Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[Carolyn Maloney]]>

Dem Leader Told to ‘Blink Twice’ After Weird Hostage-Like Video Apologizing for Crossing Joe Biden

by Leave a Comment

The Dem infighting in New York continues apace, and we are so here for it.

We reported Wednesday on the debate that took place Tuesday night between New York Reps. Carolyn Maloney, Jerry Nadler and former Obama administration staffer Suraj Patel, all of who are vying for the state’s newly-drawn 12th Congressional District.

Though there were tense moments between Nadler and Maloney (who “really hate each other” according to a recent write-up by NY Mag), the comments that garnered the most media attention – and criticism from other Democrats – were their responses to the question of whether or not they believed President Joe Biden should run again in 2024.

While Patel gave an unequivocal “yes” answer, neither Nadler nor Maloney would give a straight answer.

“Too early to say,” Nadler stated, clearly uncomfortable at being asked the question. “Doesn’t serve the purpose of the Democratic Party to, to deal with that until after the midterms.”

Maloney point-blank remarked that “I don’t believe he’s running for reelection.”

Nadler and Maloney both took heat from The Usual Suspects over their comments, which indicated a lack of enthusiasm for the current Oval Office occupant just a few months out from the 2022 midterms and at a time when there has been a lot of speculation as to Biden’s future plans and continued questions about his fitness to lead.

But it’s been Maloney who has been teetering along on a tightrope ever since, first standing by what she said in an interview with the New York Post the day after the debate but then apologizing for it during a CNN “New Day” interview Thursday that had serious hostage video vibes going on:

The longer clip shows Maloney, who is the Chair of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, was repeatedly pressed during her interview after tapdancing around the issue before she looked into the camera and gave her short speech:

Cringe. So awkward. Looked like she might have been reading from a hastily-written placard someone from the Biden administration – possibly one of Joe Biden’s many overworked handlers – had prepared for her behind the scenes.

Political strategist Liz Mair was on a similar wavelength, suggesting that Maloney’s apology had “an element of really f*cking strange fealty to the party leader and weird humiliation/submission going on here that sort of reminds me of a much-toned down chunk of Death of Stalin.”

“Hostage negotiators will study this clip for generations,” opined Sen. Ted Cruz comms adviser Steve Guest.

Can’t really argue against either of those points, honestly, nor against the advice of another Twitter user who advised Maloney to “blink twice” after watching the clip.

“Blink three times if you are being coerced or held against your will,” tweeted another.

I think it’s safe to say that if Maloney was looking put her remarks suggesting Joe Biden wasn’t going to run in 2024 behind her, she did a pretty lousy job.

Not that Republicans who are sitting back enjoying their bowls of popcorn are complaining, of course.

Related: CNN Polling Expert Puts the ‘Ow’ in ‘Ouch’ for Democrats by Explaining Just How Bad It Is

Watch: Nadler, Maloney Fuel 'Dems in Disarray' Narrative When Asked if Biden Should Run in 2024

by Leave a Comment

As we’ve previously reported, the May court-ordered redistricting map for New York has sent the state’s most prominent Democrats into an absolute tailspin, with allegations of racism flying and calls for resignations in the air as the redrawn House districts have forced incumbent Democrats – some of them longtimers – to decide which of their colleagues they want to take on in the primaries.

Such has been the case with Reps. Jerry Nadler and Carolyn Maloney. Maloney has been in Congress since 1993, and Nadler since 2013. Maloney first represented the state’s 12th Congressional district and then the 14th, while Nadler has represented the 10th since he took office.

Both are now vying for the newly-drawn 12th Congressional district, and to say things have gotten a bit testy between the two would be an understatement, with Nadler at one point calling Maloney “cowardly” over some of her past stances and Maloney playing the infamous woman card on Nadler Tuesday.

A debate was held Tuesday night between Nadler, Maloney, and frequent Maloney challenger Suraj Patel ahead of their August 23rd primary. Though the debate will likely be remembered by the New Yorkers who watched it as one where Nadler bumbled a lot and where there at times were tense moments between the two powerful Democrats, it’s what they said about President Joe Biden during the debate that has attracted the most media attention.

During a lightning round at the debate, each candidate was asked if they believed President Biden should run for office again in 2024.

While Patel gave an unequivocal “yes” answer, neither Nadler nor Maloney would give a straight answer.

“Too early to say,” Nadler responded. “Doesn’t serve the purpose of the Democratic Party to, to deal with that until after the midterms.”

Maloney point-blank stated that “I don’t believe he’s running for reelection.”

Watch the moment below:

Though there have been a few other Democrats who have either outright avoided Biden on the campaign trail, publicly called for Biden to step aside in 2024 or who would not say whether they’d endorse him, Nadler being the Judiciary Chair and Maloney being the Oversight Committee Chair are the two most powerful in the House who would not state at this stage in the game whether they’d support a 2024 Biden run.

It also makes you wonder, considering their positions, do they know something we don’t about the internal deliberations on whether Biden will run again? He’s made clear before that he has intentions to run, but the closer we get to 2023 and the inevitable presidential campaign announcements that will follow, the more people are wondering.

Their non-answers also came at a time when speculation about whether Biden, 79, will run is at a fever pitch, with Democrats reportedly scrambling behind the scenes to find alternatives considering Vice President Kamala Harris – who for Democrats would be the “heir apparent” in the event Biden stepped aside – has approval ratings that like Biden’s are in the tank, and who continues to embarrass herself whenever she appears in public, something else she has in common with Biden.

Harris herself fueled speculation on Biden’s 2024 intentions with a “clarification” she made in June about whether she would be on his ticket if he did.

“The president intends to run and if he does, I will be his ticket mate. We will run together,” Harris told the New York Times.

Related: CNN Polling Expert Puts the ‘Ow’ in ‘Ouch’ for Democrats by Explaining Just How Bad It Is

House Dems accuse gun makers of fueling mass murder

by Leave a Comment

Today’s House Oversight Committee hearing on “the practices and profits of gun manufacturers” was just as one-sided and propagandistic as you would expect from a meeting controlled by Democrats and chaired by longtime anti-gun politician Carolyn Maloney of New York. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co we’re taking a look at some of the new lows, misinformation, and outright falsehoods unleashed by House Democrats during the hearing, starting with Maloney herself.

The chairwoman of the Oversight Committee started things off by falsely claiming that gun makers are selling AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles to “children”, which would be a clear violation of federal law. No one under the age of 18 can lawfully purchase a rifle or shotgun at retail, and you must be at least 21-years old to buy a handgun from a federally licensed firearms retailer. 18-year olds may still be teenagers, but they’re also legal adults in the eyes of the law, and Maloney was simply wrong to assert otherwise.

Things didn’t get any better from there, with Maloney asking questions to the CEOs of Daniel Defense and Sturm, Ruger like how many more children have to die before you will stop selling “weapons of war” that are the “weapon of choice in most mass murders”; another blatant falsehood easily disproved by looking at FBI data, which shows that handguns are used far more frequently in both active shooting incidents and violent crimes like aggravated assaults and homicides of all types.

There were some odd lines of attack from other Democrats on the Oversight Committee, including Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, who took issue with the fact that many manufacturers allow for firearms to be bought on credit or using payment plans. Lynch honed in on the fact that the killer in Uvalde, Texas purchased a Daniel Defense rifle in that manner, while ignoring the fact that far more law-abiding Americans have done the same. In Lynch’s world it would be illegal to buy a firearm on a payment plan, even though requiring all gun owners to pay 100% cash up front would make it difficult if not impossible for many Americans living paycheck to paycheck and struggling under Bidenflation to save the money necessary to purchase a firearm for self-defense.

Rep. Katie Porter of California, meanwhile, tried to make the case that gun companies are willfully ignoring “safety features” like fingerprint scanners that would identify authorized users before a gun could be fired. Porter claimed that “smart guns” are already on the market, though from what I’ve been able to tell companies like Lodestar Firearms and SmartGunz (which uses RFID technology instead of a biometric fingerprint reader) haven’t yet opened up sales to consumers.

Porter asked both gun company CEOs at the hearing whether they would commit to putting fingerprint readers on all of their future firearms, and both Daniel Defense’s Marty Daniel and Sturm, Ruger’s Christopher Killoy told her “no,” with Daniel adding that his customers haven’t asked for such a feature. Killoy tried to explain some of the inherent flaws in “smart gun” technology, but like Maloney and many of the other Democrats on the Oversight Committee, Porter cut him off rather than let him finish a complete sentence.

The intent of today’s hearing was twofold for Democrats; first to provide committee members with a soundbite-friendly setting to scapegoat gun makers and blame them for the actions of criminals, but also to try to goose support for the “assault weapons” ban that was scheduled for a vote in the House Rules Committee this afternoon. Instead, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ended up yanking the bill from consideration after an intra-party squabble between progressives and moderates over the legislation and a companion bill that would have increased funding for local law enforcement.

In her closing statement, Maloney asserted that she invited gun makers to today’s hearing to apologize to the victims of mass shootings and to promise to stop the sale of “assault weapons” in the future before calling on Congress to ban modern sporting rifles and to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, once again using the podium to demonize the firearms industry instead of looking for real solutions aimed preventing violent actors from carrying out their cowardly acts. Maloney and her cohorts have made it clear that their path to public safety involves taking a bulldozer to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, and I suspect that Republican congressional candidates will be making use of their colleagues’ anti-gun rhetoric in their own campaign ads between now and November. Lord knows Maloney and company gave them plenty of material to work with today.

House Democrats accidentally prove just how popular and common AR-15s really are

by Leave a Comment

The purpose of today’s House Oversight Committee hearing on “gun violence” is to portray U.S. gun makers as monsters that are intentionally putting profits head of innocent lives by selling “weapons of war” to children, as committee chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) outrageously claimed as the hearing got underway Wednesday morning.

Even before the hearing began House Democrats were advancing that narrative, releasing a statement on Thursday morning that claimed major manufacturers have “collected more than $1 billion over the last decade from sale of military-style assault weapons to civilians” and alleging that in doing so the companies “use disturbing sales tactics—including marketing deadly weapons as a way for young men to prove their masculinity and selling guns to mass shooters on credit—while failing to take basic steps to monitor the violence their products unleashed.”

It’s a narrative the media has been quick to parrot, as seen in this piece from NBC News.

Daniel Defense, the company that made the rifle used by the Uvalde gunman, took in over $120 million in AR-15-style rifle sales in 2021, compared with $40 million in 2019, according to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Sturm, Ruger & Company also saw its gross earnings nearly triple in the same timeframe from $39 million to over $103 million, the panel said, citing internal financial data it obtained.

Smith & Wesson — which sold the high-powered weapons used in the Fourth of July massacre in Highland Park, Illinois — saw its revenue from all long guns more than doubled between from $108 million to $253 million in that time period.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone given the surge in gun sales that began with the first round of COVID-19 lockdowns in March of 2020 and has only slightly abated in the months since. I’m sure the sales of handguns have surged as well, leading to even more profit for these manufacturers (or at least the ones that make pistols).

The focus of today’s hearing, however, is to demonize semi-automatic rifles as well as those who make, sell, purchase, and own them. To that end, there’s been almost no mention so far of handguns even though they are used far more frequently in violent crimes in general and in active shooter incidents specifically.

Maloney declared that AR-15s are the weapon of choice for mass murderers, but a recent FBI report on active shooting incidents in 2021 proves that to be false. Of the 61 incidents recorded by the FBI, just 10 explicitly involved the use of a rifle while there were 42 incidents that involved only handguns. At the very time in which sales of AR-style rifles were exploding, the vast majority of gun-involved crimes (including high-profile active shooter incidents) continued to see handguns and not modern sporting rifles as criminals’ “weapon of choice.”

So who bought all those semi-automatic rifles over the past couple of years? Law-abiding citizens, who purchased them for home defense, hunting, competitive shooting, or even as their “just in case the sh*t hits the fan” gun. The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates there are now nearly 25-million modern sporting rifles in the hands of American gun owners; more common than even Ford F-150 pickup trucks, and yet the most recent FBI Uniform Crime Report data shows that there were fewer homicides involving rifles of any kind than homicides in which knives, blunt objects, and even fist and feet were used as murder weapons. Modern sporting rifles aren’t the weapons of choice for violent criminals of any stripe, but they are the most popular choice for law-abiding Americans looking for a new rifle these days.

Ironically, while House Democrats are trying to advance a false narrative that these guns are only meant for murder, by highlighting the surge in sales of these firearms over the past couple of years they’ve only demonstrated just how commonly-owned and popular these firearms are with the American public. Of course, that won’t be how the media covers today’s hearing and the narrative put forth by Democrats in the House, but the truth is undeniable… at least for those willing to look at the facts.

House Democrats target firearms industry in Oversight hearing

by Leave a Comment

Democrats are once again making gun control their topic of the day in the House of Representatives today. Not only is Rep. David Cicillini’s bill to ban so-called assault weapons scheduled for a vote in the House Rules Committee (along with legislation that would repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act), the House Oversight Committee is holding a hearing on “gun violence”, with a focus on how the firearms industry markets its products.

The hearing, which kicks off at 10 a.m. ET will feature the CEOs of several major gun manufacturers, as well as the anti-gun grandstanding from politicians like Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York, who chairs the committee.

“With more than 300 mass shootings in the United States so far this year, and gun violence now the leading cause of death of children in America, it is clear that we are in a public health epidemic,” said Chairwoman Maloney. “Our hearing will examine the role of gun manufacturers in flooding our communities with weapons of war and fueling America’s gun violence crisis. It is long past time for the gun industry to be held accountable for the carnage they enable and profit from.”

Perhaps not coincidentally, Maloney and Rep. Jerry Nadler (who chairs the Judiciary Committee that approved the “assault weapons” ban bill last week) are fighting for the same congressional seat thanks to New York’s redistricting map. Now the two Democrats can each boast of going after gun makers while they’re campaigning in the deep blue environs of NY-12.

As Maloney’s diatribe indicates, Democrats on the Oversight Committee will be trying to advance the narrative that the firearms industry has intentionally fueled violence through its marketing and advertising. We’ve seen some of their allies set the scene for today’s hearing, including former Kimber executive-turned-gun control activist Ryan Busse, who recently penned a piece at the Atlantic claiming that up until the mid 2000s, the firearms industry’s marketing was fine and dandy, but after the expiration of the AWB of 1994, the industry nefariously pivoted towards a more tactical mindset instead of its traditional focus on hunting and self-defense.

By 2016, Daniel Defense marketing was working so well that it won a coveted spot on the cover of Popular Mechanics magazine. The company’s press release proclaimed that the placement of its rifle in the “Tough Guys” issue was a “major accomplishment” because it would help Daniel Defense reach a “more mainstream audience.”

Like many other firearms companies, Daniel Defense also sought placement of its products in movies and video games. This Facebook post from 2019 alerts followers to the appearance of one of its DDM4 V7 rifles in the new Call of Duty: Modern Warfare game. The DDM4 V7 was used by the 18-year-old gamer turned shooter in Uvalde, Texas.

Yeah, this is the kind of “evidence” that will be offered up at today’s show hearing to try to prove that the firearms industry is intentionally targeting cowardly killers like the 18-year old in Uvalde.

Marty Daniels of Daniel Defense is one of the CEOs invited to testify at the Oversight hearing, along with Smith & Wesson’s Mark Smith and Ruger’s Christopher Killoy. Busse himself will also be testifying at the hearing at the invitation of Democrats on the panel, along with Gun Owners of America’s Antonia Okafor and Kelly Sampson of the gun control group Brady. We’ll have more updates on the hearing later today, but I’m not expecting much to come out of this other than anti-gun Democrats like Maloney preening for the cameras and scapegoating the firearms industry for the actions of criminals and deranged killers.