Beto O'Rourke just did Republicans a massive favor on guns

Beto O'Rourke just did Republicans a massive favor on guns



Beto O'Rourke: We should stop selling weapons of war
Beto O'Rourke: We should stop selling weapons of war 01:52
(CNN)Beto O'Rourke's best moment on Thursday's Democratic presidential debate -- which also doubled as his best moment in the 2020 campaign to date -- came when ABC's David Muir asked whether he supported a mandatory buyback of assault weapons.
"Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47," O'Rourke said to raucous applause from the crowd in Houston, Texas. "We're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore."
The former Texas congressman defended that stance in an interview on CNN's "New Day" Friday, insisting the issue would not hurt his party.
"It's not a concern of mine and that's in part informed by listening to people in conservative parts of America," he said. "And folks are saying, 'Look, I would give up that AR-15 or that AK-47. I don't need it to hunt, don't need it to defend myself in my home.' They recognize this is a weapon designed for war, to kill people as effectively, as efficiently, and in a great a number as possible."
    Which, well, count me skeptical that O'Rourke's idea will gain widespread political support. Here's why.
    For decades, the National Rifle Association -- and its Republican allies in Congress and now in the White House -- have used the idea of confiscation to win the gun debate. If Democrats were in control, they'd come to your house and take your guns!, the argument goes. It's why gun purchases soared in the immediate aftermath of Barack Obama's election in 2008, for example.
    "It depends on if Democrats want to take your guns away," President Donald Trump said in response to questions Thursday about whether some sort of gun control measure might be passed by Congress this fall. "If this is a movement by the Democrats to take your guns away, it's never going to happen."
    Up until very recently, the Democrats-want-to-get-rid-of-the-Second-Amendment talk was, like so much of Trump's rhetoric, outlandish and without any basis in facts. Obama in 2008 and 2012 and Hillary Clinton in 2016 expressly made clear they had no interest in any sort of mandatory collection or buyback program.
    "Of course Hillary does not support national mandatory gun buyback programs, including those modeled after Australia's program," said a Clinton campaign spokesman in 2016 when the NRA attacked her for allegedly supporting confiscation. "She was discussing voluntary buyback programs, which are drastically different than what occurred in Australia and are regularly run by cities across the America."
    That changed -- or at least shifted -- on Thursday night with O'Rourke's comment.


    While a mandatory buyback campaign of weapons like the AR-15 and AK-47 doesn't amount to a wholesale gun confiscation, it walks much closer to that doomsday scenario the NRA has spent years painting as just over the horizon if Democrats get into power.
    Even if O'Rourke never even sniffs the Democratic presidential nomination, the eventual nominee will have to answer for his support of a mandatory buyback program.
      And whether or not O'Rourke is the nominee, Republicans will use his comments to stoke fear and anger in their base -- see, we told you Democrats really want to take all your guns ... just look at this quote from Beto O'Rourke!!!
      Is it possible that the debate on guns and gun control has been changed in a fundamental way by the recent spate of mass shootings? O'Rourke seems to believe it has. And maybe it has! But if it hasn't, then O'Rourke just handed Republicans a massive political gift: A club to bash the eventual Democratic nominee with on confiscating peoples' guns.

      President Roadrunner Versus Media Coyote

      President Roadrunner Versus Media Coyote



      Chris Stigall
      |
      Posted: Sep 12, 2019 12:01 AM
      The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
      President Roadrunner Versus Media Coyote
      Source: AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster
        
      I’ve gotten out of the prediction business when it comes to American politics. Primarily because I no longer trust the information on which I used to rely to make predictions. Mainstream American news media continues their Wile E. Coyote routine with President Trump. And just like the cartoon, you quickly figure out after a couple of episodes they’re never going to catch Trump’s roadrunner.
      This week’s episode featured Media Coyote telling us President Roadrunner has lost his magic in North Carolina and in no way would Dan Bishop be able to pull off a victory in the state’s 9th Congressional District because of the roadrunner’s unpopularity.
      KABOOM! Another prediction blows up in Media Coyote’s face as Bishop wins Tuesday night. Hilariously, after spending weeks telling us Bishop was down double digits and how Republicans were “scrambling” to protect the seat – Media Coyote plunged to the bottom of the ravine.
      The only difference between the media and the cartoon is the coyote never makes excuses or tries to spin why he was left covered in soot or flattened after hitting the side of a gorge. He just concocts a new strategy.
      Media Coyote spent all day Wednesday explaining North Carolina's 9th Congressional District should serve as a real wake up call to Republicans. EVEN THOUGH THEY WON!  They claim it should never have been close, therefore that big blue wave is still looming and will one day crash ashore.
      It’s the exact opposite. If the truth was accurately told about North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District race, you’d realize it’s nothing short of a political miracle Dan Bishop won. And there’s no way around it – he did it with the help of President Trump, not in spite of him.
      In November 2018, Republican Mark Harris beat his Democrat challenger Dan McCready for the seat. An election fraud scheme to rig the outcome in Harris’ favor was uncovered shortly after. Harris withdrew in the midst of the scandal. A new election was ordered. Democrat McCready stepped back in to try it again. Republican Dan Bishop stepped up to the plate on behalf of the GOP.
      Think of this: McCready was already a very familiar name in the district. He’d been running a campaign for well over a year before Bishop got in. Bishop had mere months to raise money and his profile. Not only did McCready have him bested in both money and name I.D., outside Democratic money poured in. McCready’s campaign spent over $8 million!
      Despite being outspent, despite media and polls declaring Bishop a double-digit long shot, Dan Bishop is one of two new Republican congressmen in North Carolina. Republican Greg Murphy beat his Democratic opponent by a whopping 24 points on Tuesday. 
      How is that possible in the Trump era? The Washington Post just told us the day prior to this race that six in 10 Americans are certain a recession is coming in the next year. If that were true, why would anyone turn out to reward President Trump’s party in any state, never mind the increasingly purple state of North Carolina?
      That slide whistle sound is an anvil falling as the media opens their tiny umbrella and holds up a sign reading “HELP.”
      We’re also told Democrats are salivating for the chance to impeach President Trump and they have a laundry list of reasons to do so. It’s a steady drumbeat of collusion, bank records, Russia, and obstruction… It all sounds so bad! Democrats are so close, says the media.
      Brace for another ACME-style KABOOM!
      The truth is, President Trump knows impeachment isn’t anything to fear because he knows the country doesn’t broadly support it. It really only makes him stronger with his base while Democratic leadership is terrified to pull the trigger because they know it’s toxic and could cost them the House.
      POLITICO was forced to admit this week  that“Democrats stumble on impeachment messaging.” But spinning ever-hopefully as only mainstream media can, they went on to explain the mixed messaging was actually a real benefit because it could give the moderate Democrats cover while the progressive Democrats can claim they still want Trump’s scalp and are fighting tirelessly until they get it.
      Recommended
      The Fool in the Vatican
      William Marshall
      Are you following this? The American public will supposedly reward a party that spent the entirety of their two years in power chasing their tail on impeachment as opposed to working on a single meaningful issue? They’ve attacked law enforcement, made anti-Semites and socialists their poster girls, and cheered illegal border crossings as their signature achievements.
      Still, the media finds a way to tell us Donald Trump is the target of voters’ ire. The country can’t wait to punish him at the ballot box and reward the Democrats, they say. North Carolina should teach us all a lesson about their honesty and ability to report on the electorate accurately. But it won’t stop them.
      They’ll be back at it tomorrow and throughout next year until Election Day. You can hear Media Coyote strapping on their rocket roller skates and affixing their goggles getting ready to nail President Roadrunner next time he speeds by.  
      That’s when President Roadrunner will make a sudden stop in the road as Media Coyote speeds by, unable to stop before slamming into the oncoming truck of real voters next fall.  (Cue the chirping birds and stars)  
      That’s all, folks!  

      California Senate Demands Pastors Reject Biblical Counseling For LGBT Californians

      Senate Demands Pastors Reject Biblical Counseling For LGBT Californians


      https://californiafamily.org/2019/senate-demands-pastors-reject-biblical-counseling-for-lgbt-californians/?mc_cid=b6eafa3428&mc_eid=b12a134550&fbclid=IwAR3JoAjF4g8b8YVCU_dBqjDSzaB753cxGxGSRe62J8TZbQ3eSjE_LCI_D54

      Senate Demands Pastors Reject Biblical Counseling For LGBT Californians

      Print Friendly, PDF & Email
      Last week, the California Senate gave party-line approval to Assembly Concurrent Resolution 99, a resolution demanding people of faith in the state change how they teach, preach, and counsel others related to LGBT identities and behaviors. Authored by Assemblyman Evan Low (D-San Jose), ACR 99 condemns pastors, counselors, and religious workers who offer compassionate support to the fellow Californians struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction or gender identity confusion.
      Most shockingly, ACR 99 goes so far as to blame the so-called “stigmatizing beliefs” of these individuals and organizations for the high rates of depression and suicide in the LGBT community. The resolution was a direct follow up to last year’s AB 2943 which California Family Council worked to defeat due to similar constitutional concerns. We strongly encourage you to read ACR 99 for yourself.
      Thankfully, several senators recognized the serious legal flaws ACR 99, particularly its attack on the First Amendment. Senator Andreas Borgeas (R-Fresno) stated that even though the resolution didn’t have the force of law, “we are treading into freedom of speech territory that I think should concern all of us. When an individual seeks therapy or guidance before a religious leader, whether it be a mosque, a temple, or a church, that’s a private setting…To disallow or create the pathway where we tell individuals they can not say certain things should give us pause.” 
      Senator John Moorlach (R-Irvine) rose to warn legislators of the clear religious liberty implications of the legislation. He acknowledged that he does not support all of the counseling methods sometimes categorized as “conversion therapy.” But, “how can we foreclose on spiritual counseling when someone is on a journey and honestly inquiring about wanting to change and wants professional assistance?” Moorlach asked his fellow senators. 
      Sadly, other senators used ACR 99 as a platform to attack former LGBTQ men and women who seek to share their stories of life transformation. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) sneeringly called any efforts to change sexual orientation and gender identity “psychological torture.” Jim Beall (D-San Jose) smeared faith-based groups as engaging in “mental health malpractice.” 
      California Senate floor debate on ACR 99.
      Senator Hannah Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) implied change therapy discriminates against those who identify as LGBTQ. “Until recently, the interpretation of the First Amendment was that one religion could not impose itself on other religions,” she argued. To say “one should have religious freedom to discriminate against others is a relatively new concept.”
      These slanderous statements were simply bizarre. ACR 99 does not clearly define so-called “conversion therapy.” It does not even mention psychologists, psychiatrists, or mental health professionals. Instead, it targets churches, counselors, and even formerly LGBTQ Christians. Sadly, these vitriolic and bigoted attacks on California’s faith community went largely unchallenged.
      Just before the vote, Senate Minority Leader Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) rose to tell her colleagues she thought the resolution was simply to remind pastors to be loving and compassionate to LGBT identified people. While not mentioning the concerns raised by her Republican colleagues, Grove focused on the part of the resolution that called on “religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion.”
      Grove later told California Family Council she had worked hard to organize meetings with Assemblyman Low and evangelical pastors in opposition to last year’s AB 2943, but she saw encouraging signs in this year’s resolution. “I’ve spoken before pastor groups all over the state,” Grove told other Senators, “and if they don’t counsel from a position of love and compassion and knowledge, then they shouldn’t be counseling people in that area.”
      The final vote saw all 29 Democrats vote yes, with seven Republicans voting no, and four Republicans (Senators Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), Patricia Bates (R-Laguna Hills), Ling Ling Chang (R-Brea), and Scott Wilk (R-Lancaster) abstaining. As a resolution, ACR 99 does not require a signature from the Governor.
      While the final result on ACR 99 was deeply disappointing, there are signs of hope. Stay tuned for several key updates on the next steps and our strategy moving forward.

      Media Hyped ‘Wrong’ Study Linking Trump Rallies To Hate Crimes, Then Ignored Second Study Debunking It

      Media Hyped ‘Wrong’ Study Linking Trump Rallies To Hate Crimes, Then Ignored Second Study Debunking It


      (ERIC BARADAT/AFP/Getty Images)
      Daily Caller News Foundation logo
      PETER HASSONSENIOR REPORTER
      • Establishment media outlets hyped an apparently flawed study that linked President Donald Trump’s campaign rallies to a spike in hate crimes.
      • The study said counties that hosted Trump rallies in 2016 saw a 226% spike in hate crimes.
      • “The study is wrong,” Harvard researchers said.
      Establishment media outlets like The Washington Post hyped a now-disputed study that linked President Donald Trump’s campaign rallies to a spike in hate crimes, but they’ve yet to cover a second study that debunked the first one.
      The first study, which three Texas university professors conducted, said counties that hosted Trump rallies in 2016 saw a 226% spike in hate crimes compared to places that didn’t host Trump rallies. Harvard University researchers found the political scientists had gotten it wrong when they tried to replicate the study.
      “The study is wrong, and yet journalists ran with it anyway,” Harvard researchers Matthew Lilley and Brian Wheaton wrote on Sept. 6 in Reason, a libertarian magazine.
      Establishment media outlets spread the first study’s conclusions but have largely ignored the second.
      The Texas researchers published their findings in March in the Post in an analysis titled, “Counties that hosted a 2016 Trump rally saw a 226 percent increase in hate crimes.” The Post cited the study in several articles published since then.
      Other media outlets echoed the analysis.
      “US counties where President Donald Trump held a campaign rally saw a 226% increase in reported hate crimes over similar counties that did not hold a rally,” Business Insider reported in March, citing the article.
      “Hate crimes reportedly jumped by 226 percent in counties that hosted Trump campaign rallies,” Vox reported in March.
      The Associated Press cited the study in an August article titled, “Trump words linked to more hate crime? Some experts think so.”
      CNN host John Avlon similarly promoted the apparently flawed study in an August segment titled “#RealityCheck.”
      The Harvard University researchers found that “adding a simple statistical control for county population to the original analysis causes the estimated effect of Trump rallies on reported hate incidents to become statistically indistinguishable from zero.”
      Lilley and Wheaton found using the criteria relied upon for the first study that rallies for former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton “contribute to an even greater increase in hate incidents than Trump rallies.” (RELATED: New York Times Editor Made A Graph Showing The Democrats Pivoted Far-Left. He Used It To Call Republicans Far-Right)
      “Given how little scrutiny was required to reveal the flaws in the thesis that Trump rallies cause hate incidents, one cannot help but wonder whether its viral status was aided by journalists predisposed to believe its message,” they added.
      Only Business Insider has updated its coverage as of Wednesday.
      “In September 2019, two Harvard researchers published a refutation of this study in the Libertarian-leaning publication Reason,” reads the update, which Business Insider posted at the bottom of the article Wednesday following an inquiry from the Daily Caller News Foundation.
      Molly Gannon, a spokeswoman for the Post, said the original article was published on The Monkey Cage, an academic blog that runs on the Post’s website.
      Gannon said the blog “operates independently” and directed the DCNF to the blog’s editor, John Sides. Sides declined to comment other than to recommend reaching out to the original study’s authors.
      “The truth that is being masked by this entire back and forth is that to confirm model validity often requires many hours (and days) of testing and retesting. The idea that transforming a single variable invalidates a whole series of analyses and models produced by Ph.D. holding researchers lacks face validity,” Ayal Feinberg, one of the Texas researchers, told the DCNF in an email.
      Feinberg said that “there are several methodological questions that [Lilley and Wheaton] have not answered and claims where we fundamentally disagree.”
      The AP, Vox and CNN didn’t return the DCNF’s inquiries on whether they would update their coverage of the disputed study.
      Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

      -----------------------------------------------

      -----------------------------------------------
      ------------------------------------

      ---------------------------Rules are Still In Development-----------------------




      ====================================================================================================================================================
      Rules are Still In Development




      ----->

      Search This Blog