activism relies on the tactic of overloading the
|Items on this page are archived in
the order of discovery.
Obama Favors Complete Ban Of
|Both the McCain and Clinton campaigns are
accusing Obama of giving a misleading answer to Charlie Gibson about
whether his handwriting was on a questionnaire that reported him as
favoring a complete ban on handguns. The Obama campaign has said
that a staffer "mischaracterized" the senator's views while filling up
answers to the questionnaire without Obama's input. You can see
here. Obama's handwriting is on the first page, but tonight he
said flatly, "no, my writing was not on that particular questionnaire."
There were, in fact, two versions of the questionnaire, filed under
Obama's name in 1996 when he was running for the Illinois State Senate.
One version has Obama's handwriting on it, one does not. Obama
spokesman Tommy Vietor
subsequently told Politico that the senator scribbled a few notes on
the first page of the questionnaire, but did not read the response to
the question about banning handguns, on a subsequent page.
Either way, it seems a rather lame explanation.
|Obama Believes The D. C. Ban Is
Another Obama statement reaches its expiration date, this one on
The Heller decision came down today from the Supreme Court, striking
down the Washington, D.C. gun ban.
With the Supreme Court ruling, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it
calls an "inartful" statement -- Obamese for lie -- to the Chicago
Tribune last year, and are blaming an "unnamed aide" characterized Obama
as believing that the D. C. ban was constitutional.
"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the
Senatorís consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC
Obama took a question about the constitutionality of the gun ban from
WJLA's Leon Harris during the Potomac Primary, and didn't dispute the
characterization that he believes the ban is constitutional.
Here's the exchange:
LH: "One other issue that is of great importance to the people of the
district here, is gun control. You said in Idaho here, recently,
that "I have no intention of taking away folksí guns." But you
support the D.C. handgun ban, and youíve said that itís constitutional.
How do you reconcile those two positions?"
BO: "Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this
country. I think itís important for us to recognize that weíve got
a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And
a lot of people -- law-abiding citizens use if for hunting, for
sportsmanship, and for protecting their families."
"We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal
handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a
community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the
streets, we are going to trace more effectively, how these guns are
ending up on the streets, to unscrupulous gun dealers, who often times
are selling to straw purchasers. And cracking down on the various
loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the
mentally ill. Those are all approaches that I think the average
gun owner would actually support. The problem is, that weíve got a
position, often times by the NRA that says any regulation whatsoever is
the camelís nose under the tent. And that, I think, is not where
the American people are at. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun
control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and peopleís
"When Obama says, "we are going to take those
illegal handguns off the streets," I wonder if it ever occurred to him
to "take the damned criminals off the streets?"
Also, how can Obama claim "I have always believed that the Second
Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms" when, as
a director of the Joyce Foundation,
he steered $15 million to the self-described "most aggressive group
in the gun control movement?" That group published a book
entitled, "Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning
And, remember, on April 3rd, in the run-up to a Democratic presidential
debate scheduled on the one-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech
"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama told the
Pittsburgh Tribune. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere
where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."
Barack Obamaís record is clear on guns. He not only supported
gun bans, but he supported
prosecuting acts of self-defense.
Obama is about as anti-gun as you would expect from a Chicago
voted for assault weapons bans, voted to limit the number of
handguns a person could buy,
voted against lawsuit protections for gun manufacturers,
supported a national
ban on concealed carry, and worst of all
voted against a bill
protecting homeowners from being sued by burglars they shoot in
their own homes.
|The Audacity Of Deceit
|Obama's presidential campaign slogan, "the audacity of
hope," should have instead been "the audacity of deceit." After
months of telling the American people that he supports the Second
Amendment, and only hours after being declared the president-elect, the
Obama transition team website announced an agenda taken straight from
the anti-gun lobby --
initiatives designed to ban guns and drive law-abiding firearm
manufacturers and dealers out of business.
CIFTA is the proposed
Organization of American States treaty on firearms trafficking,
known by its Spanish initials as
working to get the CIFTA treaty through the Senate. This
push is a result of his recent trip to Mexico and and his claimed
attempt to halt to flow of guns into Mexico.
The problem is that Obama is using
faulty statistics to push this treaty and infringe upon the right of the
American People to keep and bear arms.
Obama says that 90% of
the guns recovered in Mexico from drug cartels come from the United
States. This isn't true. The fact is, nobody really
knows. Yes, lots of guns seized in Mexico come from the United
States. No question. But that's indicative of a whole
other sort of problem. The fact that drug runners can get guns
doesn't mean that America should end-run the Second Amendment.
That's just poor logic.
Another point is Obama's faulty logic -- that 33
nations in the Western Hemisphere have signed on to this treaty, so
it must be good. This is an incorrect conclusion -- those
nations do not have a Second Amendment to the Constitution.
Beyond that, since when did the United States of America follow
the examples of Venezuela, Chile, Nicaragua, and yes, Mexico?
It is the United States that should be setting the example here --
not the other way around. This is just an encore performance
from Obama's "Hate America Tour, 2009."
Obama has no clue how to help Mexico but sees an
opportunity to help his agenda. It is obvious that Obama's teams
at the Justice Department and the State Department are exploiting the
violence in Mexico to justify more restrictions on gun ownership by
Americans. Obama's hostility
to the Second Amendment has been clear for years. This may be yet another example of Rahm
Emanuel's maxim: "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
article written by Rep. Tom Tancredo on April 30th, Tancredo asks the
question, "Why the Lies About Guns Going to Mexico? "
The Mexican Ambassador to the United
States, Auturo Sarukhan, appeared on a CBS news program recently and
repeated a lie we have heard for many months about the violence in
Mexico. The ambassador says Americans are to blame for the
violence wrecked on his country by the Mexican drug cartels because
"most of the guns confiscated by Mexican police can be traced back to
the United States. That is not true, but the way that claim has
been accepted by American politicians and the mainstream media raises
suspicions about a hidden agenda.
ATFE's Fake Number:
We can almost forgive the Mexican
ambassador for being confused when the United States agency responsible
for enforcing our gun laws, the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (ATFE), has made so many contradictory
statements on the matter. ATFE Assistant Director William Hoover
told Congress last year that 90% of the weapons seized in Mexico crime
scenes can be traced to gun sales in the US.
The problem is that 90% number isn't
true. Yet, that hasn't kept it from being picked up and used by
members of Congress, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and, of course,
Mexican officials like Ambassador Sarukhan who are eager to blame the US
for Mexico's problems.
Real Weapons Source:
The 90% number reported by Hoover came
from a small group of weapons turned over to the U.S. for tracing, but
they were by no means all of the weapons seized by Mexican authorities.
A spokesman for the ATFE, Matt Allen, has now "clarified" the number and
admitted that only 17% of the weapons found at crime scenes in Mexico
have been traced to the U.S. Ironically, while Mexican officials
have freely used the 90% number from the ATFE, they have not themselves
made such a charge based on their own numbers. The truth is, they
We can easily understand Mexico's reasons for preferring
the 90% number to the more accurate 17%. Mexico does not want to
openly discuss the many other sources of advanced weapons being used by
the drug cartels. Thousands of advanced weapons and tons of
military equipment are stolen from its own military and state police.
Weapons are smuggled across its southern borders from Guatemala and by
boats landing on its 8,000 miles of coastline, weapons that often
originate in Venezuela, Colombia, and Nicaragua, or from purchases in
Eastern Europe. But it is easier for a Mexican politician to blame
the U.S. than to explain his own government's failure to police its
borders, its ports of entry and its military installations.
Did the Mexican
ambassador mention that over 100,000 soldiers have deserted the Mexican
army in the past seven years and that many of them took their weapons
with them and joined the cartels?
here . . .
Update: Ron Polarik,
observes that whether it's drug cartels, the Army, or the local
Politsia, Mexico gets the vast majority of its guns from countries
other than the United States.
Care to bet which country supplies the most arms to
Latin America? (HINT: Not the US. Not
Percentage of Supplier Deliveries
Value by Region, 2000-2007 -- Source:
U. S. Government
|Liar, Liar Pants On Fire
|The "liar, liar pants on
fire" argument usually isn't the most effective. But when it comes to
guns, Obama is
lying through his teeth.
while on a visit to Mexico, Obama continued his Blame America
First tour. "This war is being waged with guns purchased not here but in
the United States," he said, referring to the drug wars that are tearing
apart our neighbor to the south. "More than 90 percent of the guns
recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops
that lay in our shared border."
It is completely untrue that 90
percent of guns recovered in Mexico are from America. The Mexican
government separates guns it confiscates that were made in the United
States and sends them here to be traced. U.S. weapons are easy to
identify because of clear markings.
Of the ones sent here to be
traced, 90 percent turn out to be from America, but most guns recovered
in Mexico are not sent here so are not included in the count. Fox News
reported that 17 percent is a more accurate number.
The New York
Times, CNN and numerous networks continue to repeat the 90 percent
figure with no reporting to back it up. The hysteria is used to create
the notion that a major problem exists with American guns -- and Obama is anxious to step in to solve that problem with a $400 million
program to stop U.S. guns from going to Mexico. That initiative would
include clampdowns on U.S. gun shops.
It is ridiculous for Mr.
Obama to blame Mexico's lawlessness on Americans as if the longstanding
corruption of Mexican elected officials, judges and law-enforcement
officers has nothing to do with it.
Copyright Beckwith 2010
All right reserved