Is Barack Obama Banning Gun Owners from his Transition Team?
Much has been made about president-elect Barack Obama’s stance in the second amendment on the blogs, including here. Between the questionnaire that Obama filled out when running for the Illinois senator, to the fact that Barack Obama was actually the director of an organization that actively tried to ban all rights of the people to keep and bear arms, one has to wonder how Barack Obama really feels about the second amendment.
Here is a list of some of Obama’s record on the second amendment:
- As a state legislator in Illinois, Obama supported banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, increasing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms
- He supported a “ban” on the sale and possession of handguns on a political questionnaire
- As state senator, he voted against a 2004 measure that allowed self-defense as an affirmative defense to those charged with violating local laws making it otherwise unlawful for such persons to possess firearms.
- He voted against allowing persons who had obtained domestic violence protective orders to carry handguns for their protection.
- Obama has also stated his opposition to allowing citizens to carry concealed guns and supports a national law outlawing the practice
So it really doesn’t come as any surprise that while searching to fill his transition team Obama seems to be weeding out not only those who apply for his transition team that own guns, but also those who apply whose family members own guns.
President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team is showing its hostility toward lawful firearm owners by “weeding out” job applicants who own firearms themselves, a Second Amendment group says.
Found in the questionnaire’s “Miscellaneous” section, question 59 reads, “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”
The article then goes on to say that is is unclear whether a candidate who owns a gun or who has a family member who owns a gun would be disqualified just for this reason. The question is on there for a reason and given what I perceive as not only Obama’s aversion to gun ownership but his hostility towards gun ownership I believe that a person owning a gun would be disqualified from serving on his transition team. I am not alone.
“Question 59 provides clear insight into how Obama and his people perceive firearm owners,” said ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. “The questionnaire poses a number of questions asking the applicant to reveal any unethical activities, or embarrassing Internet chats, then wraps up by asking if anyone in the applicant’s family owns a firearm. Obviously, Obama feels that owning a firearm is akin to talking dirty in Internet chat rooms.”
“[A]s this litmus test shows, they have every intention of putting together an administration that is hostile to firearms ownership and to Second Amendment rights,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
Obama is vetting the people who will serve on his transition team for past behavior that could pose a potential embarrassment to Obama, and rightfully so. But during this process they are including gun ownership as a potentially embarrassing behavior. I think that it is a very clear indication of where Barack Obama stands on the second amendment and also a clear indication of the kind of restrictions he will place on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
President-elect Obama is already showing us his true position on the second amendment and not the position that he held during the campaign, He is going to come after gun owners. We can not let him get away with this if he does. We must stand firm and not let Barack Obama infringe upon the fights guaranteed under the constitution. We must make our voices heard. (While we still have a voice.)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Will Barack Obama Support China’s Coerced Abortion Policy?
The argument from the pro-choice crowd on abortion is that the woman has the right to choose what she does to her body, but what happens when it is not the woman who has the right to choose? What happens when the government tells the woman that she must have an abortion?
The policy in China is one family, one child. If a woman becomes pregnant she is “coerced” into having an abortion. This seems to go against the argument that a woman has the right to decide what to do with her body. This goes against the whole argument that the pro-death crowd uses to justify their position.
Shortly after his election in 2000 President Bush denied $40 million in funding to the United Nations based on their support of China’s coerced abortion policy. Now a congresswoman is hopeful that President-elect Obama will reverse President Bush’s denial of the funds to the United Nations.
I am not going to use this congresswoman’s words to indict Barack Obama, he hasn’t stated his position on this issue. But I am going to use this story to ask a question. If the issue of abortion is based on a woman’s right to choose than why would any pro-death choice person support China’s policy of coerced abortion? China is no giving the woman the right to chose, they are making the decision for.
The answer to me is obvious. Any restriction on abortion is considered an attack on abortion. So the pro-choice crowd will defend partial birth abortion, where the baby is birthed until just the head is left in the uterus and then slaughtered, and they will also defend China’s government telling a woman that she must kill her baby.
As long as the end result is an abortion the pro-choice crowd doesn’t give a damn. Any person who supports abortion under the argument that a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body should be opposed to China’s policy. Chin’s policy takes the choice away from the woman. Yet the pro-choice people want Obama to support China’s policy. This shows me that the pro-choice crowd doesn’t really care about a woman’s right to choose but would rather see more abortions just to insure that no restrictions are ever applied to the abortion trade.
I urge President-elect Barack Obama to continue President Bush’s policy to withhold funding for this despicable program. I doubt that will happen though, as Barack Obama refused to vote against infanticide in Illinois.
John Sununu to Become RNC Chairman?
It looks as though the RNC has bigger plans for John Sununu than I had hopes for. I had hoped that John Sununu would run for governor of New Hampshire in 2010, I believe that our current governor will run for the United States senate in 2010 and that would leave an opening for Republicans to use to take back the governorship.
The one thing that New Hampshire Republicans have lacked in their attempts to defeat Governor Lynch is name recognition, I thought that John Sununu would provide that.
John Sununu, even though he was defeated, is a rising star in the Republican party, he is young and energetic, smart and independent. The Republican National Committee sees this also. John Sununu may be under consideration for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee.
There appears to be a movement under way to draft John Sununu to the position of RNC chairman and I will be the first to declare that I will support John Sununu in whatever he decides to do in the future. John Sununu would be a great choice for the Republican party as the new chairman of the RNC.
Are Americans Ready to end Affirmative Action?
One thing that the election of Barack Obama has taught us is that America is not the racist country that the race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have you believe and the election proved that. We are past race as a country, sure there are still racists out there but by and large America has come full circle. This is truly the land of opportunity and Barack Obama’s election has shown us that race is no longer the issue that it used to be.
But there still are racist policies out there, they hide under the guise of affirmative action. Affirmative action programs look at a color of a person’s skin and use that as part of the criteria for hiring people, and for accepting applications into college and has many other uses also. Are these policies still necessary? Do the American people believe that they are still necessary?
Recent votes in Nebraska and Colorado show us that the American people are ready to abandon affirmative action.
Voters in Nebraska approved a ballot initiative last week, 58 percent to 42 percent, aimed at eliminating government-sanctioned discrimination on the basis of race and gender under the banner of affirmative action. A similar measure in Colorado, however, went down by a narrow margin, 50 to 49 percent.
This following victories in tree other states in previous years.
The Nebraska victory follows on the heel of victories in California in 1996, Washington state in 1998 and Michigan in 2006.
And there are twenty more states preparing ballot initiatives for future elections on this issue. Americans seem to believe that it is time to end affirmative action. Affirmative action was a noble and needed cause at one time, but Americans are past the race issue. It is time to move on. It is time to truly judge a person on the content of their soul and not the color of their skin. Affirmative action does just the opposite. Affirmative action considers a person’s color to be more important than their qualifications.
America has moved past the race issues, America treats all people as equals. America is the land of opportunity, if it can be dreamed it can be done.
Anybody, ANYBODY, can succeed in America if they apply themselves.
It is time to end affirmative action.
Lobbyists are Trying to Jump on to the Bailout Bandwagon
As if this bailout bullshit wasn’t bad enough with the automakers looking for a handout and American Express getting reclassified as a bank so that they could also collect welfare we have no learned that lobbyists are lining up trying to cash in also. This is such a disaster, how could President Bush have thought that this was a good idea? I get so damned frustrated every time I read a new story about the bailout and it seems that ever day another group is looking to collect.
The Treasury Department is under siege by an army of hired guns for banks, savings and loan associations and insurers — as well as for improbable candidates like a Hispanic business group representing plumbing and home-heating specialists. That last group wants the Treasury to hire its members as contractors to take care of houses that the government may end up owning through buying distressed mortgages.
Everybody is lining up with their hands out looking for some free cash while hard working Americans are going to foot the bill. We are working hard to pay the corporate welfare that these assholes are lining up to collect.
How does it feel to get screwed? Not so good if you ask me.
Immigration Groups Plan to Make a Push for Amnesty for Illegals
The issue of illegal immigration and amnesty for illegals is a subject that disappeared during the campaign. Both John McCain and President-elect Obama share the same position on this issue so it wasn’t mentioned on the campaign trail. But now the issue is back and so it must be dealt with.
President Bush was also for granting amnesty to illegals but he was stopped by the Republicans in the House. The only true conservatives appear to be the conservatives in the house. And there are even less of them after last week’s election. The American people were against the idea of granting amnesty to illegals and they wrote letters and placed phone calls to their representatives and their voices were heard. Loud and clear.
Let’s not be naive, these politicians were worried about re-election but now they don’t have to worry about that for two years so if immigration “reform” is going to happen it will happen quickly so the American people will have time to forget before going back to the polls. Americans have short memories and they will forget about amnesty in two years if Washington is able to get this passed quick enough.
Now that the election is over immigration groups are now lining up to demand amnesty for illegal aliens.
Immigrant groups are calling on the incoming Obama administration to push for “just and humane immigration reform” and “a pathway to legalization”—amnesty and citizenship for illegal immigrants.
The National Capital Immigrant Coalition (NCIC) and the Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM) held a press conference Tuesday at the National Press Club to announce a “mass mobilization” by illegal immigrants that is scheduled to take place in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 21—one day after the president-elect is sworn into office
The truth is that it doesn’t even matter which candidate won the election, this was going to be revisited and probable passed no matter who won the presidency. What is a shame is that Republican voters had a short memory when they went into the booths during the primary and pulled the lever for the amnesty granting senator from Arizona. This is just one reason why John McCain was such a terrible nominee. He holds the same position as Obama on immigration.
The American people are going to have to rise up once again. We are going to have to write letters, send emails, and make phone calls to our senators, our representatives, and our president. We can not let this country be sold down the river to people who broke the law to get here.
These immigrant groups claim that they want a fair and honest path to citizenship but this country already has the procedure that they seek. The only problem is that these illegal immigrants don’t want to follow the proper procedure. Much like the younger generation in general, these people want something for nothing.
We can’t let this happen.
Nancy Pelosi may Call for a Special Session to Bail Out Automakers
This article informs us that Nancy Pelosi may call a special session of congress to deal with the issue of bailing out the automobile industry. President-elect Barack Obama is also in favor of handing out welfare to the automakers and he urged the signer of this disastrous legislation, President Bush, to also back the bailout of the auto industry. So far, in the only part of this fiasco that the president has gotten right, Bush has resisted the urge to bail them out. Taking into account the president’s penchant for uncontrolled spending I would bet that he will fold on this issue and acquiesce to the Democrats. But even if he doesn’t you and I will be forced to bail them out eventually anyway.
Democratic leaders in Congress said Tuesday they will push legislation next week to use the $700 billion Wall Street rescue fund to bail out Detroit auto makers, and President-elect Barack Obama ordered his transition team to look at ways to aid the car industry even before his inauguration.
The president-elect received the support of the unions and this is the first bill to come due. But there may be more at work here by the Democrats than just bailing out the automakers. They appear to be using this issue as a way to push two more issues in their agenda.
would have to accept the same rules on executive compensation that financial-service companies have swallowed with the Wall Street rescue.
Auto makers receiving aid would also have to agree to strict rules aimed at building “green and clean” automobiles, one Obama adviser said.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that the salaries that these executives bring in is incredibly overinflated, but I have a problem with the government regulating how much a person, any person, can earn. Democrats are also trying to use this issue to force automobile makers to cave into another of the left’s special interest groups, the environmentalists. They are going to hold this carrot of a bailout over their heads and tell them they can have it just as long as they follow a few rules…. Make the product that we want you to make and we will give you billions of dollars.
I don’t know why I keep writing about this bailout bill, all that it does is get me more and more frustrated.
The Democrats will soon be in charge of overseeing this albatross of legislation, but let’s not forget who started it, President Bush. As he fades into the sunset the taxpayer will be burdened with this for years to come.
American Express Hops on the Bailout Bandwagon
And on and on it goes with this bailout fiasco. American Express has filed for and was granted approval to be listed as a commercial bank. Not only were they approved but the whole process was fast-tracked and the 30 day waiting period was waved by the federal government.
Why did American Express file a request to be listed as a commercial bank? The answer is simple, they were not going to receive any money from this horrible bailout bill that the taxpayers have been burdened with, now they can apply to hop on the bailout bandwagon gravy train.
American Express Co. won U.S. Federal Reserve approval to become a commercial bank, gaining access to government funds as credit-card defaults climb with economies slowing around the world.
Here is what American Express’ CEO had to say about the decision:
Given the continued volatility in the financial markets, we want to be best positioned to take advantage of the various programs the federal government has introduced
Take advantage of? He couldn’t have made that point any more clearer. American Express is not only “taking advantage of” the programs that the government has implemented, American Express is “taking advantage of” the taxpayers. As companies line up to steal from the taxpayers one has to wonder who will be next and where will it stop?
Gun Sales Boom in Advance of Obama’s Inauguration
I need to give credit where credit is due and it seems according to this article that President-elect Barack Obama’s policies are having a positive effect on at least one business. Gun shops have been reporting an increase in sales. Even in this tough economy Obama’s policies have stimulated the sales in this industry. Guns are flying off the shelves, shop owners are having trouble keeping up with the demand.
Of course gun enthusiasts are buying the guns now because they feel that Barack Obama is going to make it increasingly harder for them to exercise their second amendment right.
Firearms shop owners say that gun owners are afraid that the president-elect, like Bill Clinton, will try to pass tough gun legislation. They want to get guns while they still can.
So Barack Obama’s policies are already having a positive effect on at least one small aspect of the economy, even as unintended as this is, so Obama deserves credit. In the interest of bi-partisanship and of joining together and uniting behind the president let me be the first to say to the soon to be president, congratulations on a job well done.
Gun control advocates are trying to call this nothing but paranoia.
Anybody who thinks they need to run out and buy guns because of the election is paranoid,” Peter Hamm, the Brady Campaign’s communications director, said. “It doesn’t make any sense. President-elect Obama said repeatedly throughout his campaign that he wasn’t going to be taking anyone’s guns away
But Obama’s past says something different.
The facts are that he has voted for gun bans, he has voted for ammunition bans — even ammunition widely used by hunters; he has voted for exponential tax increases on gun and ammunition sales and he has referred to gun owners as ‘bitter.’ All those facts give gun owners enough cause for concern
Given Barack Obama’s history with gun rights is it any wonder that people are afraid that he may pass heavy restrictions on their second amendment rights regardless of what he said during the election?
Don’t worry gun owners, you won’t be “clinging” for too much longer.
