Fox news reports:

Fox news reports:

The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.
While 90 percent of the guns traced to the U.S. actually originated in the United States, the percent traced to the U.S. is only about 17 percent of the total number of guns reaching Mexico.
By William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott

FOXNews.com

Thursday, April 02, 2009


FILE: In this Nov. 7, 2008, photo a soldier stands guard during the presentation in Mexico City of arms, captured in the largest seizure of Gulf drug-cartel weapons to date, about 288 assault rifles, 500,000 rounds of ammunition, numerous grenades and several .50-caliber rifles (AP).

-- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it to reporters on a flight to Mexico City.

-- CBS newsman Bob Schieffer referred to it while interviewing President Obama.

-- California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at a Senate hearing: "It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors ... come from the United States."

-- William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified in the House of Representatives that "there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States."

There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:

It's just not true.

In fact, it's not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."

But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.

"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.

A Look at the Numbers

In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced -- and of those, 90 percent -- 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover -- were found to have come from the U.S.

But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.

So, if not from the U.S., where do they come from? There are a variety of sources:

-- The Black Market. Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.

-- Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.

- South America. During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana cartel, according to the Federal Research Division report from the Library of Congress.

-- Asia. According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.

-- The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.

-- Guatemala. U.S. intelligence agencies say traffickers move immigrants, stolen cars, guns and drugs, including most of America's cocaine, along the porous Mexican-Guatemalan border. On March 27, La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town.

'These Don't Come From El Paso'

Ed Head, a firearms instructor in Arizona who spent 24 years with the U.S. Border Patrol, recently displayed an array of weapons considered "assault rifles" that are similar to those recovered in Mexico, but are unavailable for sale in the U.S.

"These kinds of guns -- the auto versions of these guns -- they are not coming from El Paso," he said. "They are coming from other sources. They are brought in from Guatemala. They are brought in from places like China. They are being diverted from the military. But you don't get these guns from the U.S."

Some guns, he said, "are legitimately shipped to the government of Mexico, by Colt, for example, in the United States. They are approved by the U.S. government for use by the Mexican military service. The guns end up in Mexico that way -- the fully auto versions -- they are not smuggled in across the river."

Many of the fully automatic weapons that have been seized in Mexico cannot be found in the U.S., but they are not uncommon in the Third World.

The Mexican government said it has seized 2,239 grenades in the last two years -- but those grenades and the rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) are unavailable in U.S. gun shops. The ones used in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey in October and a TV station in January were made in South Korea. Almost 70 similar grenades were seized in February in the bottom of a truck entering Mexico from Guatemala.

"Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semi-automatic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California," according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.

Boatloads of Weapons

So why would the Mexican drug cartels, which last year grossed between $17 billion and $38 billion, bother buying single-shot rifles, and force thousands of unknown "straw" buyers in the U.S. through a government background check, when they can buy boatloads of fully automatic M-16s and assault rifles from China, Israel or South Africa?

Alberto Islas, a security consultant who advises the Mexican government, says the drug cartels are using the Guatemalan border to move black market weapons. Some are left over from the Central American wars the United States helped fight; others, like the grenades and launchers, are South Korean, Israeli and Spanish. Some were legally supplied to the Mexican government; others were sold by corrupt military officers or officials.

The exaggeration of United States "responsibility" for the lawlessness in Mexico extends even beyond the "90-percent" falsehood -- and some Second Amendment activists believe it's designed to promote more restrictive gun-control laws in the U.S.

In a remarkable claim, Auturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the U.S., said Mexico seizes 2,000 guns a day from the United States -- 730,000 a year. That's a far cry from the official statistic from the Mexican attorney general's office, which says Mexico seized 29,000 weapons in all of 2007 and 2008.

Chris Cox, spokesman for the National Rifle Association, blames the media and anti-gun politicians in the U.S. for misrepresenting where Mexican weapons come from.

"Reporter after politician after news anchor just disregards the truth on this," Cox said. "The numbers are intentionally used to weaken the Second Amendment."

"The predominant source of guns in Mexico is Central and South America. You also have Russian, Chinese and Israeli guns. It's estimated that over 100,000 soldiers deserted the army to work for the drug cartels, and that ignores all the police. How many of them took their weapons with them?"

But Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, called the "90 percent" issue a red herring and said that it should not detract from the effort to stop gun trafficking into Mexico.

"Let's do what we can with what we know," he said. "We know that one hell of a lot of firearms come from the United States because our gun market is wide open

Obama's just not that into you

Obama's just not that into you

OBAMA'S JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU

By DICK MORRIS

March 24, 2009


Does President Obama truly believe that he can castigate and condemn Wall Street on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and then secure its cooperation on the other days of the week?

Does he not understand that when he ignites a public furor over AIG bonuses and then incites Congress to pass a punitive tax, he sends shivers down the spines of every other corporate executive who makes a lot of money?

Does he seriously believe that Wall Street investors will not worry that their winnings, should they join the Treasury as partners in risky investments, would be subject to public abuse, publicity and confiscatory taxation?

Of course he realizes that his rhetoric makes it unlikely that his program will succeed. He obviously gets it that the entire concept of a public-private partnership is impossible amid a climate of waging class warfare, taxing the rich and heaping contempt on anyone who makes money. The president is quite bright and certainly understands that you cannot shake hands with your right while you launch a roundhouse with your left.

So why does Obama persist in his aggressive rhetoric? Why does he continue to treat Wall Street as something out of Dante's Inferno?

Because he's just not that into you! He doesn't really care if the public-private partnerships work out.

He sends Geithner out to announce the program because he doesn't want to make it his own. When he announces a stimulus plan or a new spending bill, it's Obama's moment before the teleprompter. But the public-private partnerships he leaves to his Treasury secretary to announce.

The most rational explanation for Obama's puzzling conduct -- sabotaging his own program by way of his own rhetoric -- is that he truly wants to be forced to nationalize the banks in pursuit of his ultimate goal of a socialist economy.

Obama has to oppose nationalization today in order to achieve it tomorrow. He has to show the country and the world that he is doing all he can to help the private sector to sort things out with government help. He must ostentatiously invite the hated demons of Wall Street to join him in rescuing the banks in order, later, to say that he did his best to avoid having to take over the banks. Only then will nationalization be an acceptable alternative -- when he has run out of other options.

Meanwhile, he makes sure the private sector won't play ball by going after their bonuses, sending an implicit message to the other executives on Wall Street that reads: Stay away.

Even when he takes over the banks, as he almost inevitably will, he is going to have to dress up the nationalization as a temporary measure forced on him by the economy and the previously unrealized depth of the problem. He will cite the example of Sweden, where the government nationalized the banks only temporarily and returned them to private hands quickly.

You can't be for nationalization. But Obama hopes to accomplish it nonetheless.

Already, in the TARP and TALF programs, we can see how eager he is to use government power to manipulate the once-private sector. Consider the mandates piling up on any financial institution that takes government funds: limits on executive pay, corporate travel and conferences; a strong Buy American recommendation; and aggressive action to get them to make consumer loans. Can affirmative action, low-income lending and diversity outreach be far behind?

If Obama can bring banks and the healthcare industry under government control, we will have de facto socialism. Is this Obama's goal? It is obviously where he is headed.

Is Obama a socialist? Rather than throw around labels, let's do the math. The best measure of whether an economy is government- or private sector-oriented is the percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) that flows through government expenditure. Before the current fiscal crisis, the major nations stacked up as shown in the chart on page 27.

Obama's stimulus package, alone, comes to about 6 percent of GDP, vaulting the United States past Japan to 40 percent on the list above. If we add in the extra spending in the supplemental appropriations bill and the likely increases for healthcare, the total government percentage will rise well past 40 percent and probably close in on the United Kingdom's 43.

That's pretty socialistic, but Obama has three more years to get us up around Germany and really ruin our economy!
***COPYRIGHT EILEEN MCGANN AND DICK MORRIS 2009.

Man I just couldn't have said it any better than Dick Morris [Fox news] and Alex Castellano [CNN]. My eyes are tired,I've cried till my eyes are dry. I cannot cry anymore. My heart has broken for the children of the future.

And I see that John McCain is moving the bennett freeze bill through quietly, My Navajo brothers and sisters will loose their land sooner than I predicted. As soon as it gets signed by Obama, the Peabody mining company and McCain will be there mapping out the sections of the rez.to steal the coal from them. I hang my head in sorrow.....

Alex and I are on the same page

Alex and I are on the same page

By Alex Castellanos
CNN Contributor

Editor's Note: Republican strategist Alex Castellanos was a campaign consultant for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's 2008 presidential campaign and has worked on more than half a dozen presidential campaigns. Castellanos is a partner in National Media Inc., a political and public affairs consulting firm that specializes in advertising. For a rival view, click here


Alex Castellanos says President Obama's spending will create a mountain of debt and problems for Democrats.

(CNN) -- Things I learned Tuesday night from President Obama's press conference:

Obama and congressional Democrats are angry that greedy Wall Street executives took $165 million in bonuses that the president and congressional Democrats gave them.

We have made them give it back, but they have to keep the trillion-dollar bailout.

Apparently, our education system is worse than we thought. Neither the president nor Democrats in Congress actually read the bailout-bonus bill.

Per-family household debt more than doubled from 1989 to 2007, going from $42,000 per family to $97,000 per family, in inflation-adjusted dollars. Most of it, 85 cents of every dollar, is home equity or mortgage debt. This is not the consumer's fault for borrowing it, nor Congress' fault for legislating it, nor the Fed's fault for enabling it, nor Fannie Mae's or Freddie Mac's fault for packaging it. This is all Wall Street's fault.

It is also all George W. Bush's fault.

Don't Miss
Obama defends budget as essential to recovery
Castellanos: Democrats are playing Monopoly
In Depth: Commentaries
If there were an inheritance tax on problems, Obama could pay off any deficit.

Taxpayers living next to a toxic waste dump is a bad idea. Taxpayers buying a trillion dollars worth of toxic assets is good idea.

Taxpayers borrowing a trillion dollars to buy those toxic assets is an even better idea. Though it is still Bush's fault.

Obama isn't on the ballot next year, but Democrats in Congress are. You can make money betting they will lose more than 25 seats, but not as much money as by purchasing toxic assets with taxpayer dollars.

The problem with America's economy is that the last bubble, the "home-mortgage, derivative, credit default swap bubble" popped, as all economic bubbles eventually do. We must never let that happen again.

It is imperative that we re-inflate this bubble immediately.

If we all loan a lot of money we don't have to each other, we will all be more prosperous.

An Obama press conference offers hope to everyone. Both those who want to drive the deficit up and drive it down receive encouragement.

A dollar when given to failed auto companies or hollow banks has great stimulative value for the economy, but there's almost no dampening cost to the economy when the dollar is taken from taxpayers, who will have to pay our debt back.

If he does not drive the deficit down, within this decade, interest on the Obama debt will total more than a trillion dollars a year.

Bush was laughed at for saying, "Yes, we are getting the job done. It's hard work," though it's OK for Obama to say only hard decisions reach his desk.

Enhanced border security was a bad idea when Sen. John McCain and Republicans proposed it but a good idea now that Obama is for it.

Trickle-down economics from Republicans got us into this mess. Trickle-down government from Democrats will get us out of it.

Washington was doing such a great job making things work before the meltdown that we should give it more to do, like running health care, the energy industry, banks, Wall Street and the car business.

Our economy is so complex that millions of Americans can't plan for it, but Timothy Geithner and a couple of other smart guys in Washington can.

Political greed is more noble than corporate greed.

We have to short-change charities that help people, so government can help people.

Wall Street and the U.S. government are too big to fail though the American taxpayer isn't.

The Barack Obama experiment, conducted by this 47-year old man, is the riskiest economic wager the world has ever seen.

Next year, when this experiment in European-style socialism isn't working, the Democrats up for re-election will panic and make the spending this year look like an appetizer. To appear responsible, they then will raise taxes on "upper-income taxpayers" to the stratosphere, paralyzing investment and the economy.

Obama's communications gifts are powerful and poetic -- but round-the-clock campaigning on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno," "60 Minutes" and this press conference won't save bad policy. Nothing kills a bad product quicker than good advertising. iReport.com: What did you think of Obama's press conference?

Obama has never built a business, created real wealth or produced tangible prosperity. His understanding of our economy is theoretical and academic.

Obama is a privileged young man who has not yet made many mistakes in his life. Having a president who belongs to the Harvard elite and the community-organizer streets is not the same as having a president who has lived a long life among middle-class Americans and understands them.

Impatience lies not deep beneath the surface of Obama. There is no shortage of self-confidence in this young man. It is a short step from such confidence to arrogance.

Arrogance in a politician is not healthy. Hubris, combined with inexperience, can be fatal. Obama could be a one-term president.

Obama is looking a little older. There would be nothing wrong with acting like it.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Alex Castellanos.

Taxing the coal industry

Taxing the coal industry

When a president talks about taxing the rich and taxing businesses there is a price to be paid and this is an example of what begins to happen when you go too far. Oil and energy companies are beginning to make plans to move….. to Switzerland, and the reason is they want to avoid President Obama’s assault on their companies.
[This is in part a post from 'America's Watchtower']



That hasn’t stopped McCain from going after the coal on the Navajo Reservation. He’s trying to take the “Bennett Freeze” amendant off the books in Congress,so he can force the relocation of the Navajo people, AGAIN! He has already forced 12,000 of them and relocated them in the radioactive contaminated aftermath of his partners in crime, the Peabody mining company, who are operating 24/7. They have bulldozed ancient sites, burial grounds,homes that are decades old. The dust that has been created is filling the Grand Canyon so that it is effecting visablity for the tourist industry. They are violating eco laws with all the mess that they have created. McCain is in a hurry all of the sudden, is it because Obama is gonna stick it to the coal industry? or is it they are running out of coal to mine and they need these poor people relocated to get at the remaining coal the area has to offer? Somethings made them to suddenly get the move on.
Or is Obama in on this too? I wonder where the Peabody Mining Company(the largest mining company in the world) is based out of, I’m sure it’s overseas. And I don’t trust McCain and his wife either.I wonder where they moved their many millions also. I'm not against coal mining, as long as it doesn't step on peoples toes, as they did on the Navajo Reservation. If you read Peabody's site, they clean up after they are through. They say they haven't operated the Arizona mine since 2005. I'd think they would have completed the cleanup of the toxic waste that still sits upon the land, the contaminated ground water and the drinking water, the desert plants that they destroyed that grew on the Navajo Rez and nowhere else in the world. Did they rebuild all the sacred sites and ancient burial grounds they bulldozed over? Last looked they had done a poor job on the biggest hazardous/radioactive spill in the world that they have hush-hushed up.
Thats my rant on the subject for some time now.They paid these people pennies on the dollar for the coal they took, and left them nothing but disaster of their reservation. Cancer, kidney disease, deformed babies. I seen a chart that the USAF did that showed wll the contamination left by these people. This land is unusable and deemed unfit to live on. Thank you McCain and various other Senator friends that pushed all the necessary requirements to destroy these people's lives!