Pantagraph.com | Obama doesn't back rights of gun owners
Obama doesn't back rights of gun owners
Monday, June 2, 2008 1:17 AM CDT
Sen. Barack Obama is proclaiming that he is pro-Second Amendment yet his record
shows just the opposite.
In 1996, Obama's Illinois State Senate campaign supported a blanket ban on the
manufacture, sales and possession of handguns in Illinois. He also supported
bans on ammunition magazines and has pushed for renewal of the Clinton gun ban.
When our Illinois legislators introduced a bill to exonerate citizens for
violating local gun bans if they used a gun to defend their lives in their own
homes, Obama voted ``No.'' In July 2005, he voted against the ``Protection of
Lawful Commerce Act.'' This was a vote against the rights of all law-abiding gun
owners, dealers and manufacturers in America.
Obama supported Washington, D.C.'s total ban on handguns in homes for
self-defense. He even proposed a federal law banning licensed gun dealers from
operating within five miles of any parks and schools, even home day cares. This
would put all law-abiding gun dealers out of business.
Obama's dislike for our Second Amendment freedom is obvious. In 1999, Obama
would not vote yes in the Illinois Senate concerning a bill that would allow
teenage gang-bangers to be tried as adults when they fire a gun on or near
school grounds.
In 2001, when the Illinois legislators voted to control gang violence by making
gang members eligible for the death penalty when they commit murder for their
gangs, Obama voted against this bill. Also Obama responded to a Chicago Tribune
questionnaire by saying that federal mandatory sentencing laws used to put armed
and violent predators behind bars should be abolished.
Yes, Obama supports gun rights, but it's for the criminals and not the
law-abiding citizens!
Charles Nicholson
Bloomington
Russell Brand seemed a little out of place as the host at the MTV Video Music Awards.
Not because he's British or relatively unknown in America, as most of the chatter was about before Sunday night's show from Los Angeles.
It was because Brand injected the VMAs with blunt politics, self deprecation, unabashed sexuality, and, yes, plenty of off-color remarks.
Didn't he know where he was? The VMAs? In La-La Land?
No, this was no place to voice anything like an opinion on world affairs or joke about young Christian pop stars. This is a place to look cool and thank the almighty for the honor of little moon man statuettes.
Early in his opening monologue, Brand pleaded: "Please, America, elect Barack Obama. On behalf of the world."
Most of the crowd, seemingly caught of guard, cheered, though at least a few pop stars didn't. The camera caught Britney Spears _ who in 2003 said citizens should "just trust our president" _ sitting quietly.
Partisanship, of course, can hurt sales. But Brand was refreshingly ignorant of many of the concerns that keep the lips of American pop stars zipped. For good measure _ and surely stepping over the line _ Brand referred to President Bush as "that retarded cowboy fellow."
Barack Obama on Monday disavowed a racially charged remark made by his political mentor, Illinois Senate President Emil Jones. Jones allegedly called Delmarie Cobb, a Chicago political consultant and Hillary Clinton supporter, an "Uncle Tom."
"We don't have time for that kind of stuff," Obama told a reporter who asked him about the flap at the Quad Cities Airport in Moline, Ill., reports the Southtown Star. "What we need to do is focus on unifying the party to win in November, and that's what I intend to do."
On Monday, Jones said he had no reason to apologize to Cobb, but later that day he told Cobb he regretted insulting her. Shortly after, Jones received a last-minute speaking role at the Democratic National Convention. Obama's campaign and Jones worked Monday to minimize fallout from the comment because it threatened to further alienate Clinton supporters, especially considering Jones was awarded a convention speaking role while immersed in such a controversy.
Uncle Tom is a pejorative for a black person who is perceived by others as behaving in a subservient manner to White American authority figures, or as seeking ingratiation with them by way of unnecessary accommodation.
Denver, Colorado — When state Senator Barack Obama cosponsored legislation creating and increasing subsidies for low-income housing developers in Illinois, and wrote letters to get million specifically for two of them (one was Tony Rezko), his official acts benefited several friends and donors in that industry. A similar thing happened when Obama earmarked 0,000 for Jesse Jackson’s investment fund in Chicago and 5,000 for Father Michael Pfleger’s neighborhood ministry. Those are just a few among dozens of examples of how, when Senator Obama governs, his friends do well. Such arrangements give the lie to Obama’s self-projected image as a reformer who wants to change government and restore America’s faith in politics. But they do not make him especially awful — such arrangements are typical among politicians in both parties. Earmarks and narrowly crafted bills go one way, campaign contributions go the other. Old friends who deliver votes are rewarded with taxpayers’ money. The “right” former staffers get the six-figure lobbying jobs, and the “right” companies get the contracts. |
PoliticsMon, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:17:55 am PST
Barack Obama is the second biggest recipient of political money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the last ten years. And he’s only been in Washington for four.
When the federal government announced two months ago that it would prop up mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, CRP looked at how much money members of Congress had collected since 1989 from the companies. On Sunday the government completely took over the two government-sponsored enterprises, and we've returned to our data to bring you the updates, this time providing a list of all 354 lawmakers who have gotten money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (in July we posted the top 25). These totals are based on data released electronically from the FEC on Sept. 2 and include contributions to lawmakers' leadership PACs and candidate committees from the floundering companies' PACs and employees. Current members of Congress have received a total of .8 million from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with Democrats collecting 57 percent of that. This week we also wrote about how much money lawmakers had invested of their own money in the companies last year--a total of up to .7 million.
All Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
Name | Office | State | Party | Grand Total | Total from PACs |
Total from Individuals |
Dodd, Christopher J | S | CT | D | 5,400 | ,500 | 6,900 |
Obama, Barack | S | IL | D | 6,349 | ,000 | 0,349 |
Kerry, John | S | MA | D | 1,000 | ,000 | 9,000 |
Bennett, Robert F | S | UT | R | 7,999 | ,499 | ,500 |
Bachus, Spencer | H | AL | R | 3,300 | ,500 | ,800 |
Blunt, Roy | H | MO | R | ,950 | ,500 | ,450 |
Kanjorski, Paul E | H | PA | D | ,000 | ,500 | ,500 |
Bond, Christopher S 'Kit' | S | MO | R | ,400 | ,000 | ,400 |
Shelby, Richard C | S | AL | R | ,000 | ,000 | ,000 |
Reed, Jack | S | RI | D | ,250 | ,500 | ,750 |
Reid, Harry | S | NV | D | ,000 | ,500 | ,500 |
Clinton, Hillary | S | NY | D | ,050 | ,000 | ,050 |
"Who's Michelle?" "You'll make a wonderful Secretary of State." "Isn't this what they mean when they say kiss the babies?" The last thing we need is another liberal neocon in the White House. If the Presidency of George W. Bush proved anything, it proved the hazard of electing phony Republican conservatives. At least one is able to clearly see a liberal for what he or she is when they have a "D" behind their name. But put an "R" behind the name and suddenly their liberal, Big-Government, anti-freedom agenda is barely recognized, which makes a liberal Republican much more dangerous than a liberal Democrat.
Let me say it straight out: a John McCain Presidency would be far worse than a Barack Obama Presidency. With a Democrat in the White House, conservatives and Christians suddenly find their principles and are able to offer resistance. Put a Republican in the Oval Office, however, and those same people become blind, deaf, and dumb to most any principle they profess.
Nowhere is McCain's chicanery and duplicity more jeopardous than in the area of the right to keep and bear arms. On issues relating to the Second Amendment, John McCain is a disaster! For example, the highly respected Gun Owners of America (GOA) rates McCain with a grade of F-. McCain's failing grade is well deserved.
John McCain sponsored an amendment to S. 1805 on March 2, 2004 that would outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows. According to GOA, the provision would effectively eliminate gun shows, because every member of an organization sponsoring a gun show could be imprisoned if the organization fails to notify each and every "person who attends the special firearms event of the requirements [under the Brady Law]."
John McCain also sponsored an Incumbent Protection provision to the so-called "Campaign Finance Reform" bill, which severely curtails the ability of outside groups (such as GOA) to communicate the actions of incumbent politicians to members and supporters prior to an election.
The GOA report of the 106th Congress reveals that out of 15 votes relating to the right to keep and bear arms, Senator John McCain voted favorably only 4 times. Put that into a percentage and McCain's pro-Second Amendment voting record is a pathetic 27%.
In addition, GOA warns that John McCain supported legislation that would force federal agents to increase efforts in arresting and convicting honest gun owners who may inadvertently violate one of the many federal anti-gun laws, which punish mere technicalities, such as gun possession.
For example, if John McCain's proposed legislation were to become law, a gun owner who travels with a gun through a school zone or who uses one of the family handguns to go target shooting with a 15-year old could be sent to prison. And a person who uses a gun for self-defense could be sent to prison for a mandatory minimum of five years.
But there is so much more to the McCain madness.
Former California State Senator H.L. "Bill" Richardson wrote this about John McCain, "He's [McCain's] proven his dislike for conservatives and would gut us at every opportunity.
"Why do I say that? Because of three decades of experience as a Republican California Senator and a fifty year activist in the conservative movement. I have first hand, in-their-face experience with elitist RINO's (Republican in Name Only) office holders. They are biblically ignorant, power hungry, status seeking egotists who have no difficulty aiding their liberal Democrat colleagues whenever their arms are politely twisted. The one thing they have in common with liberal Democrats is their dislike for all conservatives, especially those who are Bible-believing. McCain, as president, would stifle the voices of elected Republican leaders and try to legislate the conservative movement out of existence."
Senator Richardson went on to say that he would in no way vote for John McCain, if indeed McCain is the Republican nominee (which he obviously will be).
I wonder how many gun owners and other professing pro-freedom Americans have already fallen victim to McCain's phony conservative campaign? Do they not realize that they are giving a rope to the hangman? And that they--conservatives and gun owners--are the ones who McCain will send to the gallows? What is wrong with the American people these days? Have they not been betrayed enough by these phony conservative Republicans?
For example, President George W. Bush recently nominated Michael Sullivan to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Sullivan is one of the nation's most rabid anti-gunners. GOA's Larry Pratt describes Sullivan as being "as anti-gun as Ted Kennedy." Honest gun owners, lawful firearms dealers, and law-abiding gun show operators could have no worse enemy within the federal government than Michael Sullivan. We could expect no worse from Hillary Clinton. And a John McCain Presidency would doubtless give us more of the same.
Regarding the Second Amendment, the American people have no better friend than Ron Paul. He has a 20-year proven track record of fidelity to the right to keep and bear arms. The GOA rates Congressman Paul with a grade of A+. According to GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt, Ron Paul has been a leader in the fight to defend and restore the Second Amendment. He has sponsored legislation to repeal the following: the Brady law; the requirement to lock up your guns; the law permitting the U.S. to be part of the U.N (which, among other attacks on American freedoms, seeks to ban privately transferred firearms); participation in UNESCO; federal prohibitions on any pilot wishing to carry a handgun to and in his cockpit; and the so-called "assault weapons" ban (prior to its sunsetting in 2004).
Ron Paul has also sponsored legislation requiring states to treat the concealed carry permit of one state the same as they do that state's driver's license. Dr. Paul also opposes a national ID card, which would be a tool of government to identify gun ownership.
Gun owners (along with conservatives and Christians of all sorts) should be ashamed of themselves for allowing an angry, gun-grabbing liberal such as John McCain to become the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, while rejecting the candidacy of one of America's most principled pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-Constitution, and pro-freedom legislators of this generation: Congressman Ron Paul.
I say again, the last thing we need is another liberal neocon in the White House. John McCain may have an "R" behind his name, but he is just another establishment liberal: one America cannot afford. Few advisers in John McCain's inner circle inspire more loyalty from him than campaign manager Rick Davis. McCain and his wife, Cindy, credit the shrewd, and sometimes volatile, Republican insider with rescuing the campaign last year when it was out of money and on the verge of collapse. As a result, McCain has always defended him—even when faced with tough questions about the foreign lobbying clients of Davis's high-powered consulting firm. "Rick is a friend, and I trust him," McCain told NEWSWEEK last year. Last week, though, McCain's trust in Davis was tested again amid disclosures that Freddie Mac, the troubled mortgage giant that was recently placed under federal conservatorship, paid his campaign manager's firm ,000 a month between 2006 and August 2008. As the mortgage crisis has escalated, almost any association with Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae has become politically toxic. But the payments to Davis's firm, Davis Manafort, are especially problematic because he requested the consulting retainer in 2006—and then did barely any work for the fees, according to two sources familiar with the arrangement who asked not to be identified discussing Freddie Mac business. Aside from attending a few breakfasts and a political-action-committee meeting with Democratic strategist Paul Begala (another Freddie consultant), Davis did "zero" for the housing firm, one of the sources said. Freddie Mac also had no dealings with the lobbying firm beyond paying monthly invoices—but it agreed to the arrangement because of Davis's close relationship with McCain, the source said, which led top executives to conclude "you couldn't say no." The McCain campaign told reporters the fees were irrelevant because Davis "separated from his consulting firm … in 2006," according to the campaign's Web site, and he stopped drawing a salary from it. In fact, however, when Davis joined the campaign in January 2007, he asked that his ,000-a-month salary be paid directly to Davis Manafort, two sources who asked not to be identified discussing internal campaign business told NEWSWEEK. Federal campaign records show the McCain campaign paid Davis Manafort ,000 through July 2007, when a cash crunch prompted Davis and other top campaign officials to forgo their salaries and work as volunteers. Separately, another entity created and partly owned by Davis—an Internet firm called 3eDC, whose address was the same office building as Davis Manafort's—received payments from the McCain campaign for Web services, collecting 1,860 through March 2008. In an e-mail to NEWSWEEK, a senior McCain official said that when the campaign began last year, it signed a contract with Davis Manafort "in which we purchased all of [Davis's] time, and he agreed not to work for any other clients." The official also said that though Davis was an "investor" in 3eDC, Davis has received no salary from it. As to why Davis permitted the Freddie Mac payments to continue, the official referred NEWSWEEK to Davis Manafort, which did not respond to repeated phone calls. One senior McCain adviser said the entire flap could have been avoided if the campaign had resisted attacking Barack Obama for his ties to two former Fannie Mae executives, which prompted the media to take a second look at Davis. "It was stupid," the adviser said. "A serious miscalculation and an amateurish move." Still, this adviser said, McCain's faith in his campaign manager remains unswerving. But one essential fact was missing from the senator's narrative: While there has been significant deregulation in the U.S. economy during the last 30 years, none of it has occurred in the financial sector. Indeed, the only significant legislation with any effect on financial risk-taking was the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, adopted during the first Bush administration in the wake of the collapse of the savings and loans (S&Ls). FDICIA, however, substantially tightened commercial bank and S&L regulations, including prompt corrective action when a bank's capital declines below adequate levels and severe personal fines if management violates laws or regulations. If Sen. Obama had been asked for an example of "Republican deregulation," he would probably have cited the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA), which has become a popular target for Democrats searching for something to pin on the GOP. This is puzzling. The bill's key sponsors were indeed Republicans, but the bill was supported by the Clinton administration and signed by President Clinton. The GLBA's "repeal" of a portion of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 is said to have somehow contributed to the current financial meltdown. Nonsense. Adopted early in the New Deal, the Glass-Steagall Act separated investment and commercial banking. It prohibited commercial banks from underwriting or dealing in securities, and from affiliating with firms that engaged principally in that business. The GLBA repealed only the second of these provisions, allowing banks and securities firms to be affiliated under the same holding company. Thus J.P. Morgan Chase was able to acquire Bear Stearns, and Bank of America could acquire Merrill Lynch. Nevertheless, banks themselves were and still are prohibited from underwriting or dealing in securities. Allowing banks and securities firms to affiliate under the same holding company has had no effect on the current financial crisis. None of the investment banks that have gotten into trouble -- Bear, Lehman, Merrill, Goldman or Morgan Stanley -- were affiliated with commercial banks. And none of the banks that have major securities affiliates -- Citibank, Bank of America, and J.P. Morgan Chase, to name a few -- are among the banks that have thus far encountered serious financial problems. Indeed, the ability of these banks to diversify into nonbanking activities has been a source of their strength. Most important, the banks that have succumbed to financial problems -- Wachovia, Washington Mutual and IndyMac, among others -- got into trouble by investing in bad mortgages or mortgage-backed securities, not because of the securities activities of an affiliated securities firm. Federal Reserve regulations significantly restrict transactions between banks and their affiliates. If Sen. Obama were truly looking for a kind of deregulation that might be responsible for the current financial crisis, he need only look back to 1998, when the Clinton administration ruled that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could satisfy their affordable housing obligations by purchasing subprime mortgages. This ultimately made it possible for Fannie and Freddie to add a trillion dollars in junk loans to their balance sheets. This led to their own collapse, and to the development of a market in these mortgages that is the source of the financial crisis we are wrestling with today. Finally, on the matter of deregulation and the financial crisis, Sen. Obama should consider his own complicity in the failure of Congress to adopt legislation that might have prevented the subprime meltdown. In the summer of 2005, a bill emerged from the Senate Banking Committee that considerably tightened regulations on Fannie and Freddie, including controls over their capital and their ability to hold portfolios of mortgages or mortgage-backed securities. All the Republicans voted for the bill in committee; all the Democrats voted against it. To get the bill to a vote in the Senate, a few Democratic votes were necessary to limit debate. This was a time for the leadership Sen. Obama says he can offer, but neither he nor any other Democrat stepped forward. Instead, by his own account, Mr. Obama wrote a letter to the Treasury Secretary, allegedly putting himself on record that subprime loans were dangerous and had to be dealt with. This is revealing; if true, it indicates Sen. Obama knew there was a problem with subprime lending -- but was unwilling to confront his own party by pressing for legislation to control it. As a demonstration of character and leadership capacity, it bears a strong resemblance to something else in Sen. Obama's past: voting present.
That's good, because you have to protect the world from religious extremists that might shoot you.
John McCain Is A Liberal Gun Grabber
by
Pastor Chuck Baldwin
As published at NewsWithViews A Freddie Mac Money Trail Catches Up With McCain
FROM THE DESK OF MR COLE JOSEPH
47 HILTON AVENUE,
VICTORIAL ISLAND,
LAGOS NIGERIA.
Dear Friend,
I am a director in the foreign affairs department of the Nigerian
National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). I got your email during a
personal research on the Internet and wish to use this opportunity to
notify you of the existence of a certain amount we wish to transfer
overseas for the purpose of investments and importation of goods from
your country.
In May 2007, a contract of sixty-six million United States dollars
(,000,000) was awarded to a foreign company by my ministry. The
contract was supply, erection and system optimization of supper polyore
200,000-bpsd, system optimization of 280,000-monax axial plants and the
computerization of conveyor belt for Kaduna refinery. With only the
consent of the head of the contract evaluation department, I over
invoiced the contract value by thirty four million United States dollars
(,000,000).
The contract has been completed long ago and the foreign company fully
paid off. But in the office files and paper work, the company is still
owed USD34M representing the over invoiced amount. Because this amount
is derived from the award and execution of a foreign contract, there is
no way the money can be paid locally. That is why I contacted you so
that we can do the project together for our mutual benefit. We have
concluded every necessary arrangement to transfer this amount to a
foreign account as the final phase payment for the said contract. What
we need is your bank account into which we can deposit the money and
after we shall come over there to share the money with you.
We sincerely need an honest person to work with and have agreed to share
the money in the following percentages, 70% will be for us who will
effect the transfer and 30% will be for you whose account is used to
secure the funds. There is no risk involvement because applications
will be made to the concerned Federal ministries and parastatal with
official approvals given by the Federal government before the Central
bank of Nigeria will be officially empowered to wire the funds to your
account by telegraphic transfer.
If you are interested, contact me by Email through osmund@2by2.net
indicating your full names or company name and address. Your direct
telephone and fax numbers. The name and address of the bank you will
like us to deposit the money, the telephone and fax numbers of the bank,
your account number etc. Everything has been arranged and I will send
more information about the business transaction to you as soon as I hear
from you. For obvious reasons, please keep the proposal top secret and
highly confidential.
Kind regards,
Cole
Gagg, Did you see the video. What is your take? Probably nothing will happen, BUT can you imagine if he was right? BTW I love those E mails. Sometimes I e one to another Nigerian company just for fun. Now I'll lighten things up for you...Why do Canadiens only do it Doggy Style ? So they can both watch the Hockey Game lolAh, can't post any relevant facts so have to resort to insults. Really, it just reflects badly on you.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
65, you are terrible I defer to Phatgirl2 on that one (who actually isn't phat at al). Just keep posting those breaking news items and I'm sure McCain will rally.
BTW, did you know Obama is a Muslim terrorist?LOL Fight the smears a lefty pro Obama web/blog C'mon . Did you donate ? BTW Just What Insult are you talking about. You need to chill a bit. Maybe you should watch a Hockey game...wink, winkObama Voted 'Present' on Mortgage Reform
The only banking 'deregulation' in recent years was that of Fan and Fred.
By PETER J. WALLISON
In each of the first two presidential debates, Barack Obama claimed that "Republican deregulation" is responsible for the financial crisis. Most viewers probably accepted this idea, especially because Republicans generally do favor deregulation.
Oooooooohkay...............BTW, did you guys know Obama is a Muslim terrorist?Yes and YesMan what kind of Joke was Obamas mothers parents thinking when they named their daughter STANLEY
Copyright ArthritisInsight.com