This past March, Army Master Sgt. C.J. Grisham was arrested by Temple, TX police for "rudely displaying" his firearm. During the arrest, Grisham had his son record the incident on his video camera. The video has gone viral and has garnered millions of views. Grisham is suing the police department and has been quite outspoken about his experience.
Conversely, as outspoken as Grisham has been, the Police Chief - Gary Smith - has been silent on the matter, which has been increasingly counter-productive. As the video of the incident continued to pick up momentum, Smith's silence has only seemed to add fuel to that momentum.
It appears that the Temple Police Department has another situation to deal with on the eve of an event that is scheduled to take place outside the Police station on June 1st that is partially in response to Grisham's arrest. Before we get to the event, have a look at an article from the Temple Daily Telegram (h/t Lynn Woolley). Police allegedly arrested a teen at Wal-Mart for a theft he wasn't involved in and proceeded to break his collar bone, possibly after using the teen's body to wipe up the floor after he spit in front of them.
What's more is that the police report of the arrest was not available for review as of May 24th. The Telegram reporter was told she would have to wait until Tuesday, May 28th to get an account of what took place.
Article from the Temple Daily Telegram
Two things here.
Unless the teen was concerned for his girlfriend's safety, he probably shouldn't have gone into the store to see an arrest.
If he spit on the floor as a show of disrespect to police, also not a good thing and he shouldn't have done it, even if the Police did as has been reported. If, however, he spit on the floor because of something physiological in response to being roughed up, that's a different story.
Nonetheless, it would seem the police have another problem on their hands. As was the case with Grisham, clamming up is proving counter-productive; it almost makes it seem like TPD is exercising its own Miranda rights.
As for that June 1st event, it would seem that unless the TPD gets out in front of the Wal-Mart arrest and is more forthcoming than it's been over the Grisham matter, it will only be fueling the event.
We will be gathering for a legal armed open carry march to raise public awareness of gun laws in Texas. It is partially in response to the Temple Police Department violating the Second and Fourth Amendment rights of Active Duty MSGT Christopher J. Grisham HERE. Please join us all. We will be exercising our rights as free men and women. Be part of the solution. All permits and armed march route has been approved and coordinated with the city and local authorities. Come out for music, great speakers, food and a march around the police station and town square.
When: June 1st
Where: Temple, TX
Venue: Community Market 212 S. Main St.
Time: 10:00am-4:00pm
Here is video of Grisham's encounter with the Temple Police in March:
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:
There are many reasons to like Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). First and foremost, the Sarah Palin effect, which is that the more a political figure is ridiculed by the mainstream media and the left, the more that political figure should be supported by conservatives. The second indicator is when RINOs like John McCain calls you a 'wackobird'.
There is another reason that comes across in this video from Freedom Works and it has to do with the ability to inspire and encourage.
Right out of the gate, Cruz doesn't just tell the audience what he knows they want to hear - that they are 'winning' - but he does it in such a way that it's believable. He then proceeds to make the case by citing what happened in the recent gun control debate. The story he relays from a Senatorial luncheon is classic and has John 'wacko bird' McCain written all over it.
Look, the Tea Party in particular and the conservatives in general started becoming demoralized and a bit more crestfallen each day it became more apparent that Mitt Romney was going to be the Republican nominee. Rock bottom was hit on election night. Establishment Republicans in office began caving to the Obama agenda almost immediately. Conservatives were so de-energized that they did little more than watch in disgust.
If there has been a consistent theme among conservatives since the election - perhaps even since the 2010 mid-terms - it's been disgust over the Republican Party's willingness to admit the truth and fight the Obama agenda.
Ironically, Cruz said establishment guys who wanted to cave in to the gun control push, yelled at him for not going along with the program. It's a self-evident truth that such political hacks are more comfortable yelling at a principled member of their own caucus than they are at our "Muslim socialist" president.
By the way, those aren't my words; they're Obama's:
Regular visitors to this blog know that I've been calling for gun rights advocates to go on a counter-offensive with the gun grabbers, instead of playing defense all the time. The best way to do that is to contrast the exploitation of Sandy Hook by the Obama administration with how it handled Operation Fast and Furious.
Practically every point, argument, and position taken by Obama's media ventriloquist dummies can be responded to with a Fast and Furious reference.
Selling guns to bad guys: You want to talk selling guns to bad guys? In Fast and Furious, Obama's ATF didn't allow gun store owners to sell to bad guys; they ORDERED them to.
Background checks: You want to talk background checks? How about the gun store owners who didn't want to sell to straw purchasers they knew were going to walk guns into Mexico? It was Obama's ATF that insisted those gun store owners make the sales despite background checks that told them not to.
Murder: You want to talk about guns being used to murder people? How about the straw purchasers mentioned above, giving those guns to Mexican drug cartels who have used those guns to murder hundreds of Mexicans and at least one American border patrol agent? All with the approval and mandate of the ATF.
Banning assault weapons: You want to talk about banning assault weapons? Why did the ATF allow thousands of assault weapons (AK-47s and .50 Cal.) to be placed into the hands of the most violent cartels on earth?
Shutting down gun stores: You want to talk about shutting down operations? How about leaving the responsible gun store owners, who didn't want to sell weapons to bad guys, alone and shutting down the ATF, which mandated those gun store owners sell those weapons to bad guys?
Gun Trafficking: You want to talk about gun trafficking? How about the ATF - after mandating that gun store owners sell to bad guys - looking the other way as those bad guys not only trafficked weapons out of the country but gave them to hardened criminals whom they knew would murder innocent people with them.
In this clip below (fast forward to the 6:18 mark), Nugent hits Burnett with a question about stopping gun traffickers. Burnett, predictably agrees right before Nugent asks her if she thinks Attorney General Eric Holder should be arrested for... gun trafficking.
Burnett's reaction tells the whole story. She was rendered speechless.
If the gun rights crowd wants to win this debate, it must make these arguments. Hopefully, this is the first instance of many.
It looks like House Speaker John Boehner may be paving the way for two of his biggest caves - on gun control and on immigration. If he does, it will mean that he will essentially be throwing in with the Democrats at the expense of a majority of his own caucus. It will be a colossal betrayal. We're talking Benedict Arnold type betrayal.
It would also make him a bald-faced busted... liar.
The 'Hastert Rule', named after Boehner's Republican predecessor Dennis Hastert, says that no bill will get a vote unless it has the support of a majority of the caucus. The Toomey-Manchin gun control legislation would not garner a majority of the caucus, which should make it DOA because Boehner has supported the Hastert Rule, though only when it seems to suit him, which doesn't seem to apply with the Toomey-Manchin bill.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) signaled Thursday that he may continue to bypass a House Republican rule that has required any legislation being voted upon to have the support of a majority of the GOP conference.
Boehner has flouted the so-called “Hastert Rule” — named for former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) — on a few pieces of key legislation so far this year, which hasn’t sat well with some conservatives.
He said at a news conference Thursday that he will continue to try and follow it in spirit, but also suggested he might well violate it for upcoming votes on guns, immigration and the budget.
“Listen: It was never a rule to begin with,” Boehner said. “And certainly my prerogative – my intention is to always pass bills with strong Republican support.”
Boehner in early March sought to reassure his conference that the rule would continue to be regular practice, but he broke it again earlier this week.
A common theme - demonstrated by Toomey - is that Republicans are incapable of presenting a united front on important matters. There always seems to be just the right number of votes from their caucus to give the Democrats what they want. In this case, if Boehner breaks the Hastert Rule on gun control, it will mean he knows the legislation will pass with a Democratic minority, coupled with a few Republican peel-aways. It will make Boehner a traitor to his party but more important, a traitor to the Constitution in general and its second amendment in particular.
On another huge issue to conservatives, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) more than just slightly rankled the right wing of his party when he became one of the 'gang of eight' and joined with the likes of Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), John McCain (R-AZ), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on immigration reform (amnesty). The left will display photos of Rubio standing with them at a podium for years to come.
What Rubio didn't seem to understand or care about was that nothing - absolutely nothing - good could come out of his joining with those Senators.
Now, Boehner is hinting that he will betray conservatives on another promise. That promise is that he would honor regular order, which in the case of the monstrosity that is the immigration bill, is all that more important. Like the 2009 stimulus bill and the 2010 Obamacare bill, page numbers end with four digits.
According to a recent Politico report, Boehner is seriously considering abandoning regular order to rush through immigration reform. Regular orders is the process by which a bill is supposed to come up through the respective committees of jurisdiction and allow members of those committees to offer amendments, an open and transparent process that then is supposed to continue on the House floor.
“The GOP is also mulling skipping the committee process and instead having lengthy discussions among Republicans to work out the legislation’s kinks,” Politico’s Jake Sherman wrote in the report. “This would allow leading conservatives who are crafting the deal with Democrats to explain the policy. That seems to be the preferred path, according to conversations with several GOP aides.”
Ain't that something. With that as a potential reality, it would mean that Boehner only feigned outrage when he slammed down the 1100 page Stimulus bill in 2009 because, for one thing, it was being rammed through without consideration for... wait for it... regular order:
Ah, the tale of two Boehners. First, the tough-talking Boehner can adequately express outrage when he has no power. Since becoming Speaker, he's rarely expressed even a modicum of that kind of indignation. Now that Boehner is in the majority and holding the gavel, he's just might be willing to do with a 1500 page immigration bill what he was so adamantly against being done with an 1100 page stimulus bill.
This would make him a liar in addition to being a weak leader. Apparently, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) agrees.
Democratic politicians should be recognized for one thing; they hardly ever break ranks. United fronts abound. Perhaps one of the best examples is the Senate vote on Bill Clinton's impeachment. Not one Democrat voted to remove him from office. It worked for them then and it's a strategy they've replicated many times over since.
Republicans, on the other hand, are behaving as if they want to lose the 2014 mid-terms because - as a group - they're incapable of standing on principle and are walking all over themselves to hand the Democrats victory after victory.
In 2010, the Obamacare debacle was crammed down the throats of the American people but not before an alleged 'pro-life' Democratic congressman named Bart Stupack (D-MI) sold out. If you remember, the House version of the bill had a provisions in it that prohibited funding for abortion. That provision did not pass in the Senate's version.
The final vote was extremely contentious and arm-twisting was in no short supply. Even then, the Stupak dozen was the only thing that stood in the way of passage. Then, Stupak caved and settled for a meaningless Executive Order from Barack Obama that guaranteed no funding for abortion in the bill. In short, Stupak sold out to Obama.
Pro-life Democrats had been "Stupaked" and Obamacare became law.
In 2010, Stupak resigned; he did not seek reelection; The Tea Party helped get a Republican to replace him. Something else happened in 2010. The Tea Party got behind Pat Toomey to replace RINO Senator Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. By all accounts, Toomey was a true conservative and had an "A" rating from the NRA. The Tea Party wave swept Toomey into office after Specter was so far behind in the polls that he switched over to the Democratic Party, where he thought he had a better chance of winning.
In 2012, Stupak expressed regret for what honest people would say was a betrayal.
Toomey apparently didn't learn the right lesson from Stupak because he has betrayed the gun rights crowd. Period.
Here in 2013, less than six months after the Sandy Hook shootings, several conservative Republican Senators had threatened to filibuster any bill that came to the floor. It would be Rand Paul times ten. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), and others pledged to join in. For once, it appeared that Republicans were going to stand united and go to the mat with the Democrats on something important.
All they had to do was stick to their principles and stand united. In fact, during such a filibuster, one of the Senators would likely stumble upon the contrast between how the Obama administration handled operation Fast and Furious and how it is exploiting Sandy Hook. It would be a tremendous opportunity to expose the administration. Perhaps that is why a filibuster would be so undesired by the Obama.
This is where Toomey appears to have channeled Bart Stupak. He came to a deal with Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), a supposed pro-second amendment Democrat, on expanding background checks. A consequence of this deal is that the filibuster may be prevented. That Manchin caved to pressure is not surprising. That Toomey did very much is. He's not only a Republican. He was supposed to be a conservative Tea Party Republican who took a lot of money from the NRA in 2010 to get elected, in much the same way that Stupak accepted the support of pro-life Democrats
The NRA is also not satisfied with the Toomey / Manchin bill.
Larry Pratt, the Executive Director at Gun Owners of America (GOA) says Toomey has "betrayed" (Stupaked) his constituents. Pratt is now calling for Toomey to be primaried:
By the way, for those who don't see expanded background checks as a big step toward confiscation, check out this firsthand account about what happened in Canada:
In 2004, then Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) endorsed incumbent Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey. It was a contributing factor to Santorum's loss to Bob Casey in 2006. In 2010, the showdown between Toomey and Specter began anew. With Tea Party support, Toomey won.
Last month, during Rand Paul's now famous filibuster, Toomey was one of several Republican Senators who dined with Barack Obama as Paul ate candy bars.
Now, in what appears to be an effort to prevent a filibuster on gun control, Toomey and Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) have come together on a compromise bill. As news begins to trickle out, what initially seemed like an inexplicably bone-headed decision by Toomey to reach across the aisle is now no less boneheaded but a little less inexplicable.
New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group announced Wednesday that it will stop running a negative television ad targeting Sen. Pat Toomey now that the Pennsylvania Republican has signed on to a proposal to expand background checks to gun show and online firearms purchases.
Mayors Against Illegal Guns had been hammering Toomey, a junior senator with an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, with negative ads in Keystone State. But his latest proposal, which he is co-sponsoring with West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, has Bloomberg and company singing a different tune.
The coalition’s initial negative ad featured an urgent-voiced narrator who said, “Tell Senator Toomey, don’t protect criminals…Demand action now,” and displayed Toomey’s office phone number. Now the coalition is running a positive ad praising Toomey.
At first blush, it would seem that Toomey could be selling out the second amendment in the interest of getting re-elected.
There is so much wrong with John McCain and much of it is on full display in this clip of his appearance on CBS's Face the Nation with Chuck Schumer. For starters, McCain obviously didn't learn anything from the backlash he received after calling Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, et. al. 'wacko birds' for Paul's filibuster.
Now, with several Republican Senators pledging to filibuster any gun control bill, McCain is apoplectic and does not 'understand' why they would filibuster. It also says something about McCain that he is more comfortable around someone like Schumer than he is around someone like Cruz.
At another point during this clip, McCain says something about everyone wanting to achieve the same objective. That is a completely incorrect statement. The Democrats want gun confiscation and conservatives want their second amendment rights protected.
McCain is clueless and should just become a Democrat. Period.
Also noteworthy - and instructive as to why McCain is such a sycophant with socialists - comes at the end of this clip. Host Bob Schieffer heaps praise on both Schumer and McCain for their civil discourse, which only serves to reinforce McCain's paradigm that he's "above the fray" and better than those 'wacko birds'.
As for McCain being wrong, this clip from October of 2008 says it all:
The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) was found to be responsible for telling gun store owners in Arizona to sell high capacity, semi-automatic weapons (AK-47's and .50 Cal) to straw purchasers, whom they knew would 'walk' those guns into Mexico. Those thousands of guns were placed into the hands of drug cartels who proceeded to murder hundreds of Mexicans and at least one Border Patrol agent (Brian Terry).
Now, that same ATF is has shut down a gun store that sold weapons to the mother of Newtown shooter Adam Lanza.
The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms said on Friday it had revoked the federal license of a Connecticut gun retailer that sold a weapon to the mother of Adam Lanza, who killed 26 people at an elementary school in December.
The agency on December 20 revoked the license of Riverview Gun Sales in East Windsor, Connecticut, ATF spokeswoman Debora Seifert said. The revocation was reported in The Journal News, of Westchester County, New York, on Friday.
"We did revoke their federal firearms license," she said. The agency did not publicly disclose a reason for the closure.
A woman who answered the telephone at Riverview on Friday, and did not give her name, confirmed the store had sold a weapon to Lanza's mother, Nancy, and that its license had been revoked. She declined further comment.
This may just be one of the most boldly audacious and outrageous moves by the Feds in some time. In operation Fast and Furious, the ATF has the blood of hundreds of Mexicans on its hands for telling gun store owners to sell weapons to buyers it knew would give them to drug cartels. Yet, no one at ATF has paid any real price. Now, the same ATF is shutting down a gun store that did nothing illegal?!?!
I sent the following email to Rep. Darrell Issa's press secretary, Becca Watkins:
Becca, where are you guys on this????
Without explanation, the ATF shuts down gun shop that sold guns to Adam Lanza's mother. Yet, the ATF FREAKIN' TOLD GUN STORES to sell to straw purchasers who put thousands of guns into the hands of cartels, who then proceeded to murder hundreds of Mexcians!!!
Where is Chairman Issa??????
Is he still there????
Issa is head of the House Oversight Committee and knows as much as anyone about what went on in Fast and Furious.
When Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) wrote to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano, demanding to know why DHS is buying such tremendous amounts of ammunition, a DHS Assistant Secretary wrote back, in part, the following:
"DHS routinely establishes strategic sourcing contracts that combine the requirements of all its Components for commonly purchased goods and services such as ammunition, computer equipment and information technology services. These strategic sourcing contracts help leverage the purchasing power of DHS to efficiently procure equipment and supplies at significantly lower costs."
Once you get past the absurd notion that the federal government has a frugal bone in its collectively bureaucratic body, you know this excerpt from an Obama campaign speech in 2008 makes far more sense:
With his March 28th press release, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) came closer than anyone in Congress, to rebuking Obama's exploitation of Sandy Hook by pointing to Operation Fast and Furious. Though he didn't name it specifically or highlight the most relevant contrast, he gets very close (hits on the year it was at its height - 2010 - as well as criminals buying guns). In fact, if Senators Cruz, Paul, Lee, et. al. follow through on their filibuster threat and begin hammering on that contrast, it could be devastating for the Democrats in general and Obama in particular.
In any conversation about how to prevent future tragedies such as Sandy Hook, our focus should be on stopping criminals from obtaining guns. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has failed to make this a priority — in 2010, out of more than 15,700 fugitives and felons who tried to illegally purchase a firearm, the Obama Justice Department prosecuted only 44. That is unacceptable.
It is saddening to see the President today, once again, try to take advantage of this tragic murder to promote an agenda that will do nothing to stop violent crime, but will undermine the constitutional rights of all law-abiding Americans. I am committed to working with Sens. Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, and Jim Inhofe--and I hope many other colleagues--to use any procedural means necessary to protect those fundamental rights.
In response to that press release in my inbox, I sent the following email to Cruz's press office:
Nice release.
Obama never did presser with the families of Fast and Furious victims (hundreds of Mexicans / Brian Terry) standing behind him.
Why? Because Fast and Furious was his administration's fault.
Would love to see this point hammered home during the upcoming filibuster.
Here is one of Obama's most shameless and despicable acts - exploiting Sandy Hook by pushing for gun control with the parents of shooting victims standing behind him. I couldn't even watch the whole thing. More power to you if you can make it to the end.
In the immediate aftermath of the near fatal shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) on January 8, 2011, there were news outlets that erroneously reported she had died. Now, more than two years later, Joe Biden has made the same mistake, saying that Giffords was "mortally wounded" on that day.
A mortal wound is a very severe and serious injury (almost always a form of penetration or laceration) whether accidental or inflicted intentionally (by either suicide or homicide), which leads directly to the death of the victim.
Mark Kelly, the husband of former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), has made quite a name for himself as an anti-gun advocate. Since his wife was shot in the head by Jared Loughner on January 8, 2011 Kelly has lent his face and voice to the anti-second amendment crowd. He has aptly served the Obama gun-control agenda in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings.
Several weeks ago, Kelly testified before Congress and seemed to single out semi-automatic rifles for ridicule for what they do to innocent human beings:
That doesn't seem to square with what Kelly did in following weeks, on March 5th; he purchased an AR-15. Thanks to a timeline, Breitbart's reporting seemed to indicate that once Kelly learned that his purchase of a semi-automatic rifle, along with high capacity magazines, began making the rounds, the husband of the former congresswoman changed his tune and posted the following on facebook:
I just had a background check a few days ago when I went to my local gun store to buy a .45. As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15. Bought that too. Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes. I don't have possession of it yet but I'll be turning it over to the Tucson PD when I do.
Now, let's get on over to the issue of straw purchasing, which was a major component in Fast and Furious. Straw purchasing occurs when the person who buys the gun intends to give or sell said gun to a third party.
While the idea that Gabrielle Giffords' husband buying an AR-15 may represent irony and hypocrisy in spades, the straw purchasing charge may be a bit of a leap. Yes, Kelly signed a form that said he was purchasing the gun for himself and then later posted that he was going to turn it over to someone else but that "someone else" was the Tucson Police.
Far be it from me to speculate but here's my best guess at what went down.
Mark Kelly is taking the anti-gun positions not because he necessarily believes them but because he's become a political pawn and the pressure is overwhelming. On March 5th, he went to the store to purchase an AR-15 with the intent of arming himself. Once he realized that he'd been busted in a moment of palpable hypocrisy, he attempted to cover his tracks by justifying his purchase.
Sorry, Mark.
You've been busted and should start having as much courage on this as you did when you were launched into space.
Astronauts are not supposed to be cowards, political or otherwise.
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.
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:
Perhaps there has been no greater deception in America than the whitewash of the Democratic Party's very racist history, to include the formation of the KKK in the 1800's. One of the actions of the KKK was to prevent any and all blacks from owning guns. Go figure. It's the Democratic Party of today that wants to usurp the second amendment.
Those who say the Democratic Party of old is the Republican Party of today (that the two parties essentially switched roles) are simply contributing to the whitewash. Woodrow Wilson had a close friend named Thomas Dixon, who wrote a stage play called The Clansman, which was very pro-KKK. It was later made into a movie that became the first film shown in the White House (Wilson invited Dixon to show it).
In addition to another presidential hero of the progressive movement - Franklin Delano Roosevelt - later giving Dixon a job in a U.S. Court as a clerk in 1938, the 32nd President also appointed KKK member Hugo Black to the Supreme Court.
Less than one month ago, Dr. Ben Carson's stock with conservatives shot into the stratosphere after a thirty minute speech at the Washington Prayer Breakfast. Never before had someone so eloquently and politely embarrassed Barack Obama while sharing the same room. I remember pumping my fist a few times while watching that speech. Conservatives began to entertain the idea that Carson would be presidential material in 2016.
Now, er not so much. In fact, the degree to which Carson seems to have diluted and convoluted his message is more than just a little vexing. It's as if he doesn't want conservative support.
My antennae first went up with Carson back on February 17th during his appearance on ABC This Week, just ten days after his speech. Take note beginning at the 1:45 mark, when Carson says we need to 'tone down the rhetoric' and 'discuss things in a reasonable and rational way'. He then advocates for both sides coming together rather than 'one side or the other side winning'.
Exhibit A (strike 1):
Does this mean Carson believes Capitalists can compromise with Marxists? Because of how well Carson did at the prayer breakfast, he seemed to receive a bit of a pass there but conservatives are a little hypersensitive whenever the 'both sides need to come together' rhetoric starts. Such thinking includes a premise that says both sides are equally to blame. That is a false premise indeed. Anecdotally, just look at how Obama ran his presidential campaign compared to how Romney ran his. Obama's campaign lied about Romney being a murderer and a felon while Romney's campaign wouldn't tell the truth about Obama - that he's a socialist.
Here is Exhibit B (strike 2).
It occurred on the Andrea Tantaros show. During the interview, the topic of CPAC came up. Specifically, the group's decision to exclude New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and GOProud - the largest conservative homosexual group - from speaking at the event was discussed. After talking about the cultural underpinnings of our society, Carson bemoaned the exclusion of Christie and GOProud. Take note at the 3:00 mark. This is where Carson alienates social conservatives while championing fiscal conservatism.
Then, at about the 4:47 mark, Carson utters words that conservatives are simply loathe to hear:
"You need to make the tent as big as you possibly can."
Ah, the hypocrisy of the big tenters... They always seem to bemoan the alienation of groups that are socially liberal but never seem to care about alienating social conservatives.
In Exhibit C (big fat strike 3), we find Carson with a fork stuck in him.
During an interview with Glenn Beck, the talk show host asks Carson about the second amendment and whether people like Beck should be allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon. Carson's answer is so ridiculous, you just have to see it for yourself.
It truly is amazing that people who sit on school boards like the one this woman completely shredded, can be as intellectually vacant as they are when it comes to understanding the history of gun control.
Nonetheless, retired New Jersey substitute teacher Carole Moore issued a thorough public spanking of her school board.
The maddening double standard relative to the Obama administration's push for control, coupled with its silence when it comes to the off-the-chart recklessness of its own ATF just continues unabated, in large part because no one of real consequence is calling them on it. If you remember the story about the ATF's keystone cops exercise in Milwaukee a few months ago, one of the several deadly circus acts involved a machine gun being stolen from an ATF vehicle.
Various congressmen - including Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) - has been attempting to get answers. Unlike the administration's non-stop verbal exploitation of Sandy Hook, answers about the ATF operation in Milwaukee (Fast and Furious too, for that matter) are nowhere to be found.
Several members of Congress, from both parties, have demanded answers from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives regarding a series of foul-ups in an undercover ATF sting in Milwaukee, exposed in a Journal Sentinel investigation.
So far they have not heard much. In a letter, the congressional members set a deadline for response for Thursday, Feb. 14. A check with several of the congressional offices indicated no response was provided, other than for the agency to acknowledge the letter was received and they are working on it.
The ATF is conducting a "top to bottom" review of the operation, an agency spokesman said last week. ATF did not respond to a call for comment Thursday.
Here is a link to that letter, which required a response by February 14th.
One day before that deadline, Sensenbrenner published an op-ed that said, in part (commentary on what I have bolded and underlined to follow):
Beyond "Fast and Furious" and the recent Milwaukee sting, ATF has had a rocky history. In 2006, ATF Director Carl Truscott resigned due to lavish spending, ethical violations, and questionable treatment of employees. The ATF needs an accountable, Senate-confirmed head just like the other law enforcement agencies under the Department of Justice.
The Obama Administration wants to pass new gun laws and give new responsibilities to the ATF, but the agency has been inept at enforcing the laws that we already have. The agency should have rigorous oversight of their operations, but the recent reports indicate the opposite is true. I look forward to hearing back from the ATF. We need to get answers on the botched Milwaukee operation with the goal of preventing other debacles in the future.
Identifying Fast and Furious as being part of a 'rocky history' is quite pathetic. Fast and Furious was a murderous operation intended to create the climate for gun control in the same way that Sandy Hook has been exploited by the administration.
The second part there is particularly weak on Sensenbrenner's part. Instead of talking about ATF's ineptitude with respect to enforcing existing gun laws, the congressman should be pointing out the blood on its hands as a result of Fast and Furious while contrasting the administration's gun control push based on the actions of a lone gunman in Connecticut.
No wonder the ATF doesn't feel like it has to answer Sensenbrenner. He doesn't seem too interested in going to the mat with them.
The Mexican government is now officially in on it, folks. Yes, suspicions were raised over that government's relative silence about Operation Fast and Furious as the scandal unfolded for nearly two years but now that Mexican politicians are lobbying the U.S. Senate to create a gun registry in states that border Mexico, it's confirmed.
In this local news report from a CBS affiliate in Arizona, citizens who were interviewed about this attempt by Mexican lawmakers to create a gun registry in the U.S. brought up Fast and Furious when asked for their take.
The mask is off Mexico's leaders, whether we're talking about those who didn't stand up when Fast and Furious was exposed or those who are now getting behind Obama's gun control / registration / confiscation push.
In Fast and Furious, the ATF instructed gun store owners in 'border states' - despite the objections of those gun store owners - to sell high powered rifles (AK-47's and .50 Cal.) to straw purchasers who they knew would walk those thousands of weapons to Mexican drug cartels. Those guns were used - and continue to be used - in the commission of countless murders. The Mexican government was all but silent as a dastardly plan by high ranking members of the Obama administration was implemented in an attempt to create the climate for gun control.
It didn't work and Sandy Hook is Plan B but it's not just the Obama administration who is implementing it. The Mexican government is playing along.
Let's go back to March 24, 2009. A lot happened on that day. First, here is Obama at a news conference telling the press that the situation with regard to guns from the U.S. going to Mexican drug cartels is 'out of control'. What would transpire over the next several months involved an agency under the purview of Obama's Justice Department intentionally making that situation much worse:
Also on March 24, 2009... Deputy Attorney General David Ogden expounds on the same subject and even made reference to 'Project Gunrunner', the larger umbrella term for Fast and Furious:
Oh, and let's not forget DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano on March 24, 2009 talking about the same subject. Notice how she talks about 'prosecuting' gun dealers who sell to bad guys. If Fast and Furious hadn't blown up in the administration's face, would the DOJ have prosecuted gun dealers who objected but who were told by the ATF to sell anyway? Napolitano starts around the 2:00 mark:
Here is Obama in April of 2009, shortly after Fast and Furious was put into motion. Notice the message. Innocent Mexicans were being murdered at the hands of guns purchased in the U.S. and something had to be done. Little did we know that the something involved the ATF accelerating the practice of sending guns to Mexico. Why? Well, to create the climate for gun control that would involve things like gun registries in border states:
Two years later, on March 3, 2011 - during a joint press conference at the White House with Obama and Mexico's president Felipe Calderon - the subject of gun violence in Mexico was discussed. Remember, the Obama administration was on defense at the time because of Fast and Furious so there was no aggressive push for gun control. All the two men could do was nibble around the edges. Here is a quote from Calderon, which takes place around the 32:00 mark:
"...with respect to the actions foreign agents in the Mexican land. The law does not allow agents of the United States or any other country to take part in tasks involving justice enforcement in our territory. As a result, they cannot carry weapons or undertake operational tasks. Their functions in line with our treaties are limited to the exchange of information and technical assistance to support Mexican authorities in these tasks... it's very clear for me as well that we must find a way of enhancing the level of protection of any and all agents who are acting within the framework of the law against crime and of course we are deeply analyzing alternatives for this and in dialogue with the Mexican Congress, who is the party who has the final say on this matter."
One of the things we learned in the wake of Fast and Furious is that the ATF was essentially sending high powered weapons to drug cartels without the Mexican government's knowledge. Yet, the Obama administration seemed to get a pass with the Mexican government while the American people are NOT getting a pass from the Mexican government, relative to something they had nothing to do with - Sandy Hook.
At that same March 3, 2011 press conference - shortly after Calderon's aforementioned statement - a liberal, sycophantic, hispanic reporter stuck his nose firmly in Obama's... never mind and asked him why he didn't have the power to 'veto' the second amendment. Obama then proceeded to lie his face off in light of what we now know happened with Fast and Furious. He then laughably says his administration has 'seen progress' with respect to catching straw purchasers.
As the operation blew up in the face of the administration, Mexican leaders were all but silent and the Obama administration stonewalled. Now that Sandy Hook is replacing Fast and Furious as the trigger for gun control, Mexican officials are teaming up with the Obama administration in an attempt to do what Fast and Furious failed to do.
