Audio: Today's Podcast

On today's show...

* Why do conservative politicians partner with registered socialists?
* Upcoming Benghazi hearings (Hillary's spokesman implicated in coverup?)
* Why is there not more contrasting of Fast and Furious with Sandy Hook at NRA Convention?
* Update on Saudi prisoner in Colorado (renewed interest)?

Obama offers Fast and Furious opportunities to Conservatives at NRA Convention (So far, no takers)

On the same day that the 2013 NRA Convention began in Houston, TX Barack Obama was in Mexico telling an audience that "most of the guns used to commit violent crimes here in Mexico, come from the United States." What he didn't tell that audience was that his administration is responsible for Operation Fast and Furious, a program in which the ATF told reluctant gun store owners to sell high-powered guns to bad guys who would then 'walk' those guns to drug cartels in Mexico.

Yet, Republicans and gun rights activists have avoided bludgeoning those in the administration and on the Democratic side of the aisle by contrasting the exploitation of Sandy Hook with the failed attempt to exploit the consequences of Fast and Furious by pointing to its consequences. Those consequences have been - and continue to be - hundreds of murdered people. The Obama administration wanted to used those consequences to push gun control but couldn't because of whistleblowers in general, and one in particular - ATF Agent John Dodson.

Dodson came forward when one of the guns found at the murder scene of Border Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010 was a gun from Operation Fast and Furious. In 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress and Obama asserted Executive Privilege to prevent documents from coming forward that would reveal the truth about the operation.

Despite all of this, Obama presented every speaker at the NRA Convention with a golden opportunity to draw this contrast. To this point, no one has highlighted this contrast.

Said Obama on Friday, May 3rd, the first day of the NRA Convention:

"I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people that can save lives here in Mexico and back home in the United States... So we'll keep increasing the pressure on gun traffickers who bring illegal guns into Mexico. We'll keep putting these criminals where they belong - behind bars."

This is gall-dacity.



Despite this low-hanging fruit, even Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin have avoided contrasting Obama's exploitation of Sandy Hook with his failure to do so in Fast and Furious... because he got caught.

It's hard to explain why conservatives are avoiding the one argument that will deliver the most severe blow. They don't even use it when they're being taunted by Obama.

Makes. No. Sense.



Here is Cruz. Good speech but he also avoided Fast and Furious vs. Sandy Hook:

Audio: Today's Podcast

On Today's show...

The Rand Paul filibuster - why does CAIR, Van Jones, Cenk Uygur, and Code Pink support it??

Interview with Cliff Kincaid about explosive new development in Current TV sale to Al Jazeera.

And...

Dianne Feinstein must think she lives on the Planet of the Apes.



To download shows, go to the archives page.

Video: Dianne Feinstein, Fast and Furious, and the PlAneT oF the Apes

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, 'wacko bird' Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) literally attempted to make the argument that because high-capacity magazines are legal, so too is it "legal to hunt humans" because there are federal regulations that prohibit hunting ducks with 'more than three rounds'. This woman should seriously be institutionalized.

Once again, we have a gaping hole when it comes to the failure to introduce Operation Fast and Furious into the debate (shame on Republicans). If Feinstein's claim is that the sheer existence of high capacity magazines means it's legal to 'hunt humans', what does it mean that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) intentionally placed AK-47's and .50 Caliber rifles into the hands of Mexican drug cartels who 'hunt' and continue to 'hunt' humans with them.

For Feinstein's argument to make even a modicum of sense, she would have to apply it to the ATF and call for it to be disbanded because in reality, she's right and yet again, the Democrats communicate the truth best via projection.

When it came to the ATF, it WAS legal for them to 'hunt humans' by proxy (through the cartels). Evidence the fact that no one has paid any real consequence.

Anyway, here is Feinstein projecting the truth about the ATF onto the American people.

Via The Blaze:



All I can say is that if Feinstein lives in a world where it's 'legal to hunt humans', that world may just be the Planet of the Apes and in this metaphor, the corrupt, wicked Feds represent the apes:



Added irony is that the character who fought the apes was the future head of the NRA:

NRA President: Gun Control is Racist

Finally, some offense from the gun rights advocates. No matter what the gun control debate has been focusing on lately, it almost always involves gun rights proponents being on defense. Whether it's arguing in support of AR-15's for home defense or fending off the claims of gun control whackos who want confiscation, defenders of the second amendment never seem to go on offense.

That's what makes this video so refreshing. NRA President David Keene essentially says that gun control has its roots in racism.

Love it.

Via the Daily Caller:

Chris Christie's hypocrisy is bigger than he is

Does anyone remember the refreshingly bombastic Chris Christie who took on teachers unions and seemed to be a conservative hero during the height of the Tea Party? Yeah, it's not taxing on your short-term memory, is it? Those days almost can't be seen in the rearview mirror anymore.

The new Christie may be just as bombastic but he's become quite the Barack Obama sycophant. First, it was Hurricane Sandy and now it's the gun control debate in the wake of Sandy Hook. In the first video below, Christie responds to a question about an NRA ad. The ad highlights the fact that Obama's children are protected with armed security at their school while your children are left defenseless in theirs.

If the hypocrisy the New Jersey Governor demonstrated could be transformed into a tangible mass, it would dwarf him.

At the essence of each one of his points is an undercurrent view that the children of public officials are more important than the children of everyday Americans. In trying to rip the NRA, Christie ends up even further proving the point made in the ad.

First, he says the children of public officials don't have a "choice" when it comes to what their parents decided to do for a living. Uh, hey Governor, the parents of American children don't have a "choice" when it comes to sending their children to 'gun-free zones', which are inherently more dangerous because such things are as enticing to criminals as picnic baskets are to bears. The truth is that Obama's children are safer at school than any child in any school that is a 'gun-free zone'.

Christie then says, "the effects on their (children of public officals) lives is significant" while diminishing the "effects" on his own children's lives compared to Obama's children. By extension, we are to conclude that the "effects" on the children of parents who are not public officials is much less significant than the effects on Christie's children. Uh, hey Governor, do you have any idea what the effects of high unemployment are? At least you don't have to worry about that personally, nor do the children of most public officials.

Then, Christie says:

"The President doesn't have a choice and his children don't have a choice of whether they're going to be protected or not. The reality of our lives in American society don't lead to that... it's awful to bring public figures' children into the political debate. They don't deserve to be there."

Again, the Governor actually makes the point of the ad by missing it. PARENTS WHOSE CHILDREN ARE LEFT DEFENSELESS DON'T HAVE A CHOICE EITHER, MR. CHRISTIE.

Perhaps the cherry icing on top of Christie's hypocrisy cake is this quote:

"They've got real issues to debate on this topic. Get to the real issues. Don't be dragging people's children into this. It's wrong."

Either Governor hypocrite missed the egregiously bald-faced political theater when Barack Obama signed 23 Executive Orders with young children standing behind him OR Christie believes that it's ok to exploit children in the gun control debate as long as their parents are not public officials.

Over. The. Top.

Via MediaIte:



Here is the ad that Christie finds 'reprehensible':

Two No-Brainer arguments the Pro-Second Amendment crowd refuses to make

Let's get one thing straight. The left is responsible for politicizing the Sandy Hook shootings. That effort began almost immediately afterward. Rep. Jerrold Nadler even said Obama should 'exploit' the shootings and that the NRA is enabling 'mass murder'. With all that said, the pro-second amendment crowd has to fight back.

But they don't seem interested in going on offense.

There are currently two aspects to the growing gun control debate. One has to do with banning assault weapons and the other has to do with 'gun free zones'. The National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre chose to focus on the the latter and all but completely avoided the former. That was a mistake because it ignores a central component in the debate. If it can be made clear why assault weapons should be legal, it can be more easily made clear that 'gun free zones' must either cease to exist or be protected with armed security, which is what LaPierre is advocating.

The left is throwing hay makers in the gun control debate and the right is either throwing jabs or covering up. When gun control advocates question gun rights proponents about whether assault weapons should be available, the response inevitably involves something about the gun not being the problem and that the maniacs who use them irresponsibly is the problem.

The default position always seem to be tried and true platitudes: Guns don't kill people; people kill people. In the case of NRA's Wayne LaPierre, the takeaway line in his speech was:

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

It's a good line that happens to be true but it won't shift the debate or put the left on its heels, which is what needs to happen. Unless at least one of those two things happen, nothing will happen.

First up, how to shift the terms of the debate. The reason for the second amendment is either not understood or it is ignored by those who support gun control. Its purpose is not enunciated - though it is known - by those who oppose gun control.

When one takes the verbiage of the second amendment and couples it with verbiage found within the body of the Declaration of Independence, the true reason why assault weapons should not be banned is made clear.

AMENDMENT II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The reason for the second amendment can be found in the Declaration:

...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Our founding fathers wanted the citizenry to be armed so that it could defend itself from a tyrannical government. LaPierre knows this and so do gun rights advocates but they seem to be either incapable or unwilling to say it. Assault weapons aren't necessary for hunting or even for home defense but they would be necessary if the Government turned on its people. That forces want to take those weapons away at a time when corruption and wickedness in the U.S. Government is as high as its ever been, bold red flags should be raised.

Essentially, the only real argument in response to that from the gun control crowd is one that says there will never be any danger of the U.S. Government becoming tyrannical like King George was or that people who fear such a thing are being paranoid. That is a losing position. Any government can become tyrannical. In fact, most do.

Yet, the argument isn't made by the most prominent of second amendment advocates.

LaPierre focused on home protection from intruders but that is not an argument for the legality of assault weapons, which is what the other half of the debate which the left is focused on. The argument for assault weapons is the citizenry protecting itself from a repressive government. LaPierre didn't make that case.

That's how the debate could be shifted. As for putting the left on its heels, Operation Fast and Furious would do that. The Obama administration - along with the media - has stonewalled getting to the bottom of it. The ATF / DOJ didn't just send assault weapons to Mexican drug lords. The guns that were allowed to 'walk' across the border included .50 calibers, which are far more powerful than the assault weapons the left wants to see banned in the U.S.

After watching the second amendment come under attack, LaPierre gave a speech one week after the Sandy Hook shootings. What he didn't mention in that speech was the lack of media / left-wing outrage at the government-sanctioned, Fast and Furious, which is responsible for hundreds of deaths in Mexico.

Again, LaPierre knows the truth about that operation but he chose not to contrast it with what gun control advocates are doing in the wake of Sandy Hook.

LaPierre's speech is below; it starts shortly after the 1:00 mark. At about the 4:55 mark, some Code Pink whacko interrupts and holds a banner that says, 'NRA Killing our Kids'. Medea Benjamin, another Code Pink whacko who supported the 2010 Gaza flotilla does the same thing at around the 11:00 mark. Code Pink has been conspicuously absent over the last two years when it came to Fast and Furious.



Now for another example of a gun rights advocate in a position of power choosing not to enunciate a winning argument (relevant portion of exchange begins around the 10:00 mark). Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) was on with the Morning Joe crew and when the discussion turned to the subject of whether assault weapons should be banned, Huelskamp so twisted himself into pretzels that he ended up having to defend himself against charges from host Joe Scarborough that Huelskamp was accusing the host of politicizing the shootings. Fast forward to the 10:25 mark to watch Huelskamp tie his own hands behind his back.

At the 11:40 mark, Scarborough asks the congressman why Americans need assault weapons. Instead of explaining why the founding fathers wanted the citizenry to have the right to bear arms or throwing Fast and Furious right back into Scarborough's lap, Huelskamp - who is obviously championing a pro-Constitutional agenda - punts.

At the 12:40 mark, Scarborough even gave Huelskamp the chance to argue for the constitutionality of assault weapons being legal. Instead of saying WHY the second amendment allows for it, Huelskamp glosses over it and then argues that Sandy Hook should not be politicized. Scarborough takes offense and Huelskamp loses the argument because he didn't use the correct one.

In fact, by avoiding the argument that should have been made, Huelskamp actually made it worse for himself. As for the shootings being exploited by the left, Huelskamp should have pointed to Nadler as the perfect example. Instead, he let Scarborough control the debate.

h/t Breitbart:



Now, after watching that, have a look at this answer to a question at the Miss Universe Pageant by Miss Venezuela. She seemed to have the same problem Huelskamp did, though to a much greater and more obvious degree. The question was:

If you could make a new law, what would it be and why?

The question was potentially quite politically charged. If Miss Venezuela would have done what Carrie Prejean did and answered by giving her true beliefs on a social issue, for example, there would be a backlash she obviously didn't want - based on her response.

Instead, viewers were treated to an incoherent answer that included an obscure surfing reference.

Here's a transcript of her answer, via MediaIte:

“I think that any leys there are in Constitution or in life, are already made. I think that we should have, uh, a straight way to go in our similar, or, eh, in our lives as is this. For example, I’m a surfer, and I think that the best wave that I can take is the wave that I wait for it. So please do our only, eh, law that we can do. Thank you, Vegas!”

Enjoy.

Video: Darrell Issa's NRA Speech

There hasn't been much on the Fast and Furious front these days. When I sent an email to Rep. Darrell Issa's office inquiring as to why, I was sent this YouTube video of the Oversight Committee Chairman's speech at the NRA convention last week.

Here is a quote from it:

“The investigation of Operation Fast and Furious will not end until the full truth of fast and furious is exposed to every American, and that senior officials at the Department of Justice are held accountable, and yes, that includes Eric Holder.”—Congressman Darrell Issa

**UPDATE**

Here is a portion of my response to Issa's office after receiving the aforementioned video in response to my inquiry about why the Fast and Furious investigation has not been in the news much lately:

Two things:

1.) I very much hope so (that Issa will follow investigation to conclusion) but history is on the side of the skeptics (The fact that Eric Holder is Atty General at all proves this point) 

2.) As you know, this scandal implicates the top levels of the FBI, DHS, ICE, DEA, DOJ, ATF, the State Dept, and even the White House. The fact that Speaker Boehner has been virtually silent instead of presenting an open, transparent, forceful and united front with Rep. Issa is at best unfair on his part and at worst, suspicious.

Thanks for sending

Audio: Issa Says he Agrees with NRA Executive VP: Holder's Got to Go

Rep. Darrell Issa gave an interview to NRA News on the day he grilled Eric Holder over the Project Gunrunner scandal. At one point, the interviewer brought up the comments of NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre on April 30th in Pittsburgh at the annual NRA Convention. Issa was asked to respond to LaPierre's assertion that if Holder didn't know about Fast and Furious, he needs to resign. The first three words of Issa's response were 'Wayne was right.' We can parse words and say Issa agreed with LaPierre's contention that Holder should have known but the congressman goes on to forcefully make the same argument LaPierre did.

It's becoming obvious too, that this investigation seems to be moving away from ATF and toward the Justice Department. Some people extremely close to Holder knew about this.



h/t to Sipsey Street

Video: NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre calls for Resignation of Eric Holder

The Project Gunrunner scandal really is huge, but it's still under the surface. Some have said it's too complicated for people to latch onto but it's really not. Our government intentionally let guns be put in the hands of Mexican drug cartels and those guns were used to kill innocent people, including Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. The reasons behind WHY our government did this involve gun control. The ATF has been stonewalling incessantly as Rep. Darrell Issa and Senator Chuck Grassley have been demanding documents to no avail.

It's time to add the NRA to the list of entities that are engaged on this issue. In Pittsburgh, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre called for the resignation of Eric Holder, whose Department of Justice oversees the agency - ATF - that has been leading this operation.

Via POLITICO:

PITTSBURGH—The National Rifle Association’s CEO Saturday said Attorney General Eric Holder should step down for allowing an operation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to occur on his watch that involved the sale of guns to suspicious customers with ties to Mexican drug cartels.

The ATF allegedly encouraged gun dealers to sell multiple firearms to known and suspected criminals as part of a broader sting operation to crack down on gunrunning. In a speech to thousands of gun activists here, NRA chief Wayne LaPierre said two assault rifles that the ATF “let walk” were found at the crime scene where a border patrol agent was gunned down in December.

“Operation Fast and Furious may have gotten one or perhaps two federal agents killed, and countless other innocent victims have been murdered with the illegal guns that our own government allowed into Mexico all to advance a political agenda,” he said.

The degree to which LaPierre and the NRA are willing to back up this rhetoric with action by putting consistent pressure on Congress, remains to be seen but the words ring true here. Holder is pleading ignorance while he stonewalls. The problem is if he knew about the operation, he should be removed from his position; if he didn't know about the operation, he was derelict and should be removed from his position.

If Holder authorized Operation Fast and Furious, which was part of the larger Project Gunrunner, he should also face serious criminal charges.