Democrats Using Gun Control to Get Focus off ObamaCare

[U201491]

Democrats Using Gun Control to Get Focus off ObamaCare

And using Brady Law Anniversary to pressure GOP

“We are going to finish the job and pass background checks and then move on and do other things we have to do to get guns off the streets and stop gun violence.” --Senator Chuck Schumer, November 13, 2013

Don’t let them get away with it.

Democrats on Capitol Hill want to change the subject, but we can’t let them do it.

The anti-gun aspects of ObamaCare haven’t even been fully implemented yet because the entire “health care” rollout has been imploding -- and it’s taking a huge toll on the President.

The solution?

The Examiner.com reported last week that Democrats are trying to “deflect public attention from a disaster of their own making [on ObamaCare] by shifting the subject to gun control.”

They’re hoping to pressure Republicans on the 20-year anniversary of the Brady Law. (November 30 marks the anniversary when President Clinton signed the bill into law.)

The Hill reports, “Democrats argue that enough pressure on House GOP leaders would return the topic [of gun control] to prominence.”

You can’t blame them. As support for ObamaCare continues to plummet -- and the President’s approval rating along with it --many Democrats are scrambling to get the mainstream media to cover any other topic.

Their first choice is to return to their tired ole gun control agenda like the Toomey-Manchin background checks (for private gun buyers) in the Senate or the identical Thompson-King bill (HR 1565) in the House. These are unconstitutional and should never see the light of day.

Their second plan to distract the American public is to blow up the Senate rules -- abolishing the filibuster where federal judges are concerned -- so that Democrats can pack the courts with liberal, anti-gunners who will uphold ObamaCare. Majority Leader Harry Reid successfully accomplished this yesterday, claiming it was necessary because Republicans were supposedly causing gridlock.

You can see that critical Senate vote here, where YEA was the pro-gun, pro-freedom vote to maintain the filibuster.

Finally, Democrats plan to craft small temporary one-year “fixes” for the health care law in order to fool enough Americans into reelecting senators who were the “deciding votes” on ObamaCare:

* Mary Landrieu, the Louisiana Democrat -- who sold her soul to vote for ObamaCare in exchange for a political bribe nicknamed “the Louisiana purchase” -- is currently up in a tough reelection. She knew how bad ObamaCare was, but she didn’t care until the nation’s pain threatened her reelection.

* Mark Begich, the Alaska Democrat who also cast the deciding vote, also knew Alaskans would suffer. But it didn’t bother him until their suffering threatened his reelection.

* Similarly, several other Democrat Senators -- Kay Hagan (NC), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Mark Warner (VA), Mark Udall (CO), Mark Pryor (AR) and Jeff Merkley (OR) -- all became “born again skeptics” of ObamaCare when provisions they crafted, knew about, and were indispensable in passing came back to bite them.

All of these senators had a chance to “tweak” ObamaCare during the shutdown fight. Instead, these Senators were all too busy playing politics -- gleeful at the prospect of declaring total victory over Republicans.

We need to remind them that the only legitimate option is a total repeal of the anti-gun ObamaCare law. And that a Brady Law anniversary is an excuse to pass more gun control, but rather, a reminder of just how much of our constitutional rights have already been infringed.

ACTION: Click here to email your Representative and Senators

http://cqrcengage.com/gunowners/app/write-a-letter?2&engagementId=33473

and urge them to ignore calls for gun control or to settle for a temporary one year ObamaCare “fix.” Demand that they repeal this anti-gun travesty and stop trying to change the subject to supporting gun control.

Please forward this e-mail to friends and family Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 Springfield, VA 22151

703-321-8585 www.gunowners.org Contact Form

Read More

 

[Dave Workman]

TAKU:

You got a link for this?

 

[U201491]

TAKU:

You got a link for this?

It was in a letter I received from GOA Alerts.
The link to the GOA page is below, and the contact form info for the reps also.

 

[U201491]

TAKU:

You got a link for this?

Ok here ya go.

Democrats Using Gun Control to Get Focus off ObamaCare - Gun Owners of America

 

[DMax]

Great now American can be piss off for the worst healthcare ever and the change for gun control at the same time. You would think these morons on the left would not pile on even from there own side. Add the guns and 2014 is going to be really fun.

 

[U201491]

Great now American can be piss off for the worst healthcare ever and the change for gun control at the same time. You would think these morons on the left would not pile on even from there own side. Add the guns and 2014 is going to be really fun.

I have a hunch if they keep it up they might learn what real gun control is.
They remind me of a snake swallowing its tail.
Eventually they will reach the end of it.

 

[Dunerunner]

The Dems have been playing cat ever since the "exalted one" was elected. They're getting quite good at it!!

 

[luke23]

Not surprising. Easy way to distract the base from a halfass job on a major issue, and changes the topic in the news to something more rage-flavored.

 

[drew]

Not surprising. Easy way to distract the base from a halfass job on a major issue, and changes the topic in the news to something more rage-flavored.

True. It might work to pacify their base. More conservative voters will scream about either but now they can trot out photos of dead children and claim they want to protect us. Sort of how Venus Flytraps protect insects. Unfortunately, I think the dem base is likely to bite. Too many around the top and in the media desperately want gun control.

 

[Hawaiian]

The Obama Care Act is sooooo messed up that even the liberal media won't leave the subject to report on gun control. Absent another mass school shooting.

 

[tiggers97]

Not everyone cares about gun-control like this group does. But the same senators who push gun-control are also pushing obamacare. So a few things to remember:

1. They already delayed the business insurance mandate by a year.
1a. They delayed the business mandate again just recently from October 15th to November 15 (just days before the mid-term election). They learned their lesson with the individual mandate mess and resulting insurance cancellations. October 15th should be a rally day for this country to remind them what the democrat senate and white-house is doing
2. The president was against delaying the mandates (i.e. during the shutdown... closed parks... denial of veterans benefits) before he was for them.
3. The bushiness insurance mandate will be worse than the individual mandate. In addition to the rules that the individual mandates follow, they also have the following to meet: If less than 70% of a businesses employees have company provided insurance, the company will be fined $100 per person, per day, until it either rises above 70%, or the company cancels all policies. Do you know what your percentage is?
4. Last estimate was that there were ~103,000 individuals who have chosen a plan. "Chosen" defined as someone who has at least put something in their shopping cart, but not checked out. Does putting a Christmas present in a shopping cart, but not checking out, count as a sale on Amazon?
5. Per the White-house, "only" approximately 5.5 million policies have been canceled. Note: a canceled policy is different from an individual. Estimates are that each policy in this country represents 2.2 people. Do the math...
6. No republican voted for Obamacare. No republican has been able to change obamacare, or defund it (about 40 attempts). But now that it isn't going so well, the president is blaming republicans...
7. Most important: Obama does not have legal authority to make these indiscriminate changes under "executive discretion". He defended the law as a tax before the supreme court. And to be constitutional, it was accepted as a tax by the supreme court. If he can do that, then he should be able to raise/lower the capitol gains rate at will, or let the IRS know not to assess penalties with people who's last name starts with the letter O (and so on and so on).

And most important of all to know:
8. Moms are the largest health-care consumers (and obama supporters, apparently from some statistics I've seen). And now that health-care is taking a nose dive, they will notice. Are they going to let the government get between them and their children health? Protect the children from Obamacare!!

 

[luke23]

True. It might work to pacify their base. More conservative voters will scream about either but now they can trot out photos of dead children and claim they want to protect us. Sort of how Venus Flytraps protect insects. Unfortunately, I think the dem base is likely to bite. Too many around the top and in the media desperately want gun control.

I think the media will also find gun control more juicy. Healthcare reform is mostly just a bunch of guys in suits talking technical terms and boring the audience. Gun control is guys in suits strangling each other.

 

[Bacchus]

Nobody's going to get distracted from the barrycare fiasco.

This is great:

Healthcare Mash

 

[ATCclears]

Even the NY Times took a shot at BarryCare with this article today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/u...?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131124&_r=0

Don't Dare Call the Health Law ‘Redistribution'
By JOHN HARWOOD

WASHINGTON — Rebecca M. Blank was a top candidate in 2011 to lead President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, but then the White House turned up something politically dangerous.

"A commitment to economic justice necessarily implies a commitment to the redistribution of economic resources, so that the poor and the dispossessed are more fully included in the economic system," Ms. Blank, a noted poverty researcher, wrote in 1992. With advisers wary of airing those views in a nomination fight, Mr. Obama passed over Ms. Blank, then a top Commerce Department official and now the chancellor of the University of Wisconsin. Instead he chose Alan Krueger, a Princeton economist.

"Redistribution is a loaded word that conjures up all sorts of unfairness in people's minds," said William M. Daley, who was Mr. Obama's chief of staff at the time. Republicans wield it "as a hammer" against Democrats, he said, adding, "It's a word that, in the political world, you just don't use."

These days the word is particularly toxic at the White House, where it has been hidden away to make the Affordable Care Act more palatable to the public and less a target for Republicans, who have long accused Democrats of seeking "socialized medicine." But the redistribution of wealth has always been a central feature of the law and lies at the heart of the insurance market disruptions driving political attacks this fall.

"Americans want a fair and fixed insurance market," said Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who advised Mr. Obama's team as it designed the law. "You cannot have that without some redistribution away from a small number of people."

Mr. Obama's advisers set out to pass the law in 2009 fully aware that fears among middle-class voters sank President Bill Clinton's health initiative 16 years earlier. So they designed the legislation to minimize the number of people likely to be hurt.

Instead of a sweeping change to a government-run "single-payer" system favored by Democratic liberals, members of the administration sought to preserve the existing system of employer-provided health insurance while covering the uninsured through the expansion of Medicaid and changes to the individual insurance market.

They also added benefits available to any family, such as the ability of children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' health plans.

But throughout the process, they knew that some level of redistributing wealth — creating losers as well as winners — was inescapable.

They were nonetheless acutely aware of how explosive the word could be. When Mr. Obama ran for president in 2008, Republicans tried to wound him by accusing him of waging "class warfare" to achieve wealth redistribution. That fall, the Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, derided Mr. Obama as the "redistributor in chief" as he seized on Mr. Obama's comments to an Ohio man later known as "Joe the Plumber" that he wanted to "spread the wealth around."

Mr. Obama survived that episode and other instances when Republicans deployed old recordings of him using the word "redistribution" as evidence that he was a closet socialist. But Mr. Obama had learned a lesson.

After he took office, he cast his goal of rolling back President George W. Bush's tax cuts for higher earners not as economic redistribution, but as the restoration of top-end rates from the Clinton years.

The Affordable Care Act was a similar semantic sidestep. The law targeted high earners, too, by raising their Medicare taxes enough to reduce their after-tax incomes by nearly 2 percent, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. That revenue helped finance coverage for those currently without insurance, who tend to have lower incomes and who in many cases will receive government subsidies to make their premiums cheaper.

And yet for those nervous about potential changes, the president promised stability. "If you like your current insurance, you will keep your current insurance," Mr. Obama said the day he signed the legislation in March 2010, a promise he made repeatedly as the Oct. 1 opening day of the online health insurance marketplaces approached.

Hiding in plain sight behind that pledge — visible to health policy experts but not the general public — was the redistribution required to extend health coverage to those who had been either locked out or priced out of the market.

Now some of that redistribution has come clearly into view.

The law, for example, banned rate discrimination against women, which insurance companies called "gender rating" to account for their higher health costs. But that raised the relative burden borne by men. The law also limited how much more insurers can charge older Americans, who use more health care over all. But that raised the relative burden on younger people.

And the law required insurers to offer coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions, which eased costs for less healthy people but raised prices for others who had been charged lower rates because of their good health.

"The A.C.A. is very much about redistribution, whether or not its advocates acknowledge that this is the case," wrote Reihan Salam on the website of the conservative National Review.

Having obscured much of that vulnerability before, Mr. Obama has responded to recent political heat by apologizing — and expanding the scope of his discredited "you can keep it" promise.

Mr. Gruber of M.I.T. called redistribution a convenient tool for Republican opponents who would fight the law anyway.

In the end, America's political culture may have made it unrealistic to expect a smooth public reception for the law, no matter how cleverly the White House modulated Mr. Obama's language or shaped his policy to minimize the number of losers.

"The reality is, any big thing you take on, any big change, is hard to accomplish," said David Axelrod, the president's longtime strategist. In America, he said, "we've created a sense that everyone can expect to win — nobody has to sacrifice."

At the same time, Mr. Axelrod argued that widening income inequality has, to some Americans at least, changed the meaning of redistribution. "The whole redistribution argument has shifted in the country because there's a sense that a lot of redistribution has been to the top and not the bottom," Mr. Axelrod said.

Still, the word is hardly a favorite of the president these days. The last time Mr. Obama used it in public, according to Federal News Service transcripts, was 18 months ago during his re-election campaign in Elyria, Ohio.

"Understand this is not a redistribution argument," the president told his audience then. "This is not about taking from rich people to give to poor people. This is about us together making investments in our country so everybody's got a fair shot."

 

[Bacchus]

I was just reading that the KKK were Democrats, as were the southern governors who tried to keep blacks out of school with a fire hose.

Given the level of oppression by the current Democrats, is it possible that they are members of the KKK too ?

 

[captqc]

I was just reading that the KKK were Democrats, as were the southern governors who tried to keep blacks out of school with a fire hose.

Given the level of oppression by the current Democrats, is it possible that they are members of the KKK too ?

If you look into the history of the Democratic Party you would be amazed that any black person would ever vote for them yet due to entitlements they flock to the dems in droves! It's a crazy world!!!:huh:

 

[Rotty]

The Obama Care Act is sooooo messed up that even the liberal media won't leave the subject to report on gun control. Absent another mass school shooting.

You can almost bet the next tragedy is already pre-planned and around the corner. It's amazing how Obamacare issues and Gun Control issues have been focused so intently around Mental Health. It's just a matter of time before the next mental case pigeon shoots up the next school, hospital, day care or puppy mill to pull on the liberal heart strings.

The timing of Sandy Hook was far to coincidental to the push to get rid of guns. It feels like Obama/Biden either got desperate or strategically intentional to make a push for this since they initially were not making any head way. Oh and how many other tragic gun related issues evolved since then? Wow!! Really!? Sounds like desperation because coincidences like this Never occurs with this kind of frequency. They want these gun tragedies to make headlines to keep it in our faces. They want to keep blaming and labeling people to be mentally unstable even if they took prozac or some other mood altering med one time 20 years ago. Once mentally unstable Always mentally unstable.