world safer, right-wingers in the U.S. are serving the interests of defense contractors (even those in China), who favor unencumbered free trade.

Prevent School Shootings By Putting More Guns In Schools

NRA's AmericaThe first response from the NRA to the tragedy at Sandy Hook was to propose the placement of armed guards at every school in America. The folly of this suggestion is all too apparent. The proliferation of guns will never be the solution to the problems they produce. It would merely turn every campus into a potential war zone. The gunarchists never explain how armed guards would prevent a mad man like Adam Lanza, who would still have had greater firepower than a school guard. Plus, he would have had the advantage of surprise and would likely have made his first victims the guard and any nearby teachers. This “solution” also fails to address the rest of our allegedly imperiled communities. There are also children at the beach, in shopping malls, at church, in restaurants, and parks, and playgrounds, and libraries. Would they propose to have armed security at every Chuck E. Cheese and Disney movie? Would they advocate that we have innumerable George Zimmermans patrolling our neighborhoods and slaughtering the innocent?

The NRA-Theists On Buying America

Earlier this year, NRA Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre, publicly rebuked New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for spending heavily to promote his campaign for gun safety legislation. Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns was reported to have raised $12 million for advocacy and advertising. LaPierre pounced on that disclosure accusing Bloomberg of trying to “impose his will on the American public,” and insisting that “He can’t buy America.” What LaPierre neglected to mention was that his own campaign had just spent more than twice that amount leading up to the November elections last year. So if Bloomberg is trying to buy America then the NRA is brazenly outbidding them. At least Bloomberg’s campaign is sync with what the American people already believe by huge majorities.

Let’s Disarm The First Responders

As gun safety activists started to make strides in state legislatures, the infuriated gunarchists struck back by taking their vengeance out on state and local police. Weapons retailers vowed to refrain from selling their wares to law enforcement agencies in states that strengthened their safety regulations. Clearly this was not very well thought out because the effect of this reverse boycott, in the unlikely event that it was successful, would leave police unarmed as they endeavored to protect the public from evildoers. That’s the sort of radical response that harms people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue under protest. Yet conservative media from Fox News to Glenn Beck’s The Blaze to Breitbart News, all bragged about how this was snowballing into a movement.

Comparing Gun Rights To Civil Rights

Ted NugentNRA board member, and washed up rock burnout, Ted Nugent, has never been at a loss for utterly deranged and offensive words. He has engaged in violent rhetoric suggesting his desire to shoot President Obama, and California’s senators Feinstein and Boxer. And were he more reliable, he would currently be either dead or in jail today according to his own promise. But if it’s possible for him to cross a line that he has not already thoroughly erased, he did so when he placed himself in the same heroic company as Rosa Parks saying “There will come a time when the gun owners of America will be the Rosa Parks and we will sit down on the front seat of the bus.” Never mind the obvious absurdity of juxtaposing the non-violent civil rights struggle for equality with the desire to hoard munitions. Nugent and his ilk even suggested that things would have been much better had civil rights activists been armed to the teeth. Of course that would have violated the principles of non-violent civil disobedience practiced by Martin Luther King. It would also have contributed to a blood bath in the streets if protesters were actually stupid enough to do what Nugent proposes.

The Heartbreak of Hoplophobia

Not satisfied with merely rebutting the arguments of gun safety advocates, the gunarchists have invented a psychological disorder that they can use to dismiss the heart-tugging appeals of real people who were victims of gun violence. Hoplophobia, which they define as a morbid fear of guns, is not recognized by any mental health authority, but it is now being used to assert that anyone who has undergone a traumatic experience associated with guns is psychologically impaired and unfit to participate in a policy debate. There is only one purpose for this made-up malady, and that is to try to get effective spokespeople like Gabrielle Giffords, Jim Brady, the Sandy Hook parents, etc., to shut up.

The advocates for unrestrained proliferation of weaponry of all kinds have simply stopped trying to make coherent arguments. They are pursuing an absolutist course wherein any opposition is tantamount to tyranny and justifies armed rebellion to resist. These are the immutable positions of the gunarchists who represent the arms manufacturers, but not the American people. Polls have repeatedly confirmed that even NRA members do not support the positions of the NRA leaders. And eventually our representatives in congress will have to recognize that their best interests are served by serving the people and not the lobbyists.

Guns vs. Shoes