With campaign season in full swing, movement conservatives are actively promoting a narrative about the Obama administration being a "threat to the rule of law." The lightning rod for much of this invective is U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who is facing a possible contempt of Congress citation for his refusal to turn over certain Department of Justice documents relating to the ATF's discontinued "Fast and Furious" operation on the southwest border. While Republicans' rift with Holder has been well chronicled, the architect of their messaging campaign has gone largely unnoticed.
When CBS News first broke the "Fast and Furious" story in February 2011, the National Rifle Association (NRA) wasted little time in spinning the ill-advised "gun-walking" strategy -- which actually began under the George W. Bush administration in 2006 -- as evidence that the Obama administration was a danger to "civil society" and "unprecedented in its arrogant disregard for the rule of law."
Give the NRA credit. It has mastered the art of projecting its biggest and most dangerous faults onto its political opponents. This is the organization, after all, that created "Stand Your Ground" laws, which allow gun-toters to shoot other Americans even when they could otherwise safely walk away from a public confrontation. This is also the organization that actively promotes the idea that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to shoot and kill their elected officials when they sense "tyranny." The NRA's accusations about the Obama administration amount to a staggering act of hypocrisy.
That hypocrisy was on full display in a series of speeches NRA leaders gave during the weekend of June 8-9. On June 8, at a CPAC event in Chicago, NRA President David Keene hosted two "Second Amendment" panels that had surprisingly little to do with guns. Keene used his remarks to launch a broad attack on the Obama administration, stating:
Sadly, he and his principal advisors seem to me to come from a generation that sincerely believes that the ends in almost all circumstances justify the means ... A government that has that power and is willing to use it, is willing to enforce laws selectively and let its friends off the hook, is a government that... is in essence going to do great damage to the rule of law and to the civil society in which we live.Keene later expressed outrage over the administration's opposition to voter ID laws (and the purging of voter rolls in Florida), saying:
Just as the Supreme Court's ultimate authority lies in the opinions of the people, so, too, does the stability of a democracy rely on winners and losers accepting the outcome of democratic decision-making and if that is undermined that's more serious almost than anything.
The very next day, however, Keene's first vice-president, Jim Porter, reminded us that the NRA has no intention of accepting "democratic decision-making" when the votes don't go their way. Speaking to the New York Rifle and Pistol Association in Wallkill, Porter gave those in attendance the NRA's "insider" message:
NRA was started 1871 right here in New York state. It was started by some Yankee generals who didn't like the way my Southern boys had the ability to shoot in what we call the 'War of Northern Aggression.' Now y'all might call it the Civil War, but we call it the 'War of Northern Aggression' down south. But that was the very reason that they started the National Rifle Association, was to teach and train the civilian in the use of the standard military firearm and I am one who still feel very strongly that that is one of our greatest charges that we can have today, is to train the civilian in the use of the standard military firearm so when they have to fight for their country, they're ready to do it. Also, when they're ready to fight tyranny, they're ready to do it. Also, when they're ready to fight tyranny, they have the wherewithal and the weapons to do it. I charge you ladies and gentlemen that that is a very important charge for all of us to take up. It's a sacred duty for all of us to maintain. We've received it from our ancestors. You think about the War of Independence. You think about Valley Forge ... And they defeated the most powerful military force known to that time in civilization.
The "Southern boys" that Porter praises as straight-shooters believed that the democratic election of Abraham Lincoln constituted "tyranny." They engaged in the biggest act of armed insurrection in U.S. history, with disastrous results that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Apparently, Porter never got the memo from President Lincoln, who wrote, "Among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet."
NRA Board Member Ted Nugent never got the memo, either. Nugent, of course, recently earned a visit from the Secret Service after announcing that he would either "be dead or in jail" if President Obama was re-elected in November. On June 9th -- the same day that Jim Porter was ranting about the "War of Northern Aggression" -- Nugent attended a Republic of Texas Biker Rally in Austin, Tex., and declared:
NRA gun nut motherf--kers out there ... Put a f--king gun in your hand, Texas, stormtroopers [are] coming ... They, unfortunately, are the real enemies right now.
Two days later, the practical effect of decades of such rhetoric could be seen when pro-gun activists -- openly bearing loaded assault rifles and handguns -- crammed into the chambers of the Birmingham City Commission in Michigan to protest the arrest of a young man on charges of brandishing a weapon in public, disturbing the peace, and obstructing a police officer. Sean Michael Combs, 18, was arrested on April 13 for walking through downtown Birmingham with a battlefield rifle from World War II and refusing to show police identification to prove he was of legal age to "Open Carry." The show of force by his supporters at the city council meeting was straight out of the NRA playbook and sent the following message: "Make a law we don't like, enforce a law we don't like, and 'Second Amendment remedies' are always available to us."
Threat to the rule of law? It's not going to come from recess appointments, federal grants to community organizations, mandates for reproductive health care, relaxed deportation rules for young immigrants or a discontinued operation run out an ATF field office in Phoenix, as the right wing would like us to believe. The ATF and Justice Department clearly betrayed their own principles in allowing "Fast and Furious" (and the earlier "Wide Receiver" operation) to happen in the first place, but there is no evidence the "gun-walking" strategy was ever adopted on a national (or even statewide) scale. Furthermore, Attorney General Holder has made it clear the operation was "unacceptable" and will not be repeated under his watch.
But a powerful special interest group that continues to promote the "legitimacy" of political violence after the attempted assassination of a congresswoman in Tucson, without either shame or remorse? That is a very serious threat to the rule of law. As are NRA policies that promote the unnecessary use of lethal violence on our streets. As Trayvon Martin's mother recently noted, "There is something very wrong if there's a law that a person is using to defend himself for killing a kid."
The next time a Republican like Darryl Issa or fellow NRA Defender of Freedom Award winner Ken Cuccinelli rants about the Obama administration's "disregard for the law," someone might want to ask them about their steadfast support for an organization that believes chopping off the heads of Democrats is an acceptable way to resolve political differences.
Follow Josh Horwitz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CSGV
Rev. Al Sharpton: Attorney General Eric Holder Has Been 'Stopped and Frisked'
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Those words are immortal and not only for the founders. Statists like you naturally fear free-men willing to fight and die for liberty. And sooner or later, as we spiral down to tyranny, it WILL come to pass that a small percentage WILL rise up in arms. If a mere 3% of gunowners (it was only 3% of the colonists that also rose up in arms), that would represent almost 3 million citizen-soldiers to overthrow the tyranny! that is more than 53,000 armed civilians in each state and the District of Columbia-----sooner or later, if the statist and liberty-encroaching policies continue, it will be inevitable.
And why not? It is the legacy shown us by our founders--why SOME of us celebrate independence day. But your ilk love dependence. Our current status in the fall to utter despotism is reflected in this quote:
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, "Make us your slaves, but feed us." --The Brothers Karamazov (The Grand Inquisitor), Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky.
And this utopian state these leftist loons love, what will it look like? What is it already so VERY much resembling? Anyone out there ever read 1984? It's looking ALOT like 1984.
Some utopia!
SamAdams1776 III
si vis pacem parabellum
non sibi sed patriae
Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est
Molon Lobe
No Fort Sumters!
"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts
not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert
the Constitution." -- Abraham Lincoln
The Bill of rights does not GRANT rights, it assumes them as pre-existing adn forbids government from infringing on them!
And the 2A is guaranteed NOT for hunting; anyone who has read the founders writings knows full well, they were quite explicit in their writings that an armed public was designed to prevent or if necessary, overthrow it (if you waited to long to prevent it).
There are so MANY writings I could post here, I have no room, but lets look at the most commonly known one:
"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."--The Declaration of Independence
Continued in the next post.
SamAdams1776 III
si vis pacem parabellum
non sibi sed patriae
Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est
Molon Lobe
No Fort Sumters!
And, I still find it HILARIOUS that some people believe Stand Your Ground is a new thing. Alot of states never needed SYG laws, because self defense is just common sense. Fact: SYG is not a gun law. It does not mention firearms in any capacity. It says that your life is valuable, even outside of your own home. That's all it says.
"any report Issa releases will be political in it's selection of what facts to emphasize"
Until there is a new congressional report, the facts of the matter is that this report stands as the most complete and accurate accounting available to the public. All else is spin and empty allegation."
"put it in writing make a report citing specific evidence.... otherwise -yawn - more spin. "
These are all comments made before the flo.oding of the thread w/ opeds and after denials of up to date information. Nice dbl standards, eh?
When asked to provide evidence for other outlandish claims, here were some of the responses:
Que pasa?
nice try go read a book
que?
not even biting
ehh...
pass....
I'll pass.
inaccurate... pass...
And right before flooding the thread, this tends to be the statement.
"B' BYE"
"last thing I have to say"
The general flavor has been that I was relying on an out of date report Or that I would somehow ignore new or definitive statements and evidence if it came out... that somehow new evidence made all the evidence in the minority report "wrong" or "out of date"... I've pointed out there are plenty of wild allegations not supported by fact.
Well new News has come out-- straight out of the horses mouth. Does anyone want to rescind any statements? You'll find the statements by Issa, support my contentions from all along-- that there is no evidence or either Obama's involvement or Holder's involvement in either the operation or a cover-up. It has come down to "put-up or shut-up" time and instead of contradict the Minority report, he confirms their findings... The lesson to be gained is "check your sources"
As indicated the investigation has moved into the NRA conspiracy against the 2nd amendment territory in which they truly grasping at straws to make a far-fetched idea more palatable...
Read in Issa's own words...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/24/darrell-issa-john-boehner-fast-and-furious_n_1622141.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
All the while you play 'top of the post' to keep trying to change the subject.
Obama claimed executive privilege, which is pretty much reserved for white house involvement.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/24/darrell-issa-john-boehner-fast-and-furious_n_1622141.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
"House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) contradicted House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Sunday, saying that Congress has found no evidence that President Barack Obama or anyone at the White House had participated in a cover-up involving the Fast and Furious scandal."
and
"In February 2011, DOJ sent a letter to Congress denying such sales, but retracted that claim in December. It is not clear if either Attorney General Eric Holder or President Barack Obama were aware of the program, and Issa acknowledged Sunday that he has not found evidence Holder was involved.
"I did not say that Eric Holder always knew," Issa said."
As it comes closer to "put up or Shut up" time, there is a little confusion. No knowledge or involvement in the operation-- for Obama or Holder.... Kinda mirrors the Minority findings...
What isn't confusing is that the investigation has de-evolved into the "conspiracy to use the operation in support of a anti-gun agenda" narrative that Issa proposed to the NRA, and the NRA's "Proof that he's going to ban guns is that he hasn't banned guns yet" tin-foil hat theory---
Because Holder is obstructing the investigation by not releasing thousands of documents which have been lawfully and legally subpenaed by Congress.
You support that? Why?
Who's making this claim?
What is going on is an investigation as to who was involved in F&F, an investigation that Holder is obstructing by refusing to cooperate w/ Congress, who DOES have the authority to conduct said investigation.
Why are you supporting the obstruction of an investigation into the deaths of multiple federal agents?
No obstruction of investigation into the deaths of multiple federal agents exists... Issa says so himself... the obstruction is into a claim/theory that there was DOJ discussion on how to use the case to "further a gun control agenda"......
and until "put-up or shut-up" time finally came around, Issa was acting as if he was holding a trial... and a misconception would be the idea that Issa could say anyone was "guilty" of anything... which has flooded the blabbosphere...
It's amazing how much you are defending the administration. Makes me wonder if you would do the same for the last one.
In February 2011, DOJ sent a letter to Congress denying such sales, but retracted that claim in December. It is not clear if either Attorney General Eric Holder or President Barack Obama were aware of the program, and Issa acknowledged Sunday that he has not found evidence Holder was involved.
"I did not say that Eric Holder always knew," Issa said.
Pretty much mirrors the findings in the "out of date" report...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/24/darrell-issa-john-boehner-fast-and-furious_n_1622141.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
Pretty much supports what I've said...
enough said...
But the report that Cummings released is the 'truth'. Released just days before a hearing. No politics. No, none at all.
Again, why are you supporting the obstruction of an investigation into the smuggling of firearms to Mexico and the deaths of multiple federal agents?
9 Fans
Become a fan
31 minutes ago ( 6:46 PM)
pass....
Favorite (0) Flag as Abusive
Permalink | Share it
Your response when asked to provide just a scintilla of evidence to justify one of your more outlandish comments. Didn't I see where you claimed you had an MA in history and Education? And that is the best YOU can do to support your ridiculous assertions? And the prohibitionists wonder why they continue to wither away to irrelevance.
You failed to even acknowledge my request for clarification, and that was the response to Thirdpower, when he asked for clarification. So, either you have made a false assertion, and are lying, or you have no argument beyond "pass...". Time to put your big boy panties on, and provide proof of the brandishing. But if asking for clarification of an outlandish assertion is trolling, so be it. But I am not the troll in this conversation.
So, want to try again, or are you going to continue to avoid providing any evidence of your veracity?
One is a protest, the other is a threat of violence.... "
please try to explain to a rational person why this is outlandish.... be specific and use examples...........
You made a statement. It was that brandishing is a threat, and that I could google TEA Party rallies or NRA rallies to see examples. I did. There was NO brandishing firearms stories at all. So, you either lied, or have just drank the Koolaide offered by the CSGV, et. al.
By the way, I never said brandishing was not violent. What I said, and the evidence shows, is that you haven't a clue as to the difference between brandishing and the legal, peaceful carry of properly holstered firearms.
So, there was NO brandishing a firearm at any of these events you want me to look at. That is unless YOU think brandishing is the legal and peaceful carry of firearms in holsters or slung across a shoulder. When you provide the evidence of the brandishing you claim, we can talk. Until then, I will consider you to be an uninformed braggart, who has been found out by those you oppose.
As for any new evidence to come out of committee, I will continue to doubt their reports of "evidence" until they put their careers on the line and make a report of that evidence... until they put it in official print it is "mouthing off" and casting dispersions... If you aren't willing to put SOMETHING into an official report then you obviously have nothing.
Again one wonders if you will accept and bitterly cling to the Majority report as readily as you do the out of date minority one.
In Issa's own words... The Minority Report is accurate... I look forward to his report if he ever releases one...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/24/darrell-issa-john-boehner-fast-and-furious_n_1622141.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
I guess you answered my question. You've already dismissed any future reports by Issa.
Is that part of the historical model you were taught in your Masters course? Yes or no.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/24/darrell-issa-john-boehner-fast-and-furious_n_1622141.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
ALl the while you will refuse to accept any and all information that opposes your preconceived mindset.
If you tried to say that the information is the same like you are doing....
"Until there is a new congressional report, the facts of the matter is that this report stands as the most complete and accurate accounting available to the public. All else is spin and empty allegation. "
Especially if it contradicts your personal bi.ases.
Seriously?
What 'common historical research model' are you using? The one that favors certain political actions over others? You choose to accept the report as "the most accurate account of information in the public record" while you make excuses for Holder et al. Others, who keep up to date w. findings and the investigation disagree.
In December 2011, the Department retracted its claim that the ATF had not allowed illegally purchased guns to be trafficked to Mexico.
He lied.
During a hearing last week, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that his predecessor, then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, had been briefed about gunwalking in Operation Wide Receiver. Now, the Department is retracting that statement and claiming Holder "inadvertently" made that claim to the Committee.
How many more 'errors' did Holder make and why aren't they releasing the thousands of related documents? Why are you protecting these illegal and criminal actions?
The report gives a rational reasonable acct of all the facts from Issa's investigation. Issa ha not filed even a brief report for the reasons mentioned above.-- He can say anything he wants, lie on the House floor, go on fox every night to repeat his lies and face not consequences. But if he files a report of findings not based entirely on evidence and testimony- his career could be over.
The NRA letter spins the popular narrative repeated by all of the tin-foils and nuts. None of these folks could quote a statement made by a witness or even tell you WHAT the documents Issa is not getting are about.--- it's called a smokescreen.... and every one repeating the NRA narrative is just one more smokebomb...
Really? ANd your 'document' is 6 months out of date.
"The Committee obtained documents indicating that in 2007 he(Attorney General Michael Mukasey) was personally informed about thefailure of previous law enforcement operations"
A few days ago:
"Attorney General Holder’s testimony referred to briefing paper prepared for Attorney General Mukasey in advance of a November 16, 2007 meeting with the Mexican attorney general … As we explained in a letter to Chairman Issa on March 16, 2012, and as you note, this briefing paper concerned the case of Fidel Hernandez, not Wide Receiver as the Attorney General inadvertently stated at the hearing.”
Try and keep current, will you?
Evidence, and documents alike do not have expiration dates. History is built upon that fact. Issa has been wasting time and throwing out allegations, but he hasn't even issued a single report of finding.. if he was to publish something and actually file it I might believe that he had something..... logic and rationality fails to advance this discussion.