Wednesday, March 13, 2013

QOTD - It's Not Over

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. "And we’ll fight them with the butt ends of broken beer bottles because that's bloody well all we've got!"
That last bit was spoken quietly to an aide as the Parliament thundered its approval of the speech.

So on that cheery note, the latest news is that the House gets one more chance to derail Bloombergs railroad job. An article here confirms my earlier suspicions that the sudden appearance of multiple essentially identical gun bills in multiple states was in fact no accident but rather a carefully prepared assault on everyones rights taking maximum advantage of the fortuitous appearance of a stack of dead white kids.
In his years building the business empire that made him a billionaire, Mr. Bloomberg developed a unique fluency for numbers and learned to view the world through a statistical prism. Multiple people close to Mr. Bloomberg have said that the figure he’s most preoccupied with is the number people in his city who die of preventable causes. This obsession with bringing down the death rate has driven the mayor’s notorious crusades against smoking and sugar, and according to John Feinblatt, the mayor’s chief adviser, it was a major factor behind his decision to step into the national gun control debate several years ago.
Mayor Bloomberg is now the new head of the mythical organization I  named the Society For A Risk-Free America, whose goal is to legislatively remove all risk of any kind from everyday life in this country. Just imagine a country where everyone is encased in bubble wrap and anything that can be shown statistically to be a risk to a persons life is strictly forbidden. Utopia, I'm sure.

On the other side of that here in Colorado, there are 3 confirmed movements to recall legislators who voted in support of the gun bill package and the beginnings of a fourth. Bloomberg put $2.5M into a primary race in Chicago to elect an anti-gun Democrat over a pro-gun Dem who was suggesting that perhaps if the citizens were allowed to defend themselves, the murder rate might fall.
Last month, the PAC notched its first unequivocal victory when Democrat Robin Kelly defeated former Congresswoman Debbie Halvorson in a special primary election to replace Illinois Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., who resigned in late November before pleading guilty to federal campaign finance fraud charges.
Ms. Kelly was supported by approximately $2.5 million in ads paid for by Independence USA that, according to Mr. Wolfson, “helped make the race a referendum on guns.” The New York Times, MSNBC and others all called the race a “win for Bloomberg.”
It is thought that Bloomberg has also promised similar support for Colorado pols who might face primary challenges over their votes for the gun bills, or support for primary challengers if they didn't.  Only 2 Dems bucked Bloombergs marching orders here. Money talks.

Meantime, a ballot initiative has begun to put the magazine limitation bill up to a popular vote. If this goes through, we will get a chance to reject the measure ourselves, assuming that $2-3M coming in from New York, plus a finely tuned Dem machine, plus Republican bumbling and apathy don't carry the day again. The initiative is being pushed by two fellows from Littleton, so right here in the 'hood for me. It would be nice to meet with them to hear about the plan for this.

To that end, it seems as though a lot of this could be avoided if the legislature was required to consider a stricter scrutiny position on some of the stuff they put forth, and/or the courts were directed to do so. I'm going to split this into a second post in the interest of brevity, so see the next post above on that topic.


The Troll said...

1. For all the talk of gun owners fighting tyranny, I have yet to see them, you know, actually fight tyranny.

2. So are you right-wing tools going to admit that money in politics is a bad thing?

Because for years, you've been telling us that "money is speech" and "corporations are people with rights" and that the ultra-wealthy have a God-given right to buy elections and legislation.

How's that working out for you now?

Bloomberg is the 10th richest man in America, with the net worth of $25 billion.

The NRA's budget is 1% of that -- $250 million.

According to right-wing logic, Bloomberg has the right to 100 times the speech that 5 million NRA members do.

When are you right-wingers going to stop being a tool against your own self-interest on behalf of the top 1%? Trust me, they're doing just fine.

Billll said...

I don't object to people giving money to politicians as such. Any more we sort of expect them to be bought and sold. What I object to is slipping it to them under the table so as to keep the exercise as covert as possible. If you have a couple billion burning a hole in your pocket, and decide to buy a pol, then by all means do so, but do it out in the open.

Others may wish to match your bribe.

Cincinnatus said...

Making Bloomberg spend $2.5mil to get an anti-gun Democrat through a primary in Chicago ...

That's a victory for us.

And Troll, your logic is nonexistent. Originally McCain-Feingold banned the NRA's speech too.

The Troll said...

> your logic is nonexistent.
> Originally McCain-Feingold

Jesus F***ing Christ!

Who said anything about McCain-Feingold?!

The Troll said...

> What I object to is slipping it to
> them under the table so as to keep
> the exercise as covert as possible.

So we need government regulations telling rich people what they can do with their speech ("speech = money")?

Cincinnatus said...

Troll, you brought up McCain-Feingold. That was the restriction on political speech that the NRA lobbied for an exemption from. You really get confused easily don't you?