Publicado: 01-05-2012 07:44 PM
Obama’s plan to steal the election of 2012
Flopping Aces ^ | 01-05-11 | DrJohn
Or, why Eric Holder will remain in office until 2013 at least.
A pair of articles from the Washington Times make clear that the White House has a plan for the 2012 election, and that is to guarantee victory for Obama regardless of the outcome of the vote. A large part of it depends on Eric Holder and his continual bastardization of the law.
The first comes from Robert Knightand his account of why democrats despise voter id laws:
Assistant AG Thomas Perez, the same official who terminated the Black Panther voter intimidation case, ordered South Carolina to stop enforcing its voter photo ID law. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson explained precisely why the law is necessary:
The state Department of Motor Vehicles audited a state Election Commission report that said 239,333 people were registered to vote but had no photo ID. The DMV found that 37,000 were deceased, more than 90,000 had moved to other states, and others had names not matched to IDs. That left only 27,000 people registered without a photo ID but who could vote by signing an affidavit as to their identity.
Contrary to left wing claims, requiring photo ID has not been shown to suppress voter ID:
A bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform in 2005 chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III found no evidence that requiring photo IDs would suppress the minority vote. The panel recommended a national photo ID system and a campaign to register voters.
The second article comes from Jeffrey Kuhner. Against the backdrop of the Carter/Baker report (of which Holder appears to be completely ignorant) Eric Holder plays the race card for South Carolina:
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. claims Jim Crow is returning. In a recent speech, Mr. Holder said that attempts by states to pass voter identification laws will disenfranchise minorities, rolling back the clock to the evil days of segregation. He said that a growing number of minorities fear that “the same disparities, divisions and problems” now afflict America as they did in 1965 prior to the Voting Rights Act. According to the Obama administration, our democracy is being threatened by racist Republicans. Hence, the Justice Department must prevent laws requiring a photo ID to vote from being enacted.
Holder's argument has no foothold in reality.
Kuhner points out that Holder’s real problem is that photo ID laws will impair ACORN’s ability to conduct fraud:
Mr. Holder evidently wants to scuttle ID laws because he knows which organization will be hurt most: ACORN. For years, community activist groups, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, have engaged in massive electoral fraud – registering illegal aliens, offering bribes to numerous politically disinterested people in the inner cities as inducements to vote and pushing underage and multiple voting. Election reform, therefore, is a stake aimed at the heart of Democratic corruption and ACORN’s power. Clean up the voter rolls and Mr. Obama’s re-election is in serious jeopardy.
Free photo ID cards are made available to anyone who needs one in South Carolina as are absentee votes for those who would trouble getting to the polls. Additionally, in blocking the South Carolina law Holder runs afoul of stare decisis:
Moreover, the Supreme Court already has ruled on the issue – upholding state voter ID laws. In the 2008 Crawford v. Marion County Election Board decision, the high court held that an Indiana law mandating photo identification at the voting booth was indeed constitutional. If it is good enough for the Supreme Court and the overwhelming majority of the states, then it should be for Mr. Holder as well.
Holder claims that requiring a photo ID is tatamount to a poll tax but that is laughable:
“He has a particularly hard time explaining how the South Carolina requirement of government-issued photo identification amounts to a ‘poll tax’ when the state has also made provisions to provide that identification, free of charge. Hear that, Mr. Attorney General? The only thing the voter has to do is show up and get his or her photo taken. And if that’s too much darn trouble well, then, that person can do something else on election day.”
Why is too burdensome to show up and obtain a photo ID but not too burdensome to show up to vote?
The ducks are aligning in a row. Blocking the South Carolina law will allow ACORN and other left wing operations to run amuck with voter fraud. The problem is that election fraud is a Federal offense, and that’s where Holder becomes critical.
I fully expect no end to election chicanery on the part of the ACORN and the left, whether it involves “finding” lost votes as in Minnesota, printing out enough democrat ballots to guarantee a victory, forging signatures, or forging more signatures. I also expect that Holder would dismiss out of hand all claims beneficial to Obama and democrats and pursue only those in which the outcomes favored Republicans.
Ultimately the job of the Attorney General of the United States is protect the law from abuse but it is painfully clear that Eric Holder was appointed to protect abuse from the law.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote:
”There is no question about legitimacy or importance of a state ‘s interest in counting only eligible voters.”
The integrity of the vote means nothing to Holder. Eric Holder would not know integrity if it bit him in the asss.
And that’s exactly why he was appointed.
Publicado: 04-04-2012 09:13 PM
A ‘Constitutional Scholar’ Who Doesn’t Understand the Constitution
April 3, 2012
By Frank Salvato
PAINTING OBAMA TRAMPLING ON THE CONSTITUTION
In a stunningly arrogant move, President Obama, the leader of one of the co-equal branches of the United States Government, intimated that should the United States Supreme Court rule the individual mandate included in the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act is unconstitutional, they would be executing an act of “judicial activism. A more inappropriate and coercive comment has not been uttered in recent history by the President of the United States. Mr. Obama’s politically and ideologically motivated comments stand as testimony to not only his lack of constitutional literacy, it stands as a demented tribute to his audacity.
During a Rose Garden press conference, Mr. Obama, egregiously applied the notion of judicial activism to any decision that would invalidate any portion of the health insurance law commonly referred to as “Obamacare,” questioning how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress. “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said.
At the time of passage, it should be noted, Progressive Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in numbers that did not require a bi-partisan effort. In fact, not one Republican voted for the final legislation.
Mr. Obama continued, “I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” describing the law as “constitutional.”
There is only one thing wrong with everything that the President said during this press conference regarding Obamacare and the United States Supreme Court: The President of the United States does not have the authority to declare legislation constitutional or unconstitutional. That power is exclusively the domain of the United States Supreme Court and, therefore, the decisions handed down by that body are legitimate simply because they exist.
Of course, a real constitutional scholar would know this. Therefore, Mr. Obama is either trying to strong-arm the United State Supreme Court in the court of public opinion; he is pathetically devoid of any real constitutional knowledge; or both.
Mr. Obama often plays fast and loose with the truth when the truth inhibits the potency of his statements, his recent statements that the United States has only two percent of the world’s oil supply is a perfect example. Investor’s Business Daily points out, in no uncertain terms:
“When you look at the whole picture, it turns out that there are vast supplies of oil in the US, according to various government reports. Among them: At least 86 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf yet to be discovered, according to the government’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; About 24 billion barrels in shale deposits in the lower 48 states, according to Energy Information Administration; Up to 2 billion barrels of oil in shale deposits in Alaska’s North Slope, says the US Geological Survey; Up to 12 billion barrels in ANWR, according to the USGS; As much as 19 billion barrels in the Utah tar sands, according to the Bureau of Land Management…”
The column goes on and on proving the President either grossly in error on his statistics or willfully misleading in an effort to win a political argument with egregious “facts.”
Where the issue of Mr. Obama being a constitutional law professor is concerned, we see a bit of a stretch as well. The University of Chicago Law School bestowed the official title of “senior lecturer” to Mr. Obama. Whereas the school uses “senior lecturers” to teach classes, they are not officially professors. Perhaps this is why Mr. Obama doesn’t recognize the three branches of the United States of America as co-equal. Maybe this is why he routinely side-steps the authority of the Legislative Branch in legislating through regulatory control or deeming Congress “not in session” in his use of the recess appointment. Maybe this is why he believes he can declare his signature legislation, the one achievement he holds above all else from his tenure as President of the United States – Obamacare, constitutional in his usurpation of the exclusive authority of the United States Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of legislation brought before them.
Or maybe it is something quite different. Maybe it is a Progressive arrogance, a political Progressive arrogance, an audacity, as it were, that leads him to believe that his empirical presidency has the power to disregard the United States Constitution, the American system of government and the fact that there are three branches of government in the United States and that we have a government of laws, not of men, as John Adams said so potently in the run up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
A true constitutional scholar would understand the constitutional reality of the Separation of Powers and the constitutional concept of “checks and balances” that maintains the balance among the three co-equal branches of government.
So, We the People really should be incredibly alarmed at Mr. Obama’s statement that a striking of the individual mandate included in Obamacare would equate to “judicial activism.”
The statement is not only uneducated and absurd; it is either a warning sign that we have a constitutionally illiterate President or a Progressive activist who would just assume spit on the Constitution than try to understand it.
We the People should be alarmed that we have a President who would place his ideology and agenda above the people he is supposed to serve.
Publicado: 06-05-2012 03:48 PM
THE BIG-SPENDING OBAMAS
By Jim Geraghty
NRO June 5, 2012
Does President Barack Obama know how much he is spending?
Critics of the president asked that question after he asserted, “Since I’ve been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years.” (This figure comes from an online article that has been widely debunked because, among other sleights of hand, it interprets modest rates of increase in annual spending as a reduction in the spending, even though the total actual spending under Obama’s watch has been gargantuan.)
But the same question could apply to the president’s personal finances as well, given that the president and Mrs. Obama have spent enough money during their time in the White House to reportedly express anxiety about their personal finances — even as the president earns several million dollars from his book sales and even though the taxpayers cover a portion of the Obamas’ living expenses.
The Obama campaign has been quick to shine a spotlight on symbols of Mitt Romney’s wealth — the fact that he owns a Swiss bank account, the car elevator in his California home. And the media have exhibited a particular fascination with the cost of Ann Romney’s blouse and her expensive enjoyment of horse riding and training.
But President Obama also enjoys the finer things in life: hosting White House dinners that feature $59-per-pound Wagyu steak, hosting fundraisers where guests are treated to quail egg with caviar and salmon ceviche, and enjoying 100 rounds of golf as president. And Michelle knows how to relax in **noallow** as well. She and the girls recently got away to attend Beyoncé’s comeback concert.
Some of these things are paid for by the taxpayers, such as the president’s transportation. But other costs are covered by the Obamas — clothes, incidental costs, most food (but taxpayers cover the cost of state dinners and official events). When Michelle Obama and their daughters travel abroad without the president, they reimburse the government the cost of their first-class tickets to the destination. Of course, that reimbursement is a much smaller sum than the actual cost of transporting the first lady; a much-derided trip to Spain by the first lady cost taxpayers $467,000 in transportation and security expenses.
In Jodi Kantor’s book about the president’s first three years in office, The Obamas, she describes tensions in the White House before the 2010 midterms:
Even the president made uncomfortable jokes about why his wife needed so many things. Behind the scenes, aides said, the Obamas were concerned about money: the president’s books could only sell so many copies, and it would be years until he could write more and the first lady could write her own. From vacation rental homes big enough to accommodate the Secret Service to all the personal entertaining they did at the White House, their lifestyle had grown fearsomely expensive.
Every president lives a lifestyle more expensive than all but the most ostentatious billionaires. But the Obamas’ cost of living may become a political liability for the president for three reasons.
For starters, key demographics of voters perceive President Obama as a man who spends lavishly on his family and himself, according to focus groups convened by the organization Resurgent Republic.
“Our spring focus groups with Obama Independents undecided today primarily focused on the economy, Obama’s job performance, economic fairness arguments, taxes, energy, and health care,” said Luke Frans of Resurgent Republic.
“Concern over Obama vacations wasn’t a topic we probed, but that also is somewhat interesting since these comments were unprompted. It didn’t come up in all of our groups, but it was mentioned several times among the working-class groups we conducted. This issue doesn’t carry the same level of concern as the desire for quality, family-supporting jobs. But it’s noteworthy since these comments came from working-class swing voters, not strong Republicans.”
Among the comments from women in the focus groups in Cleveland, Ohio:
· “Michelle Obama spent a million dollars to take her kids to Hawaii.”
· “President Obama is the only president to take so many trips.”
· “The president needs to come down to our level.”
· “We have restrictions. He [President Obama] needs them, too.”
In an April interview with NRO, Romney took a shot at Obama’s personal spending habits while discussing the GSA scandal: “I think the example starts at the top. People have to see that the president is not taking elaborate vacations and spending in a way that is inconsistent with the state of the overall economy and the state of the American family.”
Second, as a candidate, Obama emphasized his humble beginnings and the fact that he was uninterested in material wealth or a luxurious lifestyle. He repeatedly noted that after graduating from Columbia, he chose a poorly paying job as a community organizer instead of following more lucrative paths. In her 2008 convention address, Michelle Obama touted her husband: “Instead of heading to Wall Street, Barack had gone to work in neighborhoods devastated when steel plants shut down and jobs dried up.”
On the campaign trail in 2008, she proudly described her and her husband’s career path to a group of women at a day-care center in Zanesville, Ohio, where the median household income in 2004 was $37,192. “We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do,” she said. Then she offered advice to the group: “Don’t go into corporate America,” she urged, dismissing it as a “money-making industry.”
Of course, it’s very easy to belittle “the money-making industry” when you have a lot of money. Even in the White House, President Obama has lashed out at what he perceives as others’ greed, declaring, “I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” Perhaps that’s easier to say when you live rent-free in a mansion and don’t pay for your own gas.
Finally, as a candidate and as president, Obama reminds us that he and his family went through tougher times earlier in their lives and sometimes struggled to handle their debts. One of the intriguing and little-known aspects of the Obamas’ life is just how much they struggled with personal debt issues well into their adult lives and after they were making six-figure incomes.
The first year of tax returns that the Obamas have disclosed is from 2000, and it shows a joint total income of $240,726. (Adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, that would be roughly $321,646 today.) Surprisingly, the family’s personal finances in that year were evidently so troubled that Obama had his credit card rejected at the Hertz rent-a-car counter. Obama has told this story several times to emphasize that not long ago, he was “broke.”
In the following three years, the Obamas’ income ranged from about $275,000 in 2001 (roughly $357,000 in today’s dollars) to a low of $207,647 in 2004 (about $253,000 in today’s dollars). In 2004, Obama’s autobiography, Dreams from My Father, became a national bestseller and the couple’s income jumped to $1.7 million.
Michelle Obama, campaigning in Pennsylvania in 2008, shared this surprising anecdote, as described by a Chicago Tribune reporter:
Michelle Obama is pretending to take a call, thumb and pinkie finger up to her face, telling how she and her husband used to get calls from loan debt agents not that long ago.
“I remember those days clearly, sweating to get that mail,” she said. “That collection agency, the loan debt people calling you telling you that you’ve got a few more days before you’re in trouble.”
David Mendell discussed the Obamas’ surprisingly dicey personal finances in his 2007 biography of the then-senator, Obama: From Promise to Power:
He and Michelle were living a middle- to upper-middle-class, white collar existence, going home to a spacious town house in Hyde Park and employing a caregiver to help with child care. But despite their combined incomes, which topped $250,000 a year, Obama had personal debt. He had maxed out his credit card, partly on campaign expenses, and the couple were both repaying student loans from Harvard.
Those campaign expenses came from Obama’s 2000 Democratic-primary bid to unseat Representative Bobby Rush, a four-term incumbent with 90 percent name recognition and a 70 percent approval rating. Obama lost, garnering 30 percent to Rush’s 61 percent. Michelle reportedly thought the campaign was a bad idea, and a new book, Ed Klein’s The Amateur, claims that the stress of the defeat and resulting debt brought the couple to the brink of divorce.
Undoubtedly the 2012 election will focus more on the federal government’s spending under Obama than on the president’s personal spending. But the parallel between the two financial pictures is worth noting.
Almost all spendaholics or those who are unable to control their spending engage in a certain amount of denial, an effort to fool themselves about the hard truths of their financial situation. They assure themselves that they must spend money now in order to save more money later, or they count on additional earnings that are unlikely to materialize (say, through rosy assumptions of future economic growth). When confronted with evidence of a serious problem, they assert that it doesn’t really matter (“No matter what some rating agency may say, we have always been, and we will always be, a AAA country”).
In light of all this, “Does Obama know how much he is spending” appears to be an extremely relevant and entirely fair question.
—Jim Geraghty writes the Campaign Spot on NRO.
Publicado: 06-08-2012 12:27 PM
OBAMA'S SECRETIVE HARD-LEFT PARTY TIES
By Arnold Ahlert On June 8, 2012 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
"Barack Obama was once a member of the Communist/Socialist/secretive/evil New Party."
National Review Online writer Stanely Kurtz has been tireless in his efforts to vet Barack Obama. His work in exposing the president’s associations with radical leftists, despite solid evidence, has been dismissed as the efforts of a “right-wing hatchet man” or ignored altogether by a willfully oblivious mainstream media.
In 2008, Kurtz was hammered as someone “pushing a new crackpot smear” by Obama campaign website, Fight the Smears, for a column revealing that Mr. Obama “had been a member of, and endorsed by the hard-left New Party.”
He further noted that the New Left “functioned as the electoral arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).” In a piece published yesterday, Kurtz produced the proverbial smoking gun tying the president to the New Party.
“Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party,” Kurtz writes. “He also signed a ‘contract’ promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.”
Kurtz then produced minutes of a meeting held on January 11, 1996 by the New Party’s Chicago chapter:
“Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party ‘Candidate Contract’ and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.”
When the original story broke in 2008, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt denied the president had ever been a member of the organization. Fight the Smears echoed that contention, declaring that:
“the truth is Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party. In all six primary campaigns of his career, Barack has has run as a Democrat. The New Party did support Barack once in 1996, but he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.”
Politico blogger Ben Smith piled on as well. “Popping up in my inbox lately, and on some conservative blogs, is the allegation that Barack Obama was once a member of the Communist/Socialist/secretive/evil New Party, which is based (reasonably) on a New Party publication describing him in passing as a member,” wrote Smith. Smith then called up New Party founder Joel Rogers, a University of Wisconsin professor, “who objected both to the characterization of the party and Obama’s relationship to it.”
Rogers debunked the idea that Barack Obama was a member, contending that the new Party “didn’t really have members.” That contention was “updated” in a subsequent email, when Rogers explained that the New Party had “no formal membership structure in the usual party sense of members, with people registering with election boards for primary and other restrictive elections…We did have regular supporters whom many called ‘members,’ but it just meant contributing regularly…Anyway, [Obama] certainly wasn’t either. He was just a good candidate whom we endorsed.”
Smith noted that La Bolt also denied Mr. Obama was a member of the organization. Thus, his entire “investigation” consisted of taking two Obama supporters at their word, something that was apparently sufficient evidence for a mainstream media that never pursued the issue any further.
Yet Kurtz completely debunks Rogers’ contention that the New Party had no members with the group’s own documents. First, he reveals a memo written by Rogers on January 29, 1996 in his capacity as head of the New Party Interim Executive Council. In it Rogers addresses “standing concerns regarding existing chapter development and activity, the need for visibility as well as new members.”
Kurtz further notes that internal New Party documents reveal an organization “practically obsessed with signing up new members,” both nationally and in Chicago. Kurtz then writes about another New Party memo revealing an internal dispute between two factions in the Chicago branch “in which the leaders of one faction consider a scheme to disqualify potential voting members from a competing faction, on the grounds that those voters had not renewed their memberships.”
Thus, Kurtz concludes, “the memo clearly demonstrates that, contrary to Rogers’s explanation, membership in the New Party entailed the right to vote on matters of party governance. In fact, Obama’s own New Party endorsement, being controversial, was thrown open to a members’ vote on the day he joined the party.”
Kurtz then refutes the fallback assertion by Rogers that the New Party “was never about” socialism, a claim buttressed at the time by left-wing blogger Ann Althouse, who sarcastically contended that the organization “presented themselves not as socialists, but as left-leaning and progressive. I realize that for right wingers that counts as ‘socialist,’ but let’s not be inflammatory.”
Kurtz opts for accuracy:
“The documents reveal that the New Party’s central aim was to move the United States steadily closer to European social democracy, a goal that Mitt Romney has also attributed to Obama. New Party leaders disdained mainstream Democrats, considering them tools of business, and promised instead to create a partnership between elected officials and local community organizations, with the goal of socializing the American economy to an unprecedented degree.”
“The party’s official ‘statement of principles,’ which candidates seeking endorsement from the Chicago chapter were asked to support, called for a ‘peaceful revolution’ and included redistributive proposals substantially to the left of the Democratic party.”
At the end of his piece, Kurtz issues a challenge to the same “press that let candidate Obama off the hook in 2008,” wondering if it “will now refuse to report that President Obama once joined a leftist third party, and that he hid that truth from the American people in order to win the presidency.” Regardless, Kurtz promises further revelations of his own in the upcoming issue of National Review, further illuminating “the New Party’s ideology and program, Obama’s ties to the party, and the relevance of all this to the president’s campaign for reelection.”
It was apparently easy for a media still enchanted with hope and change to ignore Kurtz’s 2010 political biography of the president, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, a book exposing much of the president’s radical leftist past.
Tellingly, it was released one month before the 2010 election, in which a large majority of Americans refuted much of Barack Obama’s hyper-partisan agenda. A mainstream media effort to ignore documented evidence–for the second time–may be impossible for one over-riding reason: Mitt Romney is not John McCain, and isn’t going to be cowed into “dignified” silence by leftist threats of racism aimed at anyone bringing up the president’s past associations.
Neither will Stanley Kurtz, who’s doing exactly what any investigative journalist ought to be doing. For that he is to be congratulated.
Publicado: 06-08-2012 05:07 PM
Obama: “private sector is doing fine.” The mockery is well-deserved.
Scott Walker: Obama’s Comments Reflect a Fundamental Misunderstanding of the Economy
Stephen F. Hayes
"The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shows that the Bush tax cuts in 2004-06 produced the highest two-year tax revenue increase in the preceding 40 years."
Much has been made of Barack Obama’s comment Friday morning that the “private sector is doing fine.” The mockery is well-deserved.
The president's comment this morning has the potential to be one of those remarks that penetrates deeply into the electorate, well beyond those who keep track of the day-to-day contours of the presidential campaign. The private sector, of course, is not doing fine. GDP growth is 1.9 percent—and slowing. The private sector is adding jobs at a rate that barely outpaces population growth—and slowing. Major corporations are sitting on their cash rather than spending it, consumer confidence is down, so is productivity—no president should be satisfied with this private sector performance.
OBAMA, is a tone deaf, out of touch, a deluded sociopath .
Beyond that, the president lamented the end to the expansion of the public sector the same week voters in Wisconsin and, somewhat surprisingly, California made clear that they approve of efforts to reduce the size of that sector.
“Where we're seeing weakness in our economy have (sic) to do with the state and local government, often times cuts initiated by governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government,” Obama said. “And who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.”
Wisconsin governor Scott Walker tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that Obama’s comments reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the economy.
“There are two very different views in the country,” Walker said. “The current administration seems to think that success is measured by how many people are dependent on the government. I think success is measured by how many are not.”
He added: “We will restore more freedom and more prosperity for all Americans if we see the private sector flourish so more people can get a job and control their own destiny.”
Publicado: 07-13-2012 11:11 AM
BLOODY TRAIL OF OBAMA'S FAST AND FURIOUS SCANDAL
Fast and Furious Is Not a D.C. Law Firm
By Ann Coulter On July 12, 2012 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
Most Americans don’t care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don’t understand the story.
Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for why President Obama’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns in their hands to strengthen liberals’ argument for gun control.
Precisely because this is such a jaw-dropping accusation — criminality at the highest level of government to score a political point — Republicans refuse to make it.
But the problem with Republican rectitude in discussing this scandal is that as soon as they start talking about subpoenas and dates and documents, TV channels change across America. They’re never going to get answers unless they first explain to the American people why it matters.
Liberals have been dying to reinstate the so-called “assault weapons” ban, but they haven’t been able to for political reasons. (For more information on this, see the 1994 congressional elections.)
A typically ****ic Democratic scheme, the “assault weapons” ban prohibited the sale of semiautomatics that are operationally indistinguishable from deer rifles, but which looked scary to liberal women.
First, the Democrats tried lying about how American guns were being found in the hands of Mexican drug dealers — while demanding a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
Obama had barely unpacked at the White House, when he and high-level administration officials and Senate Democrats — Holder, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Sen. Chuck Schumer — started railing about how our lax gun control laws were putting guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
In 2010, even Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon demanded that the U.S. reinstate the assault weapons ban — on the grounds that Mexican drug violence was directly linked to the law’s repeal.
The claim was preposterous for many reasons, including the fact that the type and quantity of armaments being used by Mexican drug cartels can be obtained only from places such as North Korea, China, Russia, Venezuela and Guatemala.
The notion that most guns used by Mexican drug gangs came from the U.S. was a lie — exposed on about 1 million gun blogs and on Fox News.
So, then the Obama administration did exactly what Democrats had been falsely accusing American gun sellers of doing: They put American guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
The only explanation for Fast and Furious is that it was a program to prop up a losing gun control argument. The Waco and Ruby Ridge raids were monstrous, but they at least made sense as simple screw-ups: (1) ATF’s budget was about to be cut and it needed some showy raids; and (2) law enforcement officials detest private gun ownership on principle.
There is no conceivable law enforcement objective to giving Mexican drug dealers thousands of untrackable guns. It’s not even fun for the agents, like an armed raid on a private home. If there’s some other explanation, Holder isn’t telling.
Republicans refuse to state this clearly because they can’t prove it. Instead, they just keep chattering about the documents that haven’t been turned over and subpoenas that haven’t been answered.
Did Democrats wait for a smoking gun to accuse Karl Rove of treason for revealing Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA agent? It turned out Rove didn’t reveal it, and it wouldn’t have been a crime if he had.
Did they wait for proof to accuse Sen. John McCain of committing adultery? They had none, and yet that story ran on the front page of The New York Times.
See if you can guess. Take all the time you need. Feel free to call one of your “lifelines” if necessary.
Liberals just make wild-eyed accusations and demand Republicans prove themselves innocent. (Say, whatever happened to Karl Rove’s trial for treason for outing Valerie Plame? Can somebody call Lawrence O’Donnell and check on that?)
If conservatives were our only source of information about 9/11, no one would care about that, either. Somehow they’d make it about Osama bin Laden not answering a subpoena.
This isn’t just another government program gone bad — a $300 ashtray, stimulus money fraud, Solyndra or Van Jones.
It isn’t just a story about some government official refusing to testify.
It isn’t even a story about an American dying as a result of a government program, as outrageous as that is. Yes, Brian Terry died at the hands of a Mexican using a Holder-provided American gun. Pat Tillman died. Ron Brown died. People sometimes die as a result of government screw-ups. Fast and Furious is worse.
Innocent people dying was the objective of Fast and Furious, not collateral damage.
It would be as if the Bush administration had implemented a covert operation to dump a dangerous abortifacient in Planned Parenthood clinics, resulting in hundreds of women dying — just to give pro-lifers an argument about how dangerous abortion clinics are.