We have been exposed to an education lately on International Law and the Rule of Law. Everyone has been following the torture memos and some of us have a quaint understanding of how the U.S. signing the treaty at the Geneva Convention forcibly influenced laws that we were required, by the treaty, to add to our books. That treaty suits us and most of us don’t argue with the fact that we signed and ratified it.

But what if the U.S. was considering signing an international treaty that – in essence – violated our Bill of Rights? Remember. We DO have rights that some countries do not afford their subjects.

Back up. Did you know that the U.S. does not have to pass any laws to inhibit your 2nd amendment rights? If the UN sanctions an international treaty then any country signing and ratifying the treaty is under international law, bypassing our traditional balance-of-power safeguards. An international treaty signed by the president only needs to be ratified by the Senate. The House does not get to vote on it and U.S. courts cannot alter international law. It becomes law.

In 1997 Bill Clinton signed CIFTA but the Senate has refused to ratify it. This law would make it illegal for you to reload your own ammunition, register to carry your gun to go out hunting, possibly make gun clubs illegal and grant the other treaty countries the right to have you extradited to their country for prosecution on charges such as selling a gun at a gun show and that gun ending up in their very democratic (NOT) country. Article V Jurisdiction. They would know if you did anything wrong because the treaty calls for each country to openly share everything they know about you and your gun ownership and transfers with all those friendly South American countries. Article XIII Exchange of Information.

There are more anti-gun provisions in this treaty than all the gun control laws we have seen come before congress this year combined. I don’t know about you but I do not relish the thought of Hugo Chavez getting upset with one of my comments and demanding that I be delivered unto him – on some trumped up gun charge – for a heaping helping of some Venezuelan justice that could make even Dick Cheney cringe.

In Article IV, parties commit to adopting “necessary legislative or other measures” to criminalize illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms. Remember that “illicit manufacturing” includes reloading and modifying or assembling any firearm in any way. And, while treaties should not trump the Bill of Rights (in contrast to what the Supreme Court held in Missouri v. Holland), they do have the force of statute — which would mean that the Obama administration could promulgate regulations on the basis of this treaty which would ban any modification or machining of any firearm in any manner whatsoever except by license of the government.

Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized acts should include “association or conspiracy” in connection with “said offenses” — which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.

Knowing that bills such as HB 45 (Bobby Rush – IL) that could put you in jail for keeping a gun anywhere your 17 year old son could reach, such as in his hand while he is squirrel hunting, will likely fail, President Obama went to Mexico and pledged to his “american idol” fan base there that he would urge the U.S. Senate to ratify this treaty, giving the United Nations the right to dictate the terms under which you may own a gun – or not.

Dianne Feinstein and Richard Durbin have been leading an effort to get this treaty ratified since February 26, 2009 and will lead the charge, along with John Kerry to push this through the Senate. There are four binding acts the U.S. Senate can execute without judicial oversight or input from the House of Representatives. Confirm Judges; Confirm Cabinet Appointments; Confirm Ambassadors and Ratify Treaties.

The administration softened up the electorate by publishing the Right Wing Extremist report and there may just be enough “lie down and surrender our rights to keep the radical conservative kooks and Ron Paul supporters away from a loaded gun” support to allow the Senate to ratify this treaty without public protest.

We must not let this happen. It is going to take action by people other than the NRA to stop this. Anyone who believes that the “rule of law” in this country should be written in this country under our system of creating law should act. That means contacting your U.S. Senators, sharing this article and urging all of your friends to take action as well.

Here are some links to give you a background on this. Share this information freely while you still have the freedom to do so.

Two minute CNN video briefly explaining it.

Gun Owners of America’s position against the treaty.

Feinstein’s Letter promoting the treaty.

The Treaty.

To ascertain with certainty that we will be joining a fine club, here is the guest list showing those who have RSVP’d.

CNN, in the url, calls it a “Shooting Spree”. You know, like a fun time shopping before the wedding. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/11/alabama.shooting.spree/index.html

Personally, I think these insane incidents involving guns are completely avoidable.

I also know that we have a mixed crowd here and I’m pissing off some friends. Too bad because I want you to for once, just to humor old Hampster I’d like you to ask yourself this question.

Would he have been able to go from house to house killing all those people with a Knife?

Or maybe if he used a machete or a high powered hunting bow.  How about that ancient weapon sometimes called the partizane?  I know.  If he had no access to guns he would have used his fancy bullwhip he picked up in Mexico.

By the time McLendon ended his rampage, he had fatally shot his mother and set fire to her house, and killed his grandparents, his aunt and uncle, the wife and child of a sheriff’s deputy, and three other people, according to King and the coroners of the two counties where the shootings occurred.

“He was shooting at just ordinary people going about their business” said Alabama state Sen. Harri Anne Smith.

Yeah, I know the lie "People kill, not guns".  Bullshit!  Guns are enablers.  Guns are the modern machine which enables a crazy person to step over the edge and commit mass murder.  We would not have had Columbine, Virginia Tech or any number of mass killings, if it was not so easy to get a gun in this country.  You can say I want to take away your guns and you wouldn't kill anyone.  Then I say there is no other reason to have a gun which has only one purpose, killing.  That argument sits no better with me than the asshat who refuses to give up his gas gussler, or recycle at his home.  I work for one of those and the obstinance is quite funny.  "I don't believe in recycling"  I can afford the gas" etc.

I think it is time for this country to put the ball in the gun owner's court.  If you want to keep hunting or even target shooting, then find a way to develop single shot weapons for those purposes.  We must do away with automatic or repeating weapons in the hands of anyone but professionals.

Wait.  I think I hear someone saying, "If you take away the guns only the crooks will have guns".  More bullshit from the industry.  If we stop manufacturing them then nobody will have them.

I was about to be funny and say Please don't shoot me.  Then I remembered something else.  How liberal talk show hosts and gay mayors tend to get shot.  Because people with guns use them while the rest of us shut up and hide.

Cross posted from my home at Partizane.com because somethings are too important to keep to oneself.

The NRA has released the same ad in English, above, and in Spanish, below. The ad is a 45 second spot. The ad is running Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania.

Return to Main

How are the markets doing? Where are you at on the bailout deal?

OPEN THREAD.

Up first, we have this lovely button:

For the family that prays for Obama, stays together, or something like that. Well, if what the NY Post had about Obama potentially violating the Logan Act* by attempting to delay troop withdrawal from Iraq to suit HIS political purposes is true, risking lives as a result, he’s gonna need a lot of those prayers. See, it’s illegal – some might even say TREASONOUS – for a civilian to work against a presidential administration in a foreign country. Oopsy daisy!!

Then there is this nice little bumper sticker for all you Catholics out there! You can put this right next to the sticker for your parochial school!

Oh, great! Now I know what to get my good friend, Divine Democrat! Ahem.

And finally, last but not least, there is this:

All hail, the Obama Faithful!! Oh, wait – am I misreading that? Nope, I don’t think I am. That may not be exactly what they WANTED to convey, at least consciously, but that’s about what they seem to expect from their followers – complete and utter devotion. Praise Obama – he has come to liberate us from our pesky morals, our integrity, our sense of decency and fair play! That must be the “Change” Obama promised to bring us!! Hallelujah!!

And just in case you think I am making this up, here is the letter from the Obama Camp:

Dear friends,
Great news! We now have faith merchandise available for you to show your support for Barack Obama as a person of faith.

Check out the Believers for Barack, Pro-Family Pro-Obama, and Catholics for Obama buttons, bumper stickers and signs….

Believers for Barack rally signs and bumper stickers, along with all Pro-Family Pro-Obama merchandise, are appropriate for people of all faith backgrounds. We’ll soon be rolling out merchandise for other religious groups and denominations, but I wanted to get this out to you without delay.

Take good care,

Paul Monteiro
Deputy Director of Religous (sic) Affairs
Obama for America

Oh, YAY! And God-O-Meter said there will be more to come, like “Clergy for Change.” Oh, I cannot WAIT to get one of those! Actually, yes, yes I can. Many of you will like THIS one: “Pro-Israel Pro-Obama.” I wonder how HAMAS and The Nation of Islam will feel about that one…I guess Obama can ask his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, about that.

Now some of you heathens out there might be just a bit sceptical about Obama’s reaching out to the religious among us. Some of you might just be bitterly clinging to his comments about religious folk bitterly clinging to their guns and religion. Oh, ye of little faith!! He cares about you, he really does. Didn’t you see the BUTTON?? Or the STICKER?? C’mon! Don’t play hard to get! Obama loves you, this I know! For his minions have bludgeoned me with that claim for weeks now! I mean – because he shows us in so many ways: FISA, public campaign funds, off-shore drilling, NAFTA, gun control…Oh, I could go on and on with all the ways Obama’s Words have touched our lives. Praise the One who can stop the waters rising, and slow their very movement! Now the Faithful may proudly display the object of their veneration right on their cars and their lapels! Will wonders never cease?!

But wait! There is one more left to see. This courtesy of my talented partner who wanted to make sure we were all represented. Here it is:

Step right up! Order yours today!!

* Text of the Logan Act: Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

The repudiation of Barack Obama continues unabated. It is something so unprecedented in American history to have so many rebel against the presumptive Democratic nominee even before he has been nominated.

Yet another anti-Obama website has been launched and this one is by former supporters of the very junior Senator from Illinois.

The Chicago Tribune’s columnist John Kass picks up the story of Obama’s supporters now wincing.

When Jesse Jackson’s Castrato-gate or the Barack Obama Nuts Controversy or whatever you want to call it erupted last week—as captured by the hot microphones of Fox News—terrible cries of pain went unnoticed.

Not from Obama, who, as presidential historians will tell us after his inauguration in January, was the great beneficiary of the rhetorical (and never actually attempted) Jacksonian castration, and no cries from Jackson, either.

Jackson’s too busy to shriek. He’s suffering the ambition of African-American politicos eager to replace him as America’s race broker. And he’s been hooted down in the style of pre-Revolutionary France, by white liberals who once feared him, though they no longer feel compelled to feign interest in Jackson’s ridiculous rhymes.

The cries of pain came not from Obama or Jackson but from the American political left, from scribes and liberal editorial writers and broadcast analysts and eager bloggers. The true believers who evangelized that Obama would transcend politics as we knew it are suffering a Barackian hangover.

Greedily, they drained the kegs once full of sweet Obama Kool-Aid, drained them to the dregs and mopped up the remains with stale crusts. The inevitable happened—the pain that comes as everything finally becomes clear, in the rosy-fingered light of a terrible dawn.

Obama used them to crush the Clintons, but now the left is finally realizing it’s been betrayed, on issue after issue, with Obama changing his positions in order to defeat a tired and disillusioned Republican Party in November.

They’re at the dance now and he’s the one with the keys and he’s the only ride they’ve got. And they don’t like it.

He has flip-flopped again and again, on campaign finance, on government eavesdropping of overseas phone calls, on gun control and even Iraq. Future President Obama now says he’ll listen to his generals about when to withdraw. He didn’t say he’d listen to the commissars of the blogosphere.

And his cheerleaders are beginning to realize that Obama may not be the Arthurian knight in shining armor, that he may not be Mr. Tumnus, the gentle forest faun of our presidential politics. Months after his inauguration, after he makes Billy Daley the secretary of the treasury and Michael Daley the secretary of zoning and promotes Patrick Fitzgerald to become the attorney general of Mars, the political left may figure out that Obama is a Chicago politician.

“Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential campaign could hold fast to every position, steer clear of the stumbling blocks of nuance and never make a mistake,” wrote Bob Herbert in The New York Times. “But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader—more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most. . . . Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He’s lurching right when it suits him, and he’s zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash.”

This panic of the left—particularly among many political media types—is profoundly instructive to foreigners seeking to understand American character. The American media elite chose to portray Obama as some kind of knight in armor. They’re analysts. Yet they were desperate to believe in a political fairy tale from Chicago. Somewhere in this desperate yearning is an answer.

Obama is not their fool. And he’s not weak. He got down on one knee to the Chicago Democratic Machine and didn’t make any waves and asked that it make him a U.S. senator. He lectured the Africans about political corruption and kept his mouth shut about corruption in Chicago, and the national press ignored the inconsistency and pampered and protected him. He waited and he’s ready and now they’re worried? Too late, boys and girls.

I don’t mean to pick on Mr. Herbert, an elegant writer. His is but one of many voices, stunned on the side of the road, wondering what happened. I felt the same Kool-Aid hangover, and the same whiplash, but from the opposite direction years ago, when I was run down in the middle of a paragraph by a clown car driven by Karl Rove.

The Bush White House became the champion of big government, of big spending, of Jack Abramoff and of perjury under oath. The clowns boiled out of the car and I watched them go, taking the Republican Party with them, dragging it out into the desert, where they’d dug a big hole and stuffed it with Kool-Aid-addled conservatives.

So I have some sympathy for those on the left when it comes to Obama. They feel jilted, and the story was of a growing sense of betrayal, until Rev. Jackson whispered his desire to remove Obama’s valuables.

Then the left joined in with the right, and with the viewers of Fox News in the front row—representing those Reagan Democrat votes Obama will need in November—we all pounded Jackson, righteously, in Obama’s name.

From my blog, By The Fault.

On July 3, Barack Obama revealed once and for all that he has run a fraudulent campaign in his attempt to secure the Democratic nomination for President. The foundation of Obama’s campaign had been his claim that he was the anti-war alternative in his opposition to Bush’s war in Iraq.
 
Now, in a North Dakota campaign event, Obama has declared that he will consult with the generals and “refine his position” on the Iraq war. The Washington Post headlined: “Obama May Consider Slowing Iraq Withdrawal.” But the real message is clear: Obama is moving rapidly away from his earlier 11-month or 16-month timetables for withdrawal and towards full support for endless war, conflict, violence, and bankruptcy in Iraq.
 
Samantha Power had confessed Obama’s doubletalk on Iraq months ago. The handwriting is now on the wall: Obama will soon go to Iraq, meet with General Petraeus, and then announce his Baghdad road conversion to a policy of open-ended military occupation, oblivious to the immense human costs.
 
Soon there will be no difference at all between Obama and McCain on the Iraq war, and the Democratic Party will have missed yet another historic opportunity to help the American people end Bush’s and Cheney’s failed Neo-Conservative policies. McCain is exploiting Obama’s radical shifts in position as examples that Obama has no principles, but only opportunism and expediency, and that his much-touted soaring words mean absolutely nothing.

We Democrats now have our last chance to reflect: do we really want to give our nomination to this little-known newcomer who solicited support as a peace advocate, but has now unmasked himself as being a candidate with positions closer to McCain on Iraq?

OBAMA BETRAYS DEMOCRATS ON FISA, NAFTA, CAMPAIGN FINANCE, THE DEATH PENALTY, AND MUCH MORE

From the instant that he felt that the Democratic nomination was in his hands, Obama has moved relentlessly to the right in a breathtaking, stunning exhibition of cynicism, duplicity, and fraudulent campaigning. Everything he stood for has been thrown overboard, and Obama has broken his verbal contract with his own core voters and donors.
 
Obama promised to stop Bush’s assault on the Constitution and civil liberties, and end illegal wiretapping. Now, Obama will vote for the Republican leaning compromise on the FISA bill, including immunity for the telecoms – something only yesterday he promised the Democrats who supported him he would filibuster.
 
Obama raised money from grassroots Democrats on the premise that their small donations would allow him to be free of the corrupting influence of big money, big business, and special interests, but he has now broken his promise by opting out of public financing for his fall campaign, junking the cause of political reform he claimed to champion.
 
In Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama posed as a critic of free trade sellouts like NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO, specifically telling voters that voting for Hillary Clinton would be voting to support NAFTA. Now Obama has told Fortune magazine that he is a great friend of free trade and the “market.”
 
Obama now openly supports the death penalty, more of Bush’s faith-based theocratic subsidies, and the “merit pay” assault on teachers. He wants to cut the corporate income tax, and he now opposes attempts to curb hand gun violence.
 
In a most glaring betrayal to his contract with the Democratic base, Obama’s current team of economic advisers suggests that he will soon come out for the partial privatization of Social Security, camouflaged as “entitlement reform.”
 
In short, Obama intends to betray not just his own basic commitments, but the historical foundations of the Democratic Party going back to Franklin D. Roosevelt. The modern Democratic Party was built on the New Deal Democrats, a party of shared responsibility, and a contract to be the voice and champion of working class Americans.
 
Obama’s “new coalition” dismantles the REAL Democratic Party and replaces it with an elite party of Neo-Liberals, stealing the mantle of FDR.

SENATOR CLINTON MUST BE OUR NOMINEE

DEMOCRATS DID NOT VOTE FOR THE OBAMA WHO HAS BEEN

RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AFTER JUNE 3RD

If Obama imitates McCain on so many issues, the November election will come down to a choice between two individuals, and a fraudulent Obama will not fare well against war hero McCain, who is seen by voters as a straight shooter.
 
McCain will point out that voters cannot trust the disingenuous Obama, and on that, McCain will be correct. Fortunately, Obama has tipped his hand by dropping his mask too soon: there is no Democratic nominee until the Roll Call of the States on August 27, 2008 in Denver.
 
We are not calling for some futile and self-defeating gesture – we are pointing to the path that leads to victory.
 
With Senator Clinton, we have a superior, battle-tested, and winning candidate who is waiting in the wings, ready, and willing to take over. Clinton would be a reliable leader on the issues that have built the Democratic Party.  She has stood firm on her positions — past and present — even when it is not politically expedient. 

The lesson is clear: the Democratic Party cannot win back the White House without the support of the New Deal Democratic base and their ideals.
 
The Democratic Convention in Denver must put forth a candidate that represents the values of the Party of FDR and that will win the hearts, minds, and votes of Democrats in November.
 
The Barack Obama running after June 3rd is not that candidate.
 
We must have an open convention in Denver — not a thoughtless coronation — so that we can seriously deliberate the far-reaching choices the party must make in this time of war and economic depression.

175 PATRIOTS CAN SAVE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
BY NOMINATING THE TRUER DEMOCRAT

The fate of the United States — and the future of the Democratic Party – now rests with a minimum of 175 Democratic delegates who must now exercise their mature political judgment in the service of their country, and turn away from Obama to support Senator Clinton.
 
As of now, Obama has about 2229.5 delegate votes, with 1766.5 pledged delegates and 463 super delegates.
 
Clinton has 1896.5 delegate votes, with 1639.5 pledged and 257 super delegates.
 
Shift just 175 delegates from Obama to Clinton, and Obama’s power grab comes to a halt.
 
There must be no nomination of Obama on the first ballot. Once Obama has failed to secure the nomination on the first ballot, the party will be able to reflect on who the nominee ought to be, based on the experiences of June, July, and August.
 
Senator Clinton is pledged to an orderly, sane, and secure pullout. Clinton wants mandatory universal health care and a freeze on foreclosures.  She wants to shift the federal gasoline tax away from motorists, truckers, and farmers and towards the Oil Industry.

Obama is on the wrong side of all of these issues.
 
Hillary Clinton is and has always been on the side of traditional Democratic Party values.

We want a president from the Democratic Party, not from a small group of elite, libertarian Neo-Liberals. Lexington and Concord were started by a few dozen farmers.
 
Does the Democratic Party still have 175 patriots with the courage to take a stand?

PUMAS URGE YOU TO BRING TO AND END WHAT HAS BEEN A MOST FRAUDULENT CAMPAIGN

We are PUMAs — Democrats who reject an automatic proxy vote.
 
Instead, we are fighting for real Democratic Party values and the future of the party we love and still claim as our own.
 
We call on the delegates to the Denver convention to search their consciences, their experiences in past elections, and their own common sense. 

Our party has had enough of defeat and retreat. We must not allow the DNC to impose on us yet another losing General Election candidate.
 
Obama’s anemic poll numbers already foreshadow defeat in November, and his continuing sellout on the issues is only making matters worse.
 
We urge you to reconsider your vote for Obama, and to instead vote for Senator Clinton — the strongest candidate, the people’s choice in the popular vote, and the candidate who has and will continue steadfastly to represent the core pillars of the Democratic Party. 

Vote to seat Michigan and Florida at full strength as elected in the January primary. Organize your fellow delegates to block Obama.
 
Vote for Clinton, for victory in November, and for an end to the long nightmare of the Iraq war. 

Will Bower (in cooperation with other PUMAs)
PUMA / Just Say NO DEAL
PUMA08.com

It’s worth the read. Part one starts out like this:

In 1998, as six years of a national campaign to demonize First Lady Hillary Clinton — funded by conservatives and rooted in profound anti-feminism — was reaching a fevered crescendo, then-conservative David Brock (now of Media Matters) penned a book called The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. The publisher’s note for the tome says of its subject: “No public figure in contemporary life has elicited more polarized reactions than Hillary Rodham Clinton. The first presidential spouse who pursued a major policymaking role, the beleaguered first lady has been a heroine and role model to her feminist allies – and a malevolent, power-mad shrew to her conservative foes.”

Sometime in the last decade, her liberal foes evidently decided that whole “malevolent, power-mad shrew” thing sounded pretty good, too.

Throughout the course of the Democratic primary, it was neatly repackaged as “wildly ambitious person who will do anything in her voracious quest to win including destroying the Democratic Party while cackling monstrously and whose womanness totally doesn’t matter we swear.” The classic misogynist charge once used against Clinton by the vast right-wing conspiracy became the rallying cry of large swaths of the erstwhile reality-based community.

Without a hint of irony.

Read the rest ->

Part two starts out like this:

It was an indication of how thoroughly the left co-opted the use of the GOP and media-created scandals, to smear Hillary Clinton during the presidential primaries, that the Republicans weren’t even mentioning them much anymore, content to let the Left do its dirty work. There was little reason for GOP operatives to get their hands dirty reviving the villainous First Lady Macbeth caricature, when many liberals were happy to do it for them.

Not content to merely destroy the entire Democratic party single-handedly, Hillary Clinton was hell-bent on murder. Evidently having failed to satiate her bloodlust after murdering Vince Foster – or such was the claim of her ideological enemies, a charge still being chanted like a demonic incantation by rightwing pain-maker Rush Limbaugh – now she was openly lusting for the assassination of her opponent, Barack Obama. (That is not to suggest there were no legitimate concerns about her statement.) And Randi Rhodes – a “progressive talk radio personality” – fresh from calling Clinton a “fucking whore,” fanned the same flames when she announced fearing for her life after delivering the insult to someone who routinely has her enemies whacked.

Give this a read. Although stomach-churning, it calls out the that orange place and Randi Rhodes for their smears. And it’s not a bad thing to remember why we’re still fighting for HRC.

2) This morning, CNN has a story about Clinton supporters not going for Obama. According to a poll, fewer Clinton supporters say they will vote for Obama than a month ago. (See also: “Obama Fails to Attract Hillary’s Supporters.”)

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Friday, the number of Clinton supporters who plan to defect to Republican Sen. John McCain’s camp is down from one month ago, but — in what could be an ominous sign for Obama as he seeks to unify the party — the number of them who say they plan to vote for Obama is also down, and a growing number say they may not vote at all.

In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey completed in early June before the New York senator ended her White House bid, 60 percent of Clinton backers polled said they planned on voting for Obama. In the latest poll, that number has dropped to 54 percent.

In early June, 22 percent of Clinton supporters polled said they would not vote at all if Obama were the party’s nominee, now close to a third say they will stay home.

Looks like PUMA and Obama’s many position switches may have had an effect here. Unfortunately, CNN still ascribes this unwillingness to vote for Obama to sour grapes rather than for any principles or ideas about leadership.

“These things always take time to heal,” said Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst. “I think Clinton’s supporters are waiting to see if Sen. Obama will pick her as vice president. That would certainly be very healing to them.”
———————————
“If he doesn’t pick her, a later stage of grief is depression and then acceptance,” Schneider said. “In the end I expect Clinton supporters will accept Obama, because they will listen to Sen. Clinton, who has said the stakes are too high for Democrats to sulk.”

Then the article slinks down to talking about how Bill Clinton needs to “repair” his image. Blech. CNN would have spent their time better to figure out exactly what the voters’ objections to Obama really are.

But I guess it’s a step up from saying it’s just a racist plot against Obama, right??? Racists, sore losers, bitter old white women and, later, just bitter white people. And the ideas that we need to just “get over it” and “come home.”

Yeah, yeah, we know. The beatings will continue until morale improves. Yada, yada, yada.

3) Over at Redstate, conservatives ponder Obama’s position(s) on abortion and figure he might not be so bad after all. Of course, they also recognize you can’t tell where he really stands. Hey, Redstate, we can’t tell either!

4) ABCnews blogger Greenburg finds it interesting that Obama has supported the gun ban reversal and death penalty decisions from SCOTUS. In particular, Obama’s position on the abortion question (saying mental distress is not a reason) is one held previously only by Justices Thomas and Scalia. Not the usual playground buddies for a Democrat.

“. . . McCain and . . . Obama praised the conservative’s position [on the DC gun ban]. The same thing happened the day before in another sharply divided 5-4 case over whether states can execute people who rape, but do not kill, children. This time conservatives lost, but again McCain and obama were on the same side, blasting the liberals’ decision striking down laws that allowed the death penalty for child rape.

“But on two of the biggest social controversies to reach the Court this year, Obama, too, [like McCain] sided with conservatives — rejecting opinions by the liberal justices who, presumably, are of the kind he would appoint if elected President.

But that’s nothing compared to Obama’s most recent comments about the most controversial social issue of them all: abortion.
————

. . . there’s no mistaking that Obama says he no longer will support what’s long been a cornerstone of the abortion rights debate: The Court’s insistence that laws banning abortions after the fetus is viable (now about 22 weeks) contain an exception to allow doctors to perform them if necessary to protect a pregnant woman’s mental health.”

Greenburg notes that Obama’s current position is in opposition to the current law of the land on this issue. She notes as well that his current position contradicts earlier legislation co-sponsored by Obama himself.

“The Freedom of Choice Act specifically allows abortions after viability where necessary to sprotect a woman’s health, and the legislation refers repeatedly to the guarantees of Roe and Doe, which protect the right to an abortion where necessary for a woman’s physical and mental health.

One of its co-sponsors? Barack Obama.

5) At fivethirtyeight.com there’s an article from June 26 about which candidate, Obama or McCain, has a problem with his base. The answer is both of them.

We’ve long assumed this about McCain, but this is a change for Obama. It may even be stronger now. We’ll just have to see. Perhaps the more interesting question now is whether or not the Obama campaign cares if its most enthusiastic base is fully behind him. Judging by his recent moves, I’d say no.

6) At therealbarackobama, Steve Diamond writes that the American Federation of Teachers is defending Obama and his education advisor Linda Darling-Hammond and suggests the AFT doesn’t want Obama and Darling-Hammond’s close relationship to Bill Ayers to get much attention. Both the AFT and National Education Association will endorse Obama.

Diamond wrote about the relationship between Obama, Darling-Hammond and Ayers before.

When I pointed out at the Edwize Blog sponsored by the United Federation of Teachers, the big New York division of the AFL-CIO affiliated AFT, that Darling-Hammond backs the same key policy proposal (repayment of centuries of “education debt” to people of color) as Bill Ayers, long time education advocate and co-worker of Obama, and that Ayers and Obama are far from being “casual acquaintances” as Leo Casey of the AFT had contended, Casey replied with the following false claims . . .

Diamond outlines Casey’s counterclaims and then states his position on those. While all this is a little “weedy” for those not involved in education, it is noteworthy that Diamond’s ends his post with the following:

While no one could, or should, impute to Obama any support for the terroristic activity of Ayers, Dohrn and others, there is an important connection between Ayers’ politics then and his approach to education policy today: Ayers and the Weather Underground promoted a politics built around the absurd idea of “white supremacy,” which Ayers calls even today the “monster in the room” at the heart of American life.

This was linked to another idea that was widely held among the maoist elements that took hold in the early 70s in the US: that American workers and their unions were part of a giant labor aristocracy that exploited workers of the south, the so-called Third World. Inside the US, the Weather Underground argued that a global form of “unequal exchange” was reproduced in the relationship between white and black workers.

Thus, when an idea like repayment of centuries of accumulated “education debt” is proposed as the top priority of the next federal government as it has been by Darling-Hammond, Ladson-Billings and Bill Ayers, all of whom have links to Obama, it is reasonable to ask what Obama’s view are on such a critical issue. The presumptive nominee has yet to explain how it is that his education advisor can promote such an idea and yet he remains silent on it.

I would think the members of America’s teachers’ unions would like to know the answers to such questions as well before they decide how to approach the upcoming elections.

I’ve heard from teachers for a long time now that “there are NO stupid questions, only the ones you don’t ask.” Well, how about asking a few? Of course, even if Obama promised the unions he wouldn’t significantly change education policies they advocate, why should they believe him?

After all, the Obama bus has a lot of blue meat under it already. Of course, teachers’ unions aren’t favorites of a lot of “middle America,” so there may simply be a collective yawn when the unions find themselves at odds with Obama later. Because, you know, all the truly progressive educated people loooooovvvveee Obama. And they make more money than teachers.

Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.

Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.

The privileged Penny Pritzker threw grassroots donors under the bus:

Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

The editors naively think that this is a “new” Barack Obama? Uh, no. That’s the real Barack Obama.

If only the New York Times and other MSM had paid any attention to Tom Buffenbarger, president of the machinists’ union, when he described the REAL Barack Obama:

Read all about what Tom Buffenbarger saw in how the REAL Barack Obama operates (includes stories from Chicago newspapers).

Here are more broken promises that today’s Times editorial lists:

• “The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11. …” [...]
• “The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation. …”
• “On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.”

The editorial closes with these two paragraphs:

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.

Look. The only “change” anyone can believe that Barack Obama will act on is any finger-to-the-wind “change” that helps him achieve his SOLE goal: Winning.

He is not abandoning his principles because he doesn’t have any that he holds dear.

He is not shifting his policies because he is not the policy wonk that Hillary Clinton is, and frankly doesn’t care that much about any policy.

Ambition is a vital trait in a political candidate. Ambition helps a candidate keep going when the going gets tough.

But ambition for the sake of ambition — for the sole objective of winning — is extremely dangerous. It suggests a personality that is wholly self-absorbed and only feigns caring and concern for others.

Hillary Clinton is ambitious. But she also cares deeply about enacting policies dear to her, and has a long track record of actually accomplishing great legislation and programs — particularly for children. Which is why, in my story yesterday morning, “Obama and the hoi aristoi,” I linked to the remarkable essays by Alegre and MarkJay:

“She Changes People’s Lives,” by Alegre

“Four Reasons, By a Father I’ve Come to Know,” by MarkJay

:::::::::::

On February 20, 2008, we posted this YouTube as a warning. If only more people had heeded our warnings — but there was too much of a cult-like adoration of Obama for people to use their common sense, and also do some “due diligence” on this politician:

There’s still time to make this right. Before it’s too late. And the Democrats nominate an ill-qualified, inexperienced shape-shifter as its candidate, and thereby enable the election of John McCain.

There’s still time to nominate Hillary Clinton, who has already WON the key swing states and has already WON the hearts and brains of voters — particularly blue-collar workers who see through charlatans and who KNOW that delivering on promises matters more than speeches.

June 4, 2008: Obama goes to the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC and talks about his (new found) support for Israel. In fact, he contravenes US Policy in his desire to pander to the Israeli lobby. From the CNSNews article, “Obama Departs From U.S. Policy,” he says:

“Let me be clear,” Obama told America’s largest pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, on Wednesday. “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive and that allows them to prosper. But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,” he said in comments widely viewed as intended to win the hearts of Jewish voters.

Well, that’s just jake – he has just ceded Jerusalem to Israel. I wonder how the Palestinians feel about that??

“This statement is totally rejected,” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was quoted as saying.

“The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state,” Abbas said.

I see. They aren’t happy! What a big surprise – Obama continues winning hearts and minds abroad. Ahem.

Oh, here’s a good one – Campaign Finance Reform.

On June 20th, Obama decided to do a 180, and has decided public campaign financing reform might not be the way to go after all!! Oh, and in making this decision, he violated previous statements that should he be the Democratic presidential candidate, he would meet with Senator John McCain to push for public campaign financing. Uh, no. Didn’t bother to have that conversation. What a guy.

This one is big – FISA. You know, the bill that would grant retroactive immunity to the big telecoms, and expand spying powers for the president. Now that Obama thinks he is going to BE president, he wants all the bells and whistles he can get! This is what he said, from the Washington Post:

“It is a close call for me,” Obama told reporters. But he said the addition of the “exclusivity” provision giving power to the secret court, along with a new inspector general role and other oversight additions, “met my basic concerns.” He said the bill’s target should not be the phone companies’ culpability, but “can we get to the bottom of what’s taking place, and do we have safeguards?”

And for some bonus coverage, and this will be a big, huge shock to everyone (not), look who else switched positions?!?!

The Illinois senator’s reversal on the issue has angered liberal groups, but Obama told reporters at a news conference this afternoon that he was satisfied with changes made to the original bill, including a provision that gives a secret court, rather than the White House, the final say on spying procedures. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer also switched sides on the legislation, for the same reasons as Obama.

Uh, ya THINK?? Yes, it pissed off liberal groups – most of us who consider ourselves liberal have been opposed to these changes for quite some time! And we were all pretty vocal about our disgust with President Bush for wanting them. So, Obama said what he had to say to whichever group it was he had to say it on FISA, then he does this little end-run, “Oh, but they have assuaged my concerns, and it isn’t the big phone companies’ problem anyway that they broke the law.” Again, the self-proclaimed Constitutional scholar at work. (Hmmm – I wonder what he means by “Constitutional”? I’m starting to think as in daily constitutional in which changing his policy positions is considered par for the daily course.) Clearly, LOGIC is not his strong suit…

Just a few short days later, Obama is jumping on the Gun Bandwagon, applauding the decision of the Supreme Court on June 26 to support gun ownership. Do I even need to say that he opposed it before he was for it (Political Radar: Obama Camp Disavows “Inartful” Statement? Oh, wait – check that, he was opposed to it when he was in IL, but when he was debating Hillary, he didn’t know WHAT he thought about the DC gun ban because he just didn’t know that much about it, he said, hadn’t seen all of the information on it or anything. Gee – wonder when he got the time to read everything that now allows him to AGREE with the decision?! Yeah, right (for more on this, check out the video from Fox News currently at NoQuarterUSA.net).

Good grief, I am getting DIZZY with all of this spinning around by Obama!!

Whew. Okay, just one more – not because there aren’t more, but really – isn’t all of this making you have vertigo?? Well, this one I think is just perfect – really. It just encapsulates the moral fiber (LOL) of Obama. And as a previous member of this organization, it could not happen to more deserving people who chose to endorse this guy with a very limited number of actual members, and allowed people who were NOT members to vote on this decision…Are you with me? Yep, Move-On.Org! That’s right – they endorsed Obama pretty early on amidst numerous reports of ballot stuffing (oh, now there’s a surprise, too, right?? Uh huh.), and based on approximately 10% of their entire membership – meaning in numbers, not actual members. Anywho, he swatted MoveOn for their ad regarding General Petraeus
recently. (When the vote came up about the ad, he was nowhere to be found, of course, though he had voted on another matter that very day. Whatever. Typical.) Obama slammed 527s in general, even though they have been helping HIM out. No doubt, he is trying to set it up so he won’t be Swiftboated, but it is only Swiftboating when it isn’t true!! Anyway, I wonder how all of those MoveOn members feel now that they have been thrown under the bus? Couldn’t happen to a more deserving organization, if you ask me.

I should add, there is the whole Faith Initiatives thing, though I am not sure he has actually changed his mind on that. Given that TUCC has apparently been the beneficiary of that program, you see, it makes some sense that he is all about it. BUT – for Constitution-loving Americans who believe in the separation of Church and State, the whole program has been a HUGE issue. That Obama wants to continue it, and INCREASE its depth and breadth, is pretty darn surprising (this whole issue has been dealt with a lot here at No Quarter, including one of my posts, so I’ll spare you any more from me on this).

Bear in mind, this is just JUNE. I know there are more, and feel free to add them in the comments. I just can’t take it anymore. My head is already about to explode. I can just imagine – and I know you can – what the MSM and bloggers would be saying if Clinton had made all of these flip flops in just ONE month!! In some ways, it gives me hope – if he keeps this up for the next 7 weeks or so, who KNOWS what might happen at the Convention? You just never know!

Here are more NoQuarter reports on Obama’s inconsistent stands on gun control during the primaries as well as the SCOTUS ruling:

* “Two-Faced: Obama Tries to Straddle Both Sides of Gun Rights,” by SusanUnPC

* “SCOTUS Ruling on Gun Rights Highlights Obama Electability Issues,” by SusanUnPC

* “Obama’s Gangster Mentality,” by SusanUnPC

* “Coattails & Rural Districts,” by Truthteller

* “Kentucky Poll: Wright, Bitterness, Bosnia, Electability,” by Truthteller

* “Obama on Board That Funded Handgun Bans,” by SusanUnPC

* “Handwriting’s on the Wall … Err, the Questionnaire,” by Alegre

* “Obama the Magician,” by Bud White

… 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)

###

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxYmkjuTdDc[/youtube] 

According to a Gallup poll conducted in February 2008, 70% oppose the ban on handguns Barack Obama unequivocally supported in 1996 when he completed and personally amended in handwriting an IVI-IPO questionnaire before his first bid for the Illinois state Senate.  Because that result is consistent with the 68% who voiced opposition to a handgun ban in a Gallup poll conducted in October 2007, one may assume Obama’s support for a complete ban on the “manufacture, sale and possession of handguns” will be explored by Republicans and by 2nd Amendment advocates during the general election cycle.

But this is only a scratch on the surface of Obama’s electability problems as a result of his controversial stances on 2nd Amendment rights.

 Susan Hu already summarized Obama’s shifting stances on the DC Gun Ban:

•  20 NOV 2007: “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.’”
• 11 FEB 2008: Obama support the D.C. handgun ban.  [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wu9jE1MnAE[/youtube]
• 16 APR 2008: “At the Philadelphia debate, ABC News’ Charlie Gibson asked Obama whether the ban was constitutional.  ’Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence,’ he said.”
• 26 JUN 2008: “‘That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position,’ Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.’  The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator’s views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.”

Obama, in other words, believed the DC gun ban was constitutional before he realized this stance was a political liability during the Pennsylvania primary in April.  

Prevaricating and equivocating when asked about the constitutionality of the DC gun ban, the temporizing “constitutional law professor” cannot articulate an unambiguous position.  The American people can, however.  According to the Gallup poll conducted in February of this year, 73% of Americans believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees the rights of all Americans to possess guns.

Out of step, indeed out of touch, with 73% of the American people, Obama, the ostensible constitutional law professor, will have a difficult time justifying his radical stances during the general election cycle, especially as John McCain has been an advocate for overturning the DC for some time.

Be sure to thank Democratic superdelegates for television advertisements similar to the following during the months of August, September, October and November:

 [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifEg1aq6Emo[/youtube]    

Barack Obama: the anti-Constitutional candidate. 

First, we have — shudders — a presumptive presidential candidate who talked gansta style in Philadelphia on June 13th. From my story, “Obama’s Gangster Mentality“:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Obama’s words are dangerously poor examples to our nation’s youth. Obama’s words are unbecoming of a presidential candidate, let alone a president.

We’ve long known that Barack Obama is highly vulnerable on the issue of gun rights due to his all-over-the-map statements on gun ownership rights — and, most seriously, his voting record.

Before gun-lovin’ Idaho’s primary, Obama talked the talk about gun owners’ rights. But, during his terms as an Illinois state senator, he voted for laws that will disturb any gun ownership advocate. A CBS News story, “Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics” — its subtitle is “Eight Years As State Senator Were Full Of Controversial Votes, Including Abortion And Gun Control” — reports:

He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. And the list of sensitive topics goes on.

With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn’t have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes. …

More from “Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics” — “Eight Years As State Senator Were Full Of Controversial Votes, Including Abortion And Gun Control”:

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. …

Now, for today’s new twirl from the typical Obama “dance” around the issues:

Here’s that “inartful statement” featured today at ABC News’s blog, Political Radar:

ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Alexa Ainsworth Report: 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.

The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator’s views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.

In a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote ". . . the 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.’"

http://www.topix.com/content/trb/2007/11/court-to-hear-gun-case

The Chicago Tribune clip from Nov. 20, 2007, is an inaccurate representation of Obama’s views, according to Burton, because the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has refrained from developing a position on whether the D.C. gun law runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

When Obama has been asked on multiple occasions to weigh in on the D.C. gun case he has regularly maintained that the Second Amendment provides an individual right while at the same time saying that right is not absolute and that the Constitution does not prevent local governments from enacting what Obama calls "common sense laws."

Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation’s capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

…

Remember this debate question by ABC’s Charlie Gibson?

Asked by ABC News’ Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms at ABC’s April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."

In stark contrast, Sen. McCain has been a straight-shooter on the issue, reports Political Radar:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., by contrast, has been forthcoming when it comes to the D.C. gun law. 
He signed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, signaling not only his belief in the Second Amendment but also his view that the DC gun ban is incompatible with it.

Our friends at Reason magazine call Obama’s slippery statements “fishy.”

Earlier, Barack Obama had issued a fishy retraction of last year’s unambiguous statement that “the gun ban is constitutional.”

Remind me, would you: What is it that rots from the head?