Thoughts on the Giffords assasination attempt and fallout

A lot of yapping has been going on in all quarters the past few days. I decided to wait it out before posting anything. Right now, here's the facts. Anything else is opinion, conjecture, speculation, opinion, demonetization, or even lies.

1. Six people have been killed, including Judge John Roll and a nine year old girl.
2. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat, was shot and is in critical condition, but likely to survive. Good. Hopefully she makes a full recovery.
3. In custody as the prime suspect is Jared Lee Loughner who was by all accounts, caught at the scene. He's been charged with murder and attempted murder. The case has not gone to trial.
4. Loughner had things posted on myspace and youtube, but that's the extent so far about what is known about his opinions.
5. This is a federal case due to a federal judge being killed and a congresswoman being attacked. There is also Pima County jurisdiction for other charges that may occur.
6. Loughner has invoked his right to remain silent at this time.
7. The firearm was a Glock 19 (9mm) pistol. (not an automatic as earlier news reports stated)
8. Loughner has two priors, one for drug paraphernalia possession, the other unknown outside of it being a "minor" charge.

Those are the facts. Anything else is conjecture. What follows below is opinion.

One thing surprising to a lot of people, but that we take for granted is how easy it really is for us to meet our representatives. I've seen Mike Rogers several times over the last 10 years. The only entourage I've seen him with is staff. Sometimes, it's just Mike. Mike's office has been vandalized in the past, and he's had his share of threats. The only security I've ever seen around Mike are concealed pistol holders. I've also met in the past Debbie Stabenow (then congresswoman), John Dingell, Tim Walberg, Pete Hoekstra, Vern Ehlers, Justin Amash, Fred Upton, Candice Miller, John Conyers, Dan Benishek, and Thad McCotter, as either a candidate or congressman (or both). People in both parties. I'm not saying that to sound important, but to mention accessibility to those who make the effort. None of them had police escorts that I could tell. None of them had overt private security. I know several of them are gun owners and are probably CPL holders, and have CPL holders on their staff, but it's nothing like presidential security.

Same goes for the state level. I've never seen major security for our state reps either outside of the check in at the house building and the floor itself at the capitol. DC is more stringent, but security is not difficult there either. Our state reps are even more accessible than our congressmen. Many here in Livingston County (and Shiawassee and part of Ingham) probably saw Joe Hune knock on their door.

Even the gubernatorial and senate candidates I've seen did not have a lot (or any) security. I saw Granholm making the rounds at the capitol without police escort. I don't know how much security she had at speaking events. Carl Levin drove himself to one event (I've seen Rogers do the same several times). Bouchard, Butler, Zandstra, and Rocky have been easily accessible during their campaigns without massive security.

Unfortunately but understandable, I think we may be losing that to a degree with this. It'll be interesting to see what future security measures are taken to reduce the chance of lone wolf deranged individuals like the next Loughner.

And that's exactly what Loughner is by all accounts. A lone wolf deranged individual who didn't really fit in any political spectrum, as you'd guess by a guy who lists Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto has favorites.....next to We the Living (Polar opposites of one another Collectivists books next to Objectivist books). He was athiest, supported flag burning, didn't support the currency, thought there was mind control through grammar (whatever that is), and was big on "conscience dreaming". This guy really couldn't be put on a map.

As far as Giffords goes, she's a moderate by democrat standards and isn't as controversial to the mainstream as a lot of the other democrats. By most accounts, people liked her (and her district went for Bush twice and McCain). She's relatively pro-2nd Amendment, and at least moderate on border issues (and better than Bush there). If this was indeed a right v left ideological hit in Arizona, I can think of someone else I'd expect to be the target, and no, I'm not mentioning who it would be. This is the work of one nutter.

But according to the leftists, kos crazies, and the media, this is all Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck's fault, not the shooter. Dancing in the blood before it is dry. It was almost like it was glee. They wanted to find something to attack Palin, who they are obsessed with (and I think it comes down to their pro-abortion views, and Palin is a real threat to that as she chose life over eugenics) I'm not surprised. This is politics, which is about power, and the left wants power over people. The big attack on Palin is gasp, targets on districts from her PAC site during the election. Big f'ing deal. Big deal. (DCCC did the same thing, and KOS targeted Giffords for not being leftist enough) Anyone who works in the business understands some of the terms. Target seats. A target district is a swing district. That's it. That was the clear intent, and anyone with a brain knows it. Those saying otherwise are idiots or agenda driven. The cable TV and talk radio attacks are out there as well. Free speech for some, not for all. Scratch a liberal, find a fascist.

Speaking of "hateful" rhetoric, here's some blasts from the past.

Craig Kilborn Show - Graphic of Target Site around then President Bush. Sniper's Wanted was the caption.

"Death of a President" - 2006 Film about assassinating George W Bush.

Alec Baldwin talked about stoning Henry Hyde and killing his family. This c***s***er Baldwin even brought the kids into it....and I don't even care for Mr. Hyde.

Or Kos Crazy 'Boy Blue' who ripped...Gabrielle Giffords as dead to him.

Plenty more at Michelle Malkin's site

Talk show host Mike Malloy - I hope Glenn Beck kills himself.

Talk show host Montel Williams - Michelle (Bachman), slit your wrist. Better yet, start at the collarbone.

And about 90% of what comes out of Congresscritter Pete Stark's mouth.
Surprisingly, in a good way, I haven't heard Obama run his mouth and take pot shots like Clinton did after the OKC bombing. Yet. We need to be prepared, though. Clinton did it in 95, and the doubletalking political hack Sheriff Dupnik (long known leftist and anti-freedom - and reason why guns only in hands of cops is terrible idea) in Pima County is blaming talk radio now for this. Speaking of Dupnik, he needs to finally be taken out. (oops..inflammatory rhetoric). Taken out election time politically.

Rahm Emanuel mentioned "Never to let a crisis go to waste." After major events, our freedoms are most at risk. The attack on gun shows happened after Columbine. The ban one evil black rifles happened after the Stockton mass shooting. The Class III regulations came after mafia wars of the 20's and 30's. The KKK pushed for and achieved pistol registration and CCW restrictions after Dr Ossian Sweet defended himself with a firearm in 1920's segregated Detroit. The 1968 Gun Control act came after Bobby Kennedy's assassination. The Patriot Act happened after 9/11 after Reno and Clinton pushed for the same thing and failed a couple of years earlier, in the name of the War on some Drugs. The 2nd and 4th amendment are the usual attacks.

Right now my concern is the upcoming assault on our first, second, fourth, and tenth Amendment rights. From Politico.

McCarthy’s spokesman confirmed the legislation will target the high-capacity ammunition clips the Arizona gunman allegedly used in the shooting, but neither he or the congresswoman offered any further details.

“Again, we need to look at how this is going to work, to protect people, certainly citizens, and we have to look at what I can pass,” McCarthy said. “I don’t want to give the NRA – excuse the pun – the ammunition to come at me either.”

Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html#ixzz1Af8bYLqg

Actually, it's "standard" ammunition magazines (not clips) for a Glock 19. As far as the Brady proposal, it'll be real interesting for what the language is, as it is already illegal to threaten congresscritters. "Could be seen" Real broad language there, and shouldn't pass Constitutional mustard. I'll look for the actual language when it is out.

We need to circle the wagons, and make sure that Congress knows that our freedoms are non-negotiable in any new legislation. Period. We can not let the establishment or left try to do the same thing that was done after the Oklahoma City Bombing. It may sound crass to put things in this perspective and it is unfortunately, but that's how things work in politics (power). Politicians will never let a crisis go to waste. We need to be ready and have a strong defense for any anti-freedom restrictions proposed. No more gun grabs, free speech clampdowns, or Patriot Acts. I remember what Clinton did in 1995, and we need to make sure that any repeat attempt of Clinton is challenged forcefully (like the NRA finally did in 2000) and does not happen again, whether it is by the media, Dupnik, or anybody else. We can not let ourselves be the goats.

Obama sends goon squads to censor the truth about his gun record

I believe in Godwin's law, so I won't use the terms Nazi or Fascist here, but Obama's camp supports pissing on the first amendment as he does the second amendment. This is a typical page from the Chicago/Axelrod/Mayor Daley school of Machine Politics. Obama doesn't like the NRA ads, so he pushes to censor them. Look out NRA, you may wake up next to a stallion head next to you tomorrow morning.....

This is the NRA ad that Obama's goons wants to censor.

Politico has the source. Most of this was a letter from the NRA in response, so I'll post the whole thing here so I can disect this point by point. Normally, I post excepts. If politico or Ben Smith has a problem with the full posting, I'll adjust it afterward.

The Obama campaign has written radio stations in Pennsylvania and Ohio, pressing them to refuse to air an ad from the National Rifle Association.

"This advertisement knowingly misleads your viewing audience about Senator Obama's position on the Second Amendment," says the letter from Obama general counsel Bob Bauer. "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement."

I know the bill in contention very well, as well as the context behind it, so the NRA not only is accurate, but in this case, the context of the ad is more inflammatory than the bill itselt. Most who know me know that I refer to one of the ammo bans as the "30-30 ban." That's the bill. I'll get to that later. Back to the politico:

The ad, "Hunter," conflates Obama's anti-gun stances of the 1990s with his current, more pro-gun, stand, and was chided for inaccuracy in The Washington Post, an item to which Bauer's letter refers.

The Washington Post? Who the hell died and made those jokers the arbiters of truth?

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam, who provided the letter, said it shows clear evidence that the ads are "hurting him," and stood by their substance. He also provided a copy of the NRA's own letter to the stations and memo disputing the Post story, after the jump. He also said the ad is running only in Pennsylvania at the moment.

Good. Be prepared to take out Obama/Daley's goons.

MEMORANDUM
CLIENT-MATTER NUMBER
999100-0130
TO: Station Managers

FROM: Cleta Mitchell, Esq.
Counsel to National Rifle Association

DATE: September 25, 2008

RE: Documentation for Advertising by National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund ("NRA-PVF")

This firm serves as counsel to the National Rifle Association (“NRA”) and the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund ("NRA-PVF"), which is the federal political action committee of the NRA and the sponsor of certain advertising purchased and soon-to-be purchased on your station. It has come to my clients’ attention that the Obama for President campaign is engaging in an effort to prevent or stop the airing of certain ads by NRA-PVF, falsely alleging that the ads are ‘inaccurate’. The Obama presidential campaign apparently relies on an article appearing in the Washington Post on September 23, 2008 to support its contention hat the NRA-PVF ads should not be aired.
The Washington Post is hardly an objective news source on any subject related to the issues to which the NRA is dedicated, having spent decades attacking not only the NRA but also fighting against the legislation and policies NRA supports to protect the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as supporting every conceivable government proposal or policy any officeholder or candidate suggests to weaken and disrupt the guarantees of the Second Amendment. It is therefore no surprise that the Washington Post would now attack the NRA for advertisements which truthfully disclose the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment record of Barack Obama, the candidate supported by the Washington Post.
Attached please find the point-by-point refutation of the Washington Post’s article about the NRA-PVF ads regarding Obama’s record on the Second Amendment, as well as an article disclosing the bias of the decidedly not neutral “FactChecker” on which the Washington Post article is ostensibly based.
The NRA devotes 100% of its time and resources to protecting the Second Amendment and fighting for government policies and legislation furtherance of the rights of the American people to keep and bear arms.
The legislative and policy record of candidates and officeholders such as Barack Obama are well known and documented by the NRA on an ongoing basis. NRA-PVF’s advertising during the 2008 election cycle is based on that extensive research and documentation, which is being furnished to you with this Memorandum.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that your station disregard the shamefully false assertions from the Obama campaign and its attorneys regarding the NRA-PVF ads and that the ads run in accordance with the purchase(s) made by NRA-PVF in the media buy.
Please feel free to contact me at (202) 295-xxxx if you have any questions. Thank you.

Be prepared. Here's the rebuttals.

Factual Response to Washington Post False Statements on NRA Anti-Obama Ads
Washington Post Claim—500% Tax on Guns
It is unclear from the article exactly what weapons would have been covered by the proposed tax. … Even if Obama did support a big tax increase on the sale of certain types of assault weapons back in 1999, that is hardly evidence that he will move as president to tax the “guns and ammo” most commonly used by hunters.
Facts:
The Post quotes Obama out of context, claiming that he only wanted to tax “certain types” of guns in 1999. But the full sentence in the 1999 article reads, “Obama is also seeking to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] -- weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths.” Chinta Strausberg, Obama unveils federal gun bill, Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999, at 3. (emphasis added). Contrary to the Post’s assertion, the statement makes no distinction as to what type of guns Obama proposed to tax.
The Post is far too eager to let Obama off the hook just because he hasn’t mentioned the idea lately. Obama has supported the idea and has never repudiated that support. Therefore it is fair to say that the statement reflects his views on the issue.

Chicago Defender, December 13 1999. I can't get there, but it is consistent with his atrocious record.

Washington Post Claim—Ammunition Ban
Contrary to [NRA’s] claim, the Kennedy proposal of July 2005, SA 1615, was not aimed at “virtually all deer-hunting ammunition.” Instead, it would have authorized the attorney general to define types of illegal ammunition capable of penetrating body armor commonly used by law enforcement officials. During the Senate debate, Kennedy said that his amendment would “not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles,” a point contested by the NRA.

Facts:
NRA contested the point for a simple reason: The Post is wrong.
The Kennedy Amendment would have expanded the current ban on manufacturing “armor piercing ammunition” other than for sale to the government, 18 U.S.C. ? 922(a)(7), by banning any “projectile [i.e., bullet] that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines … to be capable of penetrating body armor.” The amendment called for testing of projectiles against “body armor that … meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.” S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, July 29, 2005.
Body armor is rated in different classes based on the level of protection it provides. The “minimum” level of body armor under Department of Justice standards that were in effect in 2005, Type I armor, only protects against the least powerful handgun cartridges; only Type III and higher armor protects against high-powered rifle cartridges. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Ballistic Resistance of PersonalBody Armor: NIJ Standard-0101.04 2-3 (June 2001).
However, there are many “projectiles that may be used in a handgun” that can also be used in a rifle. Handgun hunting is increasingly popular, and handgun hunters often use handguns that fire common hunting rifle cartridges such as the .30-30 Winchester. See, e.g., http://www.tcarms.com/firearms/g2ContenderPistols.php#spec_charts. A ban on “projectile[s] that may be used” in these handguns would have the effect of banning the same cartridges for rifle hunters. It would even ban rifle cartridges not commonly used in handguns, because any bullet may be fired in a barrel of the correct diameter, regardless of whether the barrel is installed on a handgun or on a rifle.
Finally, it is true that Sen. Kennedy denied his 2005 amendment would ban hunting ammunition. However, in a floor debate on a substantially identical amendment the previous year, Kennedy specifically denounced a hunting rifle cartridge:
Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 [sic] caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.
It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America.
Cong. Rec. S1634 (daily ed. Feb. 26, 2004). The relatively low-powered .30-30 Winchester was introduced in 1895 and “has long been the standard American deer cartridge.” Frank C. Barnes, Cartridges of the World 52 (8th ed. 1997). As noted above, the .30-30 may be fired in a handgun.
Even apart from the Kennedy Amendment, Obama also said, on his 2003 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, that he would “support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons.” See Lynn Sweet, Obama’s 2003 IVI-IPO questionnaire may be getting closer scrutiny, Chicago Sun-Times, Dec. 11, 2007 (available at http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_column_obamas_2003_iviip.html). The rifles that were banned as “assault weapons” under the 1994 Clinton gun ban fire cartridges such as the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester—the same ammunition used in common hunting rifles. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30) (repealed Sept. 13, 2004). Therefore, this statement also supports a ban on hunting rifle ammunition.

The NRA is right on this. There were two IDENTICAL Bills. One was in 2004, before Obama was senator. The other was in 2005. The 2004 bill was S AMDT 2619 to S1805. The 2005 bill wasn S Amdt 1615 to S397. The Language of both bills is as follows:

SA 1615. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:


On page 13, after line 4, insert the following:

SEC. 5. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

(a) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.--Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;

(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or

``(iv) a projectile for a center-fire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''.

(b) DETERMINATION OF THE CAPABILITY OF PROJECTILES TO PENETRATE BODY ARMOR.--Section 926 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(d)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against Body Armor Exemplar.

``(2) The standards promulgated under paragraph (1) shall take into account, among other factors, variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired and the amount and kind of powder used to propel the projectile.

``(3) As used in paragraph (1), the term `Body Armor Exemplar' means body armor that the Attorney General determines meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.''.

What did Mr. Kennedy have in mind? He explained it in 2004

Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America. Armor-piercing ammunition for rifles and assault weapons is virtually unregulated in the United States. A Federal license is not required to sell such ammunition unless firearms are sold as well.

The .30-30 Winchester is the basic hunting round. .30-30 lever action. It is a mid level ammunition. Another target in Kennedy's comments it the less powerful .223, which is used in the AR-15. If this bill was passed, the Attorney General can unilaterially ban the .223 and .30-30.

As far as police vests go, they are supposed to protect them from pistol rounds, not rifle rounds. Just about any non pistol ammunition I have is "armor piercing", because most of my rounds are rifle rounds. Slugs? There's some real power there. 30-06? That's a lot more powerful than the .30-30 and is a hunting round.

Washington Post Claim—Gun Ban
The … claim refers to semiautomatic rifles and pistols covered by the assault weapons ban, which expired in March 2004.


Facts:
While Obama does support the ban (which actually expired in September, not March, of 2004), the statement in the advertisement is based on Sen. Obama’s vote for much broader legislation and his public statement in favor of banning all semi-automatic firearms.
On March 13, 2003, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee for a bill that would have enacted a much broader gun ban. (The vote tally sheet is available at http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf).
The bill under debate that day, SB 1195 (available at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/93/SB/PDF/09300SB1195lv.pdf), would have made it illegal to “knowingly manufacture, deliver, or possess” a “semiautomatic assault weapon.”
The bill defined a “semiautomatic assault weapon” to include “any firearm having a caliber of 50 [sic] or greater.” See SB 1195, page 2, line 10 (emphasis added). Under this bill, a firearm did not actually have to be semi-automatic to be a “semiautomatic assault weapon.”
Shotguns 28-gauge or larger (by far the majority of shotguns owned in the United States) are all “.50-caliber or greater.” See National Rifle Ass’n, Firearms Fact Book 183 (3d ed. 1989). SB 1195 did exclude any firearm that “is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action” and “any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.” SB 1195 p.3, lines 12-23. However, the bill did not exclude firearms with hinge or similar actions, such as single-shot or double-barreled shotguns used by millions of hunters.
Anyone who possessed one of these firearms in Illinois 90 days after the effective date would have had to “destroy the weapon or device, render it permanently inoperable, relinquish it to a law enforcement agency, or remove it from the state.” SB 1195, p. 5, line 33. Anyone who still possessed a banned gun would have been subject to a felony sentence. SB 1195, p. 5, line 15. This “seizure and surrender” provision was much more severe than the former federal “assault weapons” ban, which had a “grandfather clause” to allow current lawful owners to keep their guns. See 18 U.S.C. 922(v)(2) (repealed).
Obama also supported banning a large class of popular hunting firearms on a 1998 Project VoteSmart survey. One of the questions, and the relevant part of Obama’s responses, were as follows:
Indicate which principles you support (if any) concerning gun issues.
X a) Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
X b) Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
See Illinois State Legislative Election 1998 National Political Awareness Test (available at http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490#826:) (emphasis added). Millions of American hunters have used semi-automatic rifles and shotguns for over a century.

Finally, of course, a ban on hunting rifle ammunition (such as the Kennedy amendment Obama supported) would have been a very effective ban on the use of hunting rifles.

I haven't followed the Illinois .50 caliber gun ban, but almost all shotgun rounds are .50 caliber or higher. I'm going my memory, but I think by measurement, the calibler of your basic Mossberg 500 12 gauge is "72 caliber."

But that just covers the beginning of Obama's distain of the 2nd Amendment. I covered it all when the Elmer Fudds at AHSA endorsed him. From April 18, 2008

So what is Obama's record on the 2nd Amendment.

First off, he was a former Board member of the notorious Joyce Foundation. The Joyce Foundation is the main funder of gun grabbing organizations in the US. They fund groups such as VPC which supports a total ban. They have hundreds of millions of dollars to fund these astroturf organizations.

http://republicanmichigander.blogspot.com/2007/07/obama-hates-civil-rights-and.html - I commented on one of his puff pieces here. He supports "Ballistic prints" which don't do anything for crimes. He supposed the so called "assault weapons" ban.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009664 - He voted present on another nasty bill.

He voted to ban almost all centerfire ammunition - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217

He voted to support frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufactuers. - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml - And this exposes his State Senatorial record.

Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons" and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.

He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation. Supporters framed the issue as a fundamental question of whether homeowners have the right to protect themselves. Obama joined several Chicago Democrats who argued the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street. They said local governments should have the final say, but the self-defense exception passed 41-16 and ultimately became state law.

"It's bad politics to be on the wrong side of the Second Amendment come election time," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "It will certainly be talked about. You can take that to the bank." On the other hand, Obama parted company with gun control advocates when he backed a measure to let retired police officers and military police carry concealed weapons.

He supports guns for the important people, but not us. That's Obama's elitism for you. That fits the views of the Elmer Fudd organization that is supporting him as well. But wait, there's even more from Politico.

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_obamaquestionaire1newest.html - Obama State Senate survey - pt 1

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_obamaquestionaire2.html - Obama State Senate survey - pt 2

On guns...TOTAL BAN!

Now his aids tried to cover for him and say that wasn't his work. BS. Buck stops at the top. Politico called that as well.

The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat. Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire. They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position.” But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer.

Is it really surprising that an organization headed by two, and formerly three gun grabbers, would back a gun grabber? Not really. The good news is that most of us know what AHSA is about, and no amount of photo ops are going to change that. It's the record that counts, and the records of Obama, Schoenke, Ricker, and Rosenthal show that none of them are friends of the 2nd Amendment.

Yeah, if I had that record, I'd want to shut up my opposition too. However, we have a thing called the first Amendment, and from someone who actually taught constitutional law, he should know better. Either he's an idiot who doesn't know it or more likely, doesn't give a damn.

However, we do, and we will make sure this jackass loses, so we can protect our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.

Mike Pence gives censorship a right hook

The Hill reports some good news on the First Amendment front. The elitist left wing of the Democrats (Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein) wanted to reinstate the so called Fairness Doctrine in their regulation attempts on the radio. This anti-Free Speech measure was rebuffed hard 309-115 with many democrats joining Mike Pence and others in their support of Freedom.

The House voted overwhelmingly Thursday to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from using taxpayer dollars to impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters who feature conservative radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

By a vote of 309-115, lawmakers amended the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill to bar the FCC from requiring broadcasters to balance conservative content with liberal programming such as Air America.

The vote count was partly a testament to the influence that radio hosts wield in many congressional districts.

It was also a rebuke to Democratic senators and policy experts who have voiced support this week for regulating talk radio.

House Democrats argued that it was merely a Republican political stunt because there is little danger of the FCC restricting conservative radio while George W. Bush is president.

Republicans counter that they are worried about new regulations if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008

I also find it ironic that the two leaders against Free Speech in the Senate are also two of the biggest gun grabbers as well. Durbin and Feinstein if nothing else, are consistent in their hatred for American freedoms.

The Roll Call vote is here. No Republicans voted against freedom here. In Michigan, the freedom haters are shown to be Conyers, Kilpatrick, Dingell, and Levin. Stupak and Kildee voted right on this, as did all Michigan Republicans.

Democrats push for Censorship of political speech

It's the usual suspects, who also happen to be two of the biggest gun grabbers in the Senate. Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein. Those two fascists haven't met a freedom that they haven't tried to grab.

The Hill had a report about the latest efforts from the democrats to push the so called "Fairness Doctrine". In actuality, it's an effort to tell talk radio to sit down and shut up since they have the gall to disagree with the political leftist establishment.

From the Hill

House Republican lawmakers are preparing to fight anticipated Democratic efforts to regulate talk radio by reviving rules requiring stations to balance conservative hosts such as Rush Limbaugh with liberals such as Al Franken.

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so drastically that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

They say radio stations would take a financial hit if forced to air balanced programming because liberal talk radio has not proved itself to be as profitable as conservative radio. Air America, the liberal counterpunch to conservative talk radio, filed for bankruptcy in October.

But Democratic leaders say that government has a compelling interest to ensure that listeners are properly informed.

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

The Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC discarded in 1985, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial political issues. Prior to 1985, government regulations called for broadcasters to “make reasonable judgments in good faith” on how to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.

Here's the problem. Talk radio is needed to balance the "so called" balance in the so called mainstream media. The New York Times is viewed as the gold standard and the model to follow, and it also happens to be one of the most leftist papers in the country. The worst kind of leftist too. Rich corporate chattering class leftist.

The only solution is for the senate jokers to leave free speech alone and let the market decide. If people want to listen to Air America, let them win or lose on their merits. This politicial censorship from Durbin and company belongs in Stalinist Russia. It's unAmerican.

I'll go even further. Not only to I oppose the so called Fairness Doctrine, I oppose the FCC regulating any sort of content whatsoever. I support freedom and free speech.

Bipartisanship = bigger government and less freedom

At least that's how it appears to me today. Two new pushes for big government leftism is on the way. One deals with smoking, and the other deals in censorship.

First - Smoking. Ted "drive off the bridge" Kennedy and the king of fascists himself, Henry Waxman, along with Tom Davis and John Cornyn are pushing to increase the power of unelected bureaucrats over tobacco.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers reintroduced legislation Thursday that would give the FDA the same authority over cigarettes and other tobacco products that it already has over countless other consumer products.

"Congress cannot in good conscience allow the federal agency most responsible for protecting the public health to remain powerless to deal with the enormous risks of tobacco, the most deadly of all consumer products," Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., said in introducing the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act with Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, and Reps. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., and Tom Davis, R-Va.

This is a horse manure measure. It has no positive benefits whatsoever. We all know that smoking is dangerous. It is illegal for minors to smoke. There are warning labels on ciggy packs. It has been known for 40 years that smoking has a strong coorelation to cancer. This is no secret. People still make the choice to smoke or not smoke based on that information. How is increasing more government regulations going to help? If tobacco is so bad - ban it (at the state level to conform with the 10th amendment). Until then, shut the hell up with the grandstanding and chicken@##@ measures. Put up or shut up.

The other bipartisan measure is big government censorship being pushed by one democrat and one republican at the FCC - home of unelected bureaucrats.

"In general, what the commission's report says is that there is strong evidence that shows violent media can have an impact on children's behavior and there are some things that can be done about it," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said Thursday.

The issue is bipartisan. Martin, a Republican, gave a joint interview to The Associated Press with Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps.

"The pressure to do something on this is building right now," Copps said, noting that TV violence comes up regularly during media ownership hearings he conducts across the country. "People really feel strongly about this issue all across this land. This is not a red state or a blue state issue."

The report also suggests that cable and satellite TV could be subjected to an "a la carte" regime that would let viewers choose their channels, a measure long supported by Martin.

"We can't just deal with the three or four broadcast channels — we have to be looking at what's on cable as well" Martin said.

It's called an on/off switch. Let's use it.

Are hockey games going to be censored? They have fights and people hitting each other with sticks. What about the UFC? John McCain tried to ban it once. Boxing? Kickboxing? What about the A-Team? They have (gasp) shootings on that show. This is a major can of worms.

I have a better idea. Disband the FCC's content regulation division.

John McCain - You sir, are no President Reagan

I was at our state's GOP convention in Grand Rapids and several campaigns were there. One of the tactics by a campaign is enough to merit a special post. John McCain's campaign had T-shirts with Reagan on them, and he is reinventing himself to be of all things, a less government and pro-2a conservative and the "heir" to President Reagan.

One of President Reagan's most famous quotes is this:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?

Unfortunately, Mr. McCain views government as the solution to the problem.

The McCain/Feingold law censors political speech with the ban on issue ads
He opposes the 2nd amendment with his attempt to ban gun shows.
He talked about tax cuts - he voted against them.
He pushed to ban the UFC and pushed for hearings on steroids in baseball
He wants government to more heavily regulate cars.

That doesn't sound very Reaganesque to me. John McCain may be a big fan of President Reagan, but despite his reinventions - he ain't it. McCain - "You sir, are no Ronald Reagan"

More on the convention later.