As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama deliberately and repeatedly lied to America's 90 million gun owners across the country when he insisted that he would not try to take away anyone's firearms, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said during a press teleconference on Friday.
CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, reacting to Thursday's remarks by Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder that the president will seek to reinstate the ban on semi-automatic firearms, said Obama "knew he was lying to the nation because his own web site touted his plan to revive the gun ban and make it permanent."
"We warned America that Obama's 'support' for the Second Amendment was empty rhetoric," he stated, "and now Holder's disclosure has confirmed it. Obama was lying, and now gun rights may be dying."
Several times on the campaign trail, Obama told voters "I'm not going to take your guns away." He said it at rallies in Duryea, Pennsylvania and in Boise, Idaho. He also told a news conference that "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear... I think people can take me at my word."
"Right now," said Gottlieb, "I wouldn't take Obama's word if he said it rains a lot in Seattle. Apparently, law-abiding gun owners have nothing to fear unless they own sport-utility rifles, semiautomatic shotguns, handguns and any other firearm that Obama and his anti-gun attorney general don't like."
"Thanks to Eric Holder, who has been far more honest than his boss about his anti-gun philosophy, it is now clear that the new president doesn't support the Second Amendment at all," he observed. "American gun owners should remind Democrats in Congress that the Second Amendment means what it says, especially when the president doesn't."
The gun-rights protectors aren't the only ones sounding the Obama -Holder alarm. The National Legal and Policy Center, an organization that achieved success as a plaintiff in the 1993 lawsuit to open the meetings and records of Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care task force, criticized President-Elect Barack Obama for selecting Eric Holder as his Attorney General. NLPC promotes ethics in public life, and sponsors the Government Integrity Project.
According to NLPC President Peter Flaherty, "Holder is not ethically qualified to serve as Attorney General. His track record is not one of independence or objectivity. Instead, he has been guided by politics and self-interest."
On December 21, 1994, federal Judge Royce Lamberth, who presided over the litigation to open the health care task force, asked Holder, who at the time was the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, to investigate Ira Magaziner for possible perjury and criminal contempt of court. He also suggested that Attorney General Janet Reno should appoint an independent counsel to investigate.
Reno announced on March 3, 1995 that she would not appoint an independent prosecutor. On August 3, 1995 Eric Holder announced that he, too, would not prosecute Magaziner.
Magaziner, who headed up the task force, asserted to plaintiffs in a March 3, 1993 statement that no outsiders, or non-government employees, were taking part in the task force. When task force documents were later produced, it was obvious that dozens of outsiders had taken part. It was not a small point. The presence of outsiders would trigger the Federal Advisory Committee Act, requiring that task force meetings be opened to the public. Magaziner's claim stood for several months. Magaziner and other participants in the task force took no action to expose it or to correct the record.
An example of an outsider was Lois Quam, a vice-president of United Health Care Corporation, a for-profit managed care provider. United Health Care stood to financially benefit from the decisions of the task force, not to mention the reams of inside information to which she would become privy.
Quam's participation also helped fuel a controversy directly involving Hillary. The Clintons were investors in a closely held limited partnership called ValuePartners 1, which held a block of United Health Care stock. The partnership shorted a number of health-related stocks including United Health Care. At the time of his death, Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster was in the process of putting the Clinton's health care stocks into a blind trust, a task not completed until July 26, 1994.
At the time, NLPC accused the Clinton administration of a cover-up. Both Reno and Holder were appointed by Clinton, and Reno owed her job to Hillary. Additionally, the Washington Post reported in January of 1995 that Holder was under consideration by Clinton for appointment to a federal judgeship.
Flaherty concluded, "When Reno said she would not appoint a special prosecutor, it was even more appropriate for the case to be handled by the U.S. Attorney with jurisdiction. That was Holder and he should have acted. Holder's failure to pursue Magaziner made a mockery of the law."
After earning notoriety as a student activist and business consultant, Magaziner became the senior advisor for policy development for President Clinton, especially as chief healthcare policy advisor. He now serves as chairman of the William J. Clinton Foundation's international development initiatives, which are at the forefront of non-governmental organizations in addressing Global Health and Environmental issues.
During his college years at Brown University, Magaziner was one of the two architects of the "New Curriculum," a liberal academic approach which includes no core requirements aside from the concentration the student pursues. Magaziner excelled academically at Brown and in 1969 was named valedictorian of his class.
"This is the type of people being appointed to positions of power in the Obama Administration," warns political strategist Mike Baker. "Is there any wonder that gun control would be a major policy issue? These people know they must disarm Americans."
In addition to his failure to prosecute Magaziner, Holder also refused to prosecute anyone involved in the Branch Davidian Massacre in Waco, Texas, an operation given the greenlight by his boss Janet Reno.
"While Holder had no problem having many Americans murdered by federal law enforcement, his heart bleeds for terrorists and enemies who have been captured on the battlefield," said Baker.
"The only thing he learned from the brutality in Waco is that it would have been easier if the occupants of that compound were disarmed prior to the military-style operation," he added.
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he's the former blog editor for the House Conservatives Fund's weblog. Recently, the editors at Examiner.com appointed him as their Law Enforcement Examiner. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.
He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer for NewswithViews.com and PHXnews.com. He's also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 300 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. If you wish to receive Kouri's emailed law enforcement and intelligence reports, write to him at COPmagazine@aol.com. Simply write "Free Subscription" on the subject line.
Comments
Thank you Jim, for penning this information.
It is very alarming indeed that two men in such awesome positions of power (Obama and Holder) could be so hostile to a constitutionally enumerated individual right of the American people.
And their position too is underscored by the current constitutional question of whether the second amendment is "incorporated" ... whether the guarantee constrains infringement by state and local governments. Ironically, this is a 14th amendment question ... ironically because both men are African-American. The reconstruction-era 14th amendment was passed to ensure that African-Americans are protected in all their rights, including the right to own and carry guns. It is just so ironic that two powerful African-Americans are so hostile to such an important right that was so hard-won by post civil war African-Americans.
This story needs to get out!
I actually lived in Waco during the time of the masacre that you refer to. What everyone seems to have forgotten is that the cult inside that compound was holding automatic weapons and keeping women and children hostage and it was the cult that ignited their own facility, not the feds. Although the outcome from it all was regrettable, it was not like those involved were innocent. And I agree with previous posts: this is not a news article but an op-ed piece and should be noted as such.
I get frustrated each time I see reference to African Americans. Where do these people think they are....this is 2009 and they are either African or American...not both. Should they not agree to this way of thinking,then they should carry their ignorance back to Africa.
As for Holder and POTUS, I wouldn't trust either of them and especially when it comes to gun control.
Eric wrote:<i>"I actually lived in Waco during the time of the masacre that you refer to. What everyone seems to have forgotten is that the cult inside that compound was holding automatic weapons and keeping women and children hostage and it was the cult that ignited their own facility, not the feds. Although the outcome from it all was regrettable, it was not like those involved were innocent. And I agree with previous posts: this is not a news article but an op-ed piece and should be noted as such."</i>
Merely LIVING in Waco does NOT make you an "expert" on what transpired there.
"Cult" and "compound" were just part of the anti-gun, anti-Christian message put out by the Clinton-Reno/(Holder) propaganda machine, which as always benefits left-wing regimes, was enabled by their left-wing comrades in the mainstream media. Calling the Viet Cong "go*ks", and the Japanese in WWII "japs", made it easier to kill them. The same goes with the "cultists" at Waco. The difference of course, is that the Viet Cong and the Japanese Imperial army were enemy forces fighting against our country (they attacked us at Pearl Harbor), and our allies.
These enemy forces, and their governments, were not innocent people, like MOST of the people inside the Waco church and residency (about as much of a "compound", as Randy Weaver's plywood shack was a "mountain fortress").
With regard to innocence, what about the 25 CHILDREN under 15, many of them toddlers and BABIES? Were THEY criminals that deserved a military-style attack and siege? Did THEY deserve to be gassed, burned, and suffocated to death?
And as to the question of the legality of the Branch Davidians possibly having so-called-assault weapons, and maybe even fully-automatic weapons in their possession (many think that the BATF and FBI PLANTED full-auto weapons at the same time they purposefully DESTROYED evidnce that may have implicated their agencies and personnel in crimianl acts, i.e., WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FRONT DOOR which may have PROVED the ATF fired the first shots which could have provoked a self-defense reaction from the inhabitants?), had the Branch Davidians USED these firearms in any violent activities? NO.
The worst they could be charged for is violating TECHNICAL TAX laws regarding the ownership and/or manufacture of these type of full-auto weapons (again, IF they did, in fact, have them, which is questionable considering that the many full-auto weapons the FBI displayed as "evidence" were not charred and burned from the fire).
If the main person the feds were interested in detaining, arresting, charging, was Koresh, then why didn't they take him when he went out in town on a regular basis?
Books I've read suggest that the ATF was grandstanding and wanted a big, successful operation to show how relevant, necessary, and professional they were, especially in the face of congress looking at lowering their budget, shutting them down, or putting them under the FBI (one or more of these things had been considered many times before).
I read that the "command center" they set up was more geared towards getting out the word of a successful operation to the media, than it was to command and control of the operation.
The BATF FAILED miserably and looked anything but professional. What they did, just like the fed agencies at Ruby Ridge, SHOULD have resulted in criminal prosecutions of many of these agents, and especially their leadership (including Clinton, Reno, and HOLDER - now Hussein's AG).
Eric, you need to read about what REALLY happened at Waco, and not depend on what the feds, the mainstream media, some hack commission, and made-for-TV movies say and depict.
Again, merely BEING in Waco at the time gives you no real insight into what really happened, especially since the Clinton/Reno Jack-Booted-Thugs kept EVERYONE at a distance during the siege, and afterward, as they were destroying evidence which may have showed the branch Davidians innocence, and planting damning "evidence" in the charred ruins that they, the federal government, had created by putting their ill-concieved, poorly planned and conducted, and illegal operation into motion.
Why is no one talking about any of this? It's almost as if Americans are asleep. Any kind of discourse would at least bring new thoughts and would provoke answers on the subject, but instead we all sit and wait; silently.
"Oz says:
Why is no one talking about any of this? It's almost as if Americans are asleep. Any kind of discourse would at least bring new thoughts and would provoke answers on the subject, but instead we all sit and wait; silently."
The reason you do not see much discussion on this is the liberal media will not touch subjects such as this. Reporters working for major "news" media have to be biased. During the election, you might have seen what happened to reporters that asked the wrong (critical) questions, or wrote the wrong stories. At the minimum, they were no longer invited, or allowed access to "media" events. Broadcasters were threatened with FCC license revocation if the "wrong" facts were aired.
Barry Soetoro said he would not hire lobbyists, he lied. He said he would allow a review of all bills before signing, he lied. He said he would reduce the deficit, he lied.
When this illegal alien "leader" tells the truth, I will be suprised, but I don't expect that unless he's given sodium phentothal.
How do you know when Barry is lying?
When he opens his mouth.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!