Friday, April 29, 2016

Obama’s Global Warming Plan Cost Poor Americans $44 Billion, Raises Taxes By 166%

Obama’s Global Warming Plan Cost Poor Americans $44 Billion, Raises Taxes By 166%

President Obama’s global warming plan would cost America’s poorest families billions annually, according to a report published Thursday by the Manhattan Institute.
The study estimates that Obama’s global warming plan would increase the costs of living for the poorest American families an additional $19 billion per year, equivalent to increasing their taxes by 166 percent. The tax increase would also raise taxes on other poor families by an extra $25 billion, equal to a 33 percent tax increase. Living costs for the richest households would only increase by 4 percent.
Obama wants to implement the Enviromental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which would effectively tax four-fifths of American carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and be similar in scope to an economy-wide carbon tax. In addition, Obama has proposed a $10.25-per-barrel oil tax.
Neither plan would have a large impact on global warming. Data modeling created by the EPA and run by the libertarian Cato Institute shows that the Clean Power Plan would only have adverted 0.019° Celsius of warming by the year 2100, an amount so small it couldn’t be detected.
“The greatest tragedy of the Democrats’ climate agenda is not how little it will accomplish but rather how costly it will be for those least able to afford it,” Oren Cass, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute who authored the study, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The study determined that taxing CO2 emissions or gasoline inherently hurts the poor more than the rich because the lowest-income U.S. households spend roughly 35 percent of their annual income on energy, while the highest income households spent less than 3 percent of their income on energy.

Though the study is based on projections of future tax increases, the average American’s electric bill has gone up 10 percent since Obama took office in January, 2009, due to federal regulations.
The amount spent to meet global carbon dioxide emissions reduction goals could be as high as $16.5 trillion between now and 2030, when energy efficiency measures are included, according to projections from the  International Energy Agency. To put these numbers in perspective, the U.S. government is just over $19 trillion in debt and only produced $17.4 trillion in gross domestic product in 2014.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/23/obamas-global-warming-plan-cost-poor-americans-44-billion-raises-taxes-by-166/#ixzz46sbi2OIX

Why Obama is unteachable

Why Obama is unteachable

The president distrusts America’s definition of its interests



ANALYSIS/OPINION:
In an April 10 Fox News interview, President Obama identified what he believes is the worst mistake of his presidency. He said, “Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya.”
It’s mighty tempting to deride that statement by going through the long litany of Mr. Obama’s mistakes in national security and foreign policy. But surrendering to that temptation would cause us to miss the important elements in what Mr. Obama said and why he said it. More difficult, and far more important, is an analysis to determine why Mr. Obama is incapable of learning from such mistakes.
    Begin with the advice he received from his top defense advisers before going into Libya. According to “Duty,” the memoir of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Mr. Gates had determined that we had no vital national security interest in Libya and so advised the president. Again, according to Mr. Gates’ memoir, the final decision on intervention was made in a meeting between Mr. Gates and his team, including Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, and the State Department and White House teams led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, National Security Adviser Susan Rice and two of her staffers, Samantha Power (now U.N. ambassador) and Ben Rhodes.
Mr. Obama, saying it was a “close call,” came down on the side of intervention to prevent a humanitarian disaster.
Appearing with Mrs. Clinton on the Sunday talk shows to defend the intervention, Mr. Gates said repeatedly that we didn’t have a vital national interest in Libya, indicating that Mr. Obama’s action was unjustified.
Mr. Gates’ point is so fundamental to American defense and foreign policy that it beggars the imagination that we need to be reminded of it. Like several presidents before him Mr. Obama has misunderstood it, but the principle is precise and clear: the United States should never go to war unless a vital national security interest is at stake.
Though he often denies it, Mr. Obama is intensely ideological. He distrusts America’s definition of its interests and the rationale for defending them just as one of his principal mentors, Edward Said, did.
Mr. Said was a Palestinian activist who became an American academic. His was a radical anti-colonialist ideology that infused his writing and teaching. Mr. Obama studied under Mr. Said at Columbia University and maintained a relationship with him for about two decades.
Mr. Said mocked American greatness, tying it directly to imperialism and what he believed was a false sense of American uniqueness. He said America was dedicated to hierarchies of race and to wariness of other nations’ revolutions. He believed American insistence on these concepts obscured, “the realities of empire, while apologists for overseas American interests have insisted on American innocence, doing good, fighting for freedom.”

Mr. Obama’s distrust of America’s motives throughout history was learned from Mr. Said. Couple that with the anti-American vitriol of Mr. Obama’s longtime pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and you produce inevitably Mr. Obama’s personal ideology.
It is only by this analysis can we account for Mr. Obama’s actions since he became president. From 2009, when Mr. Obama agreed with Fidel Castro to condemn the action of free Hondurans to remove would-be dictator Manuel Zelaya to today’s refusal to deal decisively with ISIS, his actions have been consistent with Mr. Said’s world view. Mr. Obama’s insistence to Fox News that the Libya intervention was correct is redundant proof of his imperviousness to facts inconsistent with his ideology.
In Argentina last month, Mr. Obama was asked whether he would change his strategy against ISIS, the defeat of which he said was still his top priority. From August 2014, when he authorized military strikes against ISIS, to his recent action authorizing airstrikes against it in Syria, his strategy has consistently failed. But to this day, Mr. Obama refuses, as he said in Argentina, to change it.
What Mr. Obama cannot understand is that there are vital American national security interests and that humanitarian concerns must be secondary to them. America faces threats in all five realms: land, sea, air, space and the cyberworld. Those are vital national security interests and It is the duty of our government to deter or defeat those threats in the manner that best protects us, our allies and our interests in all of those realms.
Because his ideology doesn’t allow him to see the world in those terms Mr. Obama is miscast in the role of a president of our unique nation. He neither believes in American exceptionalism nor does he see the need for a strategy to defend it.
Mr. Obama’s intervention in Libya, over the objections of his Pentagon leaders, was a mistake he doesn’t admit. The mistake wasn’t in planning for a post-Gadhafi nation-building exercise. It was in going to war when we didn’t need to and therefore should not have.
In an interview about four years ago, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers posed the questions which every president should be prepared to answer. “What is our national strategy?” he asked. “What is our U.S. military strategy? What are our vital national interests, what role does the military play in ensuring that our vital national interests are supported and achieved?”
Mr. Obama has never chosen to ask or answer any of those questions. As a result, he has made many dangerous mistakes and learned nothing from them. Unfortunately, among the four candidates now most likely to achieve the presidency, there is no one who evidences having learned from them either.
• Jed Babbin served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration. He is a senior fellow of the London Center for Policy Research and the author of five books including “In the Words of Our Enemies.”

CKE CEO Andy Puzder On The $15 An Hour Minimum Wage

CKE CEO Andy Puzder On The $15 An Hour Minimum Wage

by Hugh Hewitt
I was joined Friday morning by CKE CEO Andy Puzder who is one of the most articulate and persuasive of America’s business leaders:
Transcript:
HH: This is my segment of greatest impact. It’s 8:30 in the East, 5:30 in the West. And in California, the 55 Freeway headed into the coast from the Inland Empire is jammed. The 405 is jammed. In Phoenix on AM960, people are going to work. Of course, all across Atlanta and Washington and St. Louis and D.C., all the freeways are jammed, in New York, etc. They’re all people going to work. And that’s why I asked Andy Puzder to join me. Andy is the CEO of CKE Restaurants. Now Andy is a lawyer. But he was such a good lawyer that Carl Karcher asked him to come in and actually run Karcher Enterprises after him. And CKE owns all of Carls, Jr. and Hardee’s, and you see Andy a lot on CNBC and the other business channels. And I want people to understand, especially those of you who are going to work this early, especially those of you who own businesses, what this minimum wage dispute is about, because in Phoenix, you’re going to be voting in the fall on a $12 dollar an hour minimum wage. California just adopted a $15 dollars an hour minimum wage. Andy, welcome to the Hugh Hewitt Show, thanks for getting up early to talk about this subject to this audience.
AP: Great to be here, Hugh, good to hear from you.

AP: For the company itself, there’s about 10,000 employees. If you look at the system overall, which includes our franchisees, it’s closer to 75,000 people in the United States, and another 15,000 overseas.
HH: All right, so it’s a lot of people that depend on your company being healthy, a lot of families that need their jobs. What do you think of the $15 dollar an hour minimum wage, or even the $12 dollar an hour minimum wage that’s going to be on the ballot in Arizona?
AP: Well, I hope it stays on the ballot. One of the big surprises in California was that there was an initiative on the ballot that was supposed to be voted on in November. The polling was showing that it didn’t have popular support, that people were not going to, that they felt $15 dollars an hour was too big an increase. And so surprisingly, very surprisingly, the Governor, Brown, and the Legislature, Democrats, passed a $15 dollar an hour minimum wage bill despite the lack of popular support. And in fact, Governor Brown had stated, and I’m going to quote him here, he said raising the minimum wage too much would put a lot of people out of work. And he concluded that there would be, there won’t be a lot of jobs. So he knew about the bad impact, but they went and passed it anyway. So it’s, it was a big surprise here. But I can tell you generally what the impact, economic impact would be from raising the minimum wage to either of those amounts.
HH: Please do.
AP: If you, if you look at businesses generally, retailers generally, and this is information from the Fortune 500, we have some companies that make a lot of money per employee. For example, Apple did $39.5 billion in business last year, and only has 97,000 employees. So they made about $407,000 dollars per employee, which gives you a lot of latitude to increase wages, if you want to do so. In the retail segment, if you take all 22 retailers on the Fortune 500 and add them together, they did about $34 billion in business last year, and they employed 5.8 million people, you know, a lot more than the 97,000, obviously, that Apple employed, and a little less in revenue. And they made about $6,300 dollars per employee. Now if you give a minimum wage employee an increase to $12 dollars an hour, rather than making $6,300 dollars an hour on employees, you lose about $1,100.
HH: Wow.
AP: If you give them a raise to $15 dollars, you lose about $6,000 dollars per employee. So you actually go from a situation where your, you’ve got a business that can survive and that has economic strength to a business that you really can’t run, you really can’t hire people, so, and you can’t offset these costs of this magnitude with pricing, even if there was meaningful inflation, which we don’t have. So either businesses will move out of the state, this is what will happen in California when it gets to $15. Businesses will move out of the state, marginally profitable businesses will close, and businesses that manage to survive will more efficiently manage their labor by reducing hours to the bare minimum, automating as many positions as they possibly can, and raising prices as high as the market will bear. So…and you know, as Governor Brown said, there won’t be a lot of jobs. So it’s a very scary proposition for businesses, and I think states should look very carefully at what they do.
HH: Now Andy, in my world of radio, I’ve always had three interns. I’m going to two, right, because that’s, I don’t have a bigger budget for interns. So I’ve always paid them $10 dollars an hour. I’m not one of those people that don’t pay interns. I’ve always paid them $10 bucks an hour. They’re not worth $10 dollars an hour, but I pay them $10 dollars an hour. But now I’m going to, but that’s $30 dollars an hour for interns. Now, I’m going to pay two of them and spend the same amount of money, because that’s the budget for interns. I saw that the University of California at Berkeley laid off 500 people immediately. The University of California did, because they don’t have a budget that they can expand. They depend upon the state of California’s budget. And then I went to the movies yesterday, and I see automated drink machines everywhere, and I realize what is happening. You just mentioned it. Automation is going to replace low wage employees.
AP: Well, you already see it everywhere. I mean, if you go in casual dining restaurants in particular, like Chili’s and Applebees and Olive Garden, there is, they have the ordering screens. You have the touch screen ordering, which, quite honestly, millennials prefer. We have it in some of our restaurants that are near colleges or in an area where there is a lot of high tech employees. And I’ve actually been in the restaurants and seen millennials standing, waiting to use the ordering kiosks while there are people at the counter not doing anything who would wait on people. So there is a trend to install more and more of these touch screen ordering systems. You’ve also got back of the house innovations in automation that people don’t see. And so there’s a lot going on in that respect, and it will definitely impact the number of people that are employed. One of the big threats in California, by the way, is that when fully implemented, this $15 dollar an hour minimum wage is going to cost the state about $3.6 billion dollars a year. As you mentioned, the University at Berkeley is reducing the number of employees. But think about schools, generally, just the local schools, particularly schools for underprivileged or minority kids that are already struggling to provide the services their students need. They’re really going to feel the impact of these cuts a lot more than the affluent school districts along California’s coast. And these schools have a lot of minimum wage employees, like bus drivers, groundskeepers, custodians, after school staff, special needs staff. And they’re going to have to reduce things. They’re going to have to do things like expanding bus routes and putting in hiring and promotion freezes, reduced field trips and trips to athletic events, or reduce spending on technology, maybe take out music programs or enlarge classes. So there are a lot, you’re really going to see school districts be impacted by this increase as well as private businesses. And if you’re in the working class, you’re going to lose job opportunities for your kids, and you’re not going to get the kind of education you might otherwise have gotten. So I think this, taking this of the ballot, and doing this without a popular vote of the people of California, I think, was a horrific thing for the Democrats and Governor Brown to do. And I hope in the next election, the people of California make them pay for it.
HH: It is hard to make the argument, though, because everyone says a living wage. Now I’m talking with Andrew Puzder. He is the CEO of CKE Restaurants, which owns Carls, Jr. and Hardees, very, very popular brands across the United States. And I remember, Andy, you told me once, I don’t know when this was, that the real people who are punished by this are people who don’t have a job and have low skills. They can’t get into the workforce, because they don’t bring enough to the table. And here, I think particularly of urban youth who have been mal-served by a poor education system. You just can’t find employers who are going to give away jobs at this rate to kids who need skill sets.
AP: No, you can’t, and Governor Brown, as I said, he admitted that. He said there won’t be a lot of jobs. There was actually a very good report out of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco just in December. There wasn’t a lot of media coverage on it, and the San Francisco Fed isn’t exactly a bastion of conservative economic thought. But they examined all of the research on the impact of minimum wage increases, and they stressed, they really emphasized, that the most important policy consideration was whether or not there would be fewer jobs for less skilled workers. And they said that was most important, because they’re the ones that the minimum wage is intended to help. So they looked at all the research, including some really faulty research done by Robert Reich, he was one of the individuals that conducted some research. They found it to be faulty. They found that the basis for the research wasn’t justified. And they found that the most credible research showed that increasing the minimum wage resulted in job losses for the least skilled workers. And it actually showed that that probably happened with larger adverse effects than earlier research had suggested. So even the San Francisco Fed has come out and said look, this is going to kill jobs. And it doesn’t kill jobs for people with technical skills. It doesn’t kill jobs for the people that are working in Silicon Valley or West L.A. It kills jobs for the least skilled and most vulnerable people in the working class. Those are the jobs that get people on the ladder of opportunity. I know, you know, I started at a Baskin-Robbins for a dollar an hour. Thank God I had that job.
HH: Yeah.
AP: I learned a lot.
HH: Andy, I’ve got a Twitter follower, @gozplan, who tweets out you can’t offset this with pricing. This guest is good. Can you, you know, everyone knows Carl’s, Jr. You have a great product. They can’t, though. You can’t raise the cost of a hamburger. I mean, you can’t do it to offset this, correct?
AP: Well, you can raise the price, but not enough to offset this. That’s why you’re going to have to either, people are going to have to close their businesses, or they’re going to have to reduce the number of employees they have. Automation is a big help in that respect. But you can also manage your labor more efficiently. So, and then you raise prices as much as you can. But you can’t raise it enough to cover an increase like this where you go from, you know, making $6,000 an employee to losing $6,000 an employee. You can’t offset that gap with pricing alone. Nobody will pay it.
HH: Let me wonder if there isn’t one silver lining in our last couple of minutes, Andy Puzder, and that is this. The hike is so stark, and the effects will be so dramatic, we may finally have the illustration of why free market people have always been opposed to arbitrary minimum wage hikes. Do you think it is so huge a hike, and so dramatic an impact on employment that even some of the left will wake up?
AP: Well, some of the economists on the left, including economists from the Clinton administration and the Obama administration have said this is dangerous. Don’t do this. This goes too far. I think that this may be that step too far that will wake people up. I think in some sense, the SEIU, the Service Employees International Union, and the Democrats, are kind of like the dog that caught the car. I don’t know if they’re going to be able to deal with what happens out of this. Now I will say the increase in California, by the way, it goes up, it’s over six years. The interesting thing is the minimum wage only goes up $.50 cents a year while Governor Brown is governor. And then the next governor, it goes up a dollar a year.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

CDC secret warning on surge of illegal kids: 'Plan on many having TB'

In fact, the young adults, few of whom had received the types of vaccines U.S. children received, arrived with TB, swine flu and even Dengue, according to reports that eventually filtered out of border agents and hospitals on or near the U.S. border.
The internal warning was: "We might as well plan on many of the kids having TB." It was included in June 2014 email guidance from environmental health scientist Alaric C. Denton as the agency prepared to handle the crisis, which was repeated in 2015 and is expected again this year.
"Most of these kids are not immunized, so we need to make sure all our staff are immunized," said Denton, who is stationed at the CDC headquarters in Atlanta, according to a new document obtained by the watchdog group Judicial Watch and released Thursday.
More from the Washington Examiner
"The CDC official reveals in the documents obtained by JW as a result of the lawsuit that 'some of these kids are not really kids they are young adults, and we should be wary of personal safety,'" said a memo.
Judicial Watch added, "Homeland Security sources directly involved with the mess told JW that holding centers were jam-packed, rampant with diseases and sexually active teenagers. A veteran Border Patrol officer who heads the agency's Tucson sector quickly established that many of the UACs were not little kids but rather 17-year-olds with possible ties to gang members in the U.S."
Read their full report here.
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted atpbedard@washingtonexaminer.com

Bernie Sanders Says Scott Walker's Ideology 'Kills People'

Bernie Sanders Says Scott Walker's Ideology 'Kills People'

Sanders, who is a fan of communist regimes, accuses a center-right governor of being responsible for people dying because of his policy preferences.

screencapscreencapDemocratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), who has expressed support for murderous communist regimes like those in Nicaragua and honeymooned in Moscow (correction: north of Moscow) in the 1980s, after the Soviet Union had already been responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people in Russia as well as around the developing world, accused Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) of being responsible for people's death because of his "right-wing ideology," his decision to decline Medicaid expansion in his state and his support for some entitlement and spending reforms.
Sanders' father emigrated from Poland in 1921, at the tail end of the Polish-Soviet war, which was lost by the Soviets, who would invade Poland again in 1939 and impose murderous regimes there and across Central and Eastern Europe that lasted more than half a century.
Sanders is the "good guy" to the Donald Trump "bad guy" (who, like Sanders, is anti-trade, believes immigration laws are a plot by wealthy people to endanger American workers, and peddles myths about money in politics) in the mainstream liberal narrative. Clinton, who pushed U.S. intervention and military actions in Libya and elsewhere in the Muslim world, has so far escaped any serious discussion of her responsibility for people killed by the U.S. government when she was a member of the Obama cabinet.
This election is beyond parody.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/04/bernie-sanders-says-scott-walkers-ideolo

The environmental campaign that punishes free speech

 
Sam Kazman is general counsel and Kent Lassman is president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
With seven state attorneys general and Al Gore sharing a New York City stage , there was no doubt about it: It was showtimefor a whodunit. The crime being investigated? Dissent.
The March 29 news conference unveiled, according to New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, an “unprecedented” coalition to fight not only climate change but also allegedly deceptive speech about climate change. The group, which dubbed itself AGs United for Clean Power, promised to “use all the tools at our disposal” to battle for progress on “the most consequential issue of our time.”
Schneiderman was blunt about his goal of shutting down debate: “You have to tell the truth. You can’t make misrepresentations of the kinds we’ve seen here.”
This isn’t a law-and-order drama. It’s politics clothed in messianic garb, and its primary tools are censorship and intimidation.
The AGs are following a familiar script here: target an unpopular, deep-pocketed business, harass that business’s potential allies with overly broad investigations, run roughshod over the target’s First Amendment protections and settle once the politically weakened company tires of fighting the endless resources of the state.
ExxonMobil was singled out by name at the news conference, but the coalition appears to be following the script perfectly. Now it’s on to the fishing-expedition stage.
On April 7, our organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, was subpoenaed by coalition member and U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker for all CEI material on climate change and energy policy, as well as information on our supporters, over 10 years beginning in 1997. The subpoena’s purported focus is on our contacts with ExxonMobil, a former CEI donor that publicly ended its support for us after 2005. Nonetheless, the subpoena calls for practically all of our material on climate change and energy policy, as well as information on any donors who directly or indirectly supported that work.
That’s one hell of a burden to slap on a nonprofit. The coalition’s purported justification is that the risks of global warming are so important and the scientific basis for them so settled that disputing them constitutes fraud. But the rhetoric of the AGs is blissfully oblivious to the First Amendment.
Court rulings make it clear that broad subpoenas aimed at restricting speech, especially in the context of policy debates, are invalid. Time and again, the Supreme Court has held that the remedy for unwanted speech is more speech in response. The chief law-enforcement officers of several states should know better, but their reaction to a dissenting policy position is punitive, coercive and unconstitutional.
As for breaching donor confidentiality, the obvious aims here are intimidation and to limit future use of the constitutionally protected right of anonymous donation. In 1958, in NAACP v. Pattersonthe Supreme Court held that such attempts were illegal under the First Amendment’s right of association.
You might think that if the law is that clear, we have nothing to worry about. But fighting a subpoena is incredibly costly and time-consuming, especially when the attorneys general behind them have promised to “use all the tools” at their disposal, courtesy of their states’ taxpayers.
Regardless of where you stand on global warming policy, the notion of a multi-state campaign to end the debate ought to make you worry. After all, there are many science-driven policy debates out there, on topics ranging from genetically modified food to population control. It is not as if the government has a sterling reputation when it comes to science. From Galileo to today’s food plate, we know government politicizes science. It ought not to punish dissent, too.

HILLARY WANTS YOUR GUNS


Given the Democrats’ dismal record when they run on an anti-gun platform, it is hard to believe that Hillary Clinton wants to make gun control her signature issue. Nevertheless, that appears to be the case. Campaigning in Connecticut, she waxed hyperbolic on firearms:
I am here to tell you I will use every single minute of every single day if I’m so fortunate enough to be your president looking for ways that we can save lives, that we can change the gun culture.
Every single minute of every single day, on guns? Well, that would be a good thing for our foreign policy, but I don’t think she means it. Still, it is always interesting to try to decode liberals’ talk about firearms. What do you think Hillary means by “chang[ing] the gun culture”? My guess is that she knows next to nothing about the “gun culture” as it is experienced by those who own and use firearms, and what she has in mind is making it really, really hard for anyone to buy a gun. Except for her armed guards, of course.
Chelsea Clinton, campaigning for her mother, brought a moment of clarity to the Democrats’ usual obfuscation:
Chelsea Clinton said Thursday at an event in Maryland that there is now an opportunity for gun control legislation to pass the Supreme Court since Justice Antonin Scalia passed away.
“It matters to me that my mom also recognizes the role the Supreme Court has when it comes to gun control. With Justice Scalia on the bench, one of the few areas where the Court actually had an inconsistent record relates to gun control,” Clinton said. “Sometimes the Court upheld local and state gun control measures as being compliant with the Second Amendment and sometimes the Court struck them down.
Clinton then touted her mother’s record on gun control issues and knowledge that the Supreme Court has an effect on whether many gun control laws stand.
Chelsea’s comment is stupid. (Normally I wouldn’t criticize a family member of a candidate, but Chelsea is an adult and Hillary sent her out on the trail as a surrogate.) The idea that upholding some gun control measures while invalidating others is “inconsistent” betrays a profound lack of understanding of the law and the Constitution. To point out the obvious, the Supreme Court has similarly upheld some restrictions on speech as constitutional, while finding that others violate the First Amendment. And it has found some searches and seizures to be legal under the Fourth Amendment, while others are unconstitutional. This is not inconsistent, it is what courts do.
And, of course, the reporter’s framing of the issue is even dumber: “legislation” doesn’t “pass” the Supreme Court. God help us.
But, while Chelsea may not know anything about the law–money, not legality, is the Clintons’ obsession–she probably has a pretty good idea what her mother thinks about firearms. (I mean the ones that aren’t carried by her bodyguards or by the Secret Service.) I don’t doubt that one of Hillary’s agenda items is to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will vote to overturn Heller, and hold that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms.
Our readers who supported Donald Trump may live to regret it if he proves to be such an inept candidate that Hillary becomes president, against all odds, and nominates Supreme Court justices who effectively repeal the Second Amendment.
There is a chance, of course, that Hillary doesn’t really mean what she said in Connecticut and will drop her obsession with guns once she gets to the general election. Her motive may be entirely political: firearms are the only issue where she can get to Bernie Sanders’ left, since he voted for the federal statute that protects gun manufacturers against bogus lawsuits that would hold them accountable for the acts of criminals when their products work as intended. She also persists in the absurd claim that New York’s homicide problems are due to Vermont’s permissive gun laws, a silly position that she wouldn’t take if her opponent were not a senator from Vermont.
So maybe Hillary’s purported obsession with guns is merely a campaign tactic that she will abandon when the time is right. At InstaPundit, Ed Driscoll points out that Hillary sings a different tune while campaigning in rural Pennsylvania: “I know how important gun ownership and particularly hunting is here in Northeastern Pennsylvania.” This is, as Ed notes, reminiscent of John Kerry’s Ohio goose hunting expedition–the one where he staged a hunting excursion for TV cameras and marched out of sight with his fellow hunters, but returned without personally carrying a dead goose, lest he offend his party’s core constituencies. (Dick Cheney and I once shared a laugh over this incident, which exemplified Kerry’s lameness as a presidential candidate.)
Democratic politicians are generally lying; the question is, to whom? In this case, I think (like Ed Driscoll and Chelsea Clinton) that Hillary is sincere when she hints at her desire to ban guns, and lying through her teeth when she pretends to understand and respect those who like and use firearms. (Those other than her own armed guards, that is.) So watch for gun rights to play a significant role in this year’s presidential campaign.