But that was before Obama was president

In 1999, just after the Columbine massacre, the NRA ran ads all across the nation exclaiming support for universal background checks.  The ads read: "We believe it's reasonable to provide for instant background checks at gun shows, just like gun stores and pawn shops."

Today's message from the NRA is much different, much more extreme and grounded in complete conspiracy.  Why?  What's changed?

Reinventing Reagan No. 1832

This is how you deal with your Sainted Leader of all things American when reality doesn't fit your narrative.

Asked about Reagan’s position during an appearance on MSNBC shortly after Obama’s remarks, Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America, suggested that Reagan only supported greater restrictions because he was senile:

ANDREA MITCHELL (HOST): What’s the problem with registering a gun? If you have a bushmaster, first of all, why would you have one?
PRATT: President Reagan owned an AR-15.
MITCHELL: And he supported gun control. He advocated…
PRATT: In his later years. We have to keep that in account.MITCHELL: In his later years he was almost killed by John Hinckley.
PRATT: But all through his presidency he opposed gun control, that’s my point.

If only supporting gun legislation "in his later years" constitutes 1986 and the prime of his presidency Pratt would be right.  Since it doesn't, Pratt is wrong as anyone has ever been.

As Think Progress noted, Reagan in 1986 signed a law prohibiting the ownership of automatic rifles that were not already subsequently registered prior to that year. Also, as governor, Reagan routinely supported gun legislation including one that mandated a 15-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun.  Both of those pieces of legislation are way more stringent to gun owners than anything President Obama signed today.  And none of it happened "in his later years."  To state, "all through his presidency he opposed gun control," is insanely stupid and completely inaccurate.

Quickies

• Notre Dame's famed linebacker Manti Te'o looks like he has a lot of explaining to do.

• “People did not change their mind much in this election after February, March and April. That’s when those ads went on and we had to define Mitt Romney as what he was, a cold, robotic tax cheat from a polygamy cult."-- Bill Maher.  I'd have to say I do agree with him.  

• Crazy college professor who said it's legitimate to think the Obama administration was behind the Newtown Massacre just might be getting fired.  Not sure why it has taken them this long actually.

• Oh no, Reagan's SG says Obama has used his Executive Orders in a standard way and have been issued in a "benign" mode.  It's a good thing Reagan never supported gun control legislation.  Wait, never mind.  Makes you realize once again there's no way Reagan would win a Republican Primary today.  Not with the idiots controlling his party, no way.

• Didn't Dennis Hastert say that if a Speaker doesn't follow the "Hastert Rule" then they really don't have control over their caucus?  Well, once again John Boehner passes a bill through his chamber without majority GOP support.  It's clear he probably doesn't have control over his caucus.  I'm not saying that's a bad thing. It actually might be the best thing to happen to America this year.  Think about it.

23

President Obama signed 23 Executive Orders today meant to curb gun violence in America.  For reference, here are the Orders and the proposals issued by the administration.

Even with today's 23 EO's, President Obama still has fewer than former President Bush at the same point in his first term.  Bush II = 173, Obama = 167.

But remember, President Obama is the only president since Ike to win more than 51% of the vote two times.  He also currently enjoys a steady 54% approval rating. So this can only mean one thing in the Republican Fantasy World: Obama is the only black president to ever issue an Executive Order and he must be stopped!!

It's a Good Thing Ezra Klein Is So Pretty

Ezra Klein misses a great opportunity to take head-on a very common and very lazy right wing talking point concerning the Constitution.  Klein links to Ben Smith and a Republican lawyer's reasoning as to why the SCOTUS will throw out the individual health care mandate.  Here's the text:

You have built an imaginary mansion, with thousands of rooms, on the foundation of Wickard v. Filburn — the 1942 ruling that broadened the understanding of how the Commerce Clause could be used to regulate economic activity.

We aren’t being asked to radically revise the Commerce Clause and throw out seven decades of law, and we won’t. But we know the founders never intended the Commerce Clause to allow the Federal Government to regulate everything on the planet. So we are going to accept Randy Barnett’s basically spurious exception to that basically spurious idea, and throw out the Affordable Care Act on the grounds that the Commerce Clause regulates “activity” (which we don’t really believe), but not “inactivity,” (because, why not draw the line somewhere?).

Ezra, predictably, goes straight into a breakdown of Wickard and why according to almost a century of precedent the mandate is perfectly legal.  He even calls the above quote the "most honest way" to argue throwing out the mandate.  But why grant Republicans any room in this talking point?  Essentially what Ezra is admitting to is that the New Deal ushered in an era where the Supreme Court allowed Congress to ignore the Constitution.  According to Republicans, it was 1942 with Wickard that began our slippery slope of an expanded view of the commerce clause-- a view the founders never intended.  And since then, for 70-plus years now, we've been on that path, a path the founders don't want us on.  There's no point in granting Republicans any such gravitas with such a blatantly misrepresented "imaginary mansion."

Ezra, instead, should have focused on another favorite line by Republicans contained in the argument as well.  "But we know the founders never intended the Commerce Clause to allow the Federal Government to regulate everything on the planet."  There ya go.  Founders intent.

Of course the Founders never intended the Commerce Clause to allow Congress to regulate everything.  No one is suggesting such.  The Affordable Care Act does not in anyway lead credence to such a notion.  The Founders did intend for Congress to provide for the general welfare of the public, nonetheless.  Moreover, the Founder's intent argument is a bogus ploy used routinely by Republicans only when it suits their ideology.  In this case they want to use intent as if it's some sort of benevolence guided by the Creator. 

The Founders intended on a lot things that were just outright wrong.  They intended blacks to be slaves.  Women to never hold office or vote.  They intended only land-owning white men to have any say in the government at all.  They were wrong.  As wrong as wrong as ever been.  But Republicans never want to bring any of that up. 

If you want to put to bed-- quickly-- the GOP's argument the Founders never intended this or that just mention the 2nd Amendment.  Writing in a day where there was no such thing as standing armies or the military industrial complex, the Founders never intended ordinary citizens to carry bazookas.  Why?  Well, the Founders had no comprehension of modern weaponry.  Their very specific intent was for citizens, not blacks or women mind you, to own and bare muzzle loading powder guns.  That was their intent.  But this time Republicans want this law applied as broadly as possible.  They want it to include assault rifles, and all other kinds of nifty killing machines.  Founders intent goes right out the window, conveniently of course.  It's a shame Ezra fell into the trap of New Deal revisionism where Republicans want to repeal the 20th century and send us back to the days where government's only roll was to delivery the mail-- to white male citizens that is.

Ron Paul Wants To End All Federal Student Aid

Ron Paul claims there is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to provide monetary assistance to college students.  If elected president, Paul says he'll stop all aid.

Of course, as any high schooler can tell you, the Constitution allows for Congress to spend money almost any way it wants in order to meet the objectives of government.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

If it wanted to pay for all college tuition in the whole country, it could.  There's nothing illegal about it.  What Congress can't do is authorize money to be spent to violate someone's Constitutional rights.  Such as, Congress cannot authorize money to be spent on keeping women from voting.  Or authorize money to keep people over the age of 25 from running for federal office.  Those are rights guaranteed in the Constitution and Congress cannot hamper them.

This is yet another pesky argument by Ron Paul, and many of his supporters, that unless it's directly mentioned in the Constitution it's illegal.  It's a way of applying the Constitution very narrowly to meet their ideology.  For instance, the Constitution says nothing about owning an automatic weapon.  It merely says the right to bare arms and there's no way the Founders meant automatic machine guns.  But that's when Ron Paul wants the Constitution applied very broadly cause it's something he believes in.  Therefore, even though it was never the intention of the Founders for people to own bazookas, nor is it specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it doesn't matter to Paul.

Coburn Says It's a Good Thing He Can't Pack Heat on Senate Floor

Just like all Republicans, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) is a Super Tough Guy. As always, the only thing that is larger than their Supreme Toughness is their Patriotism. Coburn proves both points in an interview to Tulsa World:

Earlier, in Langley, Coburn partially deflected criticism of President Barack Obama - and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke - by blaming the country's financial woes on Congress. He described his colleagues as "a class of career elitists" and "cowards," and at one point, talking about his frustrations, said, "It's just a good thing I can't pack a gun on the Senate floor." 

Yes, in the world Coburn lives, people who don't agree with him are "cowards" who should be thankful he can't carry a gun to work.  The only thing wrong with Coburn's depiction of his manly toughness is that there is nothing in his life's history to back any of it up.

When Coburn was of prime fighting age, a time when he could prove both his manly tough guyism and his Super Patriotism, there was a huge war raging in a far off land called Vietnam.  The country that he loved, of which now he says is full of cowards, really needed him.  Coburn instead chose to stay far away and go to college.  As the son of a very wealthy obstetrician, Coburn was fortunate enough elitist enough to not have to answer his country's call at a time when it needed him most. 

But now all of that is down the memory hole.  Coburn is a very tough gun-loving Republican Patriot that we all should be thankful we don't work with.  Unless, of course, we are a fellow Republican Patriot and then Coburn, who is also a Moral Values Crusader, will help negotiate payoffs to your mistress.

Supreme Watch

Kudos to the U.S. Supreme Court for striking down the Chicago handgun ban. It's my understanding the longtime Chicago ban prohibited people from owning and keeping handguns in their homes. Clearly unconstitutional in my book. And now the Supreme Court verifies my opinion.  The court ruled 5-4 the 2nd Amendment does apply to the state and local governments.  Where I might disagree is in the majority's opinion is where Justice Alito writes the Second Amendment is "among the most fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."  I don't know if I would go that far, but it is an important one no doubt.

The conservative court also ruled in favor of the University of California's Hastings College of the Law that on-campus Christian groups cannot bar gays and still get funding from the school.  This ruling was also 5-4.

Two very different cases from opposite ends of the political spectrum and I think the Court nailed them both.

Perpetual Fear Mistaken for Tough Guyism

Is there anything this guy is not scared of?



You almost feel sorry for him and then you realize he was no where to be found during the reign of King George. I hate voting for losers too, but life goes on.