www.youtube.com/watch?v=43_QpULfrCM

The fat’s in the fire now. Obama is trying to use government against the rights of conscience.

He has opposed the right to keep and bear arms and now he opposes those who choose life as part of their religious beliefs.

Supporters of the rights of conscience and the right to keep and bear arms should unite against Obama as a common enemy.

About John Snyder:
Named the Gun Dean by Human Events, “the senior rights activist in Washington” by Shotgun News, a “champion of the right to self-defense” by The Washington Times, and “dean of gun lobbyists” by The Washington Post and The New York Times, John M. Snyder has spent 45 years as a proponent of the individual Second Amendment civil right to keep and bear arms as a National Rifle Association editor, public affairs director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, treasurer of the Second Amendment Foundation, and founder of www.GunRightsPolicies.org.

Deaths, guns, whistle-blowers and the highest law officer in the land stonewalling a congressional investigation are the juicy ingredients of a story network news reporters would love to cover – if a Republican were in office. However, when Attorney General Eric Holder testified on Thursday (February 2) before a House oversight committee investigating Operation Fast and Furious, the news was completely ignored by NBC and ABC (there was one full story on Friday’s CBS This Morning). The virtual blackout of Holder’s testimony continues an overall trend of ABC and NBC burying one of the Obama administration’s biggest scandals, despite continual coverage by their competitors at CBS, CNN and Fox News.

We’ve also noted that this story has had virtually no coverage in the evening news. As we’ve stated, who needs a cover-up when the media won’t cover the story anyway?

Kudos to Newsbusters for noting the lack of media attention on what is arguably a huge scandal for the Obama White House.

Newbusters: MRC Study: ABC and NBC Anything But Fast and Furious On Gunwalking Scandal

For now we say kudos to Mr. Cox for stating his point, which included:

Last Thursday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to answer questions about his role in the deadly “Fast and Furious” gun-running scandal. However, instead of answers, Congress got more defiance, more arrogance, and more wasted time with an attorney general who clearly feels no sense of obligation to the American people or our rule of law.

But for all the stonewalling, there was at least one telling moment at this hearing, and it should concern law-abiding gun owners and all Americans who expect accountability from our government.
In a rash attempt to deflect attention away from himself and his own irresponsibility, Holder let Congress know that the Obama administration is still working toward the day when it can reinstate former President Bill Clinton’s so-called “assault weapons” ban. According to Holder:

This administration has consistently favored the reinstitution of the assault weapons ban. It is something that we think was useful in the past with regard to the reduction that we’ve seen in crime, and certainly would have a positive impact on our relationship and the crime situation in Mexico.

Read more: Holder tells Congress the Obama administration wants to ban guns

President Obama focusing on gun control this year would only stimulate gun-related interest groups, like the National Rifle Association, and encourage them to spend even more money to turn out the vote for Republican candidates. Of course the gun lobby is going to oppose Obama’s reelection no matter what.

Winkler then tries to defend Obama on the record:

The NRA and its allies, however, have a credibility problem on this issue. Ever since Obama won the Democratic Party nomination in 2008, the NRA has been ominously warning gun owners about what the organization calls Obama’s “10 Point Plan to ‘Change’ the Second Amendment.” The NRA promised that Obama would “ban [the] use of firearms for home self-defense,” “pass federal laws eliminating your right-to-carry,” and “close down 90 percent of the gun shops in America.” None of these things has happened.

What Winkler does say is that President Obama did have a White House summit that called for “reasonable gun control,” which to us is actually an unreasonable call. Additionally, Obama did tell Sarah Brady he was in fact working on gun control but “under the radar.” These are points that The Daily Beast either forgot, or didn’t want brought up.

Finally after giving various weak arguments on the points, this article closes with:

Gun violence is a serious issue that deserves our leaders’ attention. Yet given the obvious downside risk of promoting gun control in an election year, gun-control advocates should hope that, when it comes to guns, Obama just keeps his mouth shut.

So what we are seeing is that someone believes there is a real problem – one we think is dramatically overstated – and yet says he hopes his guy “just keeps his mouth shut.” Democracy at work indeed!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mROHLcYbJJA

A U.S. House minority report on the gun-smuggling probe known as Fast and Furious blames federal agents in Arizona for the flawed operation while exonerating top-level Justice Department officials.

The 89-page analysis, released Tuesday by Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., ranking minority member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is based upon five congressional hearings, testimony from 22 witnesses and about 12,000 pages of documents.

Its conclusion: “Operation Fast and Furious was the latest in a series of fatally flawed operations run by ATF agents in Phoenix and the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s Office.

And there you have it. The media has ignored the story for months, but now that the blame can be cast away – far away from President Obama and his henchman Eric Holder – the media has decided this is a story worth covering!

Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Tuesday are expected to publish a report on the disputed gun trafficking investigation called Operation Fast and Furious, concluding that agents in Arizona — not Obama administration officials — were responsible for the tactics used in the inquiry and for providing misleading information relayed to Congress.

Of course this argument is more of the “Blame Bush” strategy that we’ve seen for months, and it is an attempt to distance President Obama as well as Attorney General Eric Holder from Fast and Furious. But the question still remains, even if Holder didn’t know (which according to recent information seems hard to believe), why didn’t he know?

It’s not the crime, it’s the coverup, goes the old Washington cliché. In the case of the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal, it’s both.
As Attorney General Eric Holder gets ready to face more congressional grilling Thursday, something’s clearly rotten at the Justice Department. The stench goes all the way to the top — to Holder.

Walsh noted that according to new emails Holder had known about Fast and Furious all along. Walsh closes this piece noting:

With a tough re-election fight, President Obama doesn’t need F&F to become a campaign issue. But surely even he realizes that the nation has had enough of Holder’s polarizing tenure at Justice. Given a choice between himself and Holder . . . well, there’s always room for one more under the Obama bus.

We agree with Walsh, except we have to note… the media has been mum on this story. The mainstream media doesn’t want this story to get out. And that makes it all the more important for the story to be told.

The editors of course tried to once again blame the guns and did some with the usual misreporting:

Ringing vows were made immediately after the Tucson rampage to ban the high-volume ammunition clips used by the gunman, to prod states to submit names of the mentally disturbed to the federal watch list for gun sales, and to plug the notorious gun-show loophole that allows anyone to buy high-powered military weapons without a background check. None of those have happened. Democrats, who once had the good sense to pass a ban on assault rifles, no longer fight for its renewal, wary of the gun lobby’s wrath. President Obama gave a stirring speech after the Tucson shootings, but the White House has said and done too little about gun control since then.

Our first point, yes this is an editorial and opinions are opinions. But facts don’t lie – and this editorial has one of the facts wrong. It isn’t an outright lie, but it is done to make a point. Namely the statement: “high-powered military weapons,” which isn’t fair. First, the shooter in Tucson had no such firearm. So what does it have to do with this piece?

But there is also the point of “high-powered military weapons” that suggests that the guns most can actually buy at gun-shows are “military weapons,” which they are not. The guns are civilian versions and there is a huge difference whether the editors at the Times like it or not!

Next, we note “wary of the gun lobby’s wrath.” What does this mean? It almost suggests as if the gun lobby would use said “military weapons” in a reprisal. But that’s not the case. What the gun lobby would do is stir up voters, who would send President Obama and other anti-gun types packing. But isn’t that how lobbyists are supposed to work? Isn’t that their job whether we like it or not? And at the end of the day it isn’t the majority of voters casting their ballot on the issue? Why is this point always lost in these arguments.

The paper adds:

Ms. Giffords, a supporter of gun rights, was sent off with good wishes from lawmakers who could have done something to stem the carnage. “I will recover and will return,” Ms. Gifford vowed in a her resignation letter, which was read by a colleague. Her departure offered a tragic display of how easily a brilliant career in public service was cut short because of the nation’s inadequate gun laws.

Couldn’t it be that the nation’s mental health system is what really failed here? This argument blames the guns, and whether the Times likes it or there are a lot of guns out there, so the laws seem to be fairly adequate when all is said and done. Tragedies happen, but we don’t try to ban everything.

Will cruise ships be banned because of the recent disaster in Italy? Were airplanes banned because of 9/11? Are cars or even alcohol banned because of drunk drivers? It is such an interesting argument to make, but banning the item involved is only done when it includes guns.

Mr. Obama last year delivered his State of the Union just weeks after the Tucson massacre and in the presence of victims’ family members. Yet he, like so many politicians intimidated by the gun lobby’s muscle, could not muster a single word about the need for reasonable gun control measures to ward off such violence in the future.

We would love if President Obama called for gun control and made it his pinnacle platform! By all means, because it would surely lower his chances for re-election in November.

However, we do have to ask – how is it that the most powerful person on the planet is “intimidated” by a lobby group? Doesn’t this actually suggest that this is a hot button issue with voters? This is a point that the gun hating media never seems to grasp. If Obama is “intimidated” by the gun lobby, it is only because he knows making it an issue will cost him his job.

And since this is the case, doesn’t that mean MORE Americans are pro-gun. But to the gun-hating media that doesn’t seem to matter.