An anti-Obama group is recruiting members from the military and law enforcement. CNN's Jim Acosta reports.
That's quite an assumption there. Both in their characterization of the group and in what they say Acosta is doing.
Their purpose is not to be anti-Obama. It is to uphold their oath to the Constitution. When Obama upholds his, Oath Keepers will be behind him.
Founder Stewart Rhodes gets some on-camera face time, and naturally the subject of guns comes up.
Acosta seems incredulous when he asks Rhodes who is talking about taking guns away.
The administration and their congressional allies are talking about it, and what's more, they are doing things to incrementally erode our right to keep and bear arms.
Mr. Acosta, you didn't hear Eric Holder call for a new ban on semiautomatic firearms as a solution to Mexican drug violence? Yeah, I know politically he was forced to back off of that--for now--but you don't think that's because he wanted to, do you?
You never investigated the "urban policy" page on the official White House website where they confirm this is one of their goals, along with what they call "closing the gun show loophole," that is, ending private sales? Too late now, they've removed that from their site--but you people have the capability to verify it was there--and on the Obama presidential campaign site before that.
CNN has all kinds of investigative resources, Mr. Acosta, and all kinds of archival access. Why is it you don't seem to know about the administration's desire to change the law to repeal Tiahrt protections against those who would exploit trace data?
Why is it CNN is apparently unaware of the Obama's stated goal to impose potentially dangerous modification requirements on gun manufacturers under the guise of "making guns in this country childproof"?
And there are other more indirect ways this administration is seeking to work in new regulations, Mr. Acosta. Surely you're aware that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently reversed official U.S. policy on the UN Arms Trade Treaty? Are you truly oblivious to the Inter-American Arms Trafficking Treaty, or potential dangers posed by the DDTC (look it up, Acosta, it's not like you're busy doing investigative journalism or anything).
Why is it, Jim, that you don't report with equal incredulity Chuck Schumer's un-American call to prememptively suspend the gun rights of suspects, you know, the people juries are instructed are "presumed innocent"?
And you don't think passing a committed anti-gunner out of committee without debate, one who will head a major federal regulatory agency in charge of workplace safety, poses any kind of concern?
As for confiscation, well, gee, when have we ever seen government use an emergency as an excuse to do that before? I mean, really...?
You prefer the actions of the guys in these videos to men and women who say they would not do this to their countrymen?
Back to Jim Acosta, "Authorized Journalist":
...as we've said earlier this week in this series, there are no proposals coming from the White House or Democratic leaders in Congress for new gun control laws.
"There's a lot of 'what if's'," Jim's partner in CNN investigative excellence opines. "Is there any truth...?
"Absolutely none whatsoever," Jim replies.
Yeah, pal. Absolutely none. I must have made up all these links and everything I said about them.
Do you really believe that, Jim? Or is it just that the reality that is all around you doesn't match your talking points?