Obama’s (alleged) pint-sized anti-gun propagandists

Something has been bothering me ever since I heard that POTUS Obama planned to have children surrounding him on the podium at today’s gun control presser. It’s not, like a lot of folks on Twitter correctly pointed out, that it was a cowardly use of children to push the progressives’ anti-gun agenda. It was.

What has been bothering me are the letters allegedly written by the children to the president.

Simply reading the words in the report by Stephanie Condon of CBS News should set off alarm bells:

    Those children — 8-year-old Hinna Zeejah, 10-year-old Taejah Goode, 11-year-old Julia Stokes and 8-year-old Grant Fritz — wrote letters to Mr. Obama, pleading with him to tighten gun laws in the wake of the tragic mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

The letters, allegedly written by the children, are attached. Clearly, the letters that were chosen and their authors were selected with one goal in mind — gun-control propaganda.

Two of the letters directly call for new gun-control laws.

Grant, 8 years old and a second or third grader, writes on December 17th:

    I think there should be some changes in the law with guns. It’s a free country but I recommend there needs be a limit with guns. Please don’t let people own machine guns or other powerful guns like that. I think there should be a good reason to get a gun. I think there should be a limit about how many guns a person can own. We should learn from what happened at Sandy Hook [space] es. I feel really bad about what just happened.

The one sentence that can without question be attributed to Grant is the last one. As for the rest of what was written, even if Grant composed the letter himself, it all sounds like the sort of things Grant may have heard his family say or was prompted by an adult to write.

Julia, 11 years old, uses a very old-sounding phrase: She “would not be able to bear the thought of losing any” of her four brothers and sisters.

Note that Julia also calls for more laws: “I know that laws have to be passed by Congress, but I beg you to try very hard to make guns not allowed. Not just for me, but for the whole United States.”

What adult told Julia that Congress passes gun laws? What about state gun laws? Did no one bother to mention that to her? (The latter doesn’t get you noticed by the White House propagandists, though.)

Taejah, 10 years old, pleas with Obama to STOP “gun violence” — twice. That’s just not a phrase used by children. It’s one mimicked from adults.

Hinna, 8 years old, writes that she watched the news about the shootings “all day on Friday” December 14th and one question popped into her head, “Can we stop using guns?” This is followed by a hand-drawn universal stop symbol with what appears to be a gun with a very long textured grip and two disproportionately-large “bullets”.

We do not know the circumstances as to why Hinna watched the unfolding news about the shootings on the tv. Reports about the shootings could not have been on the tv prior to 9:30 AM on the East Coast as they had not yet happened. Was she home from school ill? Is she homeschooled? Was she home alone? Was she at school and the class watched the events on tv?

Regardless, what parent — or teacher — in their right mind would allow this impressionable 8-year-old child to watch this horrific story unfold for the whole day on the tv?

But you know the Obama admin motto: Never let a good gun crisis go to waste.

#youvebeenwarned

Fed Up! ’54,000 Mexicans sign petition for US gun control’

“More than 54,000 Mexicans have signed a petition calling on the United States to take further steps to combat weapons trafficking,” the Assocated Press reported yesterday.

The AP continued:

    Mexico says the majority of guns used by the country’s violent drug cartels are smuggled over the border from the United States.

    Mexico’s best-known anti-violence activist and a prominent intellectual presented the petition at the U.S. embassy Monday.

    Activist Javier Sicilia said “The United States is partly responsible for our humanitarian tragedy.”

    About 70,000 people have died in Mexico in drug violence since 2006, according to the written copy of a speech presented by Mexico’s interior secretary in December.

    Before the activists presented their petition, President Barack Obama said Monday he would present a new U.S. gun control plan within days.

Call me suspicious, but when a Mexican activist group calls for gun control in the U.S., you have to be, well, suspicious. However, there is a lot to be learned here.

Keep in mind, it is the Mexican crime network that is trafficking the guns into Mexico — aided and abetted by the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress that are responsible for using stimulus funds to continue the Southwest Border Initiative’s Project Gunrunner, ATF’s gunwalking program (2005-2011).

A DOJ Inspector General report from November 2011 did, in part, place the blame for the gun trafficking on Mexico’s severe restrictions:

    Violence associated with organized crime and drug trafficking in Mexico is widespread, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths. In part because Mexican law severely restricts gun ownership, drug traffickers have turned to the United States as a primary source of weapons, and these drug traffickers routinely smuggle guns from the United States into Mexico. The criminal organizations responsible for smuggling guns to Mexico are typically also involved in other criminal enterprises, such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, and cash smuggling.

How about the Obama admin initiated “Fast & Furious”? Just whistle past this graveyard, too. There’s nothing to see here.

fyi: None of this has anything to do with proposed gun control for law-abiding gun-owning U.S. citizens.

So, let’s return to our Mexican activists and spokesman, “poet, essayist, novelist, and journalist,” Javier Sicilia, whose son was brutally killed in March 2011 in Mexico by Mexican drug traffickers.

Sicilia was TIME magazine’s 2011 Person of the Year “for his work in organizing the 2011 Mexican protests.”

    Believing that President Felipe Calderón’s five-year-long military campaign against Mexico’s narcocartels has simply exacerbated the violence, he created the Movement for Peace with Justice and Dignity — which is informally and popularly called Hasta la Madre! or Fed Up! — to push for a stop to the mafia bloodshed and for new anticrime strategies and reforms.

Carried out in 40 Mexican cities, the protesters are calling for an “end to the Drug War, the retreat of military forces from the streets, the legalization of drugs, and the removal of Mexican President Felipe Calderón.”

If these seem to be unreasonable demands, here’s a reasonable explanation penned at an April 7, 2011 protest by Al Giordano at NarcoNews.com (emphasis added):

    See, what has happened here is politically significant: those who have long had and voiced their grievances with “the evil government” of Calderón have intelligently latched on to the anti-war-on-drugs cause as their own, too, because they smartly percieve it as a “wedge issue” that encompasses the whole of national discontent and which could very possibly result in the toppling of an authoritarian president, “elected” only via well documented electoral fraud, with absolutely not a shred of moral authority among his own people. In just one week, humble and dignified Javier Sicilia has collected the free-floating moral authority that nobody else could credibly assume in this Failed State named Mexico and supplanted the napoleanic Calderón as the moral leader of a nation. A big reason that has happened is because, due to his columns over so many years, everybody knows that Sicilia dislikes political parties, has zero interest in running for political office, and serves as a kind of “anti-caudillo” figure at contrast with the strong swashbuckling machismo of so many previous political and revolutionary leaders that the public has grown uneasy with. This is not to say that “the Sicilian” who now puts order to “the mafias” is any kind of pushover at all. When he speaks of the need for criminals to return to their “codes of honor” and leave civilians alone, a guy named Giordano understands exactly what a guy named Sicilia is talking about: this is a man with guts and cunning, too, and one who knows his enemy, and his enemy’s history. …

    and for the multitude assembled, it was the reestablishment of the proper social order: that in a democracy, an army, if there is one, must be at service of the people. Four years of Calderón having reversed that order – he converted the people into mere pieces on the Army’s chess board, objects to be pushed around, stopped, searched, invaded, molested and assassinated – has brought the public to its absolute limit.

    Cuernavaca is now the unlikely epicenter of something of revolutionary potential: the reestablishment of the proper order of things in which a people rule its own country. It has been a bloody battlefield for four years (before that it was a tranquil flowered city with a strong pull on tourists who now no longer come there due to Calderón’s War) but now it is a new kind of battlefield: a struggle to reconquer the terrain of daily life for every citizen, every family, block by block for every neighborhood. …

On August 9, 2012, Tom Hayden, a main SDS organizer, ’60s radical, anti-war activist, and Communist sympathizer, reported at The Rag Blog that Sicilia’s protest movement was winding its way towards the Obama seat of power:

    A new peace movement to end the U.S.-sponsored drug war begins with buses rolling and feet marching from the Tijuana–San Diego border on August 12 through 25 U.S. cities to Washington, DC, in September.

    Named the Caravan for Peace, the trek is intended to put human faces and names on the estimated 60,000 dead, 10,000 disappeared, and 160,000 displaced people in Mexico since 2006, when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, Pentagon, and the CIA supported the escalation of the Mexican armed forces. …

    About 70 Mexican activists, many of whom are relatives of victims, and about 30 Americans will accompany Sicilia on the caravan along the U.S.-Mexico border, north from New Orleans through Mississippi and Alabama, to Chicago, Cleveland, New York City, Baltimore and Washington, DC. The U.S.-based Global Exchange is charged with coordination and logistics.

Global Exchange was co-founded by anti-war activist and Code Pink co-founder, Medea Benjamin.

Hayden continued:

    More than 100 U.S. immigrant rights and peace groups are actively involved, including the Drug Policy Alliance, the NAACP, the Washington Office on Latin America, the Center for International Policy’s Americas Program, the Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, the National Latino Congreso, Presente.org and Veterans for Peace. Fifty grassroots groups are involved from California alone.

    The caravan may force a response from President Obama, who at the Summit of the Americans this past April stated “it is entirely legitimate to have a conversation about whether the laws in place are ones that are doing more harm than good in certain places.”

That, however, is not the conversation that Obama will have over gun control. Hint: Fast & Furious, Arab spring, and the list goes on.

Hayden continued:

    Most of the deaths in the Drug War, begun during the Bush era in 2006, are now on Obama’s watch from 2008 to 2012. Yet it’s often difficult for Americans, even sympathetic ones, to see the patterns of violence as a repeat of the Central American civil wars. Many Americans think of the 60,000 dead not as innocent victims but as somehow complicit in the drug culture. This perception is deceiving, as the cross-section of caravan witnesses dramatically reveals.

The Trans-Border Caravan for Peace with Justice and Dignity came on a mission to “Bring to the American people’s conscience their shared responsibility for the thousands of dead, missing and displaced in the drug war.”

The only problem with this honorable mission is that it is not the American people who are to blame. The blame belongs at the caravan’s intended destination, with the seat of American power, with the “I Won” and Congress.

P.S. I have written extensively about Mexico and the war on drugs and crime at rbo2, which I have temporarily reopened to public access.

Lying Liars: Politico claims global gun control advocate not previously identified with major gun control efforts

There are only two choices here. Either Reid J. Epstein and/or his boss, Politico, are just plain stupid or deliberate liars.

Epstein wrote January 8 (all emphasis added):

    The White House on Tuesday afternoon reached out to major philanthropic foundations not typically associated with gun control to gauge how much they are willing to get involved in President Obama’s future gun violence prevention efforts, according to a person on the call.

    The call, which featured Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Jonathan Greenblatt, the director of the White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation, and members of Vice President Biden’s staff, was largely a “listening session,” according to the person on the call, who represents a foundation invited to participate.

    The person said the call included the Open Society Institute, the McCormick Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the California Endowment. Those groups, which traditionally work in public health fields, have not previously been identified with major gun control efforts.

We’ll disregard the rest of the article, which you can read for yourself, and get right down to brass tacks.

Either Epstein is totally oblivious to reality or Politico has not only allowed him to promote a fraud upon its readers but also is promoting it. (They’re not known as Obama’s Pravda without reason.)

It took a very brief internet search for “gun control” and Open Society Institute to prove how dishonest Epstein and Politico are.

In November 2003, The National Rifle Association posted the following:

    George Soros has made an immense fortune manipulating international stock and currency markets. Over the past few years the Hungarian-born billionaire has used that fortune to become a preeminent funding source for global gun control. Directly and through his organization Open Society Institute (OSI), he has funneled cash to various anti-gun groups, such as the Tides Foundation, the HELP Network [Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan] and SAFE Colorado [Sane Alternatives to the Firearms Epidemic]. He and seven rich friends founded their own political committee–Campaign for a Progressive Future–and spent $2 million on political activities in 2000, including providing the prime financial backing for the [Brady Campaign's] Million Mom March. OSI has supported UN efforts to create international gun control regulations and has singled out the United States for failing to go along with the international gun-prohibitionists.

    Soros has worked to combine with other wealthy activists and foundations to provide funding for numerous anti-gun projects. Soros and the Irene Diamond Foundation made equal $5 million contributions to form the Funders Collaborative for Gun Violence Prevention. This organization has provided funding to the anti-gun Harvard Injury Control Center and has helped bankroll reckless lawsuits designed to cripple the firearms industry. OSI and the Funders` Collaborative (using money largely supplied by Soros) was the primary funding source for the plaintiffs in Hamilton v. Accu-tek and in NAACP v. ACUSPORT Inc. OSI provided $300,000 to the plaintiffs` lawyers in the Hamilton case and provided a grant identified as between $100,000 and $499,000 in the NAACP case.

Of course there’s more; the article continues:

    When Soros and OSI decided to start spending great sums of money on anti-gun research and advocacy, they went in search of an experienced activist to guide the effort. Soros came up with Rebecca Peters, a central figure in disarming the people of Australia, and a leader in the effort to ban all handguns and most long guns. Under Peters` direction, OSI soon released “Gun Control in The United States.” This strikingly simplistic evaluation of gun laws in the 50 states purposefully ignored federal firearms laws and arbitrarily awarded various point values to each state that has imposed gun control restrictions favored by the group.

The Wikipedia reports that Dr. Rebecca Peters, who worked for George Soros’s Open Society Institute, “has been criticised by sporting shooters around the world and the National Rifle Association in the United States, which believes that Rebecca Peters, along with the United Nations, wishes to ‘strip all citizens of all nations of their right to self-protection’ via gun-ownership by ‘banning civilian ownership of firearms’ and to rid the world of shooting sports.”

(You can watch a December 2012 video of a Chris Hayes’ interview with Peters here.)

In his October 2002 article about Dr. Peters, Stewart Beattie, author of A Gunsmith’s Notebook on Port Arthur, remarked on gun control funders:

    … one such “funder”, the Joyce Foundation, was reported as granting between 1993 and 1997, some $13.2 m, for distribution among 55 ‘gun control’ organisations. John Hopkins is bank-rolled to sustain disarmament battle by such “funders” as the California Wellness Foundation (CWF), George Soros’ Open Society Institute and the Public Welfare Foundation, just three of the well-endowed tax-exempt funders supporting the global gun-grabbers. George Soros, Open Society Institute funds gun control networks on a national scale across America, but indeed globally, in 33 countries. … Open Society also gave the Violence Policy Center $1.2 million in 1997 to expand its anti-gun efforts.

It might interest you to know that Barack Obama sat on the board of the Joyce Foundation 1994–2002.

You can read about Soros’s/OSI’s international efforts on gun control in this 2001 report, A Global Alliance for Open Society.

If you need more convincing (unless you’re totally braindead), you might want to read the NRA’s November 2001 Fact Sheet: “The Open Society`s Closed Mind On Guns”, which informs:

    In March, The Open Society Institute, part of the Soros Foundation Network, released “Gun Control in the United States, “a strikingly simplistic evaluation of gun laws in the 50 states. Directed by Rebecca Peters, an Australian gun prohibitionist, this document, posing as analysis, arbitrarily awards various point values to each state that has imposed gun control restrictions favored by the group.

Here are the links to the April 2000 report and chart. The report summary reads:

    This report is the first comprehensive state-by-state look at the gun laws in the United States. It concentrates on the states, because, even though federal legislation plays an important role, most gun laws are enacted at the state level.

    The result is a detailed picture of the patchwork quilt formed by the U.S. gun laws. The report gives policymakers, the media, and the public an opportunity to compare their state with others and to consider specific reforms to prevent gun crime—trafficking, robbery, threats, assaults, homicides—unintentional injuries, and suicides by firearms.

There was an accompanying Small Arms Summary.

It’s too bad that today’s media super sleuths can’t google or they would have found this April 19, 2000, Los Angeles Times article, “Gun Control Movement Split by Ambition to Ban Handguns”:

    One year after the Columbine High School shooting, newly energized gun-control forces are grappling with a potentially critical split within their ranks over a key strategic decision: How far can they hope to go in reining in guns? …

    Gun-control supporters in the last year have generated more money than ever before for research, violence prevention and advocacy, including tens of millions in grants from philanthropic groups such as George Soros’ Open Society Institute, the San Francisco-based Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund and the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation.

Are we honestly to believe that Soros and his Open Society Institute have not previously been identified with major gun control efforts? Really?

Biden to lead multiagency gun control task force. What possibly could go wrong?

In his third-in-five-days presser, Preezy Obama announced today his “first step on gun control following the Newtown school shootings” — an “interagency” Gun Violence Task Force.

Veep O’Biden will be “charged with guiding the administration’s continuing response,” Politico reports.

    According to a White House official, the president likely won’t make significant policy announcements but will instead explain how his administration will determine what to do next.

    Obama spoke Monday with Biden and three Cabinet secretaries – Attorney General Eric Holder, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius — “to begin looking at ways the country can respond to the tragedy in Newtown,” the White House said. …

    Though Obama has long said he favors reinstating the 1994 assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004, he has spent almost no political capital as president to enact any new restrictions on gun rights, despite mass shootings in Tucson, Ariz., Oak Creek, Wis., and Aurora, Colo., before Newtown. …

    White House press secretary Jay Carney on Tuesday reiterated Obama’s past support for the idea of an assault weapons ban and closing “the so-called gun show loophole.” Carney said the president could also back a prohibition on high-capacity ammunition clips like those used in the Aurora and Newtown shootings.

    Apart from pushing Congress to pass new gun laws — which faces many obstacles, including GOP control of the House for the next two years — Obama has a few steps he could take on his own, like a broader requirement that gun dealers to notify the government of any purchase of multiple semi-automatic weapons. Such notifications are already required in the four states that border Mexico.

Oopsies! That last reference must not have been well thought out. Guns. Mexico. Ever heard of ATF’s gunwalking scandal, Fast and Furious?

So. What are the possibilities? Let’s turn back the clock to June 1989, when former CIA director George H.W. Bush occupied the Oval Office.

A congressionally-mandated study (as part of narcotics control legislation) by a Justice Department task force on how to keep guns out of the hands of felons came up with two major options unacceptable to Bush’s Attorney General, Dick Thornburgh.

WaPo reported that the first option was “a national registration card for gun owners”, with the second a “broader national identity card for all citizens that would contain information on criminal records.”

Question: Why not just use RFID chips for everything? including Obamacare (a false claim)?

Thornburgh had until November 18 to pick an option and commence its implementation in December.

The devil’s deal resulted from a 1988 “Republican-engineered compromise, heavily backed by the gun lobby, that defeated a bill that would have required a seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchase.”

Sent up as an “official trial balloon”, the options were considered food for thought, not necessarily implementation.

Left unsaid is the fact that neither of these options would have been acceptable to Progressives.

WaPo reported:

    Thornburgh regards an identity card as “an infringement on rights of Americans and believes that is not the way to tackle this problem” … Thornburgh opposed a similar plan in the 1970s when he was assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s criminal division …

    The national identity card has been strongly opposed by civil liberties groups and Congress. A registration card just for gun owners is strongly opposed by the gun lobby. …

    The 40-page study grouped possibilities in two general approaches. One method would be aimed at potential gun buyers and would require them to show certification that they have no criminal record.

    The second method involves the country’s 270,000 gun dealers and would require them to contact local and federal police agencies to search computerized records before making any of the 7.5 million annual weapons sales.

At the time, there was “no existing requirement at the federal level for any check on a gun purchaser’s criminal record.” As the federal law required then, and now, gun purchasers were “required to sign a federal form stating they have no criminal convictions.” The forms, however, were not verified then although “29 states and the District [required] that gun dealers check that customers have no criminal history.”

How a national identity “smart card” would work was further explained in July 1989:

    The [gun] dealer, along with his federal firearms license, has a “reader” that checks the smart card. A fingerprint, given at the dealership, must match the fingerprint electronically imprinted on the card so the dealer knows the bearer is the same person to whom the card was issued. … the card shows that [a purchaser] is entitled to purchase a weapon, and the dealer completes the sale. In doing so he makes an electronic record of the purchaser of that particular shotgun so if it’s used later in a crime, law enforcement authorities can trace it.

Money is always a factor, of course: “The costs of the two systems vary dramatically. The task force estimated that setting up a national telephone check of current records might cost as much as $44 million, and then $70 million a year to run.

“But a system of immediate checks via smart cards could cost nearly $600 million to set up and nearly $300 million a year to maintain.”

Ultimately, in November 1989, the Justice Department chose to kick the can down the road.

Thornburgh’s proposed plan for background checks — although not guaranteed to be fool proof — is the one which currently operates:

    The system supported by Attorney General Dick Thornburgh would require gun dealers to make telephone checks through a nationwide computer system to determine whether a prospective buyer has a criminal record. But, according to the sources, Thornburgh’s long-awaited proposal to have “point-of-sale” telephone checks of prospective gun buyers does not provide for immediate implementation as required by Congress because of major gaps in record-keeping about criminal convictions.

The FBI web page on federal gun checks informs:

    The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is all about saving lives and protecting people from harm—by not letting guns and explosives fall into the wrong hands. It also ensures the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers.

    Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.

USAToday reported December 13:

    The number of federally required background checks of prospective gun purchasers has nearly doubled in the past decade — a time when violent crime has been in long decline in many places across the USA, according to FBI records.

    The bureau’s National Instant Check System (NICS) does not track actual firearms sales — multiple guns can be included in one purchase. But the steady rise in background checks — from 8.5 million in 2002 to 16.8 million in 2012 — tracks other indicators that signal escalating gun sales.

The same article predicted the future ahead of the Connecticut shootings:

    No gun-control legislation was passed in President Obama’s first term and no major proposal was offered during the 2012 presidential election campaign.

    Still, there is an “expectation” that new gun-control proposals will surface in Obama’s second term, said National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “People expect a siege on the Second Amendment (right to bear arms).”

Obama logic? Never let a nationally-televised opportunity go to waste. He’s not.

But how O’Biden’s task force plans to connect the gun control dots from the current system to foretelling the future about which undiagnosed, untreated or non-compliant mentally ill person will commit an atrocity like the one in Connecticut remains to be seen.