Obama, the Mexican guns, and Latin America: blame the US first
On his recent visit to Mexico, Obama offered the misleading statement that 90% of guns recovered in Mexico’s crimes come from the United States. It’s not true, although it’s a meme that will not die. The 90% figure represents:
…only the percentage of crime guns that have been submitted by Mexican officials and traced by U.S. officials….Furthermore, the 90 percent figure is based on a badly biased sample of all Mexican crime guns. Law enforcement officials say Mexico asks the U.S. to trace only those guns with serial numbers or other markings that indicate they are likely to have come though the U.S.
Actually, we haven’t a clue what percentage of Mexican guns recovered in crimes come from the US. Nor does Obama. But that doesn’t stop him from repeating this “fact, ” which is very popular in his administration—Hillary Clinton, for example, has voiced it too.
One can only conclude that’s because the figure fits in so very well with his favored pattern of blaming the US for nearly everything wrong in the world—and doing it publicly, repetitively, and often on foreign soil. This sort of misrepresentation from the Obama administration goes only in one direction: making the US look culpable.
This cannot be an accident. Does Obama know the truth about the 90% figure and is outright lying, or is he just sloppy and negligent? Take your pick.
What is especially troubling, however, is this administration’s misguided notion that a series of US mea culpas is a real winner for foreign policy. I think we can rest assured that affairs between nations don’t ordinarily work that way—that such actions are seen as weakness rather than strength, and that weakness is something to be exploited.
Speaking of weakness and exploitation—President Obama’s handshake with Hugo Chavez at the Summit of the Americas drew attention, but it wasn’t the only disturbing event there. I had wondered whether he was trapped into the handshake by circumstances, but it’s clear that he actually sought it out [emphasis mine]:
…this U.S. president wanted to meet [Chavez].
So Barack Obama walked across a hotel ballroom here Friday and introduced himself to Chavez. The two leaders smiled and shook hands, chatting briefly. Chavez’s office later said the two men talked about their mutual desire to change the relationship between their countries ”“ a characterization the White House didn’t dispute.
There’s that word “change” again—yes, it would be a change to get cozy with this particular dictator, as well as Castro and all the rest. No doubt Obama’s touchy-feely love will help them govern with greater fairness, and convince them to grant their people more liberty. Because, after all, it’s only their rejection by the big bad US that makes them so mean.
At the same summit, many other countries were testing, testing, testing:
Obama tried a little handshake diplomacy with other U.S. rivals ”“ including Bolivia’s Evo Morales and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, with Obama saying it was “gusto,” a pleasure, to meet Ortega.
But in a sign of just how tough this crowd might be for Obama, Ortega promptly walked out of the ballroom and tore into the United States over Cuba and the G-20 nations for dragging down the world’s economy.
The “gusto” was his, no doubt. And then there’s this:
But even Latin American leaders who are not overtly adversarial towards the United States are feeling more inspired than ever to flex their muscles in front of the president of the United States…
The president has made very clear,” said Denis McDonough, director of strategic communications at the National Security Council, “that he is going to Trinidad and Tobago to engage in a conversation with folks to pragmatically deal with the issues that are facing the people of the Americas today, to kind of leave behind the ideological arguments of the past.”
One can only wonder what else he’ll be leaving behind.
[ADDENDUM: Fausta knows Latin America, and she’s got a lot more to say on that handshake.]
With every passing day Obama shows how absolutely clueless he is when it comes to foreign policy (as well as almost everything else having to do with the office he holds). The very worst thing about all his apologizing is how it not only reinforces the garbage most of them are fed by their governments but also actually lowers the esteem of the US in the eyes of the citizens of countries around the world. It will be perceived a willingness to resort to any amount of grovelling to be “liked”. It will be (aptly) judged as weakness and will be exploited – especially in Latin America.
Just as aside – I live in Florida off the 15th green of our golf course. For the last couple of days there has been a bald eagle hanging around (a somewhat unusual sight in these parts).
When I first saw it I pulled out the binoculars and got a good look. I was impressed with the majesty and look of power – even at rest. I thought to myself how glad I was that Ben Franklin was outvoted on the issue of our national symbol – he wanted the wild turkey.
I have since named it Barack because it keeps allowing itself to be chased off by the small birds (only one or two at a time) that have nests in the area.
I’m starting to give Ben’s idea a second look.
I thought the whole fake 90% thing was a water testing to bring back the ‘asault’ weapons ban….
It’s not true, although it’s a meme that will not die.
Because a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. This is the narrative that the administration and their MSM flacks want to promote. Hillary said it too. As have others.
I think that we all understand why, which is why guns and ammo sales have sky rocketed since the election.
I’ve been disturbed by most of what has been happening in the past three months as a result of the current administration and their corrupt allies in Congress, but the image of Barry O gladhanding Chavez is just about the worst I’ve seen to date. I feel rather ill looking at that picture.
I was told Friday at Walmart that the morning after the truck brings in ammo, there are people waiting in line at 6 am at the gun counter. ( You have to pay for ammo at that special counter, not the general checkout area- and it appears to not be open all the time like the front registers.) I would say that 3 out of 4 times that I go in the afternoon there is no 2 3/4 or 3 inch 00 Buck left for 12 Gauge and I have been slowly stocking up. The one gun store I occasionally check at sells some expensive shells in a five shell box- lot more expensive than the 15 round boxes Wal Mart occasionally has left.
Oh, but they seem to have the 3 1/2 inch 00 Buck shot. I guess those 12 Gauges that were designed for 3.5 inch shells never caught on, or people who have them don’t like the “kick” of 3.5 inch buckshot.
Sarkozy said he pressured Omama to come to commemorate the D-Day landings because he wants to ask him to walk on water and thinks he might do it. That’s a change. The more apologizing he does the more leaders tend to regard him as a showy naif. His shtick may go over with the public and some of the media but Sarkozy making a statement like that shows the effect he is having.
Pingback:That’s Amore! « Nice Deb
So, lets assume that their whole thing is true – what should we do?
First, is there *any* reason why I should give up either my civil liberties (or rather our countries) and my *personal* ability to defend myself because another country isn’t responsible? I can already tell you how well that one will go over here.
But, then lets say that the answer to that is also “yes” – now what? It is already illegal to transport those arms across the border – will making it doubly illegal stop it? The law to stop it is already there but without the will to enforce it the the traffic could be illegal 100 times over and it wouldn’t make a difference. On top of that the laws they are discussing would have *no* effect on what they are complaining about even were they ultra strictly enforced (and since the laws are quite well tailored to increase federal control over our daily lives I can assure that funding for *those* laws will come).
If the dems push it hard enough some enterprising Republican *should* tie it into border enforcement, lack of funding/support there, and how all these earmarks and waste of our “bailout” could have effected that. Of course they will not, the Republicans have their hands in the barrel of money/power just as much as the dems do and do not want to loose that ability.
Heh, maybe a Tea Party candidate will emerge that actually says and does this 🙂
“The more apologizing he does the more leaders tend to regard him as a showy naif.”
Ahh, come on now – Sarkozy was being *literal*. Obama is such a fine leader I would expect him to walk right across the ocean too.
Of course if you believe (as many of his supporters do) that the US *is* the source of all evil and are deserving of such contempt then you *are* repairing our image abroad.
The “90%” lie is destined to live past infinity and be cited over and over anytime a writer wishes to damn the United States. It reminds me of a similar lie that has persisted in my field, health care. I speak of the familiar refrain that 100,000 people per year die from medical errors. You’ve heard it on Oprah, it was repeated by the far left leaning Institute of Medicine, an Orwellian nightmare if there ever was one. It was derived from a study published in the 1970s in the New England Journal of Medicine and never intended to be anything other than a first approximation of the extent of unintended deaths occuring in hospitals. Unfortunately, it used criteria that were so all emcompassing that, for example, a cancer death was counted if it occurred in a patient whose original diagnosis was delayed for any length of time, irrespective of the natural history of the disease. The numbers were then extrapolated from the findings in a limited number of teaching hospitals in New York and the famous 100,000 figure was obtained. The study was retrospective, not case controlled and has never been replicated. A similar study came up with 40,000. Figures obtained from present day monitoring of preventable deaths in Minnesota hospitals suggest to me that a more accurate number may be 2,000 deaths per year. That may well be unacceptable, but it’s a lot lower than 100,000. What makes me rant about the lie is that I see it used over and over to trash the reputation of American medicine and promote concepts like single payer, universal health care, which is somehow supposed to transform the carnage in hospitals through efficiency and prevention, neither of which has been shown to lower mortality.
I especially like the 44 million uninsured Americans statistic we keep hearing about. As though a govt promise of health in a poorly run system like Cuba, is better than a state of the art system that does a pretty good job of caring for the indigent.
I’m uninsured and can figure that out.
I believe the 90% lie is quite deliberate, and is intended to gin up support for more gun control laws.
It’s designed to appeal to those people who can’t tell the difference between a full-auto rifle and a cap gun.
Well I hate to be cliche but………..
You can make statistics prove almost anything you want depending on how they are presented.
Methinks it is time to tabulate lies to the nation by party.
But I have a strong sense of the outcome, so why bother?
SteveH Says:
“I especially like the 44 million uninsured Americans statistic we keep hearing about.”
Its also, out and out false….
Counts non Americans, those eligble for government healthcare (which does not have preexisting clauses), those that went only part of the year without insurance but then picked it up on their own, and the grey area of those who could get it but choose not to because they’re cheap / don’t think they need it. Once you weed them all out your down to 10 million… Still not great but it’s not 44 million either…
Why not lie if it benefits you and there is no cost?
By the way. Just hung up with a friend who is an avid recreational shooter. He said the cost of ammo is out of sight. He self-loads and also said powder is becoming very scarce, and also expensive. He reminded me that Teddy Kennedy tried to put a $1 per round tax on ammo some years ago. They will attack gun ownership from several different directions.
Wonder no more!…gifts of course; autographed copies of his book for all to enjoy with laughter at such a young puppies frolic.
I guess since the guns are the primary problem in Mexico, and since 90% of the guns come from the US, then that fact should be reflected in the US by hundreds of thousands of gun deaths a year and massive gun battles in the streets of this nation.
(sarcasm off!)
I have come to shudder every time The One opens his mouth at any kind of international event he attends.
Either he’s apologizing (again) over something that may or may not have happened depending on viewpoint, or he’s prostrating himself and this nation before lesser nations with far more horrific *human rights* issues.
Regarding the gun control issue, this whole 90% figure is just the tip of the iceburg with these guys. There are a lot of other things afoot, principally in the State Department, that casual observers of the shooting sports are only now becoming aware of that may be far more insidious.
The Big O and his minions really ought to stop poking the bear while he’s sleeping!
Pingback:Fausta’s Blog » Blog Archive » Ignorance, or indifference? UPDATED