from Powerline

Byron York reports that White House aides cautioned Michelle Obama against taking her trip to Spain in August. They warned her that the trip, during which she stayed at a glitzy five-star hotel in Marbella, would hurt her image. That is just what happened, according to polling data.

The First Lady decided to take the trip nonetheless. Afterwards, she reportedly was surprised by the intensity of the uproar her posh vacation on the Spanish Riviera caused. It is difficult to say whether the affair, including her reaction to the uproar, speaks more to Michelle Obama’s arrogance or her cluelessness. Perhaps the unifying theme is her sense of entitlement.

The White House notes, however, that despite her falling approval numbers, the First Lady remains in demand among Democrats who want her to campaign for them. I guess when one’s own number is south of 40 percent, 50 percent looks pretty good.

But David Axelrod says that Ms. Obama is not “eager to jump into the fray in a very political way, and I don’t think she will.” Perhaps she and her husband realize that, other than another vacation at an international hot-spot, the surest way to blow what remains of her popularity is to campaign for Democratic members of Congress.

also:

It Begins… Democrats Schedule Senate Meeting to Regulate Gun Sales
Posted by Jim Hoft

Now they’re coming for your guns.

Senate Democrats called a meeting next week to discuss regulating gun sales.

From the announcement:

“Firearms in Commerce: Assessing the Need for Reform in the Federal Regulatory Process”
Senate Judiciary Committee
Full Committee
View a webcast of this hearing
DATE: September 14, 2010
TIME: 10:00 AM
ROOM: Dirksen-226

But remember: These same radicals want you to believe they value the Constitution.

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

This was originally televised back in April, but was repeated again tonight:

Too bad Lesley Stahl couldn’t utilize footage of 20/20′s “Virginia Tech” gun experiment (which looks to have been aired the same weekend as the 60 Minutes ep) to buttress her “more gun control/guns are bad” push:

I think there are some good points and merit in the 20/20 scenario staging; however, their experiment itself, I think, is far from empirical and nonbiased.

For one, the “intruder” is already at a clear advantage given he’s a trained firearms instructor firing with the accuracy of such, while the students have only been given a crash course; other than clearing a holster, I don’t really see them getting trained in combative handgun use. Sure, it’s one possible scenario; but how about one of those students trade places and be the intruder, while the firearms instructor be the one sitting in the classroom? Or, if that’s “unfair” and “missing the point”, why not replace the firearms instructor completely in his role as intruder and use one of the students with short-term training to make it “even”? Why give the students baggy clothes? Why create just one possible environment and hypothetical scenario? How about having someone not taken by “the element of surprise and panic”, and arriving on scene to draw his weapon on the attacker? The situation is heavily weighted to demonstrate failure.

I agree with 20/20 points regarding reaction time, stress, tunnel vision, etc. (reminds me of the classic law enforcement video, Surviving Edged Weapons); but not with the propaganda 20/20 is pushing: That guns in the hands of ordinary citizens doesn’t save lives, and if anything endangers them.

So what’s the alternative to 20/20′s hypothetical that they are endorsing? Remove all chances of defending yourself (and others) with an equalizer and just live out the last remaining seconds of your life as a sitting duck.

Here’s an antidote video for the 20/20 piece:

also:

What Does Promoting Tax Payer Funded Abortions Have to Do With Health Care?

Calling abortion an “essential benefit” while the Dem bill would cut back critical care to Seniors unmasks Obama care as a death cult!

GOP House Leader John Boehner is fighting back:

Taxpayer-Funded Abortion Is Not Health-Care Reform
By John Boehner, House Republican Leader
National Review
July 23, 2009

When most Americans talk about the need for health-care reform, they’re usually talking about the need to address rising health-care costs; they aren’t talking about the need for taxpayers to subsidize abortion. In fact, a November 2008 Zogby poll revealed 71 percent of Americans oppose government-funded abortion.

It seems Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill don’t share this perspective, however. With the unequivocal support of President Obama, they’ve written a health-care bill that won’t lower health-care costs for American families, but will require them to subsidize abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars.

~~~

How many Americans currently realize the House bill contains provisions that will result in federally mandated coverage of abortion on demand in virtually all of America’s health plans?

Fact: The bill as currently written will allow the federal government to classify abortion as an “essential benefit” — a health-care right that would be guaranteed to all Americans. This will make it illegal for health-care providers nationwide — even Catholic and religious-based hospitals with missions that reflect a fundamental moral objection to the killing of the unborn — to provide anything less than abortion on demand for anyone who seeks it. As a result, the bill will repeal laws in many states that currently require commonsense limitations on abortion-on-demand, such as mandatory parental notification and waiting periods.
(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Just yesterday, I was pondering just what dirt Obama and his auto czar had on Perella-Weinberg/Xerion that could be used to “ruin their reputation” or “embarrass” them.

The only idea I had in the above referenced post was that Xerion also received funds from the New York State Common Retirement Fund, and that perhaps Rattner/Obama admin was using a blackmail tactic by threatening to drag them into the pay-to-play investigation involving Rattner’s Quadrangle, placement agent Henry Morris and former deputy comptroller David Loglisci.

Tom Lauria, a man genuinely indignant at the White House intimidation tactics used against his legal clientele, has now been silenced by Perella-Weinberg themselves.

If P-W insists Lauria dodge the subject, could it be whatever dirt Rattner/Obama have is true, and Lauria’s indignation resulted in shining a spotlight where P-W did not want it to be?

As Lauria says to Fox’s Megyn Kelly,

… I really don’t want to comment, but I’m sure… uh… that… uh… if people keep pressing, the truth is going to come out.

Also:

Hedge Fund Manager Responds to Barack’s Bullying

Kudos to Zero Hedge for posting this commentary written by hedge fund manager, Clifford S. Asness. Major kudos to Mr. Asness for having the heart and courage to stand up for capitalism and free market principles. Asness addresses the implications of President Obama’s browbeating hedge funds’ representation and management of client interests involved in the Chrysler bankruptcy.

Our country was founded on the principles of free speech, fair and equitable trade, property rights, and the ability to operate without intimidation. In writing and publishing this post, Mr. Asness has done our country a great service. I commend him!! I strongly encourage people to share this message with friends and colleagues. Please share your sentiments here as well!! ~LD

Unafraid In Greenwich Connecticut
Clifford S. Asness
Managing and Founding Principal
AQR Capital Management, LLC

The President has just harshly castigated hedge fund managers for being unwilling to take his administration’s bid for their Chrysler bonds. He called them “speculators” who were “refusing to sacrifice like everyone else” and who wanted “to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.”

The responses of hedge fund managers have been, appropriately, outrage, but generally have been anonymous for fear of going on the record against a powerful President (an exception, though still in the form of a “group letter”, was the superb note from “The Committee of Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders” some of the points of which I echo here, and a relatively few firms, like Oppenheimer, that have publicly defended themselves). Furthermore, one by one the managers and banks are said to be caving to the President’s wishes out of justifiable fear.

I run an approximately twenty billion dollar money management firm that offers hedge funds as well as public mutual funds and unhedged traditional investments. My company is not involved in the Chrysler situation, but I am still aghast at the President’s comments (of course these are my own views not those of my company). Furthermore, for some reason I was not born with the common sense to keep it to myself, though my title should more accurately be called “Not Afraid Enough” as I am indeed fearful writing this… It’s really a bad idea to speak out. Angering the President is a mistake and, my views will annoy half my clients. I hope my clients will understand that I’m entitled to my voice and to speak it loudly, just as they are in this great country. I hope they will also like that I do not think I have the right to intentionally “sacrifice” their money without their permission.

Here’s a shock. When hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds, and individuals, including very sweet grandmothers, lend their money they expect to get it back. However, they know, or should know, they take the risk of not being paid back. But if such a bad event happens it usually does not result in a complete loss. A firm in bankruptcy still has assets. It’s not always a pretty process. Bankruptcy court is about figuring out how to most fairly divvy up the remaining assets based on who is owed what and whose contracts come first. The process already has built-in partial protections for employees and pensions, and can set lenders’ contracts aside in order to help the company survive, all of which are the rules of the game lenders know before they lend. But, without this recovery process nobody would lend to risky borrowers. Essentially, lenders accept less than shareholders (means bonds return less than stocks) in good times only because they get more than shareholders in bad times.

The above is how it works in America, or how it’s supposed to work. The President and his team sought to avoid having Chrysler go through this process, proposing their own plan for re-organizing the company and partially paying off Chrysler’s creditors. Some bond holders thought this plan unfair. Specifically, they thought it unfairly favored the United Auto Workers, and unfairly paid bondholders less than they would get in bankruptcy court. So, they said no to the plan and decided, as is their right, to take their chances in the bankruptcy process. But, as his quotes above show, the President thought they were being unpatriotic or worse.

Let’s be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can. They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients’ money to share in the “sacrifice”, they are stealing. Clients of hedge funds include, among others, pension funds of all kinds of workers, unionized and not. The managers have a fiduciary obligation to look after their clients’ money as best they can, not to support the President, nor to oppose him, nor otherwise advance their personal political views. That’s how the system works. If you hired an investment professional and he could preserve more of your money in a financial disaster, but instead he decided to spend it on the UAW so you could “share in the sacrifice”, you would not be happy.

Let’s quickly review a few side issues.

The President’s attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him. Why is he not calling on his party to “sacrifice” some campaign contributions, and votes, for the greater good? Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power.

Let’s also mention only in passing the irony of this same President begging hedge funds to borrow more to purchase other troubled securities. That he expects them to do so when he has already shown what happens if they ask for their money to be repaid fairly would be amusing if not so dangerous. That hedge funds might not participate in these programs because of fear of getting sucked into some toxic demagoguery that ends in arbitrary punishment for trying to work with the Treasury is distressing. Some useful programs, like those designed to help finance consumer loans, won’t work because of this irresponsible hectoring.

Last but not least, the President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large. Find me a hedge fund that has been bailed out. Find me a hedge fund, even a failed one, that has asked for one. In fact, it was only because hedge funds have not taken government funds that they could stand up to this bullying. The TARP recipients had no choice but to go along. The hedge funds were singled out only because they are unpopular, not because they behaved any differently from any other ethical manager of other people’s money. The President’s comments here are backwards and libelous. Yet, somehow I don’t think the hedge funds will be following ACORN’s lead and trucking in a bunch of paid professional protestors soon. Hedge funds really need a community organizer.

This is America. We have a free enterprise system that has worked spectacularly for us for two hundred plus years. When it fails it fixes itself. Most importantly, it is not an owned lackey of the oval office to be scolded for disobedience by the President.

I am ready for my “personalized” tax rate now.

Originally published at No Quarter.

Finally:

Obama Pushing Gun Control Treaty That Takes Oversight Away From Lawmakers

Lou Dobbs had a segment that re-aired yesterday which should scare the crap out of those of you who believe, as I do, that the 2nd Amendment is not a right that can be brushed away so easily…..it’s about CIFTA. A little known treaty that Obama wants ratified that is major….MAJOR gun control:

Alan Corwin has done a great job of detailing the specifics of the treaty: (more…)

R 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009
Please send this to everybody on your list… this is Obama gun control by secrecy.

Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House.
This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.
We just learned yesterday about this on the Peter Boyles radio program.
Even gun shop owners didn’t know about this because it is flying under the radar.
To find out about this – go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information.

Basically this “little” piece of legislation would make it illegal to own a firearm – any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:

.It is registered
.You are fingerprinted
.You supply a current Driver’s License
.You supply your Social Security #
.You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing
.Each update – change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 (more…)

Georgia Arms is the 5th largest retailer of .223 Ammo in America. ?(they sell 9 mm, .45, etc ammo)

They normally buy spent brass from the US Dept of Defense – ‘one time used’ shell casings by our Military – from training on Military bases, etc. ?They buy the brass and then re-load for resale to Law Enforcement,Gun Shops, Gun Clubs, Wal-Mart, and etc.

They normally buy 30,000 lbs of spent brass at a time.

This week the DoD wrote a letter to the owner of Georgia Arms and said that from now on the DoD will be destroying the brass – shredding it. It is no longer available to the Ammo makers – unless they j ust buy it in a scrap shredded condition (which they have No use for). ?The
shredded brass is NOW going to be sold by the DoD to China as scrap metal….after the DoD pays for it to be shredded. The DoD is selling the brass to China for less money than Ammo manufacturers have been paying…plus the DoD has to pay to have the brass shredded and do all
the accounting paperwork. ?That sure helps the US economy now, doesn’t it? ?Sell cheaper to China – and do not sell shells at a ll to a proven US business. ?Any agenda working here???? Obama going after our ammunition!!!!! (more…)

What is the future of the Second Amendment in America

by James H. Lilley

The United States Constitution – Second Amendment – The Right to bear Arms –
Ratified December 15, 1791. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Violent crime has been a part of human society since the beginning of time when Cain murdered his brother, Abel. The first murder, known to mankind, was an act committed of envy. The story of Cain and Abel is part of Christianity, Islam and Judaism and appears in Genesis 4:1-16 and the Qur’an 5: 26-32. But never has violent crime, its cause and search for a solution, been so debated as it is today. One topic dominates, and has dominated violent crime debates for years. Guns, and a citizen’s right to own them.

To try and see the future of America and the gun control debate, the best place to begin the search is at the top with our president. According to www.gunbanobama.com,” Barack Obama will be the most anti-gun president in American history.” His voting record, political associations and long standing positions make that clear. The following statements are attributed to Mr. Obama:

“Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” Answer, “Yes.” (Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire. September 9, 1996)
“I’m consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.” (Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004)

“I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers lobby.” (The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama, 2006)

Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sports shooting. (United States Senate, vote #217, S. 397, July 29, 2005)

Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense. (Illinois Senate, SB 2165, vote 20, March 25, 2004)

In his only two votes on confirming Supreme Court nominees, Obama voted against two of the five justices (Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito) who later affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms in the case of the District of Columbia v. Heller.

President Barack Obama’s choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder, signals his true anti-gun agenda. As the nation’s top law enforcement officer he will not have the rights and interests of gun owners in mind. Holder, Janet Reno and others from the Clinton Department of Justice co-signed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia versus Heller. That brief was filed in support of the District’s ban on all handguns, and the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home. The argument stated that the Second Amendment is a “collective right” rather than an individual right.

Continuing with Mr. Obama’s nominations/appointments, the White House Chief of Staff, former Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel and former New York Senator and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton are anti-gun.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a recent trip to Mexico, which is currently besieged by a violent drug war. She went on record saying that America shares blame for the Mexican drug wars because of its demand for drugs and supply of weapons. Here, Mr. Obama agreed with her, saying he wanted the United States to do more to stem the flow of guns and cash from illegal drug sales from flowing into Mexico. This seems like, as Americans, we are being asked to shoulder the bulk of the responsibility for Mexico’s problems. The majority of the U. S. population is not making whatever contributions are coming from this side of the border, be it money or guns. Furthermore, I don’t believe the United States of America is the only contributor to Mexico in guns and money. If we look to the southern borders of Mexico, I think we will also find a large quantity of guns and money travelling up from the south. Therefore, America should not stand alone as the bastard that destroyed Mexico. My country is not the root of the world’s evils, though it seems that our own leaders and elected officials are doing their very best to make it so by concurring with those who call us “The Great Satan.”
(more…)

From Red Maryland

House Bill 1446, a bill requested by the Maryland State Police to require the registration of ammunition at purchase has passed out of the House Rules & Executive Nominations Committee and re-referred to the House Judiciary Committee for a hearing on March 19 at 1:00 pm.

This bill would require that any person engaged in the business of selling ammunition maintain extensive records on all, including the date of sale, purchaser’s full name, address, date of birth, description of the form of ID used as well as the type and quantity of ammunition purchased. The bill also forces a business that sells ammunition to allow the inspection of the sales record by a law enforcement officer upon request. HB 1446 is tantamount to firearm registration, will do nothing to stop crime and only increase the size and bureaucratic scope of the Maryland State Police. If they succeed, they will no doubt be back wanting a background check or license to purchase ammunition as well. This bill must be defeated. If you think ammunition is hard to find now, just wait and see how hard it is to get if this bill passes.

Congress has tried ammunition registration in the past, only to discover that it was not only ineffective for law enforcement, but also completely unmanageable due to the sheer volume of transactions. Ammunition registration creates huge record keeping requirements and provides no useful benefits for law enforcement; which is why it was repealed under the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

From Red Maryland

Last month, the following bills dealing with domestic violence were introduced in both the Maryland State Senate and House: Senate Bill 144, Senate Bill 210, Senate Bill 267, Senate Bill 268, House Bill 214, House Bill 296 and House Bill 302. These bills may be voted upon as early as Thursday, March 5 and it is imperative that you contact your State Legislators and express your concern about these bills.

Simply put, these bills require subjects of final and temporary protective orders to surrender their firearms to law enforcement until the order expires. Unlike the federal law that prohibits gun possession in these circumstances, these bills would require law enforcement to seize someone’s firearms, even if the subject of the order had no opportunity to participate in the hearing; federal law allows a person to find other places to dispose of his guns while an order is in effect.

Information from the governor’s office, as reported by WBAL TV, states that there are in excess of 6,700 final protective orders and 382 temporary orders on file with the state. Only 75, barely over 1%, involve gun owners.

Though domestic abuse is undeniably tragic and deplorable, these bills are an unnecessary and unfair overreaction. Under these bills, a victim of false allegations who had no opportunity to contest those charges in court cannot defend himself at home or simply possess his own guns for any other lawful purpose.

While domestic violence is a deplorable and despicable crime, these bills trample upon Marylanders’ due process rights. Please contact your State Legislators and respectfully express your concern regarding SB144, SB210, SB267, SB268, HB214, HB296, and HB302.
(more…)

From Red Maryland

Fairfax, Va. – The United States Senate has voted, with overwhelming bipartisan support, to adopt an amendment offered by Senator John Ensign (R-NV) that seeks to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in the District of Columbia. The amendment, attached to S.160, the D.C. Voting Rights Act, will repeal restrictive gun control laws passed by the District of Columbia’s (D.C.) city council after the landmark D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision. The vote margin was 62-36.

“Today’s vote brings us one step closer to restoring the Second Amendment freedom of law-abiding D.C. residents,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “It’s ludicrous that good people in our nation’s capital continue to be harassed as they try to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes. This vote reinforces the historic Heller ruling.”

After the Heller ruling, the D.C. city council passed a law requiring would-be gun owners to pay a registration fee, pass a 20-question multiple choice test, take a five-hour training course, undergo an invasive background check every six years, re-register any firearm every three years, and finally, submit all handguns for ballistics testing. Current D.C. law also bans an overwhelming majority of firearms commonly used for self-defense. This Ensign Amendment would also remedy that unjust practice.
(more…)

by Mike Stollenwerk

So there I was last week, drivin’ into DC when I heard Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley (D) on WTOP.com’s “Ask the Governor Program.” And I call in and wait in the queue only to be the last caller!

I ask:

“Hi Governor. My question’s on gun carry permits. The Heller decision said that the right to bear arms is to carry them and I’m wondering if Maryland can ever move from the current non-discretionary issuance of gun carry permits? [NOTE: I meant to say “discretionary” not “non-discretionary” but Governor O’Malley appeared to understand what I meant].

And Governor O’Malley quickly responded:

No, I don’t think we will. Maryland has made a lot of strides in reducing violent crime . . . we’ve moved from I think the 4th most violent in the country to the 8th . . . we have some of the most you know proactive gun laws in the country and we still have the level of violence . . . so for the caller I’m with you at least on that common ground.”

Incredibly Governor O’Malley then went on to say that he hopes Maryland will eliminate the death penalty “for those who commit the unspeakable crime of taking a loved one from us through violence.”

So Governor O’Malley, admitting that Maryland’s rating by the Brady Campaign as the 5th most gun controllin’ state in the union is not correlated with less violent crime, thinks the continued violation of the right to bear arms is the right thing to do.

O’Malley’s complete disregard for the “right to carry” question is itself an unspeakable crime. Most states don’t even require a permit to openly carry a handgun and issue concealed handgun permits to anyone who can pass a background check. (more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Just another socialist accomplishment for Obama to hang his hat on:

Prior to reform, the federal government simply gave the states more money for every family they added to the welfare rolls. The predictable result was that the states worked hard to maximize their welfare caseloads in order to maximize the amount of federal funding they could therefore claim. The system had zero incentive to help people make the transition from welfare to work and independence—in fact, the states were financially punished for doing so. The Clinton-Gingrich reforms replaced that bounty-hunter system with a flat rate for each state, based on population and other factors. That gave state-level welfare authorities a better set of incentives, encouraging them to use their resources in the most effective manner and to reserve them for the truly needy.

The results were successful—spectacularly so. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act was followed by reductions in both the number of families on welfare and the rate of poverty. Single women entered the workforce in substantial numbers and the household incomes of former welfare recipients went up. In other words, the incentives to reduce welfare dependence and help people to find work, worked.

Obama, in what is plainly a sop to ACORN and the rest of the “community organizing” gang, is overturning those reforms. Under the provisions in the stimulus bill, states will once again be paid a bounty for expanding their welfare rolls. As reported by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, the federal government will now pay states 80 percent of the cost for each new family they sign up for welfare. That means that states will get $4 for every $1 they spend. This will leave the main welfare program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), with a funding mechanism similar to the one that supports Medicaid. As Brian Blase argues here, Medicaid’s funding ratio, which gives states $1 to $3 for every dollar they spend, has caused state Medicaid spending to skyrocket. If Medicaid’s dollar-for-dollar model has proved ruinous, Obama’s new $4-to-$1 ratio for welfare will prove, in all likelihood, four times so.

~~~

Given that the states will receive $4 from the federal government for every $1 they add to their welfare budgets, even conservative governors will feel pressure to inflate their welfare rolls in order to wring every dollar they can out of Washington. And there are early rumblings about removing the already weak work requirements that rounded out the Clinton-era reforms.

The Democrats are stuffing years’ worth of legislation into their “stimulus” bill. They are operating in the legislative shadows, evading scrutiny and debate, while enacting an expansion of the welfare state that would never survive a more considered process. Obama’s right-hand man, Rahm Emanuel, put it bluntly if cynically: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

And it all starts Tuesday:

The bill-signing, an unusual event outside of Washington, will be Tuesday at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science in City Park. The president also will give a speech about the economy.

Attendance at the midday event is by invitation only, and all invitations have been distributed.

CNN reported that a senior administration official cited a desire to get “away from the politics of Washington.”

All part of the plan. Working folks being required to subsidize those who do not.

Ch…ch…change!

Also:

Wild Bill and The Fairness Doctrine

Bill Clinton:

“We either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there’s always been a lot of big money to support the right-wing talk shows, and let’s face it, you know, Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining, even when he’s saying things that I think are ridiculous. I never minded having somebody be heard who disagreed with me. But if you only have one side like this blatant drumbeat against the stimulus program, this doesn’t reflect the economic reality we’re facing.”

Folks, anyone can see what a sham this is, and utterly laughable to boot. Look at ALL the MSM, with the exception of Fox Network who dropped their pants and spread ‘em months ago. Obama can do not wrong, there is not a Hint of criticism from the MSM on the ‘super spending’ bill to reward the Democratic faithful. The House bill just passed with not one single Republican voting in favor, yet, one would think from the MSM that the House passed a ‘hard fought’ bill when the end result was already ordained. The only question was which Democrats would not vote for it. The Senate the voted for their version and as predicted, the RINO’s; Specter, Collins, and Snowe voted for it.

“It is over a thousand pages,” said Representative Tom Price, a Georgia Republican. “It is physically impossible for any member to have read this bill.” Of course, it is! That’s the idea! It will be interesting to see those goodies as they come out, especially national health care ramifications. If you can’t persuade the public, put it in a ‘bill.’

Now, back to this ‘Fairness doctrine’, the whole point is to give the opposition free air time to air their ‘progressiveness’. Do you imagine Keith Olberman having a conservative on his program and giving him equal time? Nah, the television networks are exempt, it’s only for ‘talk radio’, which the conservatives control as a balance to the totally liberal MSM. How better to quite the conservative voice than to force equal time for those leftist pundits who cannot keep a radio program running on their own merit because viewers refuse to patronize it. “If you can’t beat ‘em, change the rules.”

excerpts:

Okay, Bill Clinton has said we gotta have enforced media accountability. “All the big money has gone to support right-wing talk shows.” Mr. President, if I may, all the big money is not in talk radio. It’s all your Library and Massage Parlor. What I wouldn’t give for the amount of money that’s been donated to Bill Clinton and his Library and Massage Parlor! That’s where the big money is in this country. Now, how unhappy can these Democrats be? They’ve got 60 votes in the Senate. They own the House of Representatives. They occupy the White House. They control the media. Just what do they want? Karl Marx said it. You know what “peace” is in Karl Marx’s definition? The absence of opposition to socialism. That is peace. The absence of opposition to a leftist, to a socialist, and that’s what they’re aiming for this is a major transformation of the United States, as Obama promised. Let’s not forget Clinton in 1994, June. He was flying in to dedicate some train station in St. Louis, and he called the morning show in our blowtorch affiliate there, KMOX.

~~~

We didn’t bring in people to our studios for coffee and shake ‘em down, promising not to criticize them on the radio if they will just pay us off. We don’t bring in interns here and start using cigars in nefarious ways. We don’t have massage parties here in our broadcast studios. Well, I can’t speak for some of the long-haired, maggot-infested FM types and what they’re doing in their studios. (laughing) But I haven’t had one visit from a ChiCom advertiser. I haven’t had a guy that owns a Chinese restaurant in Little Rock walk in to some office with $200 million in unsigned money orders for me for big money. I haven’t people from Dubai, from the United Arab Emirates, from Saudi Arabia pay me 150 to $400,000 for a speech ripping my own country while I’m in theirs! I don’t do things like this, Mr. President. My money, our money comes (just as government’s does) from the American people — and our money is puny compared to yours. Clinton Global Initiative? We don’t have anything like that. What big money, Mr. President?

Finally:

While We Weren’t Watching

While we weren’t watching, a new bill has been introduced into the House.

Bobby Rush-IL has introduced HR 45 on 1/6/2009. Currently, there are no co-sponsors and the bill has been referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.

And here it is.

Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 – Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.

Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.

Prohibits: (1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions; (2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act; (3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours; (4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or (5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury. (more…)

by Dr. Ronald R. Cherry

“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.” George Washington

This quote has been disputed: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Washington

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. “ James Madison

“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion… in private self-defense.” John Adams
“The Constitution of most of our states, and of the United States, assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.” Thomas Jefferson

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.” Thomas Jefferson

“The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” Thomas Jefferson

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Thomas Jefferson

“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. Samuel Adams

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution

Founding Fathers and Government

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” George Washington

“The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” James Madison

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.” — Thomas Paine (more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Obama up to his tricks once again. Here he is responding to the fact that gun sells have risen 49% since he was elected:

“I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment,” Obama said at a news conference. “Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven’t indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word.”

Oh really?

It’s one thing to say you support the 2nd Amendment, but your actions over the years show us something different all together:

But National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said it’s not Obama’s words — but his legislative track record — that has gun-buyers flocking to the stores.

“Prior to his campaign for president, his record as a state legislator and as a U.S. Senator shows he voted for the most stringent forms of gun control, the most Draconian legislation, gun bans, ammunition bans and even an increase in federal excise taxes up to 500 percent for every gun and firearm sold,” Arulanandam said.

Lets not forget how he answered the same kind of question in 1996:

“Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” asked one of the three dozen questions.

“Yes,” was Obama’s entire answer.

Here he is back in September saying that he doesn’t want to take guns but if he did flip-flop (Obama never flip-flops right?) he couldn’t do it anyways:

A woman in the crowd [in Duryea, PA] told Obama she had “heard a rumor” that he might be planning some sort of gun ban upon being elected president. Obama trotted out his standard policy stance, that he had a deep respect for the “traditions of gun ownership” but favored measures in big cities to keep guns out of the hands of “gang bangers and drug dealers’’ in big cities “who already have them and are shooting people.”

“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’’ Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.

So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’

Classic Obama.

How can we forget this from his lips:

Obama said he believes in the Second Amendment, but that there is plenty of room for added gun regulations. “There is an individual right to bear arms, but it’s subject to commonsense regulation,” he said.

Some more facts on Obama and guns from the NRA:

FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities. (Curt-But once ban was overturned he flip-flopped)

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people
who use firearms in self-defense.

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.

Either way you look at it, his history shows us that we all should be very worried about our right to buy and bear arms.

More here.

Also:

Why Let A Economic Crisis Go To Waste

U.S. News columnist James Pethokoukis takes a look at Obama’s economic recovery plan and can see the same failed strategies tried by the US in the 30′s and Japan in the 90′s:

“The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep,” Obama said on election night. And there’s no doubt that many other countries plagued by imploded asset bubbles and resulting banking crises have suffered a long stretch of bad times. In Sweden, between 1990 and 1993, the economy shrank by 6 percent. Japan experienced a “lost decade” in the 1990s. Then, there was the 1990-91 recession here in America. Even after the economy started expanding again, the unemployment rate kept rising until it hit 7.8 percent in June of 1992 vs. a low of 5.2 percent in June 1990. So, certainly America is at risk for an extended case of the blues.

And that’s what is so frustratingly weird about Obamanomics and the plan for hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars in “stimulus” spending. If the goal is to turn around the economy as quickly as possible, why would we turn to the same economic playbook that America ran in the 1930s and Japan in the 1990s? In both cases, massive government spending failed to bring back prosperity. And it’s unlikely to work this time, either. Economists Susan Woodward of UCLA and Robert Hall of MIT are dubious. In their cowritten blog, the duo opined that “timing may be a problem . . . Complicated projects take time to ramp up to high spending and employment levels. . . . All of these proposals for stimulating state and local spending suffer from a common problem—they will end up generating employment for highly specialized businesses and workers, rather than stimulating economic activity more broadly. A large-scale infrastructure program will drive up the profits of the limited number of firms.” That conclusion dovetails nicely with a 2005 study, “What Are the Effects of Fiscal Policy Shocks?” which looks at U.S. economy policy since 1955 and concludes that “a deficit-spending shock weakly stimulates the economy.”

What would work?

…a plan that creates confidence by enhancing the long-term rewards for working, saving, and investing. Take the 1980 Reagan tax cuts, for instance. As Arthur Laffer, Stephen Moore, and Peter Tanous point out in their new book, The End of Prosperity, the bulk of the Reagan reductions didn’t kick in until 1983, and they were somewhat offset by the 1982 corporate tax increases. But when the full weight of the tax cuts was felt, the economy took off like a rocket, rising 4.5 percent in 1983 and 7.2 percent in 1984. Imagine if the capital-gains tax were slashed immediately. The stock market would soar, automatically increasing the net worth of tens of millions of Americans.

But a plan such as that is blasphemy to a Socialist. And really…why would they want to fix the economy when even the new Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, said just a month ago:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”

Going to be a long four years.

Finally:

Obama Backer, Illinois Governor Blagojevich (DEMOCRAT) Arrested For Attempt to Sell Appointment to Obama’s Senate Seat and Other Corruption Charges!

ROD BLAGOJEVICH: this Senate seat “is a f#*%ing valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.”

Culture of corruption in Obama’s Chicago bags another criminal!

Questions about Obama’s ties to corrupt scheme!

Obama friend, convicted slum lord Tony Rezko, at heart of scheme!

President-elect Barack Obama, right, greets Illinois Gov. Rob Blagojevich, left, at the Bipartisan meeting of the National Governor’s Association at Congress Hall, Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2008 in Philadelphia, Pa. Looking on are Gov. of Indiana., Mitch Daniels, left center, and Gov. of Ohio, Ted Strickland, right center.

Upon winning their respective elections, both President Clinton and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made sweeping statements that their time in office would be the “most ethical in history.”

It hasn’t gone unnoticed that President-Elect Obama has yet to make such a sweeping declaration. Might it be that there are just too many skeletons in the Obama closet? Can it be that after a campaign which was fueled by the biggest money machine of all time that the chickens are coming home to roost (to use Rev. Wright’s famous phrase) a bit early?

Today’s arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich on multiple corruption charges strikes pretty near the top of the Obama pyramid scheme. The criminal complaint (PDF here) outlines an astounding array of charges and connections to numerous persons who, like Rezko, also have direct personal ties to Obama.

The charges are extraordinary. According to them, Blagojevich and his fundraising cronies used the power of state contracts and jobs to extort campaign contributions. Blagojevich went so far as to threaten the loss of an $8 million grant to a children’s hospital if an executive didn’t contribute $50,000 to his campaign and tried to get the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune fired in return for a $100 million deal benefitting the paper.

But the most extraordinary charge of all is that Blagojevich attempted to sell Obama’s now vacant seat in the U.S. Senate to the highest bidder or trade it in return for an appointment by Obama. The Governor of Illinois has sole power to appoint a replacement to the seat.

What follows is an excerpt of the 76 page criminal complaint filed with the arrest this morning.
(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Ya mean the man w ZERO experience is really just sizzle and no steak? Amazing! Whodathunkit?

Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.

Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He’s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he’s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.

Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.

“He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it’s all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment,” said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.

OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: “Isn’t there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?”

Even supporters make clear they’re on the lookout for backsliding. “There’s a concern that he keep his basic promises and people are going to watch him,” said Roger Hickey, a co-founder of Campaign for America’s Future.

Obama insists he hasn’t abandoned the goals that made him feel to some like a liberal savior. But the left’s bill of particulars against Obama is long, and growing.

link

Also:

Obama Says Gun Owners Need Not Worry….Stop Buying Those Guns You Bitter Gun Clingers!

Obama up to his tricks once again. Here he is responding to the fact that gun sells have risen 49% since he was elected:

“I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment,” Obama said at a news conference. “Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven’t indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word.”

Oh really?

It’s one thing to say you support the 2nd Amendment, but your actions over the years show us something different all together:

But National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said it’s not Obama’s words — but his legislative track record — that has gun-buyers flocking to the stores.

“Prior to his campaign for president, his record as a state legislator and as a U.S. Senator shows he voted for the most stringent forms of gun control, the most Draconian legislation, gun bans, ammunition bans and even an increase in federal excise taxes up to 500 percent for every gun and firearm sold,” Arulanandam said.

(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

(well, Obama and Obama-McCain stories. It is election season, after all.)

Media catching on to the real Obama/Ayers relationship

Two days ago – October 6th – I posted my observations that the Obama-Ayers link was less about breaking bread with an unrepentent terrorist, and more a statement on Obama’s very dangerous socialist views on education and indoctrinating America’s youth with a particular… and very socialist/Marxist… political slant. Truth is, the more Obama talks of the federal funds he wants to inject into pre-school and early years education, the more uncomfortable I get.

In case I had moments of thinking I was just being paranoid… and I’m quite sure that I’m not that well read as a mere blogger amongst trillions… I’ve been rewarded by my own thoughts being echoed in some very major venues.

From my own post, read Obama-Ayers: Education=Activism for Social Injustice.

Yesterday, the Investor’s Business Daily editorial page picked up on the same train of thought, with their article, Obama’s Real Problem with Ayers.

“School reformer” is how Brokaw identified the co-founder of the Weather Underground, the radical organization that, among other activities, bombed government buildings, banks, police departments and military bases in the early 1970s.

Yeah, right: Ayers is a school reformer in the same sense, as City Journal’s Sol Stern put it, as Joe Stalin was an agricultural reformer.

An idea of what Ayers has in mind for America’s schools was provided in his own words not 40 years ago when Obama was eight years old, but less than two years ago in November 2006 at the World Education Forum in Caracas hosted by dictator Hugo Chavez.

You’ll notice that the video interviews mentioned by IBD were those I embedded in the original post. Not the same segment as Hot Air’s Ed Morrisey reported on over a year ago. But there were 12 installments of that interview. And it took serious patience to view them before I settled on Ayer’s comments on the US public school system as the most damning evidence of Ayers current agenda for America.

There are even more videos than just the two that I used… which included Ayers tribute to Rosa Luxemburg, co-founder of the Communist Party of Germany in the late 19th/early 20th century. I certainly urge you to visit YouTube and view them all. (Note: there are 12 in all, so make sure you find those not showing on this linked page…)

More from Investors Business Daily…

Ayers told the great humanitarian Chavez: “Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions large and small. La educacion es revolucion.” It is that form of socialist revolution that Ayers, and Obama, have worked to bring to America.

Ayers, now a tenured Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago, works to educate teachers in socialist revolutionary ideology, urging that it be passed on to impressionable students.

As Stern points out, “Ayers and his education school comrades are explicit about the need to indoctrinate public school children in the belief that America is a racist, militarist country and that the capitalist system is inherently unfair and oppressive.”

Yup… that’s pretty much Luxemburg in a nutshell. The duty of the teacher is to not only teach, but to be an activist. And, of course, in the world of both Ayers and Luxemburg, they are active anti-capitalism.

But the real stunner was listening to Rush Limbaugh this AM. I swear I had to shake my head, wondering if this guy somehow snuck into my thoughts.

Then see this from Andrew McCarthy at the National Review.

Now either I’m a real political trendsetter with some media bigwigs feeding on the Flopping Aces site for the latest opines … or *some* of the media is finally catching on to the real story of Obama and Ayers. And that story is stripping Obama bare revealing him as an unabashed socialist. To the public, it’s masked by the well-fitted designer suit and Greek columns. But in history? The linkage is clearly an unbroken pattern of socialist beliefs.

Read the links, and ponder the reality of a nuanced Obama, who provides little about his past, and instead relies on soaring ideals of “middle America” in well written and presented speeches.

Then add the latest news surfacing of Obama’s documented ties to the Democrat Socialists of America (one of Ayers/Alinsky spin offs), and the New Party when running for the Illinois Senate.

Think about the six degrees of separate of an Ayers/Obama… living around the corner from each other in New York, with Obama a member of a party that is a Weather Underground offshoot… and somehow magically meeting in Chicago. A time when Ayers and the CAC tapped a supposed “unknown” newbie community organizer for ACORN, Barack Obama, to distribute millions of dollars of funds for an educational experiment headed up by Williams Ayers, the “social injustice” advocate.

Think back to the cut and paste Saul Alinsky phrases in both Obama’s and his wife’s campaign speeches.

Just how coincidental is all this? And just why hasn’t the media noticed that the issue is not that Obama hangs out with an admitted domestic terrorist. It’s that he actively works, and endorses Ayers’ educational philosophy, founded on unbridled socialism.

Then ask… is this what you want for your children or grandchildren?

also:

Victim of Obama’s Terrorist Friends Speaks

Is killing a legitimate political tool? Ayers thinks so. Obama’s political patron has blood on his hands!

“I Don’t Regret Setting Bombs … I Feel We Didn’t Do Enough.”
–William Ayers, September 11th, 2001

TERROR VICTIM’S QS FOR BARACK
Ayers: Terrorist aided O’s rise.
By MAGGIE GALLAGHER
NY Post
October 8, 2008

WHEN John Murtagh was 9 years old, Bill Ayers’ friends tried to kill him.

“I remember my mother’s pulling me from the tangle of sheets and running to the kitchen where my father stood. Through the large windows overlooking the yard, all we could see was the bright glow of flames below. We didn’t leave our burning house for fear of who might be waiting outside,” wrote Murtagh recently in City Journal.
As best he recalls, Bernardine Dohrn, who’s now Ayers’ wife, first claimed credit for bombing John’s home in 1970.

John Murtagh is a now lawyer and Yonkers city councilman running for the state Senate on the GOP ticket. I reached him this week through his campaign. It wasn’t hard.

It wasn’t personal. John’s dad was a judge presiding over a trial of some Black Panthers. John still remembers the red graffiti on the sidewalk the next morning: “Free the Panther 21; The Viet Cong Have Won; Kill the Pigs.”

Has Barack Obama ever tried?

Obama was only 8 when Murtagh’s house was bombed. He has nothing to do with the trauma the Murtagh family went through. But Obama was a grown man when he decided his path to power lay through Bill Ayers’ connections.

In the Chicago establishment, which embraced former terrorists like Ayers and his wife, Obama was encouraged to look beyond the obvious – the lawlessness, the attacks on cops, judges, army outposts – to embrace larger goals.

What were these goals? How does Obama come to continue to associate with Ayers – a man who can’t bring himself to say to John Murtagh or to John’s mother or any other kin of the attacked: I’m sorry. I was wrong. It was a terrible thing to do.

Obama’s campaign is busy fudging. His top political adviser claims Obama just didn’t know Ayers’ history when they first met. Bomber? What bomber? Right.

“If that’s true, Obama has to be the dumbest man who ever graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School,” snorts Murtagh. “I don’t buy that at all.”

Murtagh believes the relationship between the Obamas, Ayers and Dohrn goes back 30 years, to Michelle Obama’s time at Sidley Austin, a law firm that also employed Dohrn.

Murtagh doesn’t blame Obama for what Ayers and his friends did. He blames Obama for picking a man like Ayers as a friend and mentor – and then covering up the friendship.

In politics, things get complicated. Truth becomes hard to find. But not this.

“The night they attacked our home, they also firebombed an army recruiting station out in Brooklyn and police patrol cars outside of Greenwich Village,” notes Murtagh. “Three weeks later, they accidentally blew themselves up. They intended to attack the officer’s club at Fort Dix.”

Lay your cards on the table, says Murtagh. “Obama’s free to associate with Dohrn and Ayers; that’s his right,” he tells me. “But don’t hide the relationship, and be forthcoming and let people decide the significance of it for themselves.”

also:

Obama’s Ties To Chicago Socialist Party

No Quarter has a piece up about Obama’s ties to a Socialist party in Chicago….shocker right?

Barack Obama was an active participant in the 1990s, and a direct political beneficiary, of the Chicago New Party and, importantly, the Chicago DSA, a group of socialists affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America.

1. Barack Obama attended and participated in meetings of the Chicago New Party and the Chicago DSA, the local affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America.
2. Barack Obama sought the endorsement of the Chicago DSA which required rigorous scrutiny by the party’s Political Committee as well as Mr. Obama’s signature on a contract promising “a visible and active relationship with the NP.”
3. Barack Obama actively used the endorsement from the Chicago DSA.
4. Barack Obama won his DSA-endorsed and -backed campaign to secure his seat in the Illinois State Senate.
5. Barack Obama continued his involvement with the Chicago DSA — including directly asking the group to join “his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration” — and received their endorsements in subsequent campaigns.

Obama’s participation in and endorsement from the Chicago New Party and Chicago DSA, the local affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America (which is the U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International) is quite clear:

1. According to the write-up on the July 1995 meeting of Chicago DSA and New Party membership, Barack Obama was one of about 50 people attending out of their then-300 member local group. Other documents below will demonstrate Barack Obama attended and participated in subsequent meetings.
2. The New Party rigorously evaluated its candidate endorsements and claimed “a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections.” This was no passive endorsement.

Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.—New Ground

3. Candidate Barack Obama participated as a panelist at the DSA-sponsored Town Meeting on February 25, 1996, entitled “Employment and Survival in Urban America”. As reported in New Ground
4. Obama subsequently secured his endorsement from the Chicago DSA
5. The local Democratic Socialists of America affiliate issued their Chicago DSA Endorsements in the March 19th Primary Election:
6. Barack Obama Continued Attending Membership Meetings of the Chicago DSA New Party
   Obama attended membership meeting on April 11, 1996 where he expressed his gratitude for their support. The report shared that “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.”

So basically Mr. Obama won the election in Chicago with the help of the DSA. For a more detailed look at the DSA and what they are read on:

Describing itself as “the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International,” the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States. “We are socialists,” reads the organization’s boilerplate, “because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.” “To achieve a more just society,” adds DSA, “many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed. … Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States.”

Formed in 1983 during the Cold War by merging splinter factions of the Socialist movement, DSA brought together what it calls “former Socialists and Communists, former old leftists and new leftists, and many who had never been leftists at all.” In its early years, DSA supported the Soviet-backed nuclear freeze program that would have consolidated Soviet nuclear superiority in Europe – under the banner of promoting “peace.”

DSA summarizes its philosophy as follows: “Today … [r]esources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them. Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic Socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. … While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.” …

DSA seeks to increase its political influence not by establishing its own party, but rather by working closely with the Democratic Party to promote leftist agendas…

In the wake of 9/11, DSA characterized the terror attacks as acts of retaliation for American-perpetrated global injustices. “We live in a world,” said DSA, “organized so that the greatest benefits go to a small fraction of the world’s population while the vast majority experiences injustice, poverty, and often hopelessness. Only by eliminating the political, social, and economic conditions that lead people to these small extremist groups can we be truly secure.”

Strongly opposed to the U.S. War on Terror and America’s post-9/11 military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, DSA is a member organization of the United For Peace and Justice anti-war coalition led by Leslie Cagan, a longtime committed socialist who aligns her politics with those of Fidel Castro’s Communist Cuba.

DSA publishes a quarterly journal titled Democratic Left, which discusses issues of concern to the organization and its constituents. The Founding Editor of this publication was Michael Harrington. DSA has also created a youth association called Young Democratic Socialists…

Another association not reported on, nor even investigated, by our MSM.

How about this election?

The names of four former top leaders of the Weathermen terrorist organization are listed as signatories on an online petition calling for an “independent grassroots effort” to help strengthen Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign.

The petition was initiated by Progressives for Obama, an independent organization acting to ensure the Illinois senator’s election.

Progressives includes among its ranks many former members of the 1960s radical organization Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS, from which the Weathermen splintered, as well as current and former members of other radical organizations, such as the Communist Party USA and the Black Radical Congress.

“We agree that Barack Obama is our best option for president in 2008, and that an independent grassroots effort can help strengthen his campaign,” states the online petition. “It can also strengthen the mandate for his programs for stopping war, promoting global justice and securing our rights, liberties, and economic well-being.”

Oh joy….

He associates with criminals, racists, terrorists, and socialists.

What a wonderful leader of the free world he will make huh?

Finally:

Obama’s Links To Group That Tried To Subvert The 2nd Amendment

An important new report (PDF) has been released by Second Amendment lawyer Dave Hardy of Of Arms and the Law. He found that while Obama was serving on the Joyce Foundation’s Board of Directors, Joyce had a specific agenda. To control published research on the 2nd Amendment so that sooner or later the Supreme Court would be influenced by the overwhelming amount of research favoring the gun control dummies.

In 1998-2001, while Barack Obama sat on the board1 of the $750,000,000 Joyce Foundation, the Foundation formed a plan to use millions to influence the outcome of a future Second Amendment Supreme Court case. The plan involved using its assets to buy up legal and historical academia, and even universities and their foundations.

Joyce Foundation realized a future Second Amendment Supreme Court case was probable; the Court would consult legal scholarship, i.e. books and law reviews; that scholarship had overwhelming concluded that the Second Amendment reflected an individual right, a result Joyce Foundation did not want. (more…)

Crossposted from Red Maryland

Obviously, everybody has heard by now the fantastic news about the Supreme Court upholding the lower court decision in D.C. v. Heller. Here is the best part of the Opinion of the Court, on Page 67 of the decision:

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Once and for all, the Supreme Court has affirmed while most people knew all along: that the United States Constitution unquestionable affirms the right of individuals the opportunity to bear arms. Of course, this decision should not have been a surprise seeing that the founders considered the right to bear arms a pre-existing right dating back to English Common Law and the Assize of Arms of 1189. Something that Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog points out the Court included in their decision:

The individual right interpretation, the Court said, “is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment,” going back to 17th Century England, as well as by gun rights laws in the states before and immediately after the Amendment was put into the U.S. Constitution.

What Congress did in drafting the Amendment, the Court said, was “to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one.”

Nor is it a surprise when one considers that all of the other Amendments within the Bill of Rights are affirming individual rights, but hey….

But supporters of the Constitution should not sit back and rest on our laurels. Yes, the Heller decision does affirm the the individual right of the citizen. However, Dave Kopel notes that there are many areas of law that are not addressed by Heller:

As for the constitutionality of other gun controls: “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” The word “commercial” in the last sentence could suggest that there might be constitutional problems on some laws which applied to non-commercial arms transfers. (However, there are few federal laws on non-commercial transfers, other than criminal penalties for transferring guns to prohibited persons.)

The majority opinion also affirmed the validity of bans on gun carrying in “sensitive” locations such as schools and government buildings. The language may imply that a total ban on gun carrying in ordinary public places is unconstitutional. But Heller does not attempt to answer the question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment enforceable against state and local governments, and most carrying restrictions in public places are created by state and local governments. For now, Heller limits only the federal government — and entities such as the D.C. City Council, whose powers are granted by the federal government.

Which means that while the individual right has been affirmed, Heller does not universally cast aside any and all gun controls laws. Nor does the decision cast aside provisions that prohibit the purchase of firearms by criminals or those with mental issues. The rights of gun ownership and possession in Maryland have been left, realistically, unchanged by the facts of the decision. Since the Heller decision only the D.C. law, that means many issues are still living in a Constitutional shade of gray.
(more…)

Read the rest here.

Daily Mail – Abdul Kalick Said, 48, died from a single bullet to his chest from a handgun. He was discovered in a pool of blood behind the shop’s counter by a taxi driver picking up his morning newspaper. [snip] They said he had made enemies after chasing off one group armed with knives as they tried to steal from his shop in a small shopping centre in Huyton, near Liverpool. [snip] They seemed to think they could just walk in and take what they wanted.

‘But Abdul wouldn’t have it. I have seen CCTV images of the yobs going in to his shop armed with knives and machetes. ‘That would terrify most people but Abdul was incredibly brave. He took them on and wouldn’t give in. [snip] ‘They were carrying these huge knives, machetes, but Abdul didn’t care. He would never give in.’ [snip] ‘I feel I would be safer back in Saudi Arabia than here. There is no democracy there but at least I’ll be alive.’

Daily Mail – In a landmark ruling at London’s High Court, Mr Justice Maddison said the council owed a duty of care to the 52-year-old man and his 46-year-old wife, who both have learning difficulties. The teenagers had befriended the couple, and then used their flat to take drugs, have sex and store stolen goods. The couple begged to be rehoused but nothing was done and their ordeal culminated in a weekend of terror, during which the youths sprayed cleaning liquid, pepper and curry powder into their eyes. They attacked the family’s dog and cat and made the couple perform humiliating acts in front of the woman’s daughters, who were eight and 11 at the time.

Daily Mail – Britain is now more dangerous than the Balkans, it was revealed yesterday. You are more likely to be assaulted, robbed and burgled in Britain than in the region of southeast Europe once synonymous with war and gangsters, according to a report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Your car is at least ten times more likely to be stolen in Britain than in Albania, Croatia or the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Western Europe suffers from double the amount of burglary, over four times as much assault, and 15 times as much robbery as the Balkans, the report revealed. Bringing criminals to justice is also more likely over there. There are more police and more public prosecutors in Albania than there are in England and Wales, per head of population. Even impoverished Moldova has more judges than we do. (more…)

Crossposted from Red Maryland

If there is one thing that Orioles OF Luke Scott (left) is known for, it has little do with his baseball prowess. Acquired from Houston in the Miguel Tejada trade, people know Scott less for the fact that he hit 31 homers for Round Rock in the Pacific Coast League in 2005, and more for the fact that Scott chooses to avail himself of a fundamental Constitutional right.

So it was probably only a matter of time before we saw a story like this from Sun reporter Jeff Zrebiec:

Orioles manager Dave Trembley knew about the intensity, all-out hustle and powerful uppercut swing. But he still had one question about his new left fielder, so he approached Luke Scott while Scott was shagging fly balls last week.

“Talk to me about the gun situation,” Trembley said to Scott.

Trembley, who has never fired a gun and joked that he wouldn’t know the difference between a water pistol and a BB gun, had read about Scott’s thoughts on gun control and about how the player almost always carries a concealed firearm…

…”He very quickly said to me, ‘Second Amendment, right to bear arms,’ ” Trembley recalled. “He said it’s not a big deal. He’ll never have one here. To me, it’s a nonissue.”

Obviously it’s an issue to somebody on Calvert Street, or else the story would not have wound up in the paper.
(more…)

Crossposted from conservative thoughts

A terrifying example of why law-abiding citizens should not be denied their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

I don’t own a gun – I’m not from a family of gun owners/enthusiasts, so it’s not something I am comfortable with. When I lived alone, I had (and still have) large dogs. My dogs don’t really like strangers and anyone who would have tried to break in and hurt me would have had to deal with them, which is a deterrent to some criminals. However, if I was faced with what this woman did, I would seriously consider arming myself.

Crossposted from Conservative Thoughts

Remember back in November 2007 the Supreme Court decided to hear arguments on whether Washington D.C. residents can keep handguns in their homes. Just on a side note, Washington DC imposed a ban on handgun sales in 1987 and this led to a tripling of the murder rate by the early 1990s. Maybe that’s why six residents decided to file a suit to lift the ban. Well, here is some news on the case.

Washington Times – The District’s acting attorney general has fired the lead lawyer scheduled to argue before the Supreme Court in favor of the city’s gun ban, just days before attorneys are scheduled to submit a brief in the case to the high court. Mr. Morrison said he expects to have his office cleared out by Monday. “I’m concerned for the city because I want the city to win this case …,” Mr. Morrison said yesterday. “It’s troubling.”