Posted on

The Atlantic Fires Conservative Writer Over Abortion Views

The Atlantic fired Kevin Williamson on Thursday over past comments he made on abortion, ending the conservative columnist’s time at the magazine only two weeks after the publication hired him.

The Atlantic‘s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, informed the publication’s staff of Williamson’s departure via email, according to multiple press reports.

Goldberg’s initial decision to hire Williamson as a columnist last month drew rebuke from liberals, who argued that previous columns Williamson wrote for National Review, where he worked before The Atlantic, showcased racist sentiments. They specifically cited a 2014 column in which Williamson "described an encounter with a young black boy using racially loaded terms like ‘three-fifths-scale Snoop Dogg’ and describing the boy as a ‘primate,’" the Daily Beast reported.

Critics of the hire also cited a tweet in which Williamson wrote that "the law should treat abortion like any other homicide." The writer added that hanging would be an appropriate punishment.

Goldberg defended his hire, dismissing the abortion comment as "extreme tweeting." But The Atlantic‘s editor in chief changed his stance after Media Matters for America, a left-wing advocacy group, revealed prior comments Williamson made on abortion.

In a 2014 podcast recorded for National Review, the conservative writer said he supports the death penalty for individuals who have an abortion. Williamson argued that current methods of execution, like lethal injection, are "too antiseptic" and that a punishment like "hanging" is more appropriate.

The revelation was enough for Goldberg to jettison his prior of defense of Williamson and fire the writer.

"Late yesterday afternoon, information came to our attention that has caused us to reconsider this relationship," Goldberg wrote in his email to staff. "Specifically, the subject of one of Kevin’s most controversial tweets was also a centerpiece of a podcast discussion in which Kevin explained his views on the subject of the death penalty and abortion."

"The language he used in this podcast—and in my conversations with him in recent days—made it clear that the original tweet did, in fact, represent his carefully considered views," Goldberg continued. "The tweet was not merely an impulsive, decontextualized, heat-of-the-moment post, as Kevin had explained it."

In his email, Goldberg wrote that The Atlantic did not fire Williamson for being pro-life, but rather because the magazine worried his views and prior statements would result in a negative work atmosphere for female staff members who may have had an abortion.

"Kevin is a gifted writer, and he has been nothing but professional in all of our interactions," Goldberg said. "But I have come to the conclusion that The Atlantic is not the best fit for his talents, and so we are parting ways."

The post The Atlantic Fires Conservative Writer Over Abortion Views appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://freebeacon.com

Posted on

Attempted Illegal Entries Rise as Trump Plans Tougher Border Enforcement

A wall is seen along the border between the United States and Mexico in Tijuana, Mexico

A wall is seen along the border between the United States and Mexico in Tijuana, Mexico / Getty Images

BY:

Attempted illegal entries at the southwestern border rose 37 percent in March, a 203 percent increase compared against March 2017, according to data released by the Department of Homeland Security Thursday.

A total of 37,393 individuals were apprehended attempting to illegally cross the southwestern border with Mexico in March of 2017. That number included some 5,000 unaccompanied minors and 14,000 family units. Both groups are generally detained briefly and then released into the interior pending further immigration hearings, a policy which administration officials and prominent Republicans have derided as “catch and release.”

Although the percentage-wise increase between March 2017 and 2018 is substantial, this is partially because rates of illegal immigration fell so low that month; just 16,000 people attempted to cross the border illegally, the second-lowest number recorded in the last five years.

The increase in March represents a continued rebound following a precipitous decline during the first year of President Donald Trump’s administration. Some commentators have referred to this phenomenon of a sudden, sharp decline in illegal immigration rates as the “Trump Effect,” attributing it to the president’s tough-on-immigration rhetoric.

However, the latest increase adds to evidence that this initial immigration drop may be abating. A statement from the Department of Homeland Security underscored the department’s concerns about the present rate of illegal immigration.

“The crisis at our Southwest border is real,” said Tyler Q. Houlton, DHS press secretary. “The number of illegal border crossings during the month of March shows an urgent need to address the ongoing situation at the border. We saw a 203 percent increase from March 2017 compared to March 2018 and a 37 percent increase from last month to this month—the largest increase from month to month since 2011.”

Although increasing, attempted border crossings still remain at historic lows, a fact President Trump acknowledged in a Thursday afternoon tweet.

“Because of the Trump Administrations actions, Border crossings are at a still UNACCEPTABLE 46 year low. Stop drugs!” Trump wrote.

Concerns over border security and illegal immigration, including a possible caravan of would-be illegal immigrants which has largely dispersed, prompted the White House to announce a new proposal to deploy National Guard troops to the southwestern border. Similar to previous National Guard border deployments under Presidents Bush and Obama, guardsmen will operate in a support role, providing surveillance, vehicle repair, and border wall maintenance.

As part of its comment on the new immigration numbers, DHS made clear that controlling the southern border was a number one priority for the administration.

“Illegal aliens continue to exploit our immigration laws. We need to close these dangerous loopholes that are being taken advantage of each and every day, gain operational control of the border, and fully fund the border wall system. As the president has repeatedly said, all options are on the table,” Houlton said.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://freebeacon.com

Posted on

U.S. Trade Deficit with China Has Eliminated at Least 3.4M American Jobs

U.S. Trade Deficit with China Has Eliminated at Least 3.4M American Jobs

by John Binder5 Apr 2018New Orleans, LA0



The United States’ trade deficit with China has eliminated at least 3.5 million American jobs since 2001, data reveals.

As President Trump is set to release a package of $50 billion worth of tariffs and restrictions on Chinese investments, the U.S. goods trade deficit with China remains at $29.3 billion.

Since 2001, free trade with China has cost millions of Americans their jobs. For example, in a report by the Economic Policy Institute, between 2001 and 2015, about 3.4 million U.S. jobs were lost due to the country’s trade deficit with China.

Of the 3.4 million U.S. jobs lost in that time period, about 2.6 million were lost in the crippled manufacturing industry, making up about three-fourths of the loss of jobs from the U.S.-Chinese trade deficit.

The Atlas

 

Free trade, like immigration, is an issue that has come at the expense of American workers. With free trade, foreign markets have been readily opened to multinational corporations, allowing them to offshore American jobs while easily exporting their products back into the U.S.

The Rust Belt has been one of the hardest regions hit because of U.S. free trade with Mexico. In total, about 700,000 U.S. have been displaced, including:

  • 14,500 American workers displaced in Wisconsin
  • 43,600 American workers displaced in Michigan
  • 2,600 American workers displaced in West Virginia
  • 26,300 American workers displaced in Pennsylvania
  • 34,900 American workers displaced in Ohio
  • 34,300 American workers displaced in New York
  • 6,500 American workers displaced in Iowa
  • 24,400 American workers displaced in Indiana
  • 34,700 American workers displaced in Illinois

Meanwhile, since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect in the 1990s, at least one million net U.S. jobs have been lost because of the free trade deal. Between 2000 and 2014, there have been about five million manufacturing jobs lost across the country as trade deficits continue soaring.

One former steel town in West Virginia lost 94 percent of its steel jobs because of NAFTA, with nearly 10,000 workers in the town being displaced from the steel industry.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

Parkland Student Becomes ‘Tampon Activist’ After Protesting Clear Backpack Rule With Bag Full Of Feminine Hygiene Products

One of the more prominent Parkland student activists – best known for his work pushing for stricter gun control laws – is branching out into other areas of progressive agitation. Cameron Kasky wants to help women get better access to tampons.

Last week, Kasky and others, now mandated to carry clear plastic backpacks so that school administrators can see what students are carrying with them to class, protested the “violation of their right to privacy” but stuffing the bags with price tags, stickers, and slogans written on pieces of printer paper. Kasky decided to stuff his with tampons, because the clear plastic bags make it impossible for women to put their feminine hygiene products in small carrying cases, thus exposing them to ridicule.

Or something.

The clear plastic bags are normal fare for retail workers, and inner city students are used to much stricter security measures (for example, at some schools in Chicago students are subjected to random bag searches and pat downs and must pass through metal detectors), but they make school “feel like a prison” for some Parkland students.

Be that as it may, in stuffing his bag with tampons, Kasky discovered how pricey feminine hygiene products actually are, and now he wants access to them guaranteed.

Unless you live in the third world, feminine hygiene products are actually incredibly easy to come by. In fact, some places now even offer them for free in shared bathroom spaces in order to level the playing field — a sort of alms-giving measure to appease feminists who equate such things with women’s equality.

Several states have attempted to repeal the so-called “tampon tax,” but no state actually levels a specific tax on feminine hygiene products. The repeals aim to prevent states from charging baseline sales taxes on tampons because only women use them, but that sort of plan reduces the overall taxation rate and decreases the amount of money available for domestic welfare initiatives.

If one is really concerned with reducing the cost of having a menstrual cycle, one might actually consider favoring a complete repeal of Obamacare, which levied an additional tax on Midol, instead of reducing the market value of cotton tubes and acrylic underwear shields.

Of course, regardless of logic, outlets like Teen Vogue are simply overjoyed that the Parkland students are extending their activism from the Second Amendment to the family planning aisle, suggesting that a male is a “hero” for drawing attention to the “stigmatization” of the American menstrual cycle.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml

Posted on

Scott Pruitt Is ‘Reliable Foot Soldier’ in Getting Trump Deregulation Agenda Accomplished: $1 Billion in Savings

Scott Pruitt Is ‘Reliable Foot Soldier’ in Getting Trump Deregulation Agenda Accomplished: $1 Billion in Savings

by Penny Starr5 Apr 20180



Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Scott Pruitt has been a media target in recent weeks due to his D.C. housing arrangements, but even the liberal press admits the former Oklahoma attorney general is getting President Donald Trump’s deregulatory agenda accomplished.

“He’s a reliable administration foot soldier, making good on President Donald Trump’s campaign promises for fewer environmental regulations and to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement,” CNN reported.

“Since he was confirmed to the job last February, Pruitt has taken an aggressive approach to rolling back Obama-era regulations, most recently this week’s announcement that he would revise fuel efficiency rules designed to cut back on emissions of greenhouse gases,” CNN reported.

“In Administrator Pruitt’s first year, EPA issued more deregulatory actions than any other federal agency, amounting to $1 billion in cost savings for the American people,” an EPA spokesperson told Breitbart News. “Administrator Pruitt is focused on advancing the president’s agenda and fixing the misguided policies of the past.”

At a press conference on Tuesday concerning the fuel standards, Pruitt said, “This is another step in the president’s regulatory agenda, deregulatory agenda … a billion dollars in savings with respect to over 22 significant regulatory actions that we’ve been involved in here at the agency.”

CNN reported:

In the 14 months since he became the nation’s top environmental policy official, Pruitt has bit-by-bit overseen the dismantling of a number of regulations and agreements across the agency, and impacting a wide range of issues.

Pruitt has withdrawn the “once in, always in” policy under the Clean Air Act, which determined how facilities that are major sources of hazardous air pollutants are regulated.

As Breitbart News reported:

Leftist reporters, pundits, and politicians came out recently to attack Pruitt and subsequently call for him to drop out.

CNN, the Washington Post, and other outlets have attacked Pruitt for renting out a condominium owned by lobbyists. Pruitt leased a room for roughly $50 a night, paying a total of $6,100.

Breitbart News also reported that despite the ongoing rumors that Pruitt is on his way out, which the same left-wing media are promoting, the president has expressed his ongoing support for the administrator.

President Trump said on Monday, “Keep your head up, keep fighting. We have your back.”

“White House chief of staff John Kelly reportedly also called Pruitt on Tuesday to reiterate his support for the head of the EPA,” according to Breitbart News.

Follow Penny Starr on Twitter

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

Obama CIA Director: Trump’s CIA Pick Is ‘Best Person Within CIA to Do This Job’

Former CIA Director John Brennan on Thursday said President Donald Trump’s nominee for CIA director "is the best person within CIA to do the job."

Brennan appeared on MSNBC where he defended nominee Gina Haspel’s background working with "enhanced interrogation" methods during the George W. Bush administration.

Host Katy Tur asked Brennan whether there were any CIA operatives who were qualified to lead the agency and weren’t involved in "overseeing torture."

"Quite frankly, I think Gina Haspel is the best person within CIA to do the job. She is a dedicated experienced professional. She has over 30 years of experience working on some very tough issues," Brennan said.

He went on to say she was "part of a covert action program that was authorized by the President of the United States, that was deemed lawful by the highest legal body within the Executive Branch–that’s the Office of Legal Counsel [at the] Department of Justice–a program that was briefed to congressional oversight committees who authorized appropriate funds for it, and some of those members happen to have amnesia."

Brennan went on to say Haspel was carrying out a "duly authorized, legal program" and she should be given an opportunity to speak to her experience as a whole.

"Her nomination should be given the appropriate scrutiny by the Senate Intelligence Committee. They should look at her record. They should look at what she did," Brennan said. "But she was carrying out a duly authorized, legal program. And as controversial as it is, and as many of us had objections to how it was directed for the CIA to do this, I think she needs to be given a fair hearing."

This is not the first time that Brennan has defended the nominee. Shortly after Trump nominated Haspel, Brennan told MSNBC’s Hallie Jackson that Haspel "deserves the chance to take the helm at the CIA."

"Gina Haspel has a lot of integrity," Brennan said. "She has tried to carry out her duties at the CIA to the best of her ability, even when the CIA was asked to do some very difficult things in very challenging times."

Haspel was nominated by Trump in March to replace Mike Pompeo as CIA chief. Pompeo, in turn, was nominated to replace Rex Tillerson as the next secretary of state.

The post Obama CIA Director: Trump’s CIA Pick Is ‘Best Person Within CIA to Do This Job’ appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://freebeacon.com

Posted on

Liberal Governor Says She Won’t Allow Oregon National Guard To Be Deployed Along US/Mexico Border

Yesterday president Trump announced he would be sending National Guard troops to the Southern border to assist immigration officers in stemming the flow of illegal aliens into this country. Naturally liberals are triggered by this even though Obama did the exact same thing. Oregon’s liberal governor says she will not allow her state’s National Guard to be deployed along the US/Mexico border. You know, that border that runs along California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, but not Oregon? Even crazier is that she, as the governor of the state, has no idea that she doesn’t have the power to stop the President from doing this.

Kate Brown is the governor of Oregon. Her claim to fame is that she is the first openly bi-sexual governor, which is to say she has no claim to fame. Nor does she have any claim on sanity. Check out her tweet:

“If @realDonaldTrump asks me to deploy Oregon Guard troops to the Mexico border, I’ll say no. As Commander of Oregon’s Guard, I’m deeply troubled by Trump’s plan to militarize our border,” wrote Brown.

She wasn’t deeply troubled by Obama’s plan to militarize the border, but as I all ready pointed out, the left doesn’t care when one of their own does something. It’s only bad if Trump does it. She is all not deeply troubled by the the drugs and violence that come across our largely unprotected Southern border and that’s because liberals love illegal aliens more than Americans. Hey, that’s where their votes come from.

Someone must have asked Brown if Trump had actually asked her about deploying the Oregon Guard because she tweeted out this clarification:

“There’s been no outreach by the President or federal officials, and I have no intention of allowing Oregon’s guard troops to be used to distract from his troubles in Washington,” Brown wrote.

Oh, so Trump hasn’t asked for help, but she’s denying it to him anyway? What a bold stance. It’s as pathetic as saying you will refuse to got to a party that you were not invited to. Nobody cares and you are a sad woman.

The thing is, should Trump decide to use the Oregon Nation Guard, there’s not a damn thing Brown can do to stop him. The National Guard is the US military. They can be under the command of the various states, but if the President decided to mobilize them, it’s within his power to do so. The President can “nationalize” the Guards from any state for any reason: to fight in a war, to help with disaster relief, and even to provide border security.

You’d think that as Oregon’s governor, AKA the commander of the Oregon National Guard, that Brown would be aware of this, but she’s not. I suspect this isn’t the only reason why she is woefully unqualified for the position.

Follow Brian Anderson on Twitter

via Downtrend.com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://downtrend.com

Posted on

Donald Trump Tosses Script at Tax Reform Event to Talk Illegal Immigration

Donald Trump Tosses Script at Tax Reform Event to Talk Illegal Immigration

File Photo: David McNew/Getty Images

by Charlie Spiering5 Apr 20180



President Donald Trump tossed his script during a tax reform event in West Virginia, choosing instead to talk about immigration enforcement.

“To hell with it,” he said, throwing the paper over his shoulder as the audience cheered and applauded. “That would’ve been a little boring … we have to tell it like it is.”

The president vowed to get rid of the frustrating “catch and release” laws that allow illegal immigrants to stay in the United States while they wait years for an immigration court date.

“No other country in the world does this,” Trump said, complaining about the “weak” laws in the U.S.

He complimented Mexico for their laws allowing them to disband the caravan of illegal immigrants, but warned that illegals would continue trying to cross the Southern border.

Trump also said many illegal immigrants who were women were raped while making the journey through Mexico to the United States.

“[Y]esterday it came out where this journey coming up, women are raped at levels that nobody has ever seen before,” he said. “They don’t want to mention that.”

Trump also highlighted chain migration, pointing out the recent ISIS inspired attack in New York City by an immigrant who came to the country through extended family members.

“This is what the Democrats are doing to you,” he said. “They like it because they think you’re going to vote Democrat. Believe me, they are doing it for that reason.”

Trump revisited a campaign complaint about anchor babies, where pregnant women came to the United States to give birth so that their children will be citizens. Trump again called the laws “weak.”

“If you have a baby on our land, congratulations, that baby is a United States citizen,” Trump said. “We are the only ones.”

He told the people in the audience that he had started the wall on the Southern border, and would have the military helping secure the border.

“We will have our wall and we will get it strongly,” he said.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

Commentary: How the left bullies everyone who disagrees with them, and what you should do about it

The far-left has become notorious for orchestrating boycotts of companies that hold positions or make decisions contrary to its agenda.

In 2012, it was Chick-fil-A, but more recently, the boycotts have honed in on right-wing media hosts, the National Rifle Association and anything dealing with the Second Amendment.

Yet each boycott always seems to have a “backfire” moment, where the pressure asserted on groups and companies swings the pendulum back to the left — literally — and ends up benefitting the boycotted group. It’s become a tiresomely predictable process.

So, how do they happen? Lets examine the two most recent boycotts that went mainstream.

The NRA boycott

Following the tragic shooting in February at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, the left concentrated its outrage on the NRA, alleging the “gun lobby” — a term the left uses to describe the pro-Second Amendment organization — was partially responsible for the shooting because it advocates against gun control and for firearm freedoms.

In just hours, the left organized and begin zeroing in on companies that do business with the NRA. ThinkProgress, a liberal news outlet a part of the Center for American Progress — an organization founded by Clinton ally John Podesta and funded in part by George Soros — published a list of companies that aligned themselves with the NRA, either directly or by offering discounted services to NRA members.

Image source: screenshot
Image source: screenshot

Liberal activists also circulated lists online. Their purpose, of course, was to apply pressure to the companies. Money speaks, so it’s easy to see how pressure from tens of thousands of people moved the needle and forced companies to make a decision about the NRA — whether they wanted to be a part of the conservation or not.

The first company to fold was First National Bank of Omaha — and it didn’t take long for more than a dozen companies to follow suit, including: MetLife, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, Enterprise Holdings, Avis, Hertz, Wyndam Hotel groups and many others.

But the NRA has millions of members, and millions more supporters. The group felt like the boycott was an attack on their Second Amendment rights, so just as quickly as the left initiated its boycott, mainstream Americans initiated a counterboycott.

No only did those opposed to the NRA boycott counterboycott companies that had folded to the liberal mob, but thousands of people joined the NRA, while thousands of others donated to the pro-gun organization.

In the end, the boycott only helped the NRA, in both messaging and physically with new members and more revenue.

The Laura Ingraham boycott

In March, Fox News host Laura Ingraham came under fire for tweeting a story about high school senior David Hogg, one of the most recognizable figures in the anti-gun movement post-Parkland. The story was about a few colleges that had rejected Hogg. Many people found the tweet distasteful.

Ingraham published her tweet on a Wednesday. By the following day, Media Matters, a far-left media watchdog also funded in part by George Soros, published a list of companies that had advertised on Ingraham’s show in the preceding week. Other liberal activists circulated lists online, while Hogg himself pointed people to Media Matters’ list and encouraged them to apply pressure.

Image source: screenshot
Image source: screenshot

And just that quickly, companies whose ads had appeared during Ingraham’s show were either distancing themselves from the Fox News host or severing ties with her altogether.

Ingraham apologized, but it was too late — the left’s grassroots coalition had already applied enough pressure to force more than a dozen companies to drop Ingraham or distance themselves from her, including Liberty Mutual and Bayer, Ingraham’s two leading sponsors.

But a counterboycott quickly arose, just as it had during the NRA boycott. Loyal Fox News views, conservatives, Ingraham’s fans and those disgusted with the left’s tactics began tweeting their support for Ingraham and pledged to stop doing business with companies who cowered to the liberal outrage mob.

Rinse. Repeat. Rinse. Repeat.

What you should do about it

Boycotts have become the left’s most useful tool to bully people into complying with its agenda. It’s a powerful tactic driven by emotion and outrage, yet always short on fact.

However, make no mistake: the boycotts are designed in such a way to stifle any idea counter to the left’s agenda of more government and less freedom. Those who organize them believe they know better than mainstream Americans who want lower taxes, less government intrusion and more freedom.

So when the far-left orchestrates the next boycott against the Second Amendment or Fox News, take their lists and initiate a counterboycott. But not with the same tactics the left employs; let those companies know you support them and are thankful for supporting causes you believe are important.

This pulls the rug right out from under the left’s boycott — and sets it up for that “backfire” moment that every far-left boycott ends with.

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com

Posted on

NY Times Shamelessly Links Gun Control to MLK, ’60s Violence

The New York Times shamelessly shoehorned gun control into Martin Luther King’s civil rights legacy by way of Richard Oppel Jr.’s tilted history lesson of the 1960s on Wednesday, “Killing Led, at Last, To Gun Restrictions,” part of the series “King’s Legacy: A Fight for Social Change.” Oppel lamented that if only America had been wise enough to pass gun restrictions generations ago, we wouldn’t have a violence problem today.

The 1960s were known for their turmoil, but the degree to which guns were a factor is sometimes overlooked. Not only was a president assassinated, but an ex-Marine opened fire from an observation deck in Austin and the homicide rate leaped by more than 50 percent, driven by fatal shootings. Gun sales soared, prompted by fears of violence and rioting.

….

The political calculus began to change on April 4, 1968. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was gunned down in Memphis. Nine weeks later, Senator Robert F. Kennedy was fatally shot in Los Angeles.

Finally, gun control became a possibility….

….

Today, it’s not clear that any shooting could be awful enough to embolden Congress to thwart the National Rifle Association. But even back then, the N.R.A. throttled much of what Mr. Johnson intended to do.

….

But it wasn’t until June 5, when Senator Kennedy was assassinated, that the logjam looked like it would break. A day later, a modest gun-control proposal that had languished passed Congress, raising the age to buy handguns to 21.

Still, Mr. Johnson wanted something far more sweeping. He proposed to treat guns like cars: They would be registered and their owners would be licensed.

Had something like this passed, gun-control proponents say, the United States today might look more like Britain or Australia, countries where guns are tracked and gun violence is a fraction of what it is here.

….

This time, there has been no similar urgency in Washington, even as hundreds of thousands of protesters in the capital and elsewhere have demanded changes after the killing of 17 students and staff at a high school in Parkland, Fla.

Oppel cited the drop in the murder rate, cited the fact that there are more guns now than ever, but somehow failed to put them together, which allowed him to still blame access to guns for violence.

Crime is less a concern, as the murder rate has fallen sharply since the sixties. But mass shootings have become frighteningly common. Anyone — or anyone’s child — could be a victim, at a school, a concert, a church, a movie theater or a nightclub.

And while a smaller percent of households own guns, the country has more of them, and they are deadlier: Semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 have become the weapon of choice in the largest recent mass killings, leading to death tolls in the dozens.

To the Times, only interest groups on the right have “disproportionate” and unfair influence (skip labor unions and environmental groups).

In 1968, the organization was not yet as uncompromising as it is today. But it used tactics that would feel familiar now.

It flooded its members with sky-is-falling warnings about the government taking away gun rights, and urged them to hound lawmakers….

Frustrated gun-control backers called it “calculated hysteria and distortion.” But it was profoundly effective.

That hardly sounds like “hysteria” today, given that the NYT itself two weeks ago published an op-ed from retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens calling for the Second Amendment’s repeal.

Fifty years ago, the death of great leaders prodded Congress to act on gun control. Now, at a similar juncture, it is the death of schoolchildren that has stirred the makings of a movement. It remains uncertain whether the current movement for gun restrictions will result in meaningful reform.

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/