Press release posted at LP.org. Reposted to IPR by Paulie.
“Obama is ‘bitterly clinging’ to falsified numbers” in bid to push anti-gun treaty
WASHINGTON — Libertarians are taking President Barack Obama to task for once again intentionally spreading false information about the source of guns used by Mexican drug cartels and blaming the United States for crime in Mexico.
“This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States,” said Obama in a face-to-face meeting Thursday with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in Mexico City.
That claim, however, is blatantly false. According to information supplied by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) the real number is closer to only 17 percent.
“There is a reason Obama is intentionally spreading false information about American firearm businesses. He opposes the Second Amendment, promised anti-gun groups he would enact gun bans and is hoping to scare people into voting away their own rights,” said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director.
“The first casualty in Barack Obama’s war on the Second Amendment is the truth. Not only does Obama want to renew failed gun bans here in the United States and register all gunowners, he’s hoping to literally scare up enough support for an international anti-gun treaty the Senate has been rejected for over a decade,” said Ferguson.
Obama hopes to enact the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials (CIFTA,) requiring all guns to be marked and tracked by the government. It was signed by then-President Bill Clinton in 1997, but never ratified.
“The people who wrote that treaty know you can’t ban and confiscate guns unless you know exactly where they are,” said Ferguson.
Backers of the treaty, such as Calderon, hope it will be the first step towards gun registration and prohibition in the United States. Obama hopes to push the Senate into finally ratifying the anti-gun treaty.
But Obama’s “90 percent” talking point has absolutely no factual basis.
ATF Special Agent William Newell tells Fox News that between 2007 and 2008, around 11,000 guns used in Mexican crimes appeared to come from the United States and were submitted to the ATF for tracing. Of those, only 6,000 could be successfully traced. Of those, only 5,114, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover, were found to have come from the U.S.
Obama’s “90 percent” number refers, not to the percentage of “guns recovered in Mexico,” as Obama claims, but to the “percent of the traced firearms” according to a BATFE spokeswoman.
But Mexican authorities report that in those two years, a total of 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes. That means 68 percent of the guns recovered by Mexican police did not even appear to come from the United States.
That means only 5,114 out of 29,000 guns used in Mexican crimes were found to have come from the United States. That figure would be 17 percent, not the 90 percent repeated by Obama.
Further weakening Obama’s case is the fact firearms manufacturers such as Colt legally shipped some of those United States-originated guns into Mexico for permitted uses, such as by the Mexican military.
Research finds most of the guns used by Mexican criminals come from overseas black markets, Russian crime organizations, South America, Asia, Guatemala and even the Mexican army.
“No reasonable person would think Obama didn’t consult the BATFE to get numbers before coming up with his talking points, and this information has been public for over two weeks. Barack Obama chose to intentionally spread fake information because he hopes to use fear to ram his anti-Second Amendment agenda through the Senate,” said Ferguson.
During his term in the Senate, Obama earned an “F” rating from Gunowners of America, as well as the National Rifle Association. In an April 11, 2008 campaign speech in San Francisco, Obama claimed gunowners are simply “bitter,” racist people who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”
“Obama is ‘bitterly clinging’ to falsified numbers, hoping he can take away the constitutional rights of ‘people who aren’t like’ him,” said Ferguson.
For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Libertarian Party, please call Director of Communications Donny Ferguson at 703-200-3669 or 202-333-0008, x. 225, or email [email protected].
They don’t want US guns flooding into their country, I don’t want disease laden vermin flooding into my country, you’d think we could agree on something – CLOSE THE BORDER. If they couldn’t get into the US, most likely smuggling drugs for their “grub stake”, then they couldn’t steal guns and smuggle them back home. The article didn’t say how many of the guns traced to the US had been reported stolen, you know what I think – ALL.
derkel appears to be one of those people who think the LP can gain power by never saying or doing anything that moves people out of their comfort zones.
If that were true, then derkel can join one of the parties that already has power. Why be a libertarian if you don’t want to end the drug war, end the war on gun ownership, end the foreign wars of occupation, and make people stop imposing their government brutality on each other?
People ought to be made uncomfortable with the consequences of coercion and brutality until they stop advocating it, or at least stop paying taxes to support it.
Published in HuffPo:
“This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States”
|——————-
Are not American produced arms, purchased by the Mexican government for its military, by definition, purchased in the US, and originate from the US?
When the president says “guns coming from the US” most people don’t think of military-to-military transfers.
Ugh, just read what I wrote. I really did pass fourth grade and know how to use apostrophes… or is it apostrophe’s?
I agree with paulie. There are more people who are open to the idea of ending the drug war than even know the LP exists.
But, this is an issue that needs to be handled a little more carefully than I’ve seen in the past.
Cork, I agree with you, but I don’t think that’s the right way to phrase the sentiment.
I think the LP should chart a course from right now that can be sold to a large number of voters – maybe not a majority, but a large number. That course could be something along the lines of a phased easing of the ‘failed and resource draining’ drug war (I’d never call it the drug war without using the tag).
Small steps. Phase 1 might just be to drop marijuana down one rung on the drug schedules, from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2. Then it doesn’t look like the party is promoting self interest (as in its members want to light up). It could look like the party is looking for ways to reduce the law enforcement and judicial costs associated for treating marijuana as something even more dangerous than heroin. Look pragmatic, not wild-eyed.
I’m not saying pull the wool over anyone’s eyes about the party’s beliefs. But just acknowledge where we are now, and chart a more moderate course out of the mess. That can be sold politically.
Maybe a second phase would be ending the federal prohibition on state’s exercising their rights to legalize medical marijuana – something that does have majority support.
A third phase might be something about focusing on drug court’s with path’s to treatment instead of prison. Another tax dollar savings.
A fourth phase might be calling for a national debate to take place after implementation of the first three to discuss progress, results, unintended consequences – basically an audit of where we are with an aim toward building a national consensus for where we ought to go next. See, very safe sounding. Nothing that trips the protective natures of suburban soccer moms.
Cork – Then why can’t the 😛 National just come out and say that America is responsible for the violence in Mexico, because of the War On Drugs, instead of issuing more Obominations, in a press release that calls him a liar, which itself dances with the truth?
The LP release stated:
——————-|
Further weakening Obama’s case is the fact firearms manufacturers such as Colt legally shipped some of those United States-originated guns into Mexico for permitted uses, such as by the Mexican military.
|——————-
Yet the Obama quote at issue in the beginning of the release was:
——————-|
“This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States”
|——————-
Are not American produced arms, purchased by the Mexican government for its military, by definition, purchased in the US, and originate from the US? Where’s the contradiction?
Even the 17% figure cited the the LP is suspect, because it only refers to guns that were positively identified as originating in the US, and does not account for the other 5000 guns which “appeared to come from the United States and were submitted to the ATF for tracing”.
Adding even more dubiousness into Fergusen’s stats is: “Counting Mexico’s Guns“, FactCheck dot org, April 17, 2009. So even when the LP National points out an untruth by Obama, they themselves are incapable of telling the truth. The Party of Principle, my ass.
The LP National, calling Obama a liar, based on an uncited FoxNews story, ROTFLMAO.
The first thing I usually hear from non-libertarians is “don’t you guys want to legalize all drugs.”
Who cares? We *do* want to legalize all drugs, and for good reason. The Mexican drug violence is a perfect example of why it has to be done.
Long ago, they would have said “Aren’t you the party that wants to legalize alcohol? That’s craaazy!” So what?
Nice to focus on other issues as many non libertarians believe we spend far too much time on the drug war.
Then they’re wrong. It’s a fascist (and racist) crusade against the innocent, peaceful human beings. I’m sure the Free Soil Party was accused of spending “far too much time on slavery.”
As Knapp beautifully put it, “Insofar as cargo-cultism and “seriousness” are concerned, rest assured that I have nothing against suits and ties, friendly media interviews and the other requirements of realpolitick. What I do oppose is the absurd notion that waving around “mainstreamism” like some kind of voodoo fetish will magically boost us to competitive stature versus our older, more established opponents. It won’t.”
Funny, what I hear from most non-L is that we are a far right party to the right of the Republicans. I only wish we were known as the party working to end the war on drugs, since there is a lot more support for that than there is for the LP.
“Too little is a lot more like it.”
You think? The first thing I usually hear from non-libertarians is “don’t you guys want to legalize all drugs.”
Which is a bad message to send because they don’t take the time to educate themselves on why we think all drugs should be legalized. So it sounds stupid until they actually become informed. Which isn’t likely to happen since most people refuse to read up on anything outside of their comfort zone.
Too little is a lot more like it.
“Holy crap, how the hell did the LP make it through ANOTHER press release about the Mexican drug cartels without calling for an end to the drug war? Unbelievable.”
I don’t really see a problem with it. Our stance on the drug war is widely known. Nice to focus on other issues as many non libertarians believe we spend far too much time on the drug war.
It appears that the national LP is a good example about why one should not rely on any one organization to advance the cause of drug legalization.
http://mpp.org/
http://www.google.com/search?q=legalize+meth+by+Victor
Holy crap, how the hell did the LP make it through ANOTHER press release about the Mexican drug cartels without calling for an end to the drug war? Unbelievable.
And again, we see republicans and democrats agreeing. Recently, Newt called for strengthening the border wall between Mexico and the US in order to keep US guns (and people) on this side of the border. Something that Hillary had proposed just a couple weeks ago.
PEACE