Obama and Rubio: Who got Pinocchios? Who Received the Gepetto Rating?

By Dave Dolbee published on in General, News

Now that the New York Times has openly shown its true colors by putting an opinion piece on the front page and calling for gun confiscation, the Washington Post instead took a different approach. Instead of publishing opinions, the Post opted for fact checking and left the bias on the printing room floor. In fact, the Post’s Fact Checker column concluded that Barack Obama deserved a rebuke for recent comments on gun control, while giving a statement by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) its highest award for credibility.

obama-capture

Of particular note in the Post’s article were Obama’s repeated claims that high-profile shootings do not happen with the same frequency in other countries. For example, President Obama during his June 19 speech before the anti-gun U.S. Conference of Mayors said, “[w]e are the only advanced country on Earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months.”

This is so patently false; it is unlikely that it took much of a sleuth find the falsehoods. All the post had to do was research the rate of deaths resulting from mass shootings in 11 countries (conducted by State University of New York-Oswego professor Jaclyn and Texas State University’s H. Jaymi Elsass). In the article, the Post points out, “The United States had a lower rate of mass shooting fatalities per 100,000 people than Norway, Finland, or Switzerland.”

The President’s speeches had so many flaws, the Post did not stop there. The Post looked to economist John R. Lott, “If you are going to compare the U.S. to someplace else, if you are going to compare it to small countries, you have to adjust for population. Alternatively, compare the U.S. to Europe as a whole.” When this method is applied, Lott contention reveals that, “2009 to 2015 shows the rate of mass shootings in the United States and Europe are about the same.”

In the end, after calling the President out for his falsehoods and misleading claims, the Post concluded the article with an appeal for more transparency and honest from the nation’s leader, “[w]e urge the president to be more consistent and precise in describing mass shootings in the country… rather than using vague or misleading phrases.” Perhaps the Post had a moment of weakness or was in the giving mood when it awarded the president just two “Pinocchios.”

The Future and the Second Amendment

Who knows for sure what the future will hold. Obama still has a year to use to his phone and his pen. What he cannot do through the Congress, he has hinted he will do without it. Presidential candidates are lining up though and many with pro Second Amendment agendas, a few with very anti Second Amendment agendas.

NASHVILLE, TN - APRIL 10:  U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) speaks during the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum at the 2015 NRA Annual Meeting & Exhibits on April 10, 2015 in Nashville, Tennessee. The annual NRA meeting and exhibit runs through Sunday. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

NASHVILLE, TN – APRIL 10: U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) speaks during the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum at the 2015 NRA Annual Meeting & Exhibits on April 10, 2015 in Nashville, Tennessee. The annual NRA meeting and exhibit runs through Sunday. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

For example, Sen. Rubio recently earned top marks for a December 4 statement on CBS This Morning, “[n]one of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us, would have been prevented by the proposed gun laws.” This is a point the NRA, the Shooter’s Log and many of this readership have made on time and again. With even just a modicum of common sense applied, it is easy to deduct that anyone committed to carrying out a mass attack (murder) against innocents at a soft target—by an often suicidal perpetrator—would never be deterred a law that made acquiring the firearm illegal. However, expecting lawmakers to use common sense, at times can be a stretch. So, for proof, the Post examined 12 high-profile shootings to determine whether any of the more popularly supported gun control proposals, such as semi-auto restrictions and bans on private transfers (known as the gun show loophole), could have prevented the incident.

The Post’s conclusions will not be much of a surprise to any of us. “Rubio’s statement stands up to scrutiny,” earning the Post’s highest award for truthfulness, the “Geppetto Checkmark.” As if that was not sweet enough, the Post went on to deliver the coup de grâce with the following, “three of the mass shootings took place in California, which already has strong gun laws including a ban on certain weapons and high-capacity magazines.”

It is not often the main stream media (or politicians in many cases) get it right when it comes to our Second Amendment rights or exposing the fallacies spewed by the gun control crowd. Image what the gun control debate would look like if more media outlets analyzed the facts and reported them truthfully. Most likely, there would not be a debate at all if more voters were better educated with the truth.

How will you help educate voters and pressure the mainstream media for truth in their reporting? Share your thoughts and solutions in the comment section.

Tags: , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (53)

  • Tim Barnett

    |

    I watch and read many different new sources: realclearpolitics, politico, new york times, washington post, newsmax, boston globe, just to name a few. Check out new york area news an find that they’ve discussed new York’s ban an confiscation of citizens fireames.

    Reply

  • Steve

    |

    US Supreme Court recent decision: District of Columbia v Heller – The US supreme court states that the core purpose of the 2nd amendment is self defense – ruled that the amendment protects an individuals right to keep and bear arms ” in case of confrontation, without regard to a persons relationship to a militia”

    Reply

    • Michael

      |

      @ Steve

      Actually It Doesn’t! In WDC, you have Provided “Proof of Need” to Conceal Carry. If you Can’t Provide Adequate Proof for that Need, a Committee can Turn-Down your Application.

      Reply

    • Arron

      |

      Actually it DOES. The Supreme Court ruling is what it is. Whether states, counties, cities or districts adhere and follow that ruling is another story. Just because D.C. may require you to first have a reason, doesn’t diminish or change the fact of what the Supreme Court ruled, which in itself is the entire problem and why the case had to go to the Supreme Court in the first place. The issue now is; why are these cities, counties or districts who continue to violate people’s rights AND the court’s ruling now being charged and prosecuted? In other words, the court ruled so why aren’t these places being held accountable? It goes back to the way too big and way to out of control government who won’t charge or prosecute itself, even when it is in CLEAR violation of its own rules and laws, hence why Hillary Clinton isn’t in jail, along with a LONG list of others who if you or I had done anything even remotely what they have done would be locked-up with the key thrown away.

      Reply

    • Survivor

      |

      Well put!!! If the dems don’t like our constitution with the bill of rights. Then move to a country where there is no rights. I’m sure the UK or Australia would love to have like minded people move there. What part of shall not be infringed do they not understand.

      Reply

    • Michael

      |

      @ Arron

      I live in Northern Virginia, and own a business in DC. I applied for a CCW Permit, and was Turn Down. THAT’S HOW I KNOW!

      Reply

    • Arron

      |

      That was my whole point Michael. Regardless of what the Supreme Court ruled, their ruling is still (illegally) being ignored by LOTS of states, counties and cities. You said in your response to Steve that the court ruling “didn’t” say that in he Heller case. Or at least that’s how “I” took it anyway. I was merely pointing out that yes, indeed that’s what was ruled upon, but that the ruling is simply being ignored. It’s okay for them to rule and make laws for us that we HAVE to follow or we get arrested and jailed, but when it comes to THEM having to follow their own rules and laws, they get to do whatever they want with zero repercussions. It seems that this is the status quo for the politically elite these days. I live in California where the 9th Circuit Court ruled that we no longer need to provide a “valid reason” for getting a CCW, but that ruling is also being completely ignored and is now stalemated in the ridiculously slow system again, awaiting yet another ruling on it. It’s a joke. The right clearly says it cannot be infringed, yet they continually screw us with infringements all of the time… and get away with it. I feel your pain.

      Reply

  • thejet007

    |

    My solution to gun control!
    If you’re a Liberal then you can’t have a gun!

    Don’t worry Libs, us Christians and Conservatives will protect you until the police arrive.Heck, it only takes them 15-45 mins to respond. How much dying can you do in that amount of time anyway? Also, you guys keep saying, “if we just take away the guns then people who are mentally insane won’t be able to get them” Well, I say, if you are still a Liberal after 7 yrs of Obomination and have seen the fundamental transformation of the US into a socialist broke european hades hole, then you are also insane and you should definately not own a gun! Why, uh, cause you are also freaking insane! But, its ok that you are, don’t worry, the inept federal government will take care of you with all the free handouts you voted for. It’s ok though, there is a peanut or two for you at the end of your sacralige rainbow. After all, this is the undefined Hope and Change you voted for isnt it?

    Reply

  • Dark Angel

    |

    ‘The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny of government. [Thomas Jefferson]

    Reply

  • Bruce Mezei

    |

    We need to shut down Liberal antis by using their own tactics/language:

    Right to own a gun is an undebatable and undeniable fact and the debate to enact gun control laws should not be revisited (a la global warming)

    You can’t talk about gun control putting me in same category as killers just because I own a gun. It’s bigoted, hateful, hurts my feelings and I’m offended (a la political correctness)

    You can’t call the killers “shooters” because not all people who shoot guns kill others. You can ONLY refer to them as “extreme criminals”  (a la not calling terrorists radical Islamists, calling illegal aliens undocumented workers)

    You can’t take away my 2nd Amendment rights because that is not who we are as Americans (a la justification for admitting Syrian refugees and not deporting illegal aliens, arguments against enhanced interrogation, …)

    Enacting stiffer gun control will be a recruiting tool for “extreme criminals” (a la justification for closing down Guantanamo Bay)

    Gun control is a war on law abiding citizens (a la claims of wars on women, minorities, gays/lesbians, …)

    Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Bruce Mezei

      Though your post was brilliantly filled with wit, the entire read becomes much more than just amusing satire if one considers the effectiveness were we to actually reciprocate with such absurd liberal ideologies. Your joke-filled paragraphs actually become valid tactics worthy of real consideration against the liberals – assuming you could get enough intelligent conservatives to play along.

      On another note, I particularly appreciate your “a la global warming” antidote which triggers recollections of the Daddy of all global warming whoppers – Al Gore. I still pay homage to that wonderful “hanging chad” that spared us having to endure his lunacy as a president. Let us not forget this would-be president is the same person that sold books saying the polar ice caps would all be melted by now. It is scary to think this liberal could have been in charge of major US policy.

      Reply

  • SGT U.S.MARINES

    |

    Funny thing, about this Commander in Chief, during his State of the Union Address he did NOT once add in his Condolences to the families of the people that were slain during the California shootings. His PRIORITY was being good to Muslims everywhere and allowing them into our country. He also, as the President, did NOT state to the American people to be on the alert or to be watchful of our surroundings because the people he’s allowing into our country are the ones responsible for the mass shooting in California. What a lot of Americans DO NOT see is that we are already at war with these imbeciles. The majority of the US is all for hugging and sharing their country with their Muslim neighbors. What isn’t seen yet is that once these F*€kER$ get to feeling comfortable of their surroundings in US, they are going to show a completely different side to their purpose here to the American people. At that point it will be to late. We, as Americans, are completely against this Muslim religion and beliefs, but yet it’s okay to allow them into this country and give them the rights that a lot of our fighting men and women in uniform have died for during confrontations with these same people that America now wants to take in and embrace. The Chief in Command is pretty much sugar coating a subtle take over by trying to disarm Americans and make it a walk in the park for these nutcases coming in to our country.

    Reply

    • Chickenhawk

      |

      Take away guns from Democrats, Invading Illegal Aliens, Muslims, Queers & Crack Smokers! That combined is Obama!

      Reply

    • Michael

      |

      @ Chickenhawk

      Opium Addiction stated in the United States, some time around 1870’s, and Heroin Addiction in 1906. GET TO THE POINT.

      Reply

    • Bruce Mezei

      |

      In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.
      In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States, who later died from the wound.
      In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States .
      In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States .
      In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States .
      In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
      In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
      In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
      In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen , TX.
      In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
      In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
      In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US .
      In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
      In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
      In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep.Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
      In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
      In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis .
      In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown , CT.
      As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.
      Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.
      Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservative was involved in any of these shootings and murders.
      SOLUTION:
      It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

      Reply

  • Jobe Hickernell

    |

    Well…It says in the good book “The meek shall inherit the earth.”

    Reply

  • Tim Barnett

    |

    obama has been embolden, getting more and more brazen with illegal executive orders since his state of the union speech, where he said he was just going to bypass Congress because of their inactivity. He told the world that he had a phone an pen and he was going to make thing happen through executive orders. Instead of hauling him off the stage in handcuffs our Congreemen gave him 84 standing ovations!

    Reply

  • Brian

    |

    With everything going on in this country, and our brave men and women fighting in other countries for our freedom to own firearms, and for Obama to even consider taking Americans guns away from law abiding citizens would be the most communist thing he could do, I would like to see them knock on the first door and ask to turn over their guns, I don’t think they would make it to the second door, our constitution was written for a reason and not to be messed with, so I would like to see him try to, I believe he would not make it the end of his term, he wants to take our guns and give them to the enemy, who’s team is he on, we need to make a stand and support the NRA and help stop this communist before it’s too late and we in up in a war with our own government that would tear this country apart. UNITED WE STAND TOGETHER WE FALL!

    Reply

    • Tim Barnett

      |

      It would be good if we stood together on gun confiscations, but we’ve been standing by while New York has been banging on doors an taking citizens weapons with no or little response. So much for standing together. Confiscation of firearms is already happening!

      Reply

    • Arron

      |

      Can you elaborate on this “banging on doors, taking citizens weapons” you speak of? I haven’t heard a single gun rights advocate, or a single word or peep from anyone on facebook, or ANY news from any gun owners in New York who have, or know of someone getting their guns taken. Oath Keepers, the NRA, NAGR, The 2nd Amendment Foundation, and dozens of other sources who have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of members and followers in just New York alone haven’t said a peep about it. I believe if this were happening, SOMEONE (one of the people who got their guns taken) would be screaming about it and it would spread like wild fire. There’s a LOT more to news spreading than the news and media, especially through blogs like this one and within the thousands of pro-gun rights organizations, groups and millions upon millions of members and supporters throughout this nation, so could you please provide some sort of proof or actual account of these events happening? If they are happening, I will help get the word out and make sure people know about it.

      Reply

    • Dennis Woodhull, Sr.

      |

      I don’t know where you get your info as I talked to a lot of people and nobody know’s anything about this !!!

      Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: