Obama in hot water?

[Tricky]

http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affai...te-moment.html Whoops!

[AcesandEights]

Funny, I was just reading about Arrse.com the other day and how they played a role in outing James Shortt. Anyway, this has been on a slow burn for quite some time and is kind of old news. A sure stumbling block to the chief celebrity, but is it going to blow up? I hope so, as it deserves some serious attention. I think the theory behind it is sound (trojan horse and learn about the cartels and the arms network(s) they use in a effort to be able to hurt them and better control our borders), but the means (allowing "gunwalking") were callous and short-sighted. So upset that we'll get yet another lose/lose election cycle.

[Philly_SWAT]

Funny, I was just reading about Arrse.com the other day and how they played a role in outing James Shortt. Anyway, this has been on a slow burn for quite some time and is kind of old news. A sure stumbling block to the chief celebrity, but is it going to blow up? I hope so, as it deserves some serious attention. I think the theory behind it is sound (trojan horse and learn about the cartels and the arms network(s) they use in a effort to be able to hurt them and better control our borders), but the means (allowing "gunwalking") were callous and short-sighted. So upset that we'll get yet another lose/lose election cycle. Hopefully this "story" does not once against show how shitty the US news media has become. In reality, a far right winger blogger named Mike Vanderboegh stated this "story" almost a year ago. His main complaint/argument is that somehow Obama is using an Obama created gun violence mess in Mexico to use as leverage to limit gun rights here in the US. Which is ludacris on its face. Obama has done nothing whatsoever to limit gun laws. And even if for some weird reason he wanted to try, it would never get past congress, one of the good things about our system. So to claim that ANY President on a whim can change gun laws is stupid. To specifically say that this "fast and furious" program is that devious plot ( the program was started under George W Bush, btw) is so rediculous it doesnt deserve discussion. Unfortunately, many of our elected leaders on the right side of the ailse get all of their "news" from far right fringe sources. That is why the rest of the media hasnt "reported" this for the past year...it is non-sensicle. But time after time, the legit media picks up these stupid stories and runs with them. But there were actual hearings on this in congress. Those on the right are claiming that this is a vast cover-up, disgrace, etc. So just to set the record straight, when Bush/Cheny possibly commit WAR CRIMES by cherry picking intelligence to get us into a more than a decade long war, they claim "executive privledge" and do not disclose info, and thats ok. But when two, and I repeat, TWO guns from a program started by Bush are used to kill someone in Mexico, all of a sudden, the Obama administration is akin to the worst thing ever in history. It is a sad state if some crazy stuff that our freedom of speech gives someone the right to say makes it into the minds of elected leaders and they act upon it. If the media continues to act as if these things are legit stories instead of calling it what it is, the future of our country looks very dim indeed.

[Mr. Clean]

[Sammich]

In reality, a far right winger blogger named Mike Vanderboegh stated this "story" almost a year ago. His main complaint/argument is that somehow Obama is using an Obama created gun violence mess in Mexico to use as leverage to limit gun rights here in the US. Which is ludacris on its face. I am not sure how long you have followed the gun control debate, but I have for over 2 decades and it is an example of Hegelian dialectic being used by government. Create a problem where there isn't, propagandize the problem, then present the previously unaccepted solution. It is the same thing that has been used over and over again in regards to gun control to the gun ignorant public. The gun control lobby are so rabid against private ownership of firearms that they use the ends justify the means approach to try to meet agenda. Waving bloody shirts and dancing in the blood of the dead is something these ghouls relish. For example, in the 80s and 90s the only exposure that the general public of semi-auto rifles (aka assault weapons) were the select fire counterparts in movies. The gun control lobby and government counterparts, never missing an opportunity to further their agenda latched on to high profile shootings. Create the problem were there isn't The gun controllers used high profile shootings to come out with claims that "assualt weapons" were a scourge on society, even though government data showed that these guns were very rarely used in crimes. Over 100,000 police officers delivered a message to Congress in 1990 stating that only 2% to 3% of crimes are committed using a so-called "assault weapon." Congressional Record, 13 September 1990, p. E 2826, citing [Police Advertisement], Roll Call, 3 September 1990. Also, see Howard Schneider, "Gun Owners Take Shot at Schaefer Assault-Weapon Bill," The Washington Post, February 15, 1991 Propgandize the problem The gun controllers then went on a propaganda program demonizing all scary looking guns as weapons of mass destruction. "It's for the children" became their favorite rallying cry. “The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” – Josh Sugarmann of Violence Policy Center, 1988 Give the solution that previously was not accepted Government flunkies like Charles Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Patrick Moynihan, and Tom Lantos stood by waiting for the right time to introduce their gun control legislation that would have failed proir to all of this. The result was the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill. Are you aware that Bush stated that he would have signed an "assault weapon" ban renewal if it reached his desk? "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder in 2003. Are you aware that Eric Holder has been against private ownership of guns his entire career and as a U.S. Attorney said this: "We just have to be repetitive about this. It's not enough to have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it every Monday. We have to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way." -Eric Holder 1995 CSPAN Are you aware that the Obama administration and Eric Holder were harassing gun stores and gun buyers in border states in an facade to stop exactly what Fast and Furious was doing on a much larger scale? ATF requests info about semi-automatic rifle sales in border states Are you aware that Obama signed into effect gun control Executive Orders? “I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” ~ Barack Obama, May, 2011, referencing gun control Obama Executive Orders Impose New Gun Rules The Executive Orders come in the middle of the “Fast and Furious” scandal currently plaguing the administration. Already, there is talk on Capitol Hill of a cover-up at the highest levels of government, and it appears to some that the administration was feeding the lethal problem of firearms trafficking it ostensibly intended to address with “Fast and Furious.” The question remains- if these Executive Orders are ‘common sense’ measures as the administration claims, why not let Congress enact them as laws? And if they are minor tweaks to existing law as others claim, are they necessary at all? Obama is also pushing for ratification of the UN Small Arms Treaty of 2012: Obama & the Global Push to Ban Small Arms in the United States Thankfully the Fast and Furious debacle seems to have derailed further gun control attempts by the administration. But when two, and I repeat, TWO guns from a program started by Bush are used to kill someone in Mexico, all of a sudden, the Obama administration is akin to the worst thing ever in history. Are you serious that you are aware of only 2 guns? Firearms from ATF sting linked to 11 more violent crimes Guns from Operation Fast and Furious were found at scenes in Arizona and Texas, the Justice Department acknowledges, widening the scope of the danger posed by the program. Guns from 'Fast & Furious' Found at Multiple Mexican Crime Scenes At least 122 firearms from a botched US undercover operation have been found at crime scenes in Mexico or intercepted en route to drug cartels there, a Republican congressional report issued on Tuesday said. Of the 2,000 weapons sold to the suspected gun traffickers, just over half remain unaccounted for, the report added. The ATF was unaware of most of the gun sales when they occurred, according to the Justice Department, which oversees it. "Given the vast amount of 'Operation Fast and Furious' weapons possibly still in the hands of cartel members, law enforcement officials should expect more seizures and recoveries at crime scenes," the congressional report said. And here is an incident where an Immigrations Agent named Jaime Zapata was killed by a ANOTHER FaF type operation: Fast and Furious: Walked ATF guns found at Zapata crime scene This wasn’t part of Operation Fast and Furious, which was run out of Arizona. It was another gun-walking operation, running out of Texas. A second “walked” ATF gun was also recovered from the scene of Zapata’s murder, sold by a different group of people… who were also on the ATF radar screen. How many more of these gun walking fiascoes are there? Who knows? That question should be taken seriously: who knows?

[Philly_SWAT]

I will not reply to all the points in your lengthy post. I will say two things... 1) Guns "found at the scene of violent crimes" does not mean the same thing as guns that caused a death(s). I said two guns were known to have been used in a death. (Of course, it is rediculous to think that without those PARTICULAR GUNS that there would have been no death). 2) I guess if Obama gets re-elected and does nothing to "take your guns from you" perhaps you may agree with my main point which was that Obama is not trying to take away anyones guns. The example of Hegelian dialectic being used here is not Obama created a situation in Mexico to take your guns, but anti-Obama people making up a story that Obama is trying to take your guns to be negative about Obama. For the record, I am totally in favor of private guns ownership, I myself own several guns, including an assault rifle. So it is not like I am anti-gun by any means. I am saying that this "story" is one that takes a couple of small facts, and extrapolates a big conspiracy, where no such conspiracy actually exists.

[Mr. Clean]

.................................................. .................................................. ........ This is one of his speeches back in 2008..... Who doesn't have any fresh ideas? Who doesn't have a record to run on? This guy has got to go. I know I'm gonna hear...."oh he has a record" and yes that maybe true but he can't really run on it because it's a God aweful one.

[Neil]

I know I'm gonna hear...."oh he has a record" and yes that maybe true but he can't really run on it because it's a God aweful one. Really don't understand the Obama hate... Wasn't your last Mr Bush a total a-class truncheon? And not only was he elected in, but TWICE! Obama is surely better than that farce?! ps: We can only imagine how things might have turned out for the better(?) had the half million more votes Gore received actually counted for anything!

[Mr. Clean]

A lot of people didn't like Bush because of the length of the War and the decline in the economy. Obama preached change but what has he done different besides making false promises? He has kept the Bush tax cuts (but no longer after they expire this time) and even made a stimulus package similar to Bush. He pushed for a health insurance reform bill to be passed because "it's the right thing to do" even though many people don't even want the damn thing because it was voted on and passed by people who HAD NOT read it. Then the individual mandate came to light which imposes a fee if you don't get insurance...oh...excuse me....it's not a fee...it's a Tax as put by the Supreme Court ruling. I'm not even sure any members of congress read the bill in it's entirety. It's sickening to think elected officals would vote for something they had no clue about. Obama got on his soap box and bitched about the US debt racked up during Bush's term. But during Obama's 3 and 1/2 years....he has raised the debt to $15,871,166,712,271 as of June 2012. Nearly 7 trillion dollars higher than what he was talking about Bush's deficit. The unemployment rate has risen even higher since he was elected....along with the number of people on Welfare. Not to mention crying this whole time that it's Bush's fault... Obama is no good for our nation. The guy is a hypocritical bullshitter and I can't wrap my head around people supporting him. Gore is another real winner... -- -------- Post added at 05:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:33 AM ---------- Hey Gore....thanks for the internet.

[Mike70]

Really don't understand the Obama hate... Wasn't your last Mr Bush a total a-class truncheon? And not only was he elected in, but TWICE! Obama is surely better than that farce?! the major problem a lot of Americans (including myself) have with Obama is that he is an internationalist. he has said a bunch of stupid shit about being "a citizen of the world", he has cozied up to the UN in ways that are completely unacceptable to most Americans (the vast majority of americans HATE the UN with a passion that is almost hard to describe and i'm one of them), and he doesn't seem to get the idea that by being President of this Republic means you put America and its interests first. Obama has done nothing but throw money at problems which cannot be solved with money, he does not respect the integrity of the Constitution and seems to feel that it is some elastic thing that can be "interpreted" in whatever way fits a particular political view. well, it cannot. I am what is called a "strict constructionist" and so are a huge number of Americans. that means that i believe that the Constitution is a literal document, that every word means exactly what is says, and that it is NOT open to elastic interpretations by either the President nor the Supreme Court. I am not a citizen of "the world" or "the UN." I am a citizen of the State of Ohio and the United States of America. the Constitution is clear as glass on both those points. Amendment 14, section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[childofgilead]

Why is it always the second amendment the one that's okay to argue over and say we don't need. What if it was one of the others.

[Mike70]

Why is it always the second amendment the one that's okay to argue over and say we don't need. What if it was one of the others. because a lot of people have lost their belief in personal responsibility. Cigarettes kill hundreds of thousands of people every year and that is just in the US. i don't want to hear people's bullshit about guns. i guess we should talk about banning fertilizer because it can be easily made into a bomb.

[childofgilead]

Or cars, because so many people drink and drive and kill people. Oh wait, how about alcohol? I don't drink, so that doesn't affect me at all! Yeah, let's say people can't drink! And yeah, get rid of cigarettes too, I smoke, but I shouldn't right? I mean I know the risks, but without the government telling me what to do, I might hurt myself!

[Neil]

he has raised the debt "He?" Or events that have unfolded outside his control? -- -------- Post added at 04:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:08 PM ---------- the major problem a lot of Americans (including myself) have with Obama is that he is an internationalist. he has said a bunch of stupid shit about being "a citizen of the world", he has cozied up to the UN in ways that are completely unacceptable to most Americans (the vast majority of americans HATE the UN with a passion that is almost hard to describe and i'm one of them), and he doesn't seem to get the idea that by being President of this Republic means you put America and its interests first. TBH, seems to us (the rest of the world) American's are somewhat just rest of the world phobic at times Imagine five students living in a house together... If one of them "put their interests first" all the time, how do you think the house hold would fair? Maybe that student needs to see they're part of a group and not in it alone at times... ps: This is not aimed at being confrontational, just airing my take/view...

[childofgilead]

Honestly, the United States Constitution is one of the most misunderstood pieces of parchment that's ever been issued. People think they're guaranteed freedom of speech by the First Amendment, when it actually states, verbatim: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It's never said you can say whatever the hell you want and to hell with the consequences and whoever takes offense, it means the United States government can't arbitrarily pass laws regulating or curtailing that freedom. But some people are willing to give up ONE freedom because it makes them uncomfortable. Well, this country is unique in the world. Some people, like myself, aren't "world paranoid". I'm more paranoid about a meth-head or pillpopper trying to rob me, or my vehicle being broken into (again) or the price of fuel, or the price of food. Honestly, what's going on anywhere else is less of a concern for me. Selfish? Maybe. But as Mike said, personal responsibility is just as important as not being a damn miscreant. Our second amendment, honestly, is one of ultimate personal responsibility. No other country has it decreed in its founding documents, the right of any person to have a way to protect themselves. I will not give up this right. I'm not a right-winger, not a survivalist or whatever ugly words get thrown around at someone who thinks that this amendment is as important as any other. I am a responsible individual who has the legal right to own a firearm of any type. I've never committed a felony, am a legal resident and abide all laws, no matter how asinine. If a government has a fear of me being able to protect myself, loved ones and property from those who wish me harm, I have no faith in that government.