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.

Lying Liars: Black Bloc anarchist Mark Provost, co-founder of #OccupytheNRA and another #OWS hypocrite

Occupy Wall Street never saw a crisis it could not exploit. This time it took no time at all for an OWS branch of gun control crazies — Occupy the NRA — to issue a call to arms (no pun intended) to organize and capitalize on Friday’s horrific shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

“In recent months, Occupy Wall Street has proven to be a versatile force capable of tackling a variety of issues from inequality to Hurricane Sandy to crippling debt,” Allison Kilkenny wrote yesterday in the leftist rag, The Nation.

Kilkenny (her real name), continued:

    Now, an offshoot of the original movement says it plans to unleash the power of the 99 percent on the National Rifle Association.

    In the wake of the tragic elementary school massacre in Connecticut, the group launched Friday afternoon with a Facebook page, “Occupy the NRA,” which currently has over 3,300 likes.

    The group’s first post was a picture of an assault weapon with overlaid text: “The US has 5% of the world’s population, but accounts for half of all firearms worldwide and 80% of the gun deaths in the 23 richest countries.” The image has been shared over 8,300 times and liked by 655 people.

    Another post lists the contact information for every NRA board member and encourages the page’s followers to write, e-mail, call, and “ask them how many more children, parents, sisters, and brothers must die before they’ll agree to truly effective gun control.”

Ironically, the newly-minted protest group’s leader is Mark Provost of my home state, New Hampshire. If you are not aware, our state’s motto is “Live Free or Die”. Obviously, Provost does not subscribe to that belief.

On his Twitter profile page, Provost self identifies thusly: “Economic journalist focused on US income and wealth inequality, Occupier.”

But Provost is so much more.

In January 2012, Provost heckled then Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney:

    Occupy New Hampshire activist Mark Provost made national headlines Wednesday when he attended a town-hall meeting hosted by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and asked about his past comment that “corporations are people.” Provost’s question to Romney came as Occupy New Hampshire is preparing for a series of events leading up to the state’s Republican primary to highlight the disproportionate impact corporations and wealthy donors have on the political process. We play an excerpt of the town-hall exchange and get Provost’s response to Romney reply. “I think his response really, again, is this denial that there’s this class in the country and that there are some people within the corporation, specifically the workers, that are taking it on the chin so that the United States’ executive management can make massive bonuses, and serve their shareholders rather well, too, because the profits largely go to capital gains and dividends.”

Provost, however, is an equal opportunity heckler. In November 2011, at an Obama event in Manchester, NH, Provost went on the attack:

    President Barack Obama got a rude reception from a few protesters in New Hampshire on Tuesday.

    The President was temporarily thrown off his stride when Occupy protesters interrupted his speech.

    The protesters asked the President to help stop what they see as police brutality being waged on their members.

    “I want the President to immediately direct his justice department to…any police officer or any police chief who does not respect the First Amendment,” said Mark Provost, an Occupy protester.

    After listening patiently, the President asked for his turn to speak and was given a polite applause when he acknowledged the protesters.

    “So a lot of the folks who have been down in New York and all across the country in the Occupy movement, there is a profound sense of frustration,” said Obama.

It’s always good for budding anarchists to know the Preezy is on their side.

NATOblackblockIt just so happens that the photo ID for Provost’s Twitter profile picture bears the label “NATOblackblock”.

The Wikipedia article for “Black bloc” reports:

    A black bloc is a tactic for protests and marches where individuals wear black clothing, scarves, sunglasses, ski masks, motorcycle helmets with padding, or other face-concealing and face-protecting items. The clothing is used to conceal marchers’ identities, allow them to appear as one large unified mass, and promote solidarity.

(fyi: Aspiring anarchists can watch a video series on the Black Bloc Field Manual and watch Black Bloc introduction.)

How does that song go? If you’re a happy anarchist and you know it, clap your hands? Why hide?

The NATO Black Bloc “protesters”, as Jonathon M. Seidl reported May 21st at The Blaze, clashed with police “at the end of a march protesting the NATO summit” held in Chicago. World leaders were there to “[discuss] the war in Afghanistan, European missile defense and other security issues.”

The Chicago Sun-Times reported from inside the Black Bloc clash:

    Several thousand protesters spent five hours peacefully chanting, singing and marching against war. At the end, nearly 40 young veterans dramatically took their military medals and hurled them toward McCormick Place, where world leaders met behind closed doors.

    It was supposed to end there — at Michigan and Cermak.

    But a “Black Bloc” of about 100 anarchists wanted something else. The group, which chanted “What do we want? Dead cops!” as it left Grant Park at 2 p.m., surged to the front of the protest crowd and tried to break through the imposing line of Chicago cops in riot gear blocking its path.

    Then, in a scene Chicagoans feared ever since the city learned it would host the NATO Summit, the two sides violently clashed on live TV, with police nightsticks flailing and protesters unleashing a volley of sticks, bottles and at least one rock.

    The battle at Michigan and Cermak flared and then slowed, and then flared again in bursts between 5 and 6:30 p.m. By then, much of the Black Bloc had slipped away, leaving behind a scene of bloodied protesters and four injured cops, including one stabbed in the leg.

    With police intent on pushing protesters west away from the NATO Summit, and the Black Bloc hell bent on pushing east towards President Barack Obama and dozens of world leaders, the clash seemed an inevitable conclusion to months of debate over how and where the protest would end.

This is not to say that Provost was among the 100 or so anarchists who clashed with the police but these questions must be asked: Was Provost in fact at the NATO protests with the Black Bloc? If not, he’s a poseur, a freud. If he was, then he is clearly broadcasting to the world that he was part of the anarchist brigade in Chicago.

Let’s look at the evidence.

On May 17th, Provost tweeted a link to the Occupy Chicago and NATO/G8 Guide.

Provost traveled to Chicago with fellow Boston area anarchists.

In a May 21st interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, Provost admitted to not only having been there but also to witnessing “police brutality”:

    GOODMAN: Chicago Police have also been criticized by activist groups for using violent force to break up protests. On Saturday, a police van was videotaped nearly running over a protester. Mark Provost of Occupy Boston and Occupy New Hampshire witnessed the incident.

    PROVOST: I witnessed a young woman hit by a police van, and then he subsequently attempted to run over a protester for approximately 40 yards down a hill, going 10 to 12 miles an hour, not staggered, but fully 10 to 12 miles an hour. I’ve never witnessed such violence in my life.

There are a number of videos posted online that show the incident. A clip on LiveLeak.com shows the protesters attacking the van. Democracy Now! described it as police entrapment.

The stage had been set for just such an incident days earlier. The Blaze reported May 17th:

    Today marks a moment when radical Leftist anti-NATO demonstrations in the city, affiliated with “Occupy NATO,” are hitting their stride. And as with all Leftist demonstrations, black bloc tactics are involved. To that end, a group of masked thugs from the protests went to the trouble of taking over Chicago’s Halsted Street, even going so far as laying down in front of a police station. …

    One such person, after apparently being accused of racism by a protester, defiantly yells back “I’m a racist! F**k you! F**k everyone!” Another, meanwhile, says incredulously about the organizers of the protest, “You’re not even from Chicago! What are you doing here?”

    Intercut with the clips are shots of breathtaking displays of public disorderliness, including protesters swarming the Chicago subway (some of whom are wearing black scarfs over their faces), and screaming obscenities at the police. Others go so far as blocking cars with street signs while hooting.

    Perhaps most hilarious of all, there are a few shots of members of the National Lawyers’ Guild (an organization which was noted for being a communist front group as far back as the 1950′s) observing the proceedings, and describing the protesters as their “clients” even though these protesters are, presumably, paying them precisely no money.

This is all so déjà vu, as it was Obama neighbor Bernardine Dohrn who helped set up the National Lawyers Guild legal defense operation in Chicago in October 1969 (as well as help to organize the Students for a Democratic Society protests) ahead of the Days of Rage riots.

Dohrn was there, you see, to provide free legal services and keep the 1960s version of Black bloc anarchists out of jail.

DaysofRage