Former President Bill Clinton, who suffered significant political damage after signing into law the original assault weapons ban, is cautioning President Obama against patronizing his gun control opponents, in particular gun owners.

Appearing before Obama's National Finance Committee and various business leaders, Clinton stressed that guns present different cultural complexities than other political issues.

"Do not patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents by looking down your nose at them," he said, according to Politico.

Clinton's words are wise, but it may be too late. The Obama campaign team has already been converted and activated to attack the National Rifle Association and its 4.4 million members. The Obama administration has essentially told the country that anyone who doesn't support Obama's gun control agenda isn't practicing "common sense." The nearly 90 million gun owners in the country have also been classified as "fringe" by liberal politicians and the media.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has also cautioned Obama on the issue because like Clinton, was around in 1994 to see Democrats get walloped in the House as a result of the assault weapons ban legislation.

If anybody knows about tyranny, it's this guy.

To me, a rifle is not for sporting or hunting. It is an instrument of freedom.

It guarantees that I cannot be coerced, that I have free will, that I am a free man.

Now suppose, the 20 milllion Beijing citizens had a couple million rifles on hand in 1989? How many rounds should they have been allowed to load into their magazines? Ten rounds? Seven rounds? How about three rounds?

Do not give up the fight, my friends. It may be a small step that you give up your rifle, or a 30 round magazine.

But it will be a giant leap toward the destruction of this republic.

H/T WZ

Attorney General Eric Holder spoke at the U.S. Conference of Mayors Friday and said the following (numbers are mine):

"This unspeakable tragedy but also the individual tragedies that take place on your streets and all (1) too often unnoticed stand as stark reminders of our shared responsibility to address not just the epidemic of gun related crimes and the (2) ongoing need for vigorous enforcement of our laws but also the underlying conditions that give rise to gun violence. Throughout our history, the overwhelming majority of American gun owners have been responsible, law abiding citizens, yet (3) we have repeatedly seen in the most tragic ways how easy it can be for dangerous people to acquire and to wreak havoc with deadly weapons. Although there is no single solution that can bring a decisive end to this senseless violence, it's incumbent upon each of us to try and it's time to consider (4) what common sense steps we can take together to save lives. This means (5) doing everything that we can to secure the tools and resources we need to keep guns out of the hands who are not and should not be allowed to possess them.

My rebuttal to statements in bold above:

(1) While Holder prepares to use all the powers of the Department of Justice and ATF to push through President Obama's new gun control agenda, he is more than happy to ignore Operation Fast and Furious. As a reminder, this was the DOJ program that allowed the deliberate trafficking of military style assault AK-47s to violent Mexican drug cartels south of the border. Let's not forget Holder has not only refused to cooperate with Congress when it comes to turning over documents about the lethal scandal (death toll is 400 people and counting), he's asked a court to indefinitely hold documents requested by Congress and through FOIA.

(2) Under Obama and Holder's leadership, prosecutions of gun related crimes are down by 40 percent.

(3) Holder argues, "we have repeatedly seen in the most tragic ways how easy it can be for dangerous people to acquire and to wreak havoc with deadly weapons." Yeah, like in Mexico as a result of his own DOJ program during which ATF and DOJ officials watched known criminals for an entire year purchase guns, guns they knew would then be transferred to violent Mexican cartels and used in murders.

(4) We can save lives by not deliberatly arming cold-blooded murderers, as Holder's DOJ did.

(5) Again, prosecutions of gun related crimes are down by 40 percent since George W. Bush was in office and the way you keep guns out the hands of people who shouldn't have them is to not hand them over in the first place (again, Operation Fast and Furious). Holder has the resources he needs available, he just hasn't been using them properly. The U.S. Attorney's offices around the country aren't doing their jobs and Holder isn't asking them to, instead, he has them working on pet political projects.

Here's Holder saying we need to crack down on "gun traffickers who help funnel weapons to dangerous criminals." Like DOJ? And the gun traffickers they used during Fast and Furious? Of course not.

One final note from my friend over at The Blaze, Meredith Jessup:

He was encouraging the federal government to crack down on Americans’ gun rights, not those of the Mexican drug cartels.  And he said it with a straight face.

If you want an assault rifle, you’ll just have to get it from your local ATF office from now on.  Tell them the Zetas sent you to get your 20%-off cartel coupon.

 

Rising GOP star Rand Paul made some surprising comments about his own party in an interview on Sunday, acknowledging the GOP's recent public image struggles and the need for a kind of evolution.

Speaking to a New York City radio station, Paul said "we are not popular" while pointedly noting the party's struggles in New England and on the west coast.

"We think the Republican Party needs to evolve and adapt, or we are going to become a permanent minority party... we think a little more of a libertarian Republican, someone who is a strict constitutionalist but also believes in a strong, defensive military but not necessarily in an overly aggressive or bellicose let’s get involved in everybody’s civil war military, I think that has more appeal to independents and some people who have given up in the Republican Party."

The Kentucky Senator has been often mentioned in speculation about frontrunning 2016 GOP candidates. Whether Paul will throw his hat in the ring is obviously still to be determined, but his willingness to criticize his own party has never been hidden.

Republicans are reportedly ready to vote to hike the debt ceiling without any of the major deficit-related concessions they've been pushing for from Democrats, and budget-watchers will soon turn their attention to the looming sequestration spending cuts (from the Budget Control Act, or BCA) scheculed to take place on March 1 and the expiration of the continuing resolution budget that the federal government has been operating on, scheduled to take place March 28.

Progressives, however, have been declaring the deficit problem "mostly solved." A report from the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that, including all BCA cuts and the additional tax revenues from the January 1 fiscal cliff legislation, the U.S. is close to being on a stable ten-year budget path.

"Stable," in the CBPP's estimate, is keeping our debt-to-GDP ratio hovering in the 75% range. There are major assumptions that go into these projections, and the CBPP's ten-year chart intentionally skims over the longer-term problems that are set to face the country.

First off, the CBPP assumes that sequestration cuts are going to happen - and that's $1.4 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years that fall about half on defense spending and half on nondefense discretionary spending. Portions of these cuts are opposed by both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. It's possible, though by no means likely, that the BCA is implemented in its entirety.

The CBPP also assumes that Medicare spending cuts put forth in Obamacare are going to work perfectly - namely, that lower spending targets are attainable and that the Independent Payment Advisory Board will both work properly and won't be overridden by Congress. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that Obamacare's Medicare cuts would total over $700 billion over the next ten years. While it would be nice if IPAB and the other spending reductions worked properly, the chances are low. The CBO's "Alternative Fiscal Scenario," the set of policies they deem most likely to happen, includes these Medicare cuts either failing or being overridden.

Finally, the CBPP's report only covers the next ten years, while the deficit crisis isn't going to truly hit the United States until the next decade. Progressives would have you believe that, because it seems far away, it's not really important to address. The CBO concludes otherwise: the cost of inaction gets heavier and heavier every day.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget noted (hat tip: Reihan Salam) that it's important to extend the time horizon for deficit estimates further out, and that the CBPP's "goal" for stabilized debt isn't necessarily aggressive enough. Specifically, if projections for economic growth - which the CBO has been wrong on before - don't pan out, our debt and deficits will be a lot worse than what the CBPP is estimating.

Here's what the optimistic scenarios outlined from the CBPP might look like over an extended timeline, as put together by the CRFB:

The Congressional Budget Office will be releasing an updated long-term report in early February that will take into account the fiscal-cliff evasion bill passed on January 1, when we'll get a clearer picture of what the long-term budget outlook is. But contra the CBPP and various progressives, solving the long-term deficit isn't as easy as it looks.

On Meet the Press this morning, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer appeared alongside newly-elected Texas Sen. Ted Cruz to debate gun control and budget issues with David Gregory. He revealed what the American people can expect from elected Democrats: tax hikes.

"We're gonna do a budget this year," Schumer said, "and it's going to have revenues in it. And our Republican colleagues have to get used to that fact."

House Republicans announced this week that they'll bring a vote on raising the debt ceiling to the floor of the House of Representatives, but will attempt to use that opportunity to force Senate Democrats to vote - or at least attempt a vote - on a long-term operating budget for the United States government. The Senate hasn't passed a budget since April 29, 2009 - 1,360 days.

Schumer, for his part, welcomed the challenge - and said it was a "great opportunity" for Senate Dems to push for tax hikes above and beyond the tax hikes they got in the fiscal cliff legislation passed earlier this year.

Chuck Schumer was a surprising break from the White House this past year over tax hikes. Since it's incredibly expensive to live in New York, he thought President Obama's $250,000 threshold definition of "rich people" was too low. "Drawing the line at a million dollars is the right thing to do," Schumer said. "In the eyes of many, it is hard to ask more of household that make $250,000 or $300,000 a year. They are not rich and in large parts of country, that kind of income does not get you a big home or lots of vacations or anything else that's associated with wealth in America."

After a close election and a drawn-out recount process, former Congressman Allen West has said he has no plans to run again for office. The Congressman from Florida was popular around the country with grassroots conservatives and made waves on multiple occasions for provocative rhetoric, but nonetheless failed to garner the votes necessary for re-election.

“My commitment is to the future of the next generation of Americans,” West told the [Palm Beach Post]. “So if all you want to know is if I am running for Congressional District 18, the answer is no. My sights and objectives, political and otherwise, are focused on something far greater.”

West announced earlier this month that he'd be helping to run a new PJ Media online media venture in conjunction with former Daily Caller reporter Michelle Fields.

West's November election battle against Democrat Patrick Murphy took weeks to resolve after many recount controversies and inaccuracies.

Gun Appreciation Day, a grassroots movement started in response to President Obama and Washington Democrats' recent rhetoric on gun control, drew big crowds to state capitols nationwide that consisted of strong supporters of the Second Amendment. The show of strength by gun supporters couldn't go unnoticed.

Thousands showed up in New York, where Governor Andrew Cuomo recently signed a new strict gun control measure designed to make "assault weapons" illegal and limit magazine sizes. In areas of the country where open-carry is allowed, supporters proudly - and responsibly - exercised their Second Amendment rights.

In Boston, the large and well-organized crowd served as a reminder that in even the deepest of blue states there are gun rights supporters who will show up and take a strong stance against gun control overreactions by Democrats and progressives. One supporter's impassioned plea resonated powerfully with the crowd:

"It's not enough to just be mad, it's not enough to just be angry at the loss of our rights or the threat to lose our rights. It's better that we organize. It's better that we let them know that we are not the sum of the stereotypes that the media clings to. We are your neighbors. We are your friends. We are your coworkers. We are entrepreneurs. We are attorneys. We are in construction, academia and everything in between. We will not be ignored. we will remind them with respect with dignity and above all an unwavering dedication to preserving our rights."

In West Virginia, a place more naturally hospitable to Second Amendment rights, one gun supporter reminded that the typical canards thrown around by progressives - about hunting and self-defense - miss the larger point of the Second Amendment, and miss the point that the framers intended.

"The reason we have a 2nd amendment is not so we can hunt. It's not so we can protect our homes. It's so we can protect ourselves against an overbearing government."

In Columbus, Ohio, supporters proudly brandished their firearms and urged their fellow Ohioans to support the Second Amendment as well. Supporter Andrew Schortgen said it wasn't just about protecting her right to own a gun - it's for the children as well. She brought younger members of her family, and said ""We're fighting for them, so they can have a future. So they can have rights. So the government can't tell us that, you know, we can't protect our families."

At the Texas State Capitol, a huge crowd turned out to organize and demonstrate the strong support for Second Amendment rights in that state, as well.

Gun show promoter Marvin Kraus, who promoted a show in Carter Lake, Iowa, noted that there's a huge interest in firearms sales due to the "national conversation" going on in Washington. "People are coming out and wanting to buy guns because they feel they're in jeopardy of losing the privilige to own them... they're still legal now, so it's possible to still buy them. They could be banned in the future.

During a strategy retreat to Williamsburg, Virginia, leadership in the House GOP caucus took the opportunity to rally Republicans around a short-term debt ceiling increase that would come without any significant movement on deficit reduction.

House Republican leaders Friday offered President Barack Obama a three-month reprieve to a looming, market-rattling debt crisis, backing off demands that any immediate extension of the government's borrowing authority be accompanied by stiff spending cuts.

Republicans hadn't settled on full details, but the measure would give the government about three more months of borrowing authority beyond a deadline expected to hit as early as mid-February, No. 2 House Republican Eric Cantor of Virginia said Friday.

How did this happen? Slate's Dave Weigel reported that GOP leadership demonstrated that a series of short-term debt ceiling hikes has helped achieve larger and more comprehensive deficit-fighting legislation in the past, which may have helped sway some Republican backbenchers.

“They showed us a slide of five or six times in the last 30 years where we’ve come to some really good agreements,” said Rep. John Fleming, a conservative from Louisiana who’d sponsored legislation that would prevent the debt limit from being abolished in a budget deal. “Leading up to every one of those was several short-term increases. It keeps the pressure up until finally both sides decide, ‘You know what? We’ve got to get this off the table until we get a solution everyone can live with that fixes America’s problems.’ ”

It's incredibly important that Republicans clearly communicate to their caucus how potent of a weapon that the debt ceiling is when it comes to negotiation. The debt ceiling needs to be raised, period. The U.S. passing the point at which the Department of the Treasury's "extraordinary measures" run out would be catastrophic to both the American and world economic situation. That doesn't mean that it's prudent not to use the debt ceiling as leverage to push for deficit reduction, just that it's also important to recognize just how important raising the debt ceiling is.

The media have portrayed this as a surrender for the Republicans, but they will attempt to force a vote on a budget resolution in the Senate at the same time - something Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid has refused to do for years. It would be a symbolic victory, but accompanied by no serious action on America's long-term debt and budget deficit.

The Obama White House was "encouraged" by the GOP's reported plan, but even a clean debt ceiling hike - especially a short-term one - might not be enough to avert a downgrade by credit-ratings agencies. Fitch, one of the three main credit ratings agencies, put it in explicit terms:

[E]arlier this week, Fitch, one of the three main credit-rating agencies, put lawmakers on notice: A downgrade hinges not just on addressing the debt ceiling, but on Congress’s ability to tackle the government’s growing deficits.

“In the absence of an agreed and credible medium-term deficit reduction plan ... the current Negative Outlook on the 'AAA' rating is likely to be resolved with a downgrade later this year even if another debt-ceiling crisis is averted,” the agency wrote in a news release.

Raise the debt limit, they said, but don’t stop there.

For now, it looks like we're going to get a relatively clean debt ceiling hike, but only a temporary one. This will set up further budget fights about spending sequestration, scheduled to take place on March 1, and overall budget legislation, when the continuing resolution is scheduled to lapse on March 28. There will be no shortage of high-profile budget debates on Capitol Hill in the coming months, and characterizing the House GOP's action as "surrender" on the part of Republicans strikes hollow.

The American Action Forum has put together a comprehensive map of where each state stands on some of Obamacare's key provisions: creating federally-regulated health insurance exchanges and dramatically expanding Medicaid rolls on the federal government's request. The map updates often, but here's where each state stands now:

The state that may surprise conservatives is New Mexico, where Republican Gov. Susana Martinez has acquiesced on both a health insurance exchange and on expanding Medicaid rolls. Martinez, who was considered a leading candidate for Mitt Romney's VP slot last year, became only the second GOP governor to endorse the Medicaid expansion. Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval is the only other Republican governor to tackle both of these projects, but he's not often mentioned as a national-level political figure.

A governor declining to build a state-based health insurance exchange doesn't mean there won't be one in that state, merely that the onus falls on the federal government to build one themselves. Regardless, Republicans have typically tried to be uncooperative when it comes to Obamacare provisions.

Hat Tip: Joseph Lawler

New research out notes that self-identified liberals are indeed more liberal - with the ignore and block buttons on social media platforms when it comes to arguments they disagree with.

As Zeke Miller finds in ORI's presentation, "liberals were significantly more likely to have blocked someone than conservatives," and specifically, they block people "because of their political views."

An old adage is that while conservatives think liberals are wrong, liberals think conservatives are evil. This has been proven true time and time again - liberals prefer to pretend like there's some inherent defect in conservatives rather than acknowledge that there's such a thing as reasonable, honest disagreement.

This brings to mind Jonathan Haidt's research that conservatives understand liberals a lot better than vice versa. In personality tests, conservatives are able to "fake" being a liberal, while liberals are just confounded as to what conservatives think and believe:

hat Haidt found is that conservatives understand liberals’ moral values better than liberals understand where conservatives are coming from. Worse yet, liberals don’t know what they don’t know; they don’t understand how limited their knowledge of conservative values is. If anyone is close-minded here it’s not conservatives.

Here's Haidt discussing the findings of his research with The Economist.

Well, it’s about time! According to the Associated Press, The Journal News has taken down the names of the gun owners and their addresses. AP says:

The suburban New York newspaper that outraged gun owners by posting the names and addresses of residents with handgun permits removed the information from its website Friday.

The Journal News took down the data just three days after the state enacted a gun control law that included privacy provisions for permit holders.

The provisions were a reaction to interactive maps the newspaper published on LoHud.com that pinpointed thousands of permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties.

Gun-rights activists had immediately complained that permit owners' privacy was being violated. They said the map could guide burglars to their homes while police groups claimed the map could lead ex-convicts to the officers who had put them away.

The addresses of some Journal News staffers were posted online, and threats were called in to the paper's offices. The newspaper hired armed guards in response.

Janet Hasson, president and publisher of The Journal News Media Group, said in an emailed statement, "While the new law does not require us to remove the data, we believe that doing so complies with its spirit."

She said the maps had been viewed nearly 1.2 million times since they were published Dec. 23. The newspaper sought the records under the state Freedom of Information Law after the school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

The maps remained online late Friday but could no longer be manipulated to find names and addresses.

A call to state Sen. Greg Ball, the most vocal opponent of The Journal News' posting, was not immediately returned. A spokesman for Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino, who had also called for the data to be removed, said, "It's the right thing to do."

On Tuesday, as part of a gun control bill, the state Legislature passed and Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed new regulations that give permit holders several ways to opt out of the public record.

Applicants can ask to be exempted because they are police officers, or served on a criminal-case jury, or are victims of domestic violence. They can also just say they might be subjected to harassment.

Hasson said Friday, "One of our core missions as a newspaper is to empower our readers with as much information as possible on the critical issues they face, and guns have certainly become a top issue since the massacre in nearby Newtown, Conn."

Although this new law doesn’t require them to take down this information, it is good to see that the publishers have finally come to their senses.

I am NOT a fan of Alex Jones; in my view, it's no accident that lefties like Piers Morgan use him as a way to embarrass conservatives.  But a reader sent me the video below and it is truly astonishing -- on his show, the ObamaPhone Lady recanted her support for the President.  How many more Americans feel the same way?

It's easy to belittle Barack Obama for being a community organizer, but he's the one who got the last laugh on November 6, 2012. Community organizing is key to not only winning a campaign but changing a country, which is exactly what the Obama's plan to do moving forward. Today Michelle Obama helped launch President Obama's "Organizing for Action," a massive community organizing project geared towards pushing through Obama's second term agenda and changing how voters think about issues for the long term.

"Say you're in for the next phase of this grassroots movement."

An email from President Obama was sent to supporters today urging people to get involved.

Friend --

Today, a new grassroots organization is being launched: Organizing for Action.

Following in the footsteps of the campaign you built, Organizing for Action will be an unparalleled force in American politics. It will work to turn our shared values into legislative action -- and it'll empower the next generation of leaders in our movement.

We may have started this as a long shot presidential primary campaign in 2007, but it's always been about more than just winning an election. Together, we've made our communities stronger, we've fought for historic legislation, and we've brought more people than ever before into the political process.

We have the power to do even more to change our politics and our country for the better. With Organizing for Action, you'll have every resource you need to do it.

But it starts with you. This new organization is in your hands.

I'm so excited to see what you all do next -- and so grateful to be part of it.

Thanks,

Barack

Sound familiar?

The connections between Barack Obama and the methods of Saul Alinsky are clear and well established. The two men never met, of course, but when he arrived in Chicago Obama was trained as a community organizer by people like Michael Kruglik--one of the key figures in Spreading The Wealth--whose online bio says:

(Micheal Kruglik) has been developing grass-roots citizens’ power organizations since 1973 with the (Alinsky founded) Industrial Areas Foundation, the Gamaliel Foundation and Building One America.

and

From 1984 to 1998, (Kruglik) was co-director of the Calumet Community Religious Conference, the community organization that recruited and hired Barack Obama as a community organizer. Mr. Kruglik’s role as Barack Obama’s mentor has been chronicled in a number of works of history and periodicals.

What did Obama learn from Alinsky? The New Republic said:

The first and most fundamental lesson Obama learned was to reassess his understanding of power. (Another Obama mentor) says that, when Alinsky would ask new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with selfless bromides about wanting to help others. Alinsky would then scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: "You want to organize for power!"

and

Obama so mastered the workshops on power that he later taught them himself. On his (2007) campaign website, one can find a photo of Obama in a classroom teaching students Alinskian methods. He stands in front of a blackboard on which he has written, "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest," an idea illustrated by a diagram of the flow of money from corporations to the mayor.

Both Obama and Alinsky are flinty nihilist power-mongers at heart, but they grasp the power in portraying themselves as moral figures. Alinsky understood the power of image and realized that by occasionally proclaiming the ethical high ground, he’d be given a free pass by a media eager to attack the free market and embrace central planning.

Conservatives have a lot of work to do and no, Mitt Romney's disasterous and suicidal ORCA campaign software doesn't count as community organizing.

In an interview with NPR, Whole Foods CEO John Mackey drew a lot of attention—and criticism—by comparing ObamaCare to “fascism.” He said, "Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. In fascism, the government doesn’t own the means of production, but they do control it—and that’s what’s happening with our health care programs and these reforms.” Now, he’s walking back the controversial statement even though his feelings about the health care law haven’t changed. On CBS This Morning, Mackey said it was “a bad choice of words” because it has an association with dictatorships in the 20^th century. He continued to say, however, that, “We no longer have free enterprise capitalism in health care. It’s not a system any longer where people are able to innovate. It’s not based on voluntary exchange. The government is directing it so we need a new word for it, I don’t know what that right word is.” Clearly agitated, Norah O’Donnell interrupts, saying that she’s not as concerned about the word, but can’t seem to understand why he’s so opposed to ObamaCare to even use a word "like that." How dare he!

Mackey also released a statement on the matter:

I made a poor word choice to describe our health care system, which I definitely regret. The term fascism today stirs up too much negative emotion with its horrific associations in the 20th century.  While I'm speaking as someone who works hard to offer health care benefits to more than 73,000 team members, who actually vote on their overall benefits packages, I am very concerned about the uninsured and those with preexisting conditions. 

I believe that, if the goal is universal health care, our country would be far better served by combining free enterprise capitalism with a strong governmental safety net for our poorest citizens and those with preexisting conditions, helping everyone to be able to buy insurance. This is what Switzerland does and I think we would be much better off copying that system than where we are currently headed in the United States.

I believe that health care should be competitive in the open market to promote innovation and creativity. Despite the criticism of me, I am encouraged that this dialogue will bring continued awareness and a better understanding of viable health care options for all Americans. There is an alternative to mandated health care in free enterprise capitalism based on voluntary exchange for mutual gain. This alternative allows individuals and businesses to innovate and develop customized solutions to health care where a “one size fits all approach” fails.  Creativity and progress are stifled when government regulations dictate the parameters of what health care plans can be offered. Creative businesses, and the people who work them, can make something that has value for all stakeholders.

I need a new word or phrase to describe the state of health care now because it is something that I, like all folks entrusted with the wellbeing of a team, grapple with daily in this era.  I think for now I will simply call it government-controlled health care to distinguish it from free enterprise capitalist health care.  Clearly, I would prefer free enterprise capitalism in health care because it would greatly increase innovation and progress —just like it does in every other aspect of our lives, wherever it is allowed to exist. I hope those who are my critics, would recognize that we are all after an improved state of society, and not be distracted by the poor use of an emotionally charged word.

Earlier this week as part of his 23 executive actions on gun control, President Obama nominated ATF Acting Director Todd B. Jones for a permanent position as ATF Director. Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa is expressing concerns over Jones' nomination due to his involvement and failure of leadership in the fallout of the Fast and Furious scandal.

"Acting Director Jones was at the helm of ATF as many troubling problems from the fallout of Operation Fast and Furious festered,” said Issa.  “His specific decisions on a number of Fast and Furious related issues raise concerns about his judgment and ability to lead the agency.  While I continue to believe that ATF needs to have a Senate confirmed Director, President Obama has a responsibility to find a nominee who can win confirmation and is not saddled by a string of bad decisions related to the agency’s greatest recent failure," Issa said in a statement. “Jones was first brought into the job of ATF Acting Director in the middle of the Fast and Furious scandal after Justice Department officials had falsely denied reckless conduct and allegations by his predecessor that there was an effort underway to shield the Department’s senior political appointees from the scandal.   Because of the numerous ATF mistakes during his tenure as Acting Director pertaining to Fast and Furious, his nomination is a slap in the face to the family of fallen Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, Mexican citizens whose murder has been linked to Fast and Furious weapons, and ATF whistleblowers whom he failed to support.”

Jones is notorious within ATF for retaliating against Fast and Furious whistleblowers. In July 2012, Jones warned ATF agents not to "jump their chain of command" and said if they did there would be "consequences." Issa sent Jones a letter the same month, warning about retaliation.

"ATF has earned a reputation for vindictiveness when it comes to retaliating against its employees. Unfortunately, despite prior assurances from senior ATF officials, it appears that Acting Director B. Todd Jones has yet to change this reputation, as he recently upbraided Special Agent John Dodson in a private meeting at ATF headquarters. These apparent attempts to silence critics of the Bureau are potentially illegal and certainly counterproductive.(2) As I have previously stressed, direct communications with Congress are both vitally important and protected by law," Issa wrote.

Jones was also in charge when embattled ATF supervisor Bill McMahon was receiving paid leave from the Bureau while accepting a six figure salary at J.P. Morgan, the bank that controls ATF credit cards.

Members of the anonymous whistleblower website CleanUpATF.org, where the Fast and Furious scandal was first discussed, aren't exactly happy with the Jones appointment and say he has no intention of rebuilding ATF's credibility or renewing the bureau's commitment to agents. He's known as a bureaucrat, not as a top law enforcement officer.

Jones has been accused in the past of rushing to hush up further questions about Fast and Furious and has done nothing to clarify the details of the operation to Congress.

"Mr. Jones, is that the "Bernie Madoff" resolution? Hey whats happened has happened, get over it!!!! Do you really think for a minute sir, that we will ever accept the carnage you and yours have created without being compensated? Wake up, because this CAN and will get worse. OUR BUREAU," one whistleblower known as "Iceman" wrote on the site back in April 2012.

President Obama's previous nominee for ATF Director, Andrew Traver, was never confirmed due to serious questions about his anti-Second Amendment agenda.

ATF hasn't yet rebuilt its credibility with agents inside the bureau after Operation Fast and Furious, not to mention with the American people who are highly skeptical of the agency taking on more gun control power to fulfill Obama's executive orders as many questions about the operation remain unanswered.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Eric Holder is asking the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. to "indefinitely delay" a Fast and Furious document request made by Judicial Watch. The fight over President Obama's assertion of executive privilege on Fast and Furious documents to protect Holder is ongoing in court in addition to the contempt of Congress lawsuit against Holder from the House Oversight Committee.

Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a brief on January 15, 2013, in response to an Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) motion to indefinitely delay consideration of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking access to Operation Fast and Furious records withheld from Congress by President Obama under executive privilege on June 20, 2012 (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:12-cv-01510)).
 
Rather than respond substantively to Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit, the DOJ argued in court that the lawsuit should be subject to a stay of proceedings because it is “ancillary” to a separate lawsuit filed by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee against the DOJ. The Court “should let the process of negotiation and accommodation [between the House Committee and the DOJ] run its course, and then decide with the input of the parties whether and how this action may appropriately proceed at that time,” the DOJ argued, effectively abrogating the FOIA.  The Obama DOJ even suggested that the Judicial Watch litigation might encourage the Congress to fight harder to get the same documents in separate litigation.
 
Judicial Watch counters that FOIA demands a response and that its lawsuit is straight forward than the House lawsuit and ripe for consideration on its merits. A decision on the House Committee lawsuit, meanwhile, could be delayed for months, if not years:
 
This notion that [Judicial Watch’s] lawsuit is in some way inferior [to the House lawsuit] is simply incorrect. [Judicial Watch] has as much of a right under the law as the House Committee to seek access to records of Defendant. In fact, since Defendant does not challenge [Judicial Watch’s] claim on jurisdictional grounds, it could be reasonably argued that [Judicial Watch’s] right is greater – it is certainly clearer and simpler – than that of the House Committee…Whereas [Judicial Watch’s] FOIA lawsuit is ripe for adjudication on the merits, the House Committee suit could be months, if not years, away from reaching the same stage.

Final thought: Historically, law enforcement agencies only succeed and carry out their true mission when they remain apolitical. President Obama is about to make ATF agents and their supervisors his anti-Second Amendment hatchet men, which is not their job. 

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is apparently up in arms because the National Rifle Association released an ad asking simple yet important question: If President Obama’s kids are protected by professional armed guards -- why can’t yours be, too?

I agree with the governor on a number of substantive points, but here are two things to consider:

1. The NRA -- at no point during their advertisement -- explicitly attacked Sasha and Malia Obama by name. Yes, they imply that the “president’s children” -- because of who they are -- have certain privileges. But in no way, shape or form is the NRA “going after them” in any meaningful sense. The organization was simply trying to shed light on a double standard that exists in American society. What’s more, this is a perfect example of a sitting Republican governor (in a blue state, natch) expressing faux-indignation over a perfectly legitimate question from a pro-gun rights organization. And while this is not to say that the ad isn’t misleading -- what ad isn’t misleading these days? -- I see no reason for the NRA to apologize for merely making a larger, more general point by highlighting Democrats’ flagrant and stunning hypocrisy.

2. Via Allahpundit: The Big Man had no issues excoriating New Jersey’s teachers’ union for using kids as puppets to influence state elections. But apparently when the president uses children to push his agenda, it’s totally acceptable. Shouldn’t Governor Christie be more -- or at least equally -- outraged about that? Hmm.

Paging CNN host Piers Morgan. A new Rasmussen Report shows an overwhelming majority of Americans believe the Second Amendment and gun rights are necessary to protect against tyranny.

Two-out-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of American Adults think the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny. Only 17% disagree, while another 18% are not sure.

In case you missed it last week, Morgan mocked Breitbart's Ben Shapiro for making this point.

 

President Obama's second inauguration isn't until Monday, but that didn't stop a handful of LA residents from talking about how great it was to be there and experience it (even though it hasn't happened yet).

"I'm really proud of him."

Editor's note: Previous version of this post said New Yorkers, which was incorrect.

A new NBC/WSJ poll shows the National Rifle Association is more popular than Hollywood as the guns rights groups continues to see attacks from the Obama administration and their allies.

As Washington prepares for a political battle over the Obama White House's proposals to curb gun violence after the Newtown, Conn., shootings, a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that the National Rifle Association is more popular than the entertainment industry.

Forty-one percent of adults see the NRA -- the nation's top gun lobby -- in a positive light, while 34 percent view it in a negative light.

By comparison, just 24 percent have positive feelings about the entertainment industry, and 39 percent have negative ones.

The NRA's fav/unfav score is virtually unchanged from its 41 percent-to-29 percent rating in the Jan. 2011 NBC/WSJ poll, nearly two years before the Newtown shootings.

"That seems to me to be a pretty remarkably stable figure," says GOP pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted this survey with Democratic pollster Peter Hart.

The poll comes just as Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter has said the Obama campaign team and their supporters will be launching efforts to combat the NRA as President Obama pushes for more gun control.