SIDEBAR
»
S
I
D
E
B
A
R
«
Amid Record Low Oil and Gas, Trump Says Keystone XL Needed ‘Desperately’. Then threatens to reject it
Jan 25th, 2016 by Admin Mugsy

Share
 

During another one of his “phone it in” TV interviews yesterday, Donald Trump told Meet the Press host Chuck Todd we “need the Keystone XL pipeline desperately“. However, at some other point in the day (before or after?), he told reporters that if we weren’t promised “a big chunk” of the profits, he’d reject it (link). Did I mention this was *yesterday* in the space of a few minutes? The price of oil “rallied” Friday to close up just over $32/barrel… $4 below where it was the day before we invaded Iraq. It had fallen as low as $26.55 last Wednesday. In 2012, the KXL was part of Newt Gingrich’s plan to get gas prices down to just $2.50/gallon by 2017. As I type this, the national average price for a gallon of gas is $1.83. The process of converting “tarsand” into oil is so expensive, oil needs to be over $65/barrel just to be cost effective. Not only would the KXL have NOT been a “job creator”, but the economy created a stunning 292,000 jobs last monthNEARLY SEVEN TIMES the number of (temp) jobs the KXL promised to create over TWO YEARS (and even that is doubtful.) So how exactly is it that we “desperately” need the Keystone XL pipeline? I really want to know. Every single one of the GOP presidential candidates supports the building of the KXL… the perfect symbol for today’s GOP: the very epitome of a white elephant.
 

Trump: “Keystone XL needed desperately (:08 seconds)

 

As I noted less than three weeks ago, the Republican congress made good on it’s threat to try to pass the “Keystone XL pipeline” one more time, in a juvenile move to pander to their childlike constituency. Not ONE Republican was willing to step up as the adult in the room (or perhaps too dumb to even know themselves) and point out that the price of oil is too low for the KXL to be economically feasible… not just due to current oil prices, but as OPEC has now proven, they can easily undercut the price of oil any time they like to make the KXL too costly to operate.

So if it’s not because “we need the jobs” and it’s not because “gas prices are too high” (oil producing states in the South and Alaska are actually being hit hard by job layoffs due to a lack of need for more oil), then what is it? A Google News search turns up no other mention of Trump explaining why we “desperately” need the KXL. More to the point, if NOT building it has hurt us, how do you then defend threatening to NOT build it yourself? If we need it so badly, wouldn’t “some” gain be better than none?

Clearly, “The Donald” is not talking about the loss of jobs, because those meager few jobs would have been created whether we got most of the profits or not. Nor is it about getting gas prices down for the same reason. Is it about “Energy independence” after he “bombs the Middle-East back to the Stone Age”? I bet’cha that’s what he’s thinking.

Except it wouldn’t.

I’ve already explained in great detail (see Keystone link in titlebar) how the Alberta tarsands would not get us anywhere CLOSE to “energy independence”. And OPEC would ensure it was ALWAYS too costly to operate.

As I just pointed out above, the price of oil is SO low now, the pipeline would operate at a loss for months/years to come (likely never turn a profit). TransCanada is suing the Obama Administration… not for the right to complete the pipeline, but for “damages”. This is a tacit admission that THEY DON’T WANT IT BUILT ANYMORE. The Obama Administration rejecting the pipeline likely saved their butts from incurring catastrophic losses that could have bankrupted the company, and suing for damages is a way to recover part of their losses for the portion they’ve already built. They could have suffered a loss of over $30 for every barrel of oil produced, and TransCanada predicted the KXL would transport/produce “1.1 million barrels of oil per day“… which translates to a loss of $31 Million/DAY (or roughly $11 Billion dollars a year). Just how long do you think they could have kept THAT up? (And this is AFTER the expense of completing the construction.) They should be thanking their lucky stars the pipeline was rejected.

I’m of the personal belief that the reason Trump thinks we “desperately” need the KXL is because of his plan to “bomb the $#!+” out of the Middle East. Like so many other clueless Republicans that have bought the hype, he clearly believes the KXL would make the United States “energy independent”, allowing us to not need to import a drop of foreign oil. Not only is that beyond ridiculous, but unless he also plans to take over the entire U.S. oil industry, NATIONALIZE it and ban all exports, oil prices will ALWAYS be set by the world market, still subjecting American consumers and TransCanada to the whims of the Middle East.

It’s also one more reminder why Republicans should NEVER be trusted with running our economy ever again if they STILL think we need the Keystone XL and rejecting it has been devastating to (or otherwise endangers) the U.S.. Ask the Southern states with all their oilfield job layoffs if they think now is the time for MORE oil glutting the market and driving prices down even further?

An aside: During an interview on Fox “news” Sunday yesterday, Marco Rubio vowed to “turn the country around.” Turn it around? Record job growth. Unemployment down. The deficit is down. Military deaths are down. Gas prices are WAY down. The stock market is up… explain to me why ANYONE would want the country to do an about-face and return us to the economic & national security disaster of just seven short years ago???

These ideologues are so clueless, they’re dangerous.

(Note: Iowa caucus is one week from tonight [Feb 1st], so expect a brief delay in next week’s column. – Mugsy)
 


Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
Republicans Bemoan Obama’s Iran Hostage Deal. But Republican presidents fared FAR worse
Jan 18th, 2016 by Admin Mugsy

Share
 

Last week, after two American navy patrol boats accidentally wandered into Iranian waters in the Persian gulf (far from Iranian mainland but close to Farsi Island, an island under Iranian control), they were captured and detained by Iran, but because The Obama Administration had already opened up diplomatic channels with Iran, the soldiers were quickly released only a few hours later. Yesterday morning, reports emerged that Iran was also releasing four more American political prisoners (and one American college student) in advance of the International easing of sanctions this week. To the Republicans (especially the GOP presidential candidates), this was a humiliating show of weakness and a direct result of Obama’s “failed foreign policy.” It is difficult (if not impossible) to see how things could have turned out better, but one thing is for sure, being an arrogant war-mongering bully didn’t prevent Americans from being taken hostage and held FAR longer during the Reagan or both Bush presidencies.

Reagan

In 1978 under President Carter, the collapse of the Iranian government with the “Islamic Revolution” led to them storming the American Embassy and holding all those inside hostage for 444 days. The hostages were not soldiers and we were not at war with Iran, so one can’t argue they were taken hostage due to any perceived “weakness” by the United States (unless you’re a Right-Wing nut who thinks Carter’s unwillingness to start any wars was a sign of “weakness”.) Those diplomats were held for over a year… not because Carter was weak but because… as we now know… Team Reagan made a backroom deal with Iran to hold them until Reagan’s inauguration (see: this report) in exchange for weapons & parts. Carter did secure the release of 14 American hostages (not including the six whom Canada helped evade capture and recovered with CIA assistance), but an additional 52 were detained until Reagan was sworn in on January 20th, 1981. Four years later, we again saw Reagan’s willingness to trade “arms for hostages” with Iran/Contra in 1985.

Also in 1985, TWA Flight 847 en route from Cairo to San Diego was taken hostage by Islamic Jihad seeking the release of 700 Muslim prisoners in Israeli custody. The fact The Mighty Gipper was in charge of a military flexing its muscle in every corner of the globe at the time didn’t stop terrorists from holding 138 passengers & 8 crew (including 78 Americans) hostage. Reagan himself did not intervene for SIXTEEN days.

In 1983, 299 American & French servicemen were killed when the U.S. Army barracks in Beirut was bombed by Lebanese militants. Reagan’s response? Attack? No, retreat from Lebanon.

In 1986, American hostage David Jacobsen was released after 17 months of being held hostage in Lebanon. One might wonder if Americans were are greater risk in Lebanon because Reagan “cut & ran” in 1983.

And lest we forget, the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 by Libya over Lockerbee, Scotland in 1988. Tell me again how a “strong” Republican president kept Americans safer?

For an additional history of Americans either taken hostage or executed while Saint Ronnie was president, I refer you to this list from PBS’s Frontline.

Bush-I

In December of 1989, “[a]t least one American, and possibly several more [actual number: 5] [were] held hostage in Panama by gunmen loyal to Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega” for three days. But they were not released out of fear or in response to threats of military force, the hostages were abandoned in a schoolhouse and had to plead with American forces to come and rescue them “before their captors returned.”

In April of 1990, “over one hundred” Americans were held hostage in our embassy in Kuwait City by Iraqi solders (a number that would grow in the months to come) and held as “human shields” across numerous “strategic sites” throughout Iraq. An estimated 2,000 more Americans were “in hiding” in Kuwait City evading capture.

Following extensive diplomatic missions via MidEast Ambassador Joe Wilson, 80 American hostages were released in September by Saddam Hussein. However, “thousands of others continued to be detained in Iraq”, prohibited from leaving, including the spouses of some of those who were released.

By December, Hussein declared Iraq was now “strong enough to fend off an American invasion” and released the remaining 120 American prisoners. It would be nearly a month before allied forces would launch an attack on Iraqi forces occupying Kuwait. 23 Americans would be taken prisoner during The Persian Gulf War.

Arguably, of the three Republican presidents, George HW Bush (41) has the most successful record of recovering (preventing?) Americans from being taken hostage.

Bush-II

The (s)election of George W. Bush in 2000 likewise did not strike fear in the hearts of our enemies. Randomly, two Americans were among 20 tourists taken hostage in the Philippines, and in another event, one American was killed and a half-dozen others were released following payment of ransom by owners of an American-owned oil field in Ecuador. That hostage negotiation took several months and without the assistance from the Bush Administration.

Then came 9/11. Osama bin Laden continued to mock & ridicule the Bush administration for years as he evaded capture and al Qaeda forces crowed over their ability to successfully hold American forces at bay. Bin Laden declared that the reason for the attacks was in retribution for American troops occupying the “Holy land” in Saudi Arabia. Bush’s response? The removal of all U.S. forces from our bases in Saudi Arabia on April 29, 2003.

Then came the invasion of Iraq. Negotiations had convinced Hussein to allow inspectors back into his country to prove he had been disarmed, yet the Bush Administration did anyway. The lesson our enemies learned from that was not to negotiate/disarm with a Republican president as they can not be trusted.

President Bush (43) continued to saber-rattle threats to strike Iran if they did not refrain from interfering with the war in Iraq. Iran’s response was to construct new nuclear facilities and to enrich Plutonium. And with Saddam Hussein gone and a Shi’ite government installed in Iraq, Iran now had a new ally in the Middle East thanks to George W. Bush.

The wars in Iraq & Afghanistan continued to rage out of control, reaching a hot boil in 2006 with roughly 100 American troops being killed each & every week. It took an outraged public voting en masse to elect a Democratic majority, switching control of BOTH houses of Congress, in order to get the Bush Administration to replace Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and change our strategy in Iraq.

In December of 2008 just before leaving office, Bush tried to renegotiate an agreement to hand local control of Iraq back over to the Iraqis, seeking to keep U.S. troops in that country beyond the agreed upon exit date… but only on the condition they would be free from prosecution for past crimes. But the Iraqi’s were so eager to see us go, they refused and Bush was forced to sign the “Status of Forces Agreement” stating that said ALL U.S. troops would be out of Iraq by the following October (on Obama’s watch.)

The wars continued to rage. G.W.Bush’s final year in office, 2008, was his deadliest year for coalition troops in Afghanistan with nearly 300 U.S. & coalition troops deaths. 314 American troops also died in Iraq that same year (which columnist Bill Kristol described as “at peace” when handed over to Obama), for a seven year total of nearly 5600 dead American troops.

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz (et al) have been blustering all week about how Iran took Americans prisoner and we responded by “lifting sanctions and apologizing”, giving Iran (and others) encouragement to do the same without fear of reprisal. If that’s the case, explain how “strong” Republican presidents failed to strike fear in the hearts of our enemies, suffering huge loses, FAR longer delays and in several cases, even rewarded our enemies with troop removals and financial gain?

Tell me again how Republicans have kept us safe and how our enemies are more fearful of a Republican Commander in Chief?
 

FOLLOW-UP: Same day as this Op/Ed, The Rachel Maddow Show also did a story on President Reagan’s true legacy on Iran:


Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
Ingraham asks, “When have Republicans EVER obstructed President Obama?”
Jan 11th, 2016 by Admin Mugsy

Share
 

“They have been his best friend! What are you talking about?”, chuckled Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham during Fox “news” Sunday yesterday when Juan Williams said “This [Republican] Congress has relentlessly obstructed President Obama on everything!” “Where have they obstructed Obama?” she demanded incredulously. No, I didn’t make that up. Much to the chagrin of most of my readers, I “Live blog” Fox “news” Sunday every week. And granted, if I couldn’t tweet my reactions to some of the most disconnected, irrational and sometimes “just plain ugly” nonsense heard on the show each week, I probably wouldn’t watch either. But somehow, I feel a “duty” to rebuke their BS in real time before what they say has a chance to grow legs. (While I have no evidence of this, I believe my calling them out nearly two years ago for claiming Democrats switch from saying “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” whenever it’s cold outside is why they don’t make that ridiculous claim anymore. I informed them that the two terms are NOT “interchangeable” like they seem to think, pointing out that “one CAUSES the other”, closing with the hashtag “#ClimateMorons”. They have not made the accusation since.) The aforementioned discussion about Congress stemmed from a discussion regarding President Obama’s use (“abuse” in Wingnutistan) of “executive orders” to “bypass” Congress. So you can only imagine how wide my eyes grew when Ingraham apparently awoke from her seven year coma unable to recall a single time this GOP Controlled Congress ever obstructed President Obama (even when they didn’t control the Senate, they controlled the Senate through endless filibustering.)
 

Ingraham: This Congress has been Obama’s best friend! (1:16)

 
Earlier in the program, Wallace interviewed the president’s Chief of Staff Denis McDonough regarding Obama’s use of “Executive Orders”, and started out by citing “Article I of the Constitution” and how it specifically vests “all legislative power” to Congress. McDonough gave a very poor “political” response to the question that did him no favors. What he should have pointed out is that “Executive Orders are NOT ‘legislation’.” They don’t create any new laws. All they do is define how existing laws are executed… which is perhaps the very definition of the job of “Chief Executive.”

Now, taken from a strictly Wingnut perspective, there is a case to be made for Ingraham’s position that Congress has failed to “obstruct” Obama. After all “ObamaCare” has yet to be repealed (not for lack of trying), as has all of his cabinet appointees (after months of delay) and two Supreme Court nominees squeaked through. Republicans might have opposed them, but the fact they all eventually passed is “proof” they weren’t “obstructed“. And in Wingnutistan, you can’t claim anything that eventually passes was “obstructed”. Ingraham cites “the TPP”… a Conservative “Free-Trade” plan opposed by Democrats yet supported by most (not all) Republicans… as evidence this Congress isn’t obstructing President Obama.

So is she right? Is there NOTHING that President Obama has wanted that he didn’t eventually get, thus rendering his use of “Executive Orders” totally unnecessary and an abuse of power? Does she think this Congress has tried to work WITH President Obama??? (Exhibit A video). Want specifics, here is a list ten times Republicans opposed their own ideas the moment President Obama supported them.

But let’s simplify things a bit. As the above graphic points out, President Obama signed only 175 “Executive Orders”. To Republicans, “Executive Orders” are unconstitutional (except when Republicans use them) and Obama’s use of them is tantamount to a crime (a “crime” President Bush committed nearly twice as many times as Obama, and The Gipper committed nearly 250% more often.) Here are a few of those egregious “unconstitutional” & criminal Executive Actions taken by President Obama:

etc… I looked through the entire list and I defy anyone (who isn’t a Right Wing nut) to find 3 EO’s they consider an egregious abuse of power.

But Republicans are REALLY only outraged over three (maybe four) of the 175 Executive Actions taken by Obama:
 

  • His “Immigration Accountability Executive Action” (11/20/2014) instructing law enforcement to focus on “deporting felons, not families”, prioritizing felons over the so-called “Dreamers” (which the GOP has labeled “amnesty”). This EO is not “a new law”. It is completely within his Executive power to direct law enforcement.
  •  

  • Increasing the Minimum Wage paid by Government Contractors. A requirement that any company doing business on behalf of the United States of America pay its employees a minimum of $10.10/hour (less than $3 more than the Minimum Wage.) This EO does NOT apply to private businesses in the private sector, only those making a buck off Uncle Sam. This EO went into effect just over one year ago on January 1, 2015, so if you’re still holding your breath waiting for American corporations to crumble under the heady burden of such high wages… I doubt you endangered any brain cells.
  •  

  • Mandating that all health insurance companies pay for birth control, regardless of whether the patient’s employer pays for it. – I’m not even able to confirm this was an “Executive Action” at all. I can’t identify it in the list. But 193 corporations sued the government over the mandate. How many GOP presidential candidates do you think we’ll hear campaigning on their opposition to this order?
  •  

  • And his recent EO on guns? ZERO new laws. No “confiscation”. No ban on types of weapons you can buy. Not even a ban on large capacity clips. It DOES broaden the EXISTING requirements of under what conditions a “background check” must take place, lifts a restriction that omitted mental health records from background checks, and provides more money for “gun safety training”. That’s it. THAT is what has Republicans so outraged and questioning whether the president violated the Constitution.

“Where have they obstructed Obama?”, asked a disbelieving Ingraham. Well, before the GOP took control of the Senate, it was much easier to spot. We called them Filibusters. Since taking control of the Senate last year, obstruction is more subtle in the form of bills NOT taken up by Congress. Simply Google “Congress refuses to vote on” for some examples. It took them an unprecedented 9 weeks to approve Loretta Lynch as Attorney General.

The GOP controlled Congress has yet to approve President Obama’s nominee for “Under Secretary of the Treasury”, Adam Szubin. What’s the big deal? Well, as Rachel Maddow pointed out last November, part of Szubin’s job would be to track the finances of ISIS to block funding of their terrorist activities. This appointment was requested on April of last year. As far as I can tell, it appears this vacancy has yet to be filled. And not over any opposition to his qualifications. As Maddow pointed out, everyone agrees he is qualified and capable of doing the job. Considering the way the GOP candidates are running around… hair on fire… over terrorism and the rise of ISIS, one would think filling this position might be a priority.

“Obstruction? What obstruction? It’s Obama’s lawless Executive Actions that are the REAL partisan abuse of power here!” No Laura. Think again.
 


Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
Texas Lt.Gov Cites Ridiculous Disprovable Facts to Defend New Open Carry Law
Jan 4th, 2016 by Admin Mugsy

Share
 

“He was a real asshole.” So remarked my Conservative father about his former neighbor Dan Patrick when he announced his bid for Texas Lieutenant Governor in 2014. Patrick, a former TV Sports anchor turned far-Right radio host, turned Tea Party darling State Representative turned Lieutenant Governor, appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press yesterday to defend the state’s controversial new “Open Carry” gun law, citing a litany of easily disprovable lies and half truths to make his case. I really think someone needs to sit down with every Conservative politician in the country and explain to them that there’s something called “The Internet” (nod to the late Ted Stevens R-AK), which stands ready to fact-check whatever ridiculous claim they make in the blink of an eye. Patrick was brought on yesterday as the “rebuttal guest” to Astronaut Mark Kelly, husband of Gabbie Giffords, whom together started an organization to promote “responsible gun ownership” and sane gun laws (Kelly/Giffords both own guns and support ownership).

Capt. Kelly spoke about the need to close “the Gun Show loophole”, “rising gun violence”, and the fact Background Checks work.

Then comes on Patrick (you can see most of the interview here). Host Chuck Todd barely finishes his introductions before Patrick injects that Kelly is “totally wrong about gun ownership in the inner city” and on the number of legal permits being issued. I had to go back twice and rewatch the Kelly interview to try and figure out what he was talking about because NOT ONCE did Capt. Kelly mention “inner-city” or “urban” gun ownership. I still have no idea what Patrick thinks he heard Kelly say. I suspect he had a speech already worked out about what he thought the Captain would say and didn’t want it to go to waste. But Kelly never said a thing about a “decreased demand” for guns… not in urban areas or anywhere else. In fact, he instead made the case of “rising fear” promoting gun sales.

Patrick continues, citing that Texas is now “the 45th state to permit open carry”. True. Sad & Frighting, and not exactly a strong argument for helping “Quick-draw McGraw” stick a gun in your face two seconds faster than before, but true. Regardless, Patrick is implying that “Open Carry” is already common in almost every state in the union and not a factor in gun crime. Later in the interview, Patrick tells Todd with absolute certainty that “Everywhere we have more citizens carrying guns, CRIME. IS. LESS.” and that in states with “Concealed Carry and particularly Open Carry, crime is down 25% percent.”

Is that true? ARE states that permit Open Carry any safer than those that don’t? PolitiFact (notorious for their squishy ratings) rates the claim as “Half True”, but they note the difficulty of comparing dissimilar states that only permit “rural” areas to open carry, vs states that only allow those with “concealed” permits to open carry, vs states that allow ALL licensed gun owners to OC. And what was crime like BEFORE OC was permitted? Even Patrick notes Michigan has had OC for “175 years” and Vermont “has always had it”, so we really don’t know what effect OC has on crime in those states. Politifact concludes by citing a 2010 report that found that more legal gun owners resulted in no reduction in crime:
 

“The best available evidence suggests that “right to carry a concealed weapon” laws are associated with increases in aggravated assaults with guns, but have no measurable effect on population rates of murder and robbery.

 
(a more recent report conducted by Texas A&M last September came to the same conclusion.)

Todd asks Patrick (poorly) about the difficulty of discerning a legal “Open Carry” citizen from a criminal looking to do harm and the “chaos” that might create. Todd phrased his question terribly, giving Patrick plenty of wiggle room. He didn’t ask Patrick “How are the police… or for that matter other gun owners… are supposed to distinguish between the proverbial ‘Good Guy With a gun’ from ‘a Bad Guy With a gun’?” When the bullets start flying and “Officer Bob” arrives on the scene only to spot Captain America over there with his shiny new Glock firing at someone, not only might this numbnut end up with an air-conditioned colon, but the time Officer Bob wastes stopping our “Good Guy with a gun” is time Mr. Psychopath can spend killing another 20 people before the smoke clears.
 

Can she tell the Good Guy from the Bad Guy ?

 
Instead, Todd asks Patrick if people might erroneously “call 911” to report legal OC owners they spot in the Mall or Super Market as a possible threat, tying up police resources. Actually, this isn’t much of an issue because most people don’t keep 911 on speed dial and report a man with a gun to the police the moment they see them. After only a few seconds, you can typically tell if someone with a holstered weapon (the law states it must be holstered) is looking to use it. By concern-trolling over such an unlikely concern, Todd gave Patrick a gift, giving him something he could dismiss without needing to make any substantive case against.

Instead, Patrick cites a statistic that “people with a Concealed Carry permit are twelve times less likely to even commit a misdemeanor.” I don’t know where Patrick obtained this figure. Even using the broadest possible search phrase (“guns ‘less likely’ misdemeanor) on Google turns up nothing other than Patrick himself making the claim yesterday on the show. I checked the FBI website and they don’t carry such statistics, but I think it is reasonable to assume Patrick did not obtain that figure from any legitimate source. (I did find this unsourced blog comment claiming gun owners were “5 to 10 times less likely to commit a violent crime“, but that’s as close as I got.)

Patrick went on to say that he “respect(s) those who don’t like guns” adding “but don’t stop those of us who love guns…” Not “like” guns or “want” guns but “love” guns? They talk about them like they are crystal unicorn figurines or puppies. It makes the term “Ammosexual” seem all the more legitimate. But Todd does make a good point about different standards for gun ownership. Guns are deadly weapons whether they are on your hip or safely tucked away in a cigarbox on top of the TV. Why not just have one standard for ALL gun licensing? Patrick goes on a non-sequitur about the “Second Amendment”, which has nothing to do with different standards for laws regulating gun ownership. Patrick says gun laws are “an evolving issue”, suggesting that eventually we may reach a point when ALL gun laws are relaxed to the same level, permitting anyone with a gun license to Open Carry.

Now for the whopper. Patrick ends his interview claiming “Every one of the mass shootings except two in America since 1950 have been gun free zones.” Complete and total bullshit (it appears he got the feux stat from this Right-Wing website that got it from two moonbats on a local Conservative radio show with no sourcing. Now, of course, if you go all the way back to 1950 before most states even HAD open carry laws, nearly the entire country was a “gun free zone” (outside of your own home), so saying “all mass shootings before 1975 took place in gun free zones” is essentially saying “all mass shootings before 1975 took place outside the home.” It’s a meaningless statistic.

Since numbers going back to “1950” are hard to come by… and clearly unnecessary… we can go WAYYY back to, oh, I don’t know… the Obama Administration… to debunk this bit of nonsense:

  • November of 2009, the Ft. Hood shooting. A military base. NOT a “gun-free zone”. While general soldiers on premises did not carry weapons, ARMED GUARDS on the premises DID. Back when the shooting took place, a Right-Wing falsehood was circulated that “President Clinton” was to blame for making military bases “gun free zones” back in 1993 (not true, but even if it were, 1993 to 2009 would qualify as a pretty good record of safety), but the military merely instituted a policy in March of 1993 set by the G.H.W.Bush White House the year before instructing soldiers to lock up their weapons when not in use. The weapons were still accessible and on the premises. Not a “Gun Free Zone”. A better question might be how it happened again at Fort Hood in 2014 AFTER the restriction was lifted?
  •  

  • Ditto for the “Navy Yard” shooting in 2013. Ban lifted, yet a dozen civilians & personnel were murdered on a military based filled with “good guys with guns.”
  •  

  • January 2011, 6 killed, 11 injured in Tucson, Az. in a Supermarket parking lot where Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was delivering a speech. Super Market parking lot. In Arizona. Not a “gun free zone”.
  •  

  • October 2011, 8 killed, 1 injured at a hair salon in Seal Beach, Ca. – Private business. Not a “gun free zone”. (even if a business owner requested it, it wouldn’t be enforceable.)
  •  

  • August 2012, 6 killed, 3 injured at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wi. – Again, a private organization without a legally enforceable gun restriction. If someone wanted to carry a gun into the temple, they were free to do so. Obviously. The killer did, no?
  •  

  • September 2012, 6 killed, 2 injured at a sign makers offices in Minneapolis, Mn. – Not a GFZ. Minnesota, an Open Carry state.
  •  

  • June 2015, 9 dead at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C. by a racist kid that believed black people were taking over America. He didn’t target an all-black church because it was a “gun free zone”.
  •  

  • July 2015, 5 dead, 3 wounded at two Navy-Marine recruiting centers in Chattanooga, Tenn. – The killer, a radicalized young Muslim, opened fire on the centers… located in strip centers along the road… from the parking lot. Not a “gun free zone”. Not selected because it was a GFZ. If the officers inside had been wearing their weapons, it wouldn’t have made a bit of difference because it was a surprise attack from the outside.
  •  

  • October 2015, 9 dead, 9 injured at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Or. – Despite being a school, while the school requested guns not be carried on campus, several students DID have guns on them at the time of the shooting. Not only is Oregon an Open Carry state, but it is actually illegal to prohibit guns anywhere, including schools, and the local sheriff notoriously wrote a letter to VP Biden following Sandy Hook angrily refusing to enforce any new law in his town that would restrict the right to carry guns anywhere people wanted.
  •  

  • November 2015, 3 dead; 9 injured at a Planed Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Co. – Again, not a “gun free zone”, and definitely not selected because he thought it was. “No more baby parts” he droned, referring to a deceptively edited Right-Wing video. (Now if Patrick wants to argue Planned Parenthood staff should be allowed to protect themselves from Pro-Life nuts, I look forward to that conversation.)
  •  

  • December 2015, 14 dead, 21 wounded at a rehabilitation clinic in San Bernardino, Ca. – A Muslim man and his radicalized wife targeted the clinic where he once worked. Again, not selected because he believed it to be a “gun free zone” (which it legally was not.)

Of all five mass shootings that took place in 2015, not ONE took place in a “gun free zone”. Patrick is full of crap. Here is a map of all the mass shootings that have taken place just in 2015. You’ll notice that a lot (most) of them took place in states where it is legal to carry a firearm. Are these all “gun free zones”?
 

Mass Shootings in 2015

 

But even in cases that WERE “gun free zones” like “Sandy Hook Elementary” in Connecticut, the killer’s didn’t select their targets BECAUSE they were “gun free zones”. The Sandy Hook shooter was a nut that had just murdered his mother in her sleep and then attacked the last school he attended before that same mother… a teanut who taught her troubled son how to use an assault weapon to prepare for the day “Obama would bring about Armageddon”… pulled him out of public school to be home schooled. Many other school shootings were also committed by former students targeting the people they knew. They didn’t pick some random school out of the phone book because schools were “gun free zones”. Mass murderers don’t select their targets that way, and it is disgusting to suggested otherwise (“Your kid is dead because your kid’s teacher was not allowed to bring a gun into your child’s classroom.”)
 

Who's buying all the guns?

 


Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
SIDEBAR
»
S
I
D
E
B
A
R
«
»  Substance:WordPress   »  Style:Ahren Ahimsa