New Obama Gun Control Vote Today

Even though Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) knows he probably doesn’t have 60 votes, he’s bringing this foolishness to the floor. From The Hill:

Even though he doesn’t have the votes, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will move ahead on legislation Wednesday to expand background checks for gun sales.

Democrats are confident they will have a potent political issue if Republicans block the bipartisan measure, noting high public support in a variety of polls.

But it is highly unlikely that there are 60 votes for the upper chamber to adopt the agreement forged by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) to expand background checks.

“We don’t know if we have 60 votes, but we don’t know that we don’t have 60,” a Democratic aide said. “It will be very close.”

Reid, however, has counted enough undecided senators to give him a shot, albeit one with long odds, at just clearing the 60-vote threshold.

Please contact your senators (link here to phone numbers and email addresses) and ask them why they would even consider supporting legislation that would have done nothing to prevent what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School last December. Isn’t that horrible crime the ostensible reason for putting more burdens on the God-given rights of law-abiding citizens? Isn’t that why we have had to endure the hideous spectacle of the parents of murdered children being flown to Washington, D.C. on Air Force One and being escorted by democrat political operatives to Congressional offices to lobby for these laws? Even the proponents of the latest round of gun control proposals admit that what they are demanding would have made no difference in Newtown. So why are we being asked to pass them in the name of Newtown? We all know the answer. The Left is all about incrementalism. The ultimate objective is to disarm the people so that they can be controlled. Any crisis, crime or other incident that they can use to further that objective is what they want, no matter how small the step is. Baby steps in the right direction down the road to serfdom will do just fine.



Obama Embraces Favorite Liberal Strategy: “It’s For The Children”

Also posted at ClashDaily

Barack Obama continues to unashamedly use last December’s murder of 20 Connecticut children to advance his war on the 2nd Amendment, parachuting in to communities that have suffered mass shootings at the hands of lunatics to screech lies while using victims’ families as wallpaper. I guess these people haven’t suffered enough. Earlier this week in Hartford, CT, they had to endure hearing the Dear Reader recite the following from his Prompter:

 “This is not about me. This is not about politics. This is about preventing this from happening again. This is not about politics. This is about these families.”

There are very few statements that always true, that are indisputable 100% of the time. I am about to share one of those rare gems with you now, so listen up. When someone who emerged from the stinking slough of corruption that is the Chicago political machine tells you “this is not about politics,” you can be absolutely sure that it cannot possibly be about anything else. It’s like when someone tells you “it’s not about the money.” That statement is how you know that’s all it’s about.

Barack Obama and his allies hope that the soccer mommies, devoted viewers of “Inside Edition,” and “The View,” and similar members of the low-information cohort will be convinced by his phony and politically-motivated posturing that his latest attempt to gain more power over every single aspect of American life results from his concern for “the children.” It’s always “for the children,” isn’t it? Whenever liberals want to take away your money and your freedom, they become obsessed with “the children.” As touching as that sentiment is, I’m having a difficult time reconciling Barack Obama’s current obsession with those sweet little Newtown tots, and with protecting all the other children in America, with some of his policies, which demonstrate anything but concern for children. In fact, they show outright contempt for them.

Exhibit A-He’s OK with Infanticide

Barack Obama, this supposed defender of the innocent, holds views on abortion that are beyond extreme. While he was an Illinois state senator, he voted not once, not twice, but three times against bills requiring that babies fortunate enough to survive late-term abortions, who didn’t, to use his charming turn of phrase, come out “limp and dead,” be provided with medical care. He couldn’t support helping these innocent children because any suggestion that they were human beings might somehow infringe on “a woman’s right to choose.” Nothing must tarnish the precious liberal sacrament of abortion in Obama’s view. His slobbering sycophants in the Lame Stream Media managed to cover up his hideously militant pro-abort votes during his first presidential campaign. They had no interest in telling the American public that their chosen One had no problem with the murder of babies in 2007, 2008, or even in 2012. Apparently, the years haven’t inspired any increased interest in that issue, since there has been a virtual blackout on coverage of the murder trial of abortion butcher Kermit Gosnell. Leave it to the British press to shine a light on what The Daily Mail accurately calls a “house of horrors,”  The story describes testimony of medical assistant who claims he saw

“about 100 babies born alive and then ‘snipped’ with surgical scissors in the back of the neck, to ensure their ‘demise’.

He also spoke of the gruesome scenes at the clinic which was allegedly found dirty and rundown with rusting surgical instruments.

‘It would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place. It is literally a beheading. It is separating the brain from the body,’ he told NBC.”

During his recent Hartford clinic on demagoguery, Barack Obama whipped up the crowd’s emotions by decrying the “154 bullets” fired into the Newtown victims. Yet, he has remained silent about the unimaginable cruelty and butchery alleged in the abortuaries that he enthusiastically supports, because the question of when a baby acquires civil rights is “above [his] pay grade.

Exhibit B-He Enthusiastically Supports Planned Parenthood

Given his adamant support for abortion, of course, Barack Obama is a huge fan of America’s Number One abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. He has threatened states that have the audacity to refuse to do business with them with a cut off of federal Medicaid funds. It’s a mutual admiration society. They poured $12 million into his 2012 campaign. Unfortunately, in addition to all the great work that Planned Parenthood does, all that “women’s health care,” they enable the statutory rape of underage girls.  Amazingly these children do not deserve a vote, according to our benevolent ruler, however, he does want to make sure that if they end up pregnant by one of the adult men who are using them like playthings, they aren’t “punished with a baby.”

Exhibit C-He Has “Evolved” on Traditional Marriage

Political correctness has made it heresy to state the obvious truth, but I will fearlessly do so now. The ideal situation for a child is to be raised in the home with the man and woman who created him in wedlock. We have reached the end of the descent into the moral sewer that began with the Left’s 40-year campaign to destroy the traditional family, by demeaning marriage as “just a piece of paper,” and that end is so-called “same-sex marriage.” Barack Obama’s recent “evolving” on this issue exposes his ridiculous pontificating about valuing all families for the sake of the children as another phony politically motivated conversion. Is his support for redefining the building block of civilization about protecting children or protecting his party’s prospects in 2014? No one can claim to know what impact this radical departure from what we’ve always understood the term “marriage” to mean will have on children. No one knows, and most of us aren’t willing to take a chance. Can we say for sure that it will not encourage more cases like this one, involving a Connecticut “married” homosexual couple?

Given his radical, decades-long hostility toward the 2nd Amendment, and his lack of concern for the children who suffer as a result of liberal policies, Barack Obama’s disgusting and very transparent attempt to climb on top the corpses of murdered children and boldly proclaim that their deaths made him realize that we need to “do something” about gun violence would be laughable if it weren’t so disgusting.

You Mean It Wasn’t That Scary Gun That Caused the Newtown Murderer’s Killing Spree?


Law enforcement sources say Adam Lanza was motivated by violent video games and a strong desire to kill more people than another infamous mass murderer. Sources say Lanza saw himself as being in direct competition with Anders Breivik, a Norwegian man who killed 77 people in July 2011. Breivik killed eight with a bombing in downtown Oslo. He then moved to a nearby island where hunted down and fatally shot 69 people, mostly teenagers attending a summer camp. Two officials who have been briefed on the Newtown, Conn., investigation say Lanza wanted to top Breivik’s death toll and targeted nearby Sandy Hook Elementary School because it was the “easiest target” with the “largest cluster of people.” … Evidence shows that his mind, sources say, Lanza was also likely acting out the fantasies of a video game as he killed 20 first graders and six adults at the school. For Lanza, the deaths apparently amounted to some kind of “score.” But Lanza ended his killing spree sooner than he intended. Unlike Breivik, who surrendered, Lanza killed himself as police closed in. Just before his suicide, Lanza fired some shots at police in the school’s parking lot. Officials have not publicly revealed what led them to the motive, but sources say investigators have found evidence Lanza was obsessed with Breivik. They’ve also recovered what they called a “trove” of video games from the basement of Lanza’s home. Sources say Lanza spent countless hours there alone, in a private gaming room with the windows blacked out, honing his computer shooting skills.

What say you, Barack? Joe? Chris Dodd? Bueler?

Who will protect us from our protectors?

From Conservative Action Alerts:

It didn’t take long for the megalomaniacs and opportunists in Washington to exploit the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, as a pretext for another attempt to annul the Second Amendment and expand their power.

Never one to let a good crisis go to waste, President Obama signed a series of executive actions expanding federal gun control, all while flanked by children who had written him letters after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. While the event was an excellent photo op for the president, his executive orders are an egregious violation of the U.S. Constitution. Executive orders are only intended to direct the staff of the executive branch in the enforcement of current laws, not to create new laws by a stroke of the pen. But Americans have grown accustomed to presidents issuing pharaonic edicts, and although Obama’s latest usurpation is indeed an impeachable offense, Congress will do nothing.…

History suggests we keep a sharp eye on our “watchmen” and continue to cling to our guns, lest we suffer the fate of so many others. This is not paranoia, nor is it sedition. It’s just common sense.

Wise words indeed.

Barack Obama Puts on a Clinic in Demagoguery

Another Dear Leader who was interested in oppressing his people "for the children"

Another Dear Leader who was interested in oppressing his people “for the children”

Yesterday, as his apparatchiks in the Lame Stream Media perfectly executed Stage 2 of The 3 Stages in Arguing with a Liberal, Barack Obama shamelessly exploited the killing of children to advance an agenda that has nothing to do with its ostensible reason, to prevent future tragedies like the one at Sandy Hook School.

As promised, his announcement of his power grab featured kiddie human shields, with the Leader of the Free World suggesting that we should stomp on our sacred, God-given rights based on the scrawled pleas of frightened seven and eight year olds, and the desperate, grief-driven emotions of the surviving parents of murdered children. Let me borrow a phrase from the bloated oil whore, Al Gore, and mention a couple of inconvenient truths; specifically,

(1) As I have told you for years, originating back in the mid 1990′s here at, and later on every iteration of The Teri O’Brien Show, when the Left is attempting to steal your money and your freedom, which are actually the same thing, they always invoke “the children.” It’s disgusting, exploitative and all too predictable. Let me repeat another truth that I can’t say enough. These people have to get some new writers!

(2) The last time we were told that we should make important public policy based on the recommendations of children was when the King of the Useful Idiots, Jimmuh Carter, shared the fact that his ideas on preventing nuclear annihilation came from his ten-year-old daughter Amy. Outside of his fellow liberal fools, that assertion from our 39th president was greeted with mocking laughter. Yesterday’s silly, cringe-inducing dog and pony show deserves the same response.

(3) As much as our hearts go out to the parents of murdered children, and the other survivors of violent crime, let me say something that no one wants to hear, and that some might think is cruel to mention; that is, they are the very last people who should be making decisions about changes in the laws affecting our 2nd Amendment rights. As Aristotle so correctly stated, “the law is reason free from passion.” Grieving parents are not capable of an objective evaluation of policy alternatives, at least not while their pain is still raw. It is precisely that raw pain that elitist demagogues like B. Hussein Obama want to capitalize on to advance their anti-freedom agenda.

(4) When the Left starts talking about “common sense” as they gloss over the details of precisely what they mean by that benign phrase, be afraid. Be very afraid. One frequently mentioned aspect of this latest batch of “common sense” laws and regulations to stop “gun violence,” which allegedly no one can reasonably oppose is “universal” background checks. How can anyone oppose that “common sense” proposal? Gee, perhaps because it means that the boot of the federal government would be on the neck of every American who wants to give a firearm to his son, daughter or other family member? Should you really have to be subjected to reams of bureaucratic red tape just to do that? Just like “universal” health care, “universal” background checks will require a level of coercion by an ever-expanding federal government that would horrify most Americans if they thought of the implications of such a policy.

(5) As noted in this post, the NRA did an excellent ad, calling out Obama as the liberal elitist hypocrite that he is. The screeching and gnashing of teeth by the Left shows that they hit their target (no pun intended).

I Love a Real Man with a Gun

Today a friend commenting on the Sandy Hill Elementary School murders mentioned something, an interesting fact, one that I hadn’t heard anyone else mention; specifically, the fact that when this wack job showed up intent on mowing people down, he was confronted by a bunch of girls. As I reflect on it, that’s no surprise. The disturbing feminization of men over the last thirty years has been part of the Left’s overall project of destroying the traditional family, and the public schools are Ground Zero. While supposedly concerned “educators” fret over little girls’ obsession with their body images and insist that they be encouraged to speak up, participate in sports and proclaim their ability to do everything and anything, little boys’ natural impulses are dismissed, denigrated, demonized and ultimately drugged out of them. Who needs male role models to teach boys to be the evil, knuckle-dragging, brutes?

Still, despite the Left’s relentless efforts, there are still some real men out there. I know it’s true. I am married to one. Here’s a story about another one, from The Arizona Daily Sun:

Flagstaff resident Dave Young said he was driving up to the Arizona Central Credit Union branch on North West Street shortly after 4 p.m. on Friday when he was puzzled by the sight of his friend, Michael Pileggi, detaining a woman.

He quickly noticed his friend’s son, Chase Pileggi, was also trying to stop a man as he jumped over a fence. Young said he quickly confirmed that a bank robbery had occurred and took off after the two in his vehicle.

Young caught up with the pair nearby and watched as Chase tackled the man. The younger Pileggi got the man in a hold and Young placed his hand on his sidearm, showing the suspect that he was armed. He did not pull his gun.

“I provided cover for him. If the suspect had tried to pull a weapon I could have stopped him,” Young said. “I told him don’t move. I looked him over for weapons and visually inspected the suspect, then called 911.”


He also said carrying a firearm is the responsibility of able-bodied, law-abiding men.

“I think it’s important if you’re a male with a clean record to protect your community,” Young added. “You should be ready to do something like this if possible.”


Not surprisingly, he’s not joining the politically-motivated bleating for more gun control.

Young disagrees with those now arguing for stricter regulation of firearms.

“Would you feel better if you were shot with a 10-round magazine instead of 30?” he said. “If criminals are going to have them, responsible citizens should be able to have them.”

I’d trade every panty-wearing, metrosexual, East Coast elitist Ken doll pontificating on television for another Mr. Young. We could use a million more guys like him.

Common Sense from a Cop in St. Louis: Arm the Grown Ups at Schools

People are starting to catch on to the fact that the silly notion of “gun free” zones is the epitome of liberal nonsense. Like children, liberals like to play pretend, and unlike their imaginary friends, these pretend “gun free” zones, get people killed because they are actually “unarmed sitting duck” zones, perfect for cowardly wackjobs like the Newtown, CT shooter, the Aurora, CO shooter, and the Clackamas, OR shooter. One police chief agrees. From CBS St. Louis:

St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch says it is time to talk about arming civilian school personnel following Friday’s massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, comparing it to arming airline pilots after September 11, 2001.


“I see it no differently,” he said. “Pilots have been armed now for many many years, we’ve not had another hijacking and the issue is, for the bad guy, he doesn’t know which airplane he’s getting on, if the pilot is armed or not.”

It’s just common sense, which sadly is much less common than it should be these days.