Obama; Old Application Phony, New One Intrusive
Nov 14, 2008 Political
Have you seen some of the latest information on the messianic president elect? We have yet to see a vault copy of his birth certificate and now it appears as if he lied about his Selective Service registration. Not only did Obama lie about the date he registered (it could have been a mistake) but it appears as if he was registered in 1980 on a form that did not exist until 2008.
The Obama kool aid drinkers love to claim that his COLB was proof enough of his US birth but a copy of the original was never displayed. However, the Selective Service registration is a handwritten copy and it appears as if one of two things happened. Either Obama signed the form in 2008 or someone filled out the form for him and signed it illegally. The form has the date of 1980 but one of the form’s numbers indicates it is the 2008 version of the form. There are other inconsistencies such as the incorrect postal stamp which indicates a postal abbreviation not used since the 1970s. Did Obama or his surrogates backdate a form and sign it to hide the fact that Obama did not register with the Selective Service?
Debbie Schlusselhas the SS form up at her site and lists all the problems with the form. It definitely appears as if someone broke the law in order to cover for the messiah. Please visit Debbie’s site and review all the information. The Obamabots can deny this all they want but someone has committed fraud and has some explaining to do.
Interestingly, forms are also in the front of the Obama transition. Barack Obama has a 7 page, 63 question application that he intends to use to weed out problems and potential embarrassments. The ironic thing about the application is, Obama could not get a job in his own administration if he had to fill one out. There are questions about domestic help that might not be here legally (but no questions about relatives in the same predicament) as well as this gem that would certainly disqualify the sainted one:
“Have you ever had any association with any person, group or business venture that could be used–even unfairly–to impugn or attack your character and qualifications for government service?” (page 7, question 61).
We all know of Obama’s past associations and they could all be used fairly to disqualify him. The only thing that even allowed these associations to die a quick death without injuring the messiah is the fact that the media ignored the associations or made light of them. Bill Ayers was no big deal but, of course, he is a hot commodity now.
Obama also asks an interesting question that sheds light on his anti gun positions. Obama asks if the applicant or anyone in the applicant’s immediate family owns a gun. Why is this important with regard to a job in his administration? I believe that Barack Obama will now shed his serpent’s skin and show us the true anti gun person who dwells beneath. Obama does not want anyone in his administration who owns guns because he plans on mounting the most aggressive anti gun crusade in the history of this country.
Of course, he could just want to exclude Republicans…
The questionnaire probes applicants more deeply than Obama was probed when he ran to lead the country. Obama asks questions that would exclude him from serving in his own administration and he shows us what he plans with regard to gun ownership. I wonder why he feels it is necessary to know more about those who want to work with him than he was willing to display when he ran for the presidency. One thing is certain, hypocrisy runs deep in Obama land.
Read James Taranto’s piece in the WSJ.
The Obama SS scandal did not hit until after he was elected because the media was in the tank for him. If they had done their jobs, he might not have been elected.
He is not even in office yet and already we have an idea of how intrusive he will be just by looking at what it takes to work for him.
Tags: application, crime, forgery, gun control, Obama, selective service
Chicago Is The Murder Capital
Oct 26, 2008 Political
Chicago is led by a bunch of corrupt politicians who believe that gun control is the answer to the problem of violence. In reality, politicians only want gun control for one reason. If they take away the guns people will no longer have the means to resist. Government becomes tyrannical and people become enslaved when they have no means to exercise their will upon the members of government. People need a means to resist, should government go bad.
In Chicago they have some of the most stringent gun laws in the country and yet their murder rates are above New York and Los Angeles. In fact, Chicago is outpacing all the other US cities for the king of murder title. Of course not all murders are committed with guns. The bulk of them are and the rest might never have been committed had the victim been armed.
Barack Obama is anti-gun, of that there is no doubt. He is running as more moderate than he is (and more moderate than he was in the primary) trying to fool people into believing that he favors individual ownership of firearms but he absolutely does not. Bills that Obama helped pass in Illinois are responsible for the murders taking place in Chicago.
Interestingly, the cities with the highest murder rates have the most stringent gun control and have populations that are overwhelmingly registered as Democrats and whose legislatures are mostly Democrat. Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and on and on. Everywhere there are dense populations of liberals, run by liberals, you have murder and mayhem.
Criminals do not obey the law. A simple fact that seems to escape liberals and their gun control measures. In places with gun control there is more crime and more murder because criminals do not follow the law. In places where people are allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights there are few murders and the murders are not committed by the law abiding gun owners.
Keep Chicago in mind when you go into the voting booth. Keep in mind that the police are a reactive force not a proactive. If they showed up before crimes took place we would not need guns but the fact is they show up after crimes have taken place.
We have a name for people who blindly follow anti-gun policies of people like Barack Obama:
Victim.
Tags: chicago, crime, gun control, murder capital, Obama
Obama Can’t Convince Those Clinging To Guns
Sep 7, 2008 Political, Second Amendment
Barack Obama has the same problem most liberals do when it comes to the Second Amendment and that problem is, they don’t support it. When they are in office and not running for election or reelection they all talk tough on gun control. They want to remove guns from the streets because that will end violence, blah, blah. They continue with this even though cities with the toughest gun control laws still have huge numbers of people killed by guns and in places where LAW ABIDING citizens are allowed to carry guns, crimes are lower. Of course, when they are running for office they act like proud supporters of the Second Amendment and that it is a right and they would not take guns. Some of them dress up like Elmer Fudd and pretend they actually support gun ownership ala John Kerry. Barry Obama finds himself in a similar spot because he has always supported strict gun control measures. He supports Chicago’s gun ban and he supported the unconstitutional gun ban in DC (both are unconstitutional but only the DC ban has been ruled on). Barry is having trouble convincing the people that he is one of them and that he believes in gun ownership:
A woman in the crowd 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.’’ Wall Street Journal
Conservatives don’t have to prove they will uphold the Second Amendment because their record is clear on the issue. The problem is that Liberals can’t seem to understand that the Second is as important as any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights and without it, the others would likely be in peril. Obama has opposed gun ownership and he did so in his own handwriting on a candidate survey. He now says he believes the Second is an individual right (which it is and always has been) and that we can uphold the Second by allowing cities to put restrictions in place for public safety.
Have we ever heard a politician discuss restrictions on any other right enumerated in the Constitution? Suppose Senator Obama or any other Liberal wanted to allow free expression of religion except that cities could put limits in place for public safety? How about no Islamic Mosques in city limits because the call to prayer disturbs non Muslims? How about no Mosques or Synagogues in city limits because Muslims hate Jews? Maybe we could have the city shut down certain websites from reaching the city limits or certain newspapers because the comments contain hate filled speech. Imagine if a really Conservative city banned any liberal media from being sold there, in the interest of safety. Words can incite hatred and violence, better be careful.
Suppose people like Obama felt that that the Fourth Amendment is an individual right against unlawful search and seizure but that cities with high crime rates and other social problems had a right to regulate that for public safety. Maybe they could say that all cars in a certain high violence area would be stopped and searched for weapons and that homes in the area would be randomly searched for meth labs, guns and other illegal items, all in the name of public safety. Why is it that the Second Amendment is treated differently than the others?
Obama does not support the Second Amendment. His position is now more to the center because he is in the general election and he needed to tact to the middle in order to gain voters. One other telling item is that Obama selected Biden as his running mate. Biden is known as Mr. Gun Control. Biden claims to have written the assault weapons ban (which bans only law abiding citizens from having them) and has given a rating of F by the NRA. Joe Biden thinks that if you own a weapon and you consider it your “baby” you need your head examined. He believes in strict gun control and has voted against the Second Amendment so how does this square for Obama as a believer in gun rights?
Obama saw in the hand picked audience that he had skeptics with regard to his position on gun control. Saracuda hit him hard on how he spoke to people in San Francisco compared to how he spoke to those who cling to guns and religion in Pennsylvania and the rest of Middle America. It seems she was very accurate on this issue and Obama is finding it out. It is not reassuring that he said even if he wanted to he did not have the votes in Congress. Keep in mind that the Democrats are expecting to pick up enough seats to rubber stamp anything Obama wants so he WILL have enough votes, if all goes according to their plan. I also think it is funny to see the whine which basically said; C’mon, this is not really a reason to not vote for me, is it?
Your damn right it is! If we cannot trust a politician to uphold all of our rights then it is reason not to vote for him. If you had held the beliefs in my examples above there would be plenty of people who would think it was good reason not to vote for you. As a matter of fact, Obama and his running mate have both stated that they would pursue criminal charges against George Bush if they get elected (Biden said that was a lie and wanted to know where people got the idea. It was the video of him saying it, I think). These alleged crimes include violations of the Constitution. Ignoring the Second Amendment is a violation of the Constitution. People are not convinced that Obama believes in the rights of gun owners and they have good reason to be concerned. Obama has lied about his positions, here they are.
Barack Obama is having trouble with Middle America and part of the reason is his stance on Second Amendment rights. The left expects gun control and one of the things they view as negative about Palin is her lifetime membership in the NRA. Obama is beholden to the left and he will try to limit gun ownership.
The left is out of touch and Obama demonstrated that with the position that we could have a right and regulate it with control for some but not for others (which is what he really means). Criminals will not follow any kind of ban. They drank during prohibition, they use drugs that are illegal and criminals use guns everyday. They will not obey the law.
Why should anyone believe what Obama says anyway? When he won election to the US Senate he said he was not qualified to be President. Nothing has changed since then but now he is??
Believing that gun control will stop criminals from using guns is like believing that ethics reform will keep members of Congress from being unethical.
Tags: constitution, gun control, nra, Obama, Second Amendment
MD Senator Currie Wrong On Gun Ownership
Aug 18, 2008 Political, Second Amendment
Maryland State Senator Ulysses Currie of the 25th district (who is under federal investigation for illegal activities) wrote a piece about gun control. Currie is upset that the Supreme Court reaffirmed what our founders stated by ruling that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Currie takes exception to this and indicates that no other court has ruled this way. Actually, no other court has looked at this issue. The 1939 Miller case is held by gun control advocates as a bellwether for a militia interpretation but the ruling had nothing to do with the issue at hand. It dealt with interstate commerce and a weapon, not who had the right to carry it.
Currie is very upset that the SCOTUS overturned the DC gun ban and, like Chicken Little, cries “the sky is falling.” He asserts that we will have more murders in DC and he further goes to point out that states with more lenient gun control laws have higher death by gun rates. His statistics come from The Violence Policy Center which is an anti gun organization. The raw numbers are misleading and there are many other factors that play into this. What is very interesting is that Currie fails to mention the DC gun death rate which is one of the HIGHEST in the country. How can that be if strict gun laws keep us safe?
It is important to remember that one can make any claim using numbers. It is also important to note that gun death rates encompass a lot of reasons for death like suicide, justifiable shootings (as in the police or self defense), accidental shootings and criminal acts (murder or crimes resulting in murder). Another thing to consider is the number of crimes that were committed by law abiding citizens with carry permits. This makes a big difference because if the crimes are committed by people who should not have guns then the laws forbidding their possession are not working. Currie should whittle down the numbers and point out how many crimes are committed by people who are permitted to carry.
This is important because people like Currie lamented about how Florida would see a marked increase in gun deaths after the state relaxed its gun laws and allowed more people to carry. This has never come to fruition. In Florida hundreds of thousands of permits to carry have been issued and fewer than 20 people with a permit have been involved in crimes (not necessarily involving gun use). Up through 1998 no permit holder has ever shot a police officer but several permit holders have assisted police.
If Currie wants to skew statistics let me help him out. Blacks comprise a small portion of the population and yet they account for a disproportionate number of gun deaths. Cities with the largest number of blacks in the population (like DC, LA, and New Orleans) have higher murder rates than cities with more whites. In 2007 California ranked fourth behind Pennsylvania, Louisiana and Indiana in the number of black homicides. The black homicide rate pushes the rate for each state high because the rate is about four times higher than their percentage of the population. Is it fair to say that removing blacks from the states would lower gun death rates? While we are on the subject, Hispanics account for a disproportionately high number of gun deaths as well. The statistics certainly lay out a case for lowering the death rate by removing the minorities. This approach is as legitimate as using crime statistics for illegal acts as a methodology to ban LEGAL gun ownership. Perhaps we should ban people who live in Maryland’s 25th District from running for office there because 100% of the current Senators from there are under federal investigation. Banning everyone for the acts of criminals is nonsensical. Before anyone tells me that Currie has not had his day in court so he should be presumed innocent, keep in mind that he is assuming that all gun owners commit criminal acts and should not be allowed to own them.
What Currie fails to realize is that the crimes are being committed by people who have no regard for the law. DC, Chicago and many other major cities with extremely tough gun control laws have high gun murder rates. Once again, if the gun laws work why are these places suffering gun deaths? If gun control lowers gun deaths than these places should be the safest places on earth. Unfortunately, some of them have a higher death rate than Iraq and it is in the middle of a war.
People who obey the law do not get permits to carry weapons and then go around shooting people. The facts have proven time and again that law abiding citizens do not commit murders and that law breakers do not care about gun laws because they don’t follow the rules anyway.
Currie has his panties in a wad because the Supreme Court acknowledged that gun ownership is an individual right. This is nothing new. As I have pointed out before, the founders stated that the PEOPLE will be allowed to have guns. It is an undeniable truth. Regardless of the fact that it defies logic to think that the words “The People” mean all citizens everywhere it is used except the Second Amendment, the issue is moot because of the founder’s own words. Walter E Williams has a comprehensive listing of the founder’s quotes on the subject. I defy Currie or anyone else to read them and then demonstrate how they mean anything BUT an individual right. For example:
“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
– Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
The people of the United States who are peaceable citizens. How can anyone misconstrue this to be anything other than an individual right?
Ulysses Currie is absolutely wrong on this issue. The places that allow citizens to own and carry weapons are the safest in the country. There are some gun control states that have low gun death rates. It would be interesting to see what the demographics of the population are because I would wager they are mostly law abiding people.
Once again, Mr. Currie, law abiding citizens do not go around killing people. Criminals account for the overwhelming majority of the gun deaths and all the laws in the world will not change their behavior.
We call them criminals for a reason.
Tags: DC, gun control, individual right, Maryland, Second Amendment, supreme court, ulysses currie
Obama Policies Bring Murder to Chicago
Apr 20, 2008 Political
Barack Hussein Obama is an ultra liberal socialist who wants the government to run every aspect of our lives. He does not believe in traditional American values and he has little regard for this country other than his own desire to run it. Obama believes that small town America clings to guns and religion out of bitterness and that we need to see the Obama light to be relieved of our bitterness. We already know how Obama feels about religion because we got a first hand look at his church and the racist pastor that Obama listened to and followed for over 20 years.
How Obama feels about guns is a different story. He is elusive when asked about gun ownership and he uses buzz words like sensible regulation which really means that he thinks the government should decide how we are allowed to exercise our Second Amendment rights. Obama wrote on a questionnaire that he favored a ban on the manufacture, sale or possession of firearms. He wrote it in his own handwriting though now he claims that he did not fill it out. However, I have read many articles where Obama said that he believed we should ban guns. Obama has never really stated his agreement with the Second Amendment. He always discusses protecting a person’s right to own a gun to hunt or target shoot. I have never heard him say that people had the right to own firearms to protect themselves. Why would he? Socialists believe the government is the great protector. They know that an armed citizenry can oppose the tyranny of government and that is why they want us disarmed. Obama, like many liberals, believes that disarming people will bring safety to our streets despite the fact that this has been shown to be false on a number of occasions. We have seen time and again that states with carry laws, those with the most weapons, are the safest and have the fewest gun crimes. There are only gun crimes in these states in so called gun free zones, think Virginia Tech.
Several times throughout this campaign B. Hussein Obama mentioned the 34 or so Chicago school kids who were killed in 2007. At one event he was asked about Virginia Tech and he mentioned the Chicago youths and then said that the problem would not be solved until we cared about the Chicago kids as much as the VT students. When Obama makes mention of things such as this his followers go nuts and agree with him because they have lost the ability to think. Obama is telling them that guns are a problem and that kids in Chicago get killed with guns.
What he fails to tell them is that Chicago has extremely tough gun laws. According to the Obama thought process, there should be little to no gun deaths in Chicago. The poor chirren in Chicago schools should not be getting killed because guns are outlawed and Obama has told us that outlawing them will solve the problem. He and his liberal colleagues fail to mention that while Virginia is a must issue state, the campus at VT is a gun free zone and that means, according to Obama, there should be no gun violence there. And yet, people died. The liberals lie about the efficacy of gun control and continue to espouse policies that do not work. Liberals lie and people die.
The Democrats knew that they got beaten up in previous elections because of their opposition to free people owning guns so they retooled their message. They threw in the buzz words and they triangulated. They try to appeal to the middle Americans who own guns and who live their lives every day without using those guns illegally so that they can be elected where they can continue to impose Draconian gun laws on people. Assault weapons bans, gun free zones, fingerprinting ammunition, and any a number of other mindless schemes await us if these fools take a large majority and get the White House.
I have already stated that Chicago has tough gun laws and that, according to Obama and the libs, there should be little crime there. Over this past weekend 32 people have been shot and 6 have been killed there in what is being described as gang related violence. How is this happening and how come the strict gun laws there have not prevented this? Why are people running around taking lives? Any bets that some of the gang bangers are ILLEGALS, the same people that Obama claims we hate because of bitterness?
I wonder if the gang bangers in Chicago are bitter like those described in Obama’s vision of small town America? Perhaps these people clung to the same religion Obama did and heard the same message which then made them bitter so they turned to guns.
Perhaps it is because Chicago is full of liberals and has been in the control of Democrats for decades. The same welfare, failed policies, and gun control that Obama and others want to impose on the country are already in place there and have been for a long time. Those very liberal policies and the accompanying liberal leadership has fostered an environment that allows people to go around killing each other (with weapons they are not allowed to have). Obama and his ilk will blame this on the availability of guns (but keep in mind there is strict gun control) and will call for a ban on them.
I say that the reason there is disorder is because of failed liberal politicians and their failed liberal policies.
Instead of banning guns we should ban liberals.
That would make America safer.
Tags: chicago, gun control, liberals, lies, Obama, socialism
Loading ...
Loading... 
