White House Running Out of Bogeymen To Blame For Economy, Crime

It was eerie today as I was scanning the news. Deja vu all over again, as the Yankees' Yogi Berra would say.

It is interesting that every time someone prominent speaks up and questions what the Obama administration is doing on the economy, the wrath of those satellites who orbit The One comes down on them.

The miscreant is polarized and demonized by pretty much all the organized entities that were orchestrated to elect Barack Obama to the White House. Joining the ranks of those who suffered "The Perfect Storm" of vitriol and half-truths are Louisiana Gov. Bobbie Jindall, Rob Cintilli of CNBC, and now Jim Cramer, also of CNBC. Cramer, the bombastic commentator on the market and pretty well-schooled financial authority, had the audacity to say the following on this morning's NBC Today Show:

Cramer called Pres. Obama's budget a "radical agenda," adding, "This is the
greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a President."

The White House wasted no time in going after Cramer. But as this happens over and over, more and more columnists are noticing, and coming to the conclusion that, as President Obama's rather leftist policies continue to push the stock market down and create added doubt and nervousness among people of all economic levels, he is running out of people to blame for the problem. In fact, earlier today The Wall Street Journal took at hard look at that very idea in an article titled just that... "The Obama Economy: As the Dow keeps dropping, the President is running out of people to blame."

Among other things, the WSJ story noted the following:

"From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth. The Democrats who now run Washington don't want to hear this, because they benefit from blaming all bad economic news on President Bush."

But this demonizing of others or issues that don't really exist in order to push forth an agenda isn't new from the folks running 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue these days. We have seen it in the Second Amendment community for years. And it appears that we are facing an onslaught in the coming years.

When the illogical ban on competition rifles (so-called "assault weapons") expired a few years ago, there were predictions that there would be mayhem in U.S. streets. Even blood. It didn't happen. Just as we heard shrill cries that there would be blood in the stands in Cleveland Stadium if CCW were passed here in Ohio. The law passed (a lousy law, but we continue to get improved with each session of our state legislature) and there was no blood. As many know, the law was greatly influenced by those who hate guns (note: hatred is a sickness, those of you who hate these inanimate objects should get help) who hoped that the myriad of hoops to obtain a concealed carry license would either discourage an individual from doing so. They also hoped to trip up CCW holders with a who's who of complexities. The intent was to be able to say, "see, concealed self defense sidearms are a bad idea....just look at the problems."

Only, the problems never occurred.

So now, just Larry Cramer, Rob Cintilli and a host of others are blamed for creating dissention among American voters, when the real problem is federal lawmakers who have never made a payroll, never started a business or never taken an economics class, we see the same thing emerging once more in the debate over the basic human right to self defense.

Now, in an effort to demonize a legitimate sporting rifle, federal lawmakers are making noise about banning competition rifles once more. But this time, they want to make the ban permanent. Further, they are blaming the out-of-control drug cartel civil war taking place in Mexico as the reason to do so. American guns, the gun controllers say, are the problem in Mexico. No, it is drug lords who are the problem and a Mexican government that, as yet, is unable to do anything about it. Skirmishes and firefights are spilling over the southern border of the U.S.

So what does the administration, which was backed by those who object to a very large wall to keep illegals and drug runners and terrorists out of the United States suggest? Ban military-style semi-automatic rifles. How is that going to keep Americans safe? No one in the gun control community will honestly answer that question, because the honest answer is such a ban will be meaningless. But that is not their intent. They use fear about the collapsing Mexican government to spawn fear in those who do not understand the argument.

In fact, some say the answer is to loosen American drug laws (so the drug lords won't have a profit to strive for) and strengthen our gun laws (so the drug lords won't have evil guns with which to shoot each other). Riiiiiiiiight. Eric Holder, the anti-gun U.S. attorney general, gave the impression that the only way to save the lives of Mexican drug lords is for Americans to give up their guns.

It is very similar to the times that the gun control cabal has tried to ban gun shows, calling them...get ready...."arms bazaars for terrorists." Just one problem. Our federal law enforcement authorities know exactly what is going on with small arms obtained by terrorist groups either inside the U.S. or out of the country. And they are NOT coming from gun shows. But that doesn't stop those who support the Obama administration from making up spurious claims about why certain guns should be banned.

Just as they say competition rifles -- one of the most popular sporting and substinance hunting rifles -- should be banned because Mexican drug lords (criminals) have used them a few times in shootouts with their rivals (a shootout being a crime also)......

Just as they say media personalities like Cramer, or Cintilli, or even Rush Limbaugh, are blamed for the market continuing to plummet, along with consumer, investor and employer confidence.

Only, just as Mr. Obama is running out of people to blame for the economy, the gun controllers are running out of people and incidents to blame. At least if they want to be intellectually honest.

But then . . . being intellectually honest is not in the gun control playbook.