NRA Applauds Passage of U.S. House Committee Resolution Recommending that the House Find Attorney General Holder in Contempt of Congress
With the positively baffling news that Obama was claiming executive privilege with regards to documents pertaining to Operation Fast & Furious - how's that transparency working out again? - it's refreshing to see the NRA take a firm stand on this issue. Often times the NRA is accused of staying out of overtly political issues, leaving the political issues for the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA). Granted, this is coming from the ILA, but it's on behalf of the NRA's entire membership.Fairfax, Va. – The U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform passed a resolution recommending that the House find Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. in contempt of Congress by a 23 to 17 vote.“The NRA fully supports this contempt resolution,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. “The American people – including millions of NRA members and tens of millions of NRA supporters – deserve the truth, and we will support any effort that leads us to that truth.”
I'm the NRA, and I approve heartily of this decision.
Over at Robb's yesterday I saw one of the most cogent arguments to date over supporting Romney over Obama in comments:
That's a damn good point. The media will be all over President Romney like a pair of magic underwear. They hounded Ronald Reagan as late as five years after he left office over the Iran/Contra scandal, never proving that he knew anything about the events of the sale of arms to Iran or the arming of Nicaraguan rebels. Dozens of administration officials were investigated, with 13 indictments - most for withholding evidence, ironically enough - handed down.Not a big fan of the idea of President Romney, but even less of a fan of the idea of President Obama.
And, yeah, at least there will be an attentive press with a Republican president.
But Eric Holder, acting on orders from high-ranking Obama administration officials, allows American firearms to wind up in Mexico, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican civilians and several US Border patrol agents? The sound of crickets chirping in broadcast news booths and newspaper ombudsman offices is deafening. It is highly dubious that a Republican president would escape scrutiny as Obama has.
It's nice to see one of the largest civil rights organization taking a decisive position on this controversial issue.
That is all.
1 comment:
One correction, Jay, AFAIK, it's been one Border Patrol agent killed (in Arizona), and anywhere from hundreds to thousands of Mexicans killed.
Let me point out, too, that the cartels didn't -need- American guns. They get full-auto firearms fairly easily, albeit not from the US where such things are expensive and heavily regulated; the semi-auto AK clones used in Brian Terry's death were more "guns of opportunity." They were available, so why not acquire them as well? But I -seriously- doubt that, with the availability of Chinese/Venezuelan/etc full autos, the cartels would have actively sought out less-capable arms as earnestly as the ATF sought to sell them.
In short, the ATF is, in my opinion, more than likely responsible not just for the end result, but for advertising, "making the sale," to the cartels, who really didn't need the ATF's "product" anyway.
Post a Comment