But sometimes Obama cronyism is murderous: Eric Holder, a man unfit to be attorney general of the United States, continues to stonewall the “Fast and Furious” investigation into taxpayer-funded government gun-running to Mexican drug cartels.
It is alleged that the administration chose to facilitate the sale of American weapons to crime kingpins south of the border in order to support a case for gun control north of the border. Evidence keeps piling up:
The other day, a letter emerged from ATF supervisor David Voth authorizing Special Agent John Dodson to buy Draco pistols to sell directly to known criminals. Over 200 Mexicans are believed to have been killed by “Fast and Furious” weapons — that is to say, they were killed by a U.S. government program.
Doesn’t the New York Times care about dead Mexicans? Doesn’t Newsweek or CBS News? Isn’t Obamaism with a body-count sufficiently eye-catching even for the U.S. press? Or, three years in, are the enablers of Obama still so cynical that they accept it as a necessary price to pay for “change you can believe in”? You can’t make a hopenchange omelette without breaking a couple hundred Mexican eggs? Mark Steyn
I still recall the comment from Mrs. Brady (wife of James Brady, wounded in the Reagan assassination attempt) after she met with Obama months ago: to paraphrase her, she said the Obama told her the regime was working on gun control but it was slow going and “under the radar.” What more indictment of Obama and Holder does there need to be?
5 Comments | tags: DOJ, Eric Holder, Fast and Furious, gun control, Gun Runner, Obama, polictics | posted in america, campaign, consequences, Conservative blog network, conservatives, democrats, economy, education, elections, Obama, politics, privileged status, progressives, republicans, Senate, socialism, taxes, TEA Party
In a swift and unexpected decision, the Environmental Protection Agency today rejected a petition from environmental groups to ban the use of lead in bullets and shotgun shells, claiming it doesn’t have jurisdiction to weigh on the controversial Second Amendment issue.
Dontcha just love this media bias? For whom is the Second Amendment controversial? And why is it? It’s pretty clear to anyone who is literate:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But the media love to throw in these buzz words and phrases – like controversial – to confuse and/or manipulate the readers thought process. And isn’t it kinda strange to call anything in the Constitution “controversial”? I don’t believe that the Founders intended for that document to be “controversial”. I really believe that they wanted the people to understand it, wrote it so that the people would understand it and they didn’t expect that over 2 centuries later we would need constitutional attorneys to explain it to us.
But hey, that’s just me.
The decision was a huge victory for the National Rifle Association which just seven days ago asked that the EPA reject the petition, suggesting that it was a back door attempt to limit hunting and impose gun control. It also was a politically savvy move to take gun control off the table as the Democrats ready for a very difficult midterm election.
This is the real reason that the EPA dropped this whole thing. The NRA had nothing to do with it, even though they are absolutely correct that this is nothing more than the first step on the ladder to gun control. It was the administration that sent word to the EPA to lay off the bullet thing in order to make it easier on the Democrats who are swimming against what we all hope and pray will be a tsunami this election year.
And then there’s this from ABCNews.go.com:,
A conservative Alabama Democrat often criticized for backing Nancy Pelosi as House speaker dodged a question about supporting her again next year by saying she might get sick and die before he has to decide.
If someone is going to say something tasteless, rude or stupid, it will have to be someone with the CONSERVATIVE label before their name, whether they are Democrats or pachyderms makes no difference. The media is going to make damned sure they work that word in, anytime they can smear those who have a conservative ideology.
3 Comments | tags: EPA, gun control, lead in bullets, media bias, midterm elections, MSM, Nancy Pelosi, NRA, Obama, Second Amendment, the Founders, US Constitution | posted in capitol hill, Congress, Conservative blog network, politics, washington dc