662.) On January 16th, President Obama said “The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. But it’s hard to enforce that law when as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check.” He then said, “Studies estimate that nearly 40 percent of all gun sales are made by private sellers who are exempt from this requirement.” So is this true, are 40% of gun purchases really done without background checks? Well the study that President Obama cited really does say that 40% of gun sales are conducted without a background check. The problem though is that the study was tiny, only 251 people repsoneded to it. Furthermore this tiny survey was conducted nearly 20 years ago. So the survey is ancient, and had a microscopic sample. It is not looking good for President Obama’s assessment.
The news gets worse though I am afraid. The White House and President Obama used the words “gun sales” and “gun purchases”, where as the study used the terminology “gun acquisitions” and “gun transactions” these are much broader terms than what the White House used. When you look at the survey itself, the data becomes quite clear:
Percent of Secondary (“off the books”) market purchases
“Cash purchase from gun, hardware or department store, from pawnshop, or from seller at gun show, flea market or military, or through mail that respondent says “yes” was FFL [federally licensed dealer]: 22 percent
Add cash purchase from seller at gun show, flea market or military, or though the mail that respondent says “probably was/think so:” 20 percent
Add cash purchases, trades with family, friends/acquaintance that respondent says are or probably are FFL: 14 percent“
What this means is that President Obama’s claim that “as many as 40% of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check” doesn’t hold water. It is more like 14-20%. A far cry from 40%. To make matters worse, those of you who have taken statistics you know that the smaller the sample size the greater the margin of error. In the case of this study there was a plus or minus 6 point caveat. So President Obama used an outdated survey, thats sample size was too small, and then fudged the numbers, how is this man creditable in anything that he says? Oh that’s right the old media is a the propoganda arm of the radical progressive movement, and they’d never call President Obama on spreading blatent falsehoods.
663.) It is no seceret that President Obama does not like Fox News. All the other news orginizations have been holding him up as some sort of god. They down play his mistakes and praise his “coolness”. He doesn’t really understand that the news media is there to report things called facts. Of course we can argue whether or not you think Fox News is unbiased, but you can’t argue that President Obama does not have an unbaised hatred for any news outlet that dares question him. I never hear him blast MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, or CNN. Maybe that is because he is unaware of their existance, or he could just be taking shots at a news orginization for reporting on things he doesn’t like. President Obama’s world is based on attacking, and dividing. He cannot talk about princibles, all he can do is blame Republicans for all of the problems of this country. Anyways here is a qoute President Obama gave to the progressive magazine New Republic
“Well, look, I’ve always believed that there are a bunch of Republicans of goodwill who would rather get something done than suffer through the sort of nasty atmosphere that prevails in Washington right now. It’s not a fun time to be a member of Congress.
And I think if you talk privately to Democrats and Republicans, particularly those who have been around for a while, they long for the days when they could socialize and introduce bipartisan legislation and feel productive. So I don’t think the issue is whether or not there are people of goodwill in either party that want to get something done. I think what we really have to do is change some of the incentive structures so that people feel liberated to pursue some common ground.
One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.“
So I could go into how President Obama doesn’t want bipartisan legilsation, he wants the GOP to cave to his demands and just pass the laws as he wants them. I could point out how President Obama blamed the GOP for his problems when he had super majorities in the House and Senate. I could discuss how President Obama was spoiled by having those super majorities in the early years of his presidency. However I think I will discuss this concept of how President Obama is being faced with a problem, the GOP controls the house, and that means he has to play nice with others. He can’t just have things his way like he used to. He has tried calling them names, he has tried degrading them, he has tried belittling them, but the GOP refuses to just let him have his way. So now he has decided that he will just discredit the sources from which many Americans get their news. Clearly the memebers of the house are only there because Fox News and Rushlimbaugh made it so. So if he can discredit them, he can get rid of those meanies who just won’t play nice. Those mean old Republicans who just won’t let President Obama poor sand in their eyes, and spit in their drinks.
This is a common tactic used by the radical progressive left. I am positive that it will be show cased on this very post. They will not discuss the issues, rather they will just attack me, call me names, go on outragous tangents, and of course try to paint me as a idiot. I would like to look at something that radical progressives just can’t stand, some facts. Lets look at who is responsible for the gridlock in D.C.
Who is un-willing to compormise
Harry Reid tabled three bills passed by the house to avoid the fiscal cliff, because they didn’t include large enough tax hikes on the rich. He wouldn’t even let them go to the floor for debate.
Harry Reid has not allowed a budget to go to the floor for two years. He won’t even let the debate take place.
President Obama refused to sign any fiscal cliff deal unless there were tax hikes
President Obama mocked the GOP for proposing the same plan he had proposed in 2011, because it didn’t raise tax rates.
President Obama invited the GOP to discuss the health care bill, then said well we are going to continue our way, and elections have consequences
The GOP wanted spending cuts, President Obama proposes new taxes and more spending, clearly refusing to cut spending.
Who divides Washington
President Obama mocks members of the TEA Party,
President Obama blamed the GOP for holding up the passage of the Stimulus bill, dispite Democrat Super Majorities
President Obama blamed the GOP for holding up the passage of the Health Care Bill, dispite Democrat Super Majorities
President Obama blamed the GOP for holding up the fiscal cliff deal, when they passed three bills to avoid it
President Obama blamed the GOP for the economic situation, as if he had nothing to do with it
President Obama blamed the GOP for the financial problem facing this country, regaurdless of the fact that he had 2 years that he could have done anything he wanted.
Democrat Leadership gives memebers flack for going on FOX News
So tell me, why is it that there is no bipartisan action in Washington? How can there be bipartisan agreements when Progressive Democrats such as Harry Reid refuse to allow bills to even reach the floor for debate. The bills passed the house, the senate then has to pass them, there can be no debate, no compromise, no progress unless the Senate is allowed to consider the bill. Harry Reid, who is a Demcorat, which is not the same thing as a Republican, and is the party that holds the majority in the Senate, won’t allow for debate, hence he is the one killing compromise. The House of Representatives is the only house of congress that actually functions. how can someone expect compromise, cooperation, bipartisan ship, when President Obama points the blame for everything that goes wrong at the GOP. Why would the GOP work with the President when he refuses to work with them? Why would I listen to his proposals when he spits in my face?
The reason that there is grid lock in Washington is because the radical progressives are a bunch of spoiled brats. 2008-2010, they had the run of the joint. The Democrat party had super majorities. It is of course no secret that the majority of the Demcrat Party is made up of progressives, yet they still had snags in pushing their radical agenda. So they blamed the GOP, even though the GOP could do nothing to stop them. The problem was that moderates in the Democrat Party refused to toe the party line. So Democrats are holding up the process, and radical progressives such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and of course the king of radicals President Obama blame the GOP. Of course the radicals within the Democrat party where able to push the moderates to toe the party line, and the bills passed, without a single GOP vote (I guess it wasn’t the GOP that was holding them up afterall). Well their radical agenda got the Democrats in trouble and in 2010 they lost big. President Obama didn’t worry though, he would just push the GOP hard, and they would cave as they had from 2001-2008. Oddly though the new GOP party, made up of TEA Party Freshmen, did not cave to his demands. He pushes and pushes, and they refuse to cave. So because they won’t cave, he punishes them by blaming them for all the problems of the world. The GOP won’t cave to President Obama’s demands, that is why there is gridlock. President Obama will not moderate his radical agenda, that is why there is gridlock.
It is not Fox News or Rushlimbaugh causing the divide in this nation. It is the radical progressive, President Obama included.