Two-Faced: Obama Tries to Straddle Both Sides of Gun Rights
By SusanUnPC on June 27, 2008 at 2:45 PM in Barack Obama, Constitution, Delegates, Democratic National Convention, Gun Control, John McCain, NRA, Second Amendment
Barack, you brag incessantly that you’re a professor senior lecturer in Constitutional Law. Your position on the SCOTUS decision Thursday should have been, all along, a simple YES or NO. As your presumptive Republican opponent’s press release noted:
… Barack Obama has taken multiple positions on banning handguns and the D.C. handgun ban. He has stated his belief that handgun bans were constitutional and he supported them. Then he actually refused to state a position. Now, Barack Obama has issued a statement that some are reporting as an embrace of the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning the D.C. handgun ban while others are reporting that he is still straddling his position. [See more below.]
Even an Obama supporters, TalkLeft’s Big Tent Democrat, attacks Obama’s “Feet of Clay.” BTD quotes Politico:
Barack Obama has crafted an image as an unconventional candidate, a change agent and a post-partisan politician who represents a dramatic break from the status quo. … when confronted with a series of thorny issues the Illinois senator has pursued a conspicuously conventional path, one that falls far short of his soaring rhetoric. Faced with tough choices on fronts ranging from public financing and town hall meetings to warrantless surveillance and the Second Amendment, Obama passed up opportunities to take bold stands. … Instead, he has followed a familiar tack, straddling controversial issues and choosing politically advantageous routes. …
Denver delegates must know that vacillating statements and actual votes that contradict those statements on Second Amendment issues are “deal breakers” for millions of voters nationwide. Memeorandum.com is tracking posts linking Politico’s “Obama: Change Agent Goes Conventional.” Most astonishing: the ABC News report by Jake Tapper on Obama’s stumbling, bumbling exchange with a Pennsylvania reporter:
Craig Layne, a reporter from WJET-TV in Erie, Penn., today asked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, a question on the DC gun ban.
Here’s how the exchange went down.
"In November you mentioned that the DC handgun law was constitutional," Layne said. "Now you’re embracing the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision striking down that law—
"That’s not what I said," Obama interrupted, per ABC News’ Jennifer Duck.
"Your aide said that," Layne clarified.
"I don’t know what my aide said but I’ve been very consistent, I teach constitutional law," Obama said. … (Read all of Jake Tapper’s “Obama Eager to Distance Self from Campaign’s Former Position on DC Handgun Ban.”)
You think those GOP 527s — especially the NRA — won’t relentlessly attack Obama on his defensive backtracking from his all-over-the-map statements? His campaign can be derailed permanently by this one issue alone. The NRA has already begun:
From the NRA’s wryly-titled story, “Clinging to the Constitution“:
In recent days, GOP presidential candidate John McCain has highlighted Barack Obama’s comments about small-town Americans “clinging” to guns and religion. Senator McCain’s comments, though, have a different spin. In Arlington, Virginia, for instance, McCain said: “I know why [residents of small towns] embrace their constitutional rights, and why they embrace their religious beliefs, and it’s because they’re fundamentally good and decent people. ”
By referencing our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, John McCain demonstrates an understanding of this issue that has continued to escape Barack Obama. Americans don’t “cling” to their guns out of bitterness. They fight to preserve their constitutional liberties because they love this country.
If Barack Obama wants to believe that gun owners are simply bitter…he should remember something else. We’re voters too, and we don’t support those who believe in Chicago-style gun control.
That’s mild by NRA standards. They’re just warming up!
The NRA crippled Al Gore in 2000. During the days of the Florida recount, I was at a local Safeway. The barely-eligible-to-vote teen who boxed my groceries noticed the Al Gore sticker on my jacket. He said, “I would have voted for Gore, but he was going to take my guns away.”
That the NRA’s message filtered down to an 18-year-old grocery store box boy in a rural community, and got him to change his vote, is proof that the NRA knows how to demolish its perceived foes.
Accurate or not, the NRA’s campaign against Gore worked in 2000. The NRA’s campaign will have endless ways to attack Obama in 2008 because of his flip-flopping statements and his Illinois state senate voting record that, CBS News predicted, will haunt Barack Obama in a general election.
Obama’s remapping of his policy issues to take more “advantageous routes,” as characterized by today’s hot Politico story, will be derailed by relentless campaigns by the NRA and other 527s. Obama will end up cut off at the knees once his all-over-the-map views and his Illinois state senate voting record on gun rights are exposed.
::::::::::::::::::::::::
Here’s a fascinating timeline of Obama’s conflicting statements on the Second Amendment, via a McCain campaign press release. (Clearly, this is “oppo research” that the McCain campaign had ready to issue once the SCOTUS ruling came in yesterday morning, and this press release was issued immediately afterwards.)
A TIMELINE OF POLITICAL POSITIONING ON SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS
… Please find below a timeline of Barack Obama’s support for the D.C. handgun ban and subsequent reversal:
SEPTEMBER 1996: In Response To A 1996 Independent Voters Of Illinois Questionnaire, Obama Indicated That He Supported Banning The “Manufacture, Sale And Possession Of Handguns.” Question: “Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” Obama’s Response: “Yes.” (Independent Voters Of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 General Candidate Questionnaire, Barack Obama Responses, 9/9/96)
2004: Barack Obama Voted Against “Letting People Use A Self-Defense Argument If Charged With Violating Local Handgun Bans.” “[Obama] 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.” (Ryan Keith “Obama Record In State Legislature Offers Possible Ammunition For Critics,” The Associated Press, 1/17/07)
NOVEMBER 2007: The Chicago Tribune Reports That The Obama Campaign Says Barack Obama “Believes The D.C. Handgun Law Is Constitutional.” “[T]he campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.’” (James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, “Court To Hear Gun Case,” Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07)
FEBRUARY 2008: During An Interview, Barack Obama Acknowledged His Support For The D.C. Gun Ban. Questioner Leon Harris: “One other issue that’s of great importance here in the district as well is gun control. You said in Idaho recently – I’m quoting here – ‘I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns,’ but you support the D.C. handgun ban.” Obama: “Right.” (Leon Harris and Sen. Barack Obama, Forum Sponsored By ABC And Politico.Com, Washington, DC, 2/12/08)
· In The Same Interview, Barack Obama Indicated He Feels The D.C. Gun Ban Is Constitutional. Harris: “And you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How can you reconcile those two different positions?” Obama: “Oh, because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it is important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of people, law-abiding citizens, use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have violence on the streets that is a result of illegal handgun use. And so, there is nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets …” (Leon Harris and Sen. Barack Obama, Forum Sponsored By ABC And Politico.com, Washington, DC, 2/12/08)
· In This Interview, Barack Obama “Didn’t Dispute The Characterization That He Believes The Ban Is Constitutional.” “But a colleague points out that Obama took a question about the constitutionality of the gun ban from WJLA’s Leon Harris during the Potomac Primary, and didn’t dispute the characterization that he believes the ban is constitutional.” (Ben Smith, “Inartful,” The Politico, 6/26/08)
· Watch The Interview Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wu9jE1MnAE
FEBRUARY 2008: Barack Obama “Declined To Take A Position For Or Against Its Constitutionality.” “Today Obama reiterated his support for tighter enforcement of laws already on the books – such as stronger background checks and enhancing programs to trace the provenance of guns used in crimes. He would also seek to close the loopholes that currently apply to firearms purchased at gun shows. But asked today about the DC handgun ban currently being reviewed by the US Supreme Court, Obama declined to take a position for or against its Constitutionality but did express broad support for the rights of local jurisdictions to make such decisions for themselves.” (David Wright, Ursula Fahy And Sunlen Miller, “Obama: ‘Common Sense Regulation’ On Gun Owners’ Rights,” ABC News, 2/15/08)
MARCH 2008: Obama Campaign “Would Not Elaborate On Whether The Senator Supports The D.C. Gun Ban.” “Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, said Mr. Obama ‘believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.’ ‘He also believes that the Constitution permits state and local governments to adopt reasonable and common-sense gun safety measures,’ she said, but would not elaborate on the whether the senator supports the D.C. gun ban.” (Gary Emerling, “Nation Awaits D.C. Handgun Ruling,” The Washington Times, 3/17/08)
APRIL 2008: Barack Obama Says “I Confess I Obviously Haven’t Listened To The Briefs And Looked At All The Evidence.” CHARLIE GIBSON: “Senator Obama, the District of Columbia has a law — it’s had a law since 1976; it’s now before the United States Supreme Court — that prohibits ownership of handguns, a sawed-off shotgun, a machine gun or a short-barrelled rifle. Is that a law consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?” OBAMA: “Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, and, you know, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use i t. And I think that it is going to be important for us to reconcile what are two realities in this country. There’s the reality of gun ownership and the tradition of gun ownership that’s passed on from generation to generation. You know, when you listen to people who have hunted, and they talk about the fact that they went hunting with their fathers or their mothers, then that is something that is deeply important to them and, culturally, they care about deeply. But you also have the reality of what’s happening here in Philadelphia and what’s happening in Chicago.” (Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate, Philadelphia, PA, 4/16/08
JUNE 2008: Barack Obama Says He Wants To “Wait And See How The Supreme Court Comes Down.” OBAMA: “What I have said is that I do not — what I have said is, is that I’m a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but I do not think that that precludes local governments being able to provide some commonsense gun laws that keep guns out of the hands of gangbangers or children, that local jurisdictions are going to have different sets of problems, and that this is a very fact-intensive decision that has to be made. But I do think that the Second Amendment is an individual right. So, what I would like to do is wait and see how the Supreme Court comes down, and evaluate the actual reasoning in the case to see how broad or narrow the decision’s going to be.” (Barack Obama, Press Conference, Chicago, IL, 6/25/08)
JUNE 2008: The Obama Campaign Says An Unnamed Was “Inartful” In Telling The Chicago Tribune That Barack Obama Thought The Handgun Ban Was Constitutional “With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.’s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an ‘inartful’ statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional. ‘That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position,’ Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.” (Teddy Davis And Alexa Ainsworth, “Obama Camp Disavows Last Year’s ‘Inartful’ Statement On D.C. Gun Law,” ABC News, 6/26/08)
JUNE 2008: ABC News’ Jake Tapper Says Barack Obama Is “Embracing The 5-4 Decision, Written By Justice Antonin Scalia, That Struck Down The DC Handgun Ban As Unconstitutional.” “Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, may have a long record of supporting gun control measures, and he may have seemed to have previously endorsed the DC Handgun Ban. But just now he issued a paper statement embracing the 5-4 decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, that struck down the DC Handgun Ban as unconstitutional.” (Jake Tapper, “Obama Embraces Supreme Court Decision As ‘Well-Needed Guidance,’” ABC News, 6/26/08)
JUNE 2008: Politico’s Jonathan Martin Says Barack Obama “Plainly Trying To Straddle Here.” “He’s plainly trying to straddle here. It actually sounds – especially the ‘Cheyenne and Chicago’ language – quite a bit like the language Howard Dean used in ‘04 when trying to reconcile gun views tailored for pro-gun Vermont with a Dem primary.” (Jonathan Martin, “Obama Careful On Heller,” Politico, 6/26/08)
JUNE 2008: Now, This Afternoon, Barack Obama Says “I’ve Been Very Consistent, I Teach Constitutional Law” Despite His Numerous Contradictory Positions. “Craig Layne, a reporter from WJET-TV in Erie, Penn., today asked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, a question on the DC gun ban. Here’s how the exchange went down. ‘In November you mentioned that the DC handgun law was constitutional,’ Layne said. ‘Now you’re embracing the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision striking down that law—’ ‘That’s not what I said,’ Obama interrupted, per ABC News’ Jennifer Duck. ‘Your aide said that,’ Layne clarified. ‘I don’t know what my aide said but I’ve been very consistent, I teach constitutional law,” Obama said. What I said was that I believe 2nd Amendment as being an individual right and have said that consistently. I also think that individual right is constrained by the rights of the community to maintain issues with public safety. I don’t thi nk those two principles are contradictory and in fact what I’ve been saying consistently is what the Supreme Court essentially said today.’” (Jake Tapper, “Obama Eager To Distance Self From Campaign’s Former Position On DC Handgun Ban,” ABC News, 6/26/08)
###




















RNCs Ad on Comrade Obama’s touchy-feely “I didn’t say that” story on the Second Amendment and gun control flip flops:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifEg1aq6Emo
He is truly Mr. Waffle. BTW, where’s his real birth certificate?
What are people complaining about? Oblahma has always said he was an agent for CHANGE. And he has proven it, his positions CHANGE frequently. We no longer need to merely HOPE for CHANGE. The CHANGE is real! Obama = CHANGE. Positions, CHANGED. Churches, CHANGED. Friends, CHANGED. Mentors, CHANGED. Aides, blamed then CHANGED.
Last but not least,
Grandma, blamed, then praised, DOUBLE CHANGE.
LOL!!!!
“Change you can believe in.”
Got an email from a friend with a motivational poster of obama with the caption
“CHANGE because that’s all you’ll have left when I’m done”
Rezko pal Weinstein indicted
http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/1028369,weinstein062708.article
Does that mean BO will be next? I hope they don’t wait too long.
Ok, so as matter of interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, BHO says that it does create an “individual right” to bear arms but that individual right can be constrained by the community as a matter of public safety. Therefore, . . . that’s where I get lost here. Do I vote for McCain now? Do I hope for a HRC miracle? Do I get to see horns sprout from BHO’s head? Other than trying to show yet another national politician’s perceived inadequacies in light of an expected NRA barrarge, what is the point? Other than “HRC didn’t win so I’m taking my ball home, nyah nyah nyah”, not sure where this goes in dealing with getting competent people elected to office in November. BTW, BHO is “not my guy” and while I will vote for him, he is not my first choice (and neither was HRC, who, by the way, was wonderful today up in Unity, NH).
John McCain for the 44th POTUS.
At least he’s CONSISTENT.
Well said, SusanUnPC. I thought Mr. Hope and Untiy was a new kind of politics. Maybe that was just one side of his personality: “Obama’s conflicting statements” is damning.
OKAY FOLKS…I AM A LITTLE “TICKED”…I just heard on MSNBC that after the Obamas’ gave their checks to donate to Hillary, Hillary turned around and THE CLINTONS DONATED TO HIM THE SAME AMOUNT. Now campaigning for him is bad enough, but when Hillary asks her supporters to donate to her, and then she donates to Obama I think that is WRONG. I hate to say it but I am really losing alot of respect for her.
Donating the same amount. Hmmm. Isn’t that really saying, “We don’t need your money. Here it is, back in your face!”
Maybe this was Clinton’s way of saying “We don’t owe Obama anything“.
It is simply that whatever donations come from his side will be sent back to his side. Even if Hillary has to do so from her personal funds.
That way Hillary is under NO OBLIGATION to the dark side.
DJ:
Don’t be upset with her. She did the right thing!!!
She did this b/c it was a way for her to act with dignity. Obama could have given her campain the louse $2300 silently but instead chose o humiliate her by making a big public splash out of this.
So she turn around and said: here you need it too.
It was great she did that; a way to say: I don’t need your lousy personnal money and everyone to know this.
Don’t forget is money that goes to her and hus campaigns so it’s her ay to say: we are even you don’t
owe me.
GREAT MOVE DJ !!!
DJ:
Don’t be upset with her. She did the right thing!!!
She did this b/c it was a way for her to act with dignity. Obama could have given her campain the louse $2300 silently but instead chose to humiliate her by making a big public splash out of this.
So she turn around and said: here you need it too.
It was great she did that; a way to say: I don’t need your lousy personnal money and everyone to know this.
Don’t forget is money that goes to her and hus campaigns so it’s her ay to say: we are even you don’t
owe me.
GREAT MOVE DJ !!!
Just another example of how Obama will say anything if he thinks that it will get people to vote for him. Too bad his words have no relation to his actions.
Unity might come apart quickly.
http://hoghouseblog.com/2008/06/27/unity-how-about-treachery/
Jun 27
Unity? How about Treachery?
Category: Misc
By Denise Ross
Over at S.D. Watch, Todd Epp has reported a truly breath-taking story that has the potential to derail Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s big Unity push just as it’s beginning.
… the Clinton campaign offered a major fundraiser to the state (SD Dem) party in exchange for two superdelegate votes …
Todd promises more details, and I, for one, am waiting at the edge of my seat. Given what he’s reported so far, this seems to be an ongoing offer from Clinton rather than something that faded away after the June 3 primary.
An intra-party dispute erupted Thursday during the SD Dem Convention in Oacoma. Clinton delegate and Rapid City alderman Malcom Chapman - who introduced Hillary at many of her SD appearances - became angry with SD Dem party chairman Jack Billion for resisting Clinton’s offer. This says to me that Chapman is still trying to proffer such a deal. Indeed, Epp quotes Chapman as saying he has “almost cut the deal” with the Clinton campaign.
Nevermind, I guess, that Chapman almost certainly lacks authority within the SD Dem Party to strike such a deal.
This revelation raises a lot of questions. Here’s what I think they are. Please write in with more analysis.
**Do super-delegates Cheryl Kandaras Chapman (Malcom’s wife & the SD Dem Party’s vice chair) and Sen. Tim Johnson, count as the 2 super-dels sought by Clinton? Or is she seeking 2 additional? (While Johnson endorsed Obama, he has pledged to cast his vote for whomever won SD’s primary, and that’s Hillary, as we all remember well.)
**Are the Clintons mounting a 50-state strategy of their own, seeking similar deals across the nation? If so, does that mean that she’s still aiming for her party’s nomination? What else could it mean?
**Now that word is out about this little escapade, on the eve of the Dems’ big Unity push, how quickly will it sour already fragile relations between Obama and Clinton?
**If you’re Tom Daschle, are you furious or bemused? (Tom, feel free to answer this one directly.)
**If you’re Stephanie Herseth, is this why you skipped the party convention? (It would scare me away were I in her shoes.)
**If you’re Tom Daschle, does this prompt you to make any additional efforts to retire the SD Dem Party’s notorious and seemingly endless debt?
“That’s not the Constitution I used to know!”
His 2004 vote is the one that stands out:
By now we’re used to him doing the flip-flop thing on every tough issue, but to deny a person the right to argue self-defense in that situation is, well, indefensible.
Wow…that is amazing.
Self defense isn’t a good enough reason to protect yourself.
Unless there are claw marks where they dragged the intruder back into the house….what is the probelm?
Obama doesn’t want to empower people on any level…even the most basic.
Warm housing and personal safety…not on his list of important needs. Yet, those are among the most basic drives we have.
He goes against humanity for some liberal ideal that isn’t based in reality. Or isn’t based in the money man’s best interest, as with the housing.
Yep.
I went to the NRA’s website after the Supremes’ ruling yesterday and Obama’s vote on that 2004 bill was mentioned during one of their radio shows.
Obama was one of the VERY FEW who voted in favor of prosecuting a Chicago man for using his legally registered gun on a thief who broke into the man’s home trying to rob him (and God knows what else.)
Now Obama doesn’t know which side to pick.
His judgment is WAY too unstable to be President.
The Dems keep telling us to vote for Obama on the issues. McCain isn’t one of us. Hillary’s supporters simply have to “come home.”
Okay…can someone please tell me where Mr. Political Expediency stands on the issues? Today, at least? Because even the real Messiah has no idea what his positions will be tomorrow.
This fraud hasn’t an ounce of integrity. Gawd, what a pig in a poke the DNC has bought itself.
“conflicting traditions” . ?
“out of the hands of bangbangers” ? Those would be “illegal” if the “banger” has a record.
I also think that individual right is constrained by the rights of the community to maintain issues with public safety ???
Why conflate the illegal use / possesion of firearms with “individual right is constrained” ?
Just because BO can’t resolve these to a worthy position, why should I suffer his fools?
Great post SusanUnPC !! Can’t believe he answered like that to the PA reporter; what a jerk…
Obama, a compromised candidate, takes compromising stances on just about any issue and will have a compromised Presidency from day one.
Do not let this buffoon be elected.
My favorite news headline of the week was the following from the AP that I saw listed at the top of Yahoo’s home page and USA Today and others:
“McCain backs gun decision, Obama straddles issue”
Ouch! That had to hurt.
Here’s the story:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iws_NUP4CywbKPEd1Czf0PY8NWVAD91I2TO82
How nice to finally see some reporting from the MSM about The Precious One and all his waffling.
http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490#826
Share
Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. (IL)
Current Office: U.S. Senate
Current District: Junior Seat
Office Seeking: President
First Elected: 11/02/2004
Last Elected: 11/02/2004
Next Election: 2010
Party: Democratic
Biographical
Voting Record
Issue Positions (Political Courage Test)
Interest Group Ratings
Speeches and Public Statements
Endorsements
Additional Biographical Information
Campaign Finances
Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff.
Urge Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. to fill out the Political Courage Test
Campaign Webmail:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact …
Campaign Website:
http://www.barackobama.com/
What is the Political Courage Test?
Where’s the guy who once ridiculed folks who cling to religion and guns?
In the locker room, cross-dressing for the general election, that’s where. He’ll come out with a tough on crime, moderate pro-gun costume.
Or as I call him, Foxy Reagan…
We just need to call him the “Yellow Button Man”…
TOMORROW IS THE GAY PRIDE PARADE……IS OBAMA GOING TO BE THERE ? HE DOESNT LIKE THIS ISSUE EITHER. MAYBE HE WILL SEND HIS NEW SURROGATE, HILLARY. OR MAYBE HIS TRAINED @#$%^%$#WIFE CAN GO AND REPRESENT HIS HIGHNESS……UNITY MY ASS….NOTICE NO BILL CLINTON YET. IF I WAS HIM, I WOULDNT PLAY ANY POLITICS WITH OBAMA AFTER WHAT HE PULLED WITH THE RACE CARD ON BOTH CLINTONS. I CAN SEE HILLARY PLAYING, BUT BILL IS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, OWES THE DNC NOTHING. I WISH HE WOULD COME OUT AND SAY THE HELL WITH THE DEMS, LOSERS…..I STILL ADMIRE HILLARY, HAS TO BE HARD FOR HER THAT CLOSE TO THE SMELL OF BO.
Something tells me Obama is in for a whole lot of trouble.
Now, about that “I teach constitutional law” thing–how many people have ever taken a course taught by Obama? You’d think, being the superstar that he is (in his own mind, at any rate), there should be no shortage of people bragging about their grades they got from the next and future President of the United States! His departmental colleagues ought to be weighing in on the guy’s brilliance. I mean, we do know for a fact someone served with John Kerry on those swiftboats–they came forward to endorse their erstwhile comrade in arms. So where are the academic associates and students of Constitutional Law Professor Barack Obama?
There’s a difference between “teaching” constitutional law and “litigating” constitutional law. He’s done the former but not the latter.
I get that. So: where are his former students singing praises to the guy’s brilliance and grasp of constitutional law? If you were a student of Obama’s and got an “A” in his class, would you not want to make that known to the world?
Double faced indeed. Oh, not only that, he is also thick skinned. He has been pandering to the Clintons and their supporters. Now he has all but praises for them. Make me want to puke.
PUMA.
As a Clinton supporter, I feel really insulted.
How Hillary can stomach BO is beyond me.
BO really stinks, doesn’t it, I mean doesn’t he?
I would love for any of the Obamabots who’ve been using the Supreme Court/Roe v Wade scare tactic as a “reason” to vote for Obama to NOW come and explain how Obama could actually endorse a decision rendered by ANTONIN SCALIA!!
If Barry’s willing to accept a Scalia decision on a 2nd Amendment case, then how are we to trust his selections for future Supreme Court openings?
(Incidentally, I think the majority decision is little more than an example of right-wing “judicial activism”. The Constitution–AS WRITTEN BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS–states, quite clearly, that “a well-regulated militia” is the sole basis of the 2nd Amendment. There quite simply is NO guarantee–outside of the militia clause–for an individual’s right to bear arms. The Court’s majority decision relies on an INTERPRETATION that doesn’t exist in the Constitution’s WORDS, and, according to the philosophy of “judicial activism”, a judge rules NOT on the actual words but an interpretation. Obviously, when it’s something that the right-wing supports, it’s not “judicial activism”.)
They also think that the second amendment legally allows them to insurrect against the government, despite that clear reference to the “security of a free State” as well as the Congress’ power to repress insurrections in Art. 1 S. 8.
The Clintons were MAJOR targets of hatred and fear by these individuals.
[...] Two-Faced: Obama Tries to Straddle Both Sides of Gun Rights, No Quarter, June 27, [...]
[...] Two-Faced: Obama Tries to Straddle Both Sides of Gun Rights, No Quarter, June 27, [...]