Friday, January 11, 2013

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer

Obama/Biden "Attack On Second Amendment"

As expected, yesterday's meeting between Vice President Joe Biden and the National Rifle Association was little more than a White House photo op. Leaders of the NRA emerged to say it was not a two-way discussion, and that the only purpose of the meeting was to provide cover for Democrats so they could say, "The White House reached out to the NRA." Right -- the same way the White House "reached out" to Republicans during the Obamacare debate.

Following the meeting, the NRA released a blistering statement accusing the Obama White House of planning to "attack" the Second Amendment. Here is an excerpt:

"We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment.  While claiming that no policy proposals would be 'prejudged,' this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners -- honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans.  It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems.  We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen."

Yesterday the Washington Post reported that the Obama White House was "working with its allies on a well-financed campaign … to shift public opinion toward stricter gun laws and provide political cover to lawmakers who end up voting for … restrictions on firearms." It is just one more example of this White House being in perpetual campaign mode -- viewing everything through the lens of the next election. But what might this campaign look like?

Attorney General Eric Holder has a few ideas. He once suggested that a massive PR campaign was needed to shame gun owners like smokers. Holder said the campaign needs to "really brainwash people to think about guns in a vastly different way."

Listen To The People

After the Newtown shootings, the political left and its media allies predictably demanded more restrictions on your Second Amendment rights. I wrote Wednesday that subsequent polling indicated that the liberals were out-of-touch with public opinion. For example, a December 2012 poll by the Washington Post found that only 32% of respondents favored "passing stricter gun-control laws," while 49% preferred "stricter enforcement of existing laws."

The NRA also put forth a solution -- armed guards in schools. As the NRA's Executive Director Wayne LaPierre succinctly stated:

"We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. …We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers. Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family -- our children -- we as a society leave them utterly defenseless."

But Big Media elites mocked the idea. They said, "The solution to guns in schools is not more guns." Once again, it's the elites who are out of touch, unable to distinguish between the good guys with guns and the bad guys with guns.

Last month, a Gallup poll found that new gun control legislation ranked fourth on a list of ideas to prevent school shootings. "Increasing the police presence at schools" was the most popular idea.

Yesterday the Associated Press reported that parents in Newtown, Connecticut, as well as some school administrators strongly favor maintaining the police presence at area schools.

Let's hope the politicians in Washington can stop pontificating and plotting against the Second Amendment and start listening to the American people.

Taxpayers Lose With Lew

Senator Lindsey Graham aptly described Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense as a petty, "in your face" move. You can describe Obama's nomination of Jack Lew to head the Treasury Department the same way.

John Carney, a senior editor of CNBC.com, has a posted a very revealing article about the "pointed message" Obama is sending with Lew's appointment. Lew's nomination can only be seen as intentionally antagonistic, and part of Obama's effort to "pick fights with Congress."

Lew is a liberal loyalist, an Obama "yes" man, who does not get along at all with congressional Republicans. The reason why Joe Biden was called in to cut a deal on the fiscal cliff negotiations was that Sen. Mitch McConnell could not work with Lew anymore. In prior negotiations on the debt limit, Lew repeatedly insisted on raising taxes at every opportunity. Even when he was open to GOP ideas on spending cuts, he would never accept them without tax hikes.

By nominating Lew, Obama is sending a clear signal that he has no intention of finding common ground with congressional Republicans on spending.

When Lew's name was announced, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) unleashed an uncharacteristic broadside, saying, "Jack Lew must never be Secretary of Treasury." What would cause Sen. Sessions to make such an emphatic statement? Two years ago, as Obama's budget director, Lew testified that Obama's budget "will get us … to the point where we can look the American people in the eye and say we're not adding to the debt anymore."

Keep in mind, friends, that Barack Obama has run trillion-dollar deficits every year of his administration, and the national debt has increased from $10 trillion to more than $16 trillion. In fact, Obama is now demanding another increase in the debt limit because his budgets HAVE NOT gotten us anywhere near the point of not adding to the debt.

Now Obama wants to give Jack Lew a promotion! Taxpayers stand to lose a lot more if Lew and Obama get their way in future negotiations.

 

Share this