Friday, October 31, 2008

Obama – “Words Matter” or “Talk is Cheap”?

The Washington Times has a great editorial entitled “Obama and guns – Words matter and the record doesn’t match” by Chris Cox. Obama has reiterated time and again that “words matter”, yet when it comes to his position on the Second Amendment, “talk is cheap.” Obama’s record does not match his currently stated position on the Second Amendment, which leads me to conclude that this is an election year ploy to sucker those not willing to look into his record.

Some solid examples from the editorial (some of which have appeared in previous entries in this blog):

"One of Mr. Obama's first statements on the issue really said it all. During his first run for the Illinois Senate in 1996, Mr. Obama said on a candidate questionnaire that he supported legislation to "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." When challenged about the questionnaire earlier this year, Mr. Obama blamed others, saying his campaign staff had filled out the questionnaire incorrectly. (Unfortunately for that story, a version of the questionnaire later appeared bearing Mr. Obama's own handwriting.)"

So not only in 1996 did Obama allegedly say that he supported legislation banning manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns, he lied about it, was caught in that lie, yet still proclaims support for the Second Amendment? Apparently dishonesty knows no bounds for Obama.

Obama's record on concealed carry is no better:

"In 2004, he said he was "consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry," and that he'd back "federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement."

Well, so much for the "bear" part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Again, Obama shows that he is overtly hostile to the Second Amendment, but wants his supporters not only to believe that he’s a proponent or the Second Amendment, but them to "get in the faces" of people who say otherwise. Again, dishonesty knows no bound for Obama.

Obama also represents a direct threat to hunting:

"...in 2005, he voted for a ban on all but the smallest rifle ammunition used for hunting (or for anything else). If the measure had passed, it would have classified most rifle ammunition beyond the low-powered .22 caliber as "armor piercing ammunition," prohibited for civilian manufacture by federal law. The ammunition ban was hardly Mr. Obama's first act against hunters, either. In 1999, Mr. Obama proposed increasing firearm and ammunition excise taxes by 500 percent. Right now, a rifle that a manufacturer sells for $500 carries an excise tax of $55. Under Mr. Obama's proposal, that amount would rocket to $330. This would turn a tax willingly paid by sportsmen, which funds many of our wildlife conservation programs, into a tool to punish gun buyers."

So much for his support of "hunters and sportsmen," yet many people still seem to be soaking in the lies. When the NRA ran television spots detailing the issue above, the Obama campaign threatened the FCC licenses of the stations that ran them (see earlier blog entry). So not only is Obama lying about his position on firearms and on hunting, he is willing to use Gestapo tactics to prevent people from hearing the truth.

Obama has also supported foundations with a virtually stated goal to abolish the Second Amendment:

"As if voting for anti-gun plans wasn't bad enough, Mr. Obama also helped pay for them. He was a board member from 1994 to 2001 of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation, which is the largest source of funding for radical anti-gun groups in the country. On Mr. Obama's watch, Joyce donated $18.6 million to approximately 80 anti-gun efforts, including $1.5 million to the Violence Policy Center, the nation's most aggressive gun-prohibitionist group. Many of the Joyce Foundation's projects were aimed at editing the Second Amendment out of the Constitution."

Even with these facts in evidence, Obama has the hubris to state he supports the Second Amendment.

Perhaps even more terrifying is what Obama could do to the Supreme Court. In what should have been an easy 9-0 decision based on Framers Intent and the tenor of the Constitution, the Heller case was a squeaker at 5-4. So what sort of justices would Obama nominate???

"Mr. Obama has said he would not have nominated Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. It was Justice Scalia who wrote the majority opinion in D.C. v. Heller, which declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, and that D.C.'s handgun ban is unconstitutional. Justice Thomas joined in that opinion. As a member of the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama also voted against confirming Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom joined Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller. That means four of the five pro-freedom votes on the Supreme Court would not have been there under an Obama presidency."

Yet again Obama's "words" don’t match his actions. In a campaign where he proclaims that "words matter", it’s clearly because he doesn’t want people taking a close look at his record. Obama represents a clear and present danger to the Second Amendment, and by extension to the rest of our liberties as well. He is a leftist radical who, like Mao, recognizes that political power flows from the barrel of a gun, and therefore, also like Mao, wants to control all of the guns.

On election day, vote like your freedom is at stake... because it is!

Friday, October 17, 2008

Shatner Demonstrating CCW

Okay, so I’m a long time Trek fan, friend of mine sent me this one.



Yep – that pretty much sums it up nicely. Interestingly if Obama had his way – Shatner’s character wouldn’t have been armed as Obama is against both concealed carry and handguns. Think about it when you vote in November!

Seattle Mayor Seeking More Gun Bans

Even in the wake of this historic Heller decision, it seems like many big city mayors still just don’t “get it” when it comes to the Second Amendment and the rights of the people. KING 5 News reports that Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels is seeking "'further clarity' on his authority to ban guns on city property.” Mayor Nickels comments came in response to a nonbinding opinion issued by Attorney General Rob McKenna indicating cities have no authority to ban guns locally because of potential conflicts with state regulations.

The Attorney General at least has it half right. No city or state should have the authority to “ban guns” because it violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, if you look at the Washington State Constitution , Article I Section 2 states the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and furthermore Article I Section 24 states:

“SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

Language there is even more clear than in the Second Amendment – the right is not granted, it will “not be impaired”, and the citizen’s right to bear arms in the cause of self-defense is clearly stated.

Mayor Nickels believes he has a “moral responsibility” to ban guns because:

"We cannot wait for another incident, or another victim. The simple fact is our public buildings, events, parks and community centers are safer without guns.”

Typical erroneous emotional twaddle designed by corrupt politicians to deprive Americans of the rights as affirmed not only by the Second Amendment, but the Washington State Constitution as well. Not only have gun bans been shown to create a more dangerous environment, but more victims as well.

The anti-Second Amendment crowd seems to suffer from the same logical deficiency that many suffered from during the Black Plague. During the Plague, people were dying, and the “logic” was that since cats carry evil spirits, all of the cats should be killed and that would solve the problem of plague. Unfortunately the cats ate the rats which carried the fleas which carried the Plague. So by killing the cats, the people of the Middle Ages had hit upon the one thing that would actually make the situation much worse as their “solution” to the problem. Gun Banners make the same leap – because there is violence they seek to remove the guns. Unfortunately it generally takes a gun to defend yourself against an assailant armed with a gun. By banning guns, these misguided politicians only remove the guns from the hands of the law abiding, leaving the criminals free to prey on their victims at will – just like the rats and fleas were free to multiply at will with equally disastrous results.

So to “clarify” for Mayor Nickels – you have NO RIGHT to ban guns. By proposing so, you’re not only taking the least logical, least factual, and most destructive point of view, you’re violating your oaths to uphold the law and protect the rights of the citizens who elected you into office. I’d suggest the people of Seattle seriously consider recalling their Mayor as he clearly has absolutely no respect for their liberties.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Obama Now Anti-FIRST Amendment Too!!!

As if his stance on the Second Amendment wasn’t bad enough, now Obama is taking aim at the First Amendment as well. Why? Because the NRA had the temerity to point out his abysmal record on Second Amendment issues! The NRA has been running political ads in several states which point out Obama’s record and position on Second Amendment issues. In response, the Obama campaign and the DNC have attempted to have the spots PULLED from the airwaves claiming that they’re inaccurate and take the heavy handed approach of threatening to have FCC licenses pulled if the stations do not comply.

The letter the DNC provides includes “proof” that the NRA ads are in error. Unfortunately that “proof” is not worth the paper it is written on (or the pixels it is comprised of). They include citations from FactCheck.org which are quite frankly wrong . FactCheck ironically is not “checking facts” these days – it is serving as a Political Front for the same group that funds the Brady Campaign.

The NRA has sent a rebuttal letter to the stations. Hopefully the stations will stand up to blatantly anti-Civil Rights Chicago machine politics of the Obama Campaign. Make no mistake, Obama seems determined to lie his way to the Presidency, and your Second (and now First) Amendment rights are at stake.

Until next time!!!