Homeland Security Report

[smalls1129]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100da...wing-extremism/

 

You can take the report for what it is, just a couple of questions:

 

1) Heck, mz the pussy and a couple of others: can you at least see why some of us are getting a little worried about our rights?

 

2) This isn't really a question, but I was on a mission to find another source other than Fox. Preferably NBC (MSNBC) or CNN. But they have not covered it at all (at least from my Google search) I find this odd b/c NBC particularly normally has a field day with these such reports.

[heckofajobbrownie]

What rights are you talking about?

 

But my quick answer is no - I don't see what you're worried about. I see a feedback loop of unfounded paranoia.

 

There are legitimate critiques about the bailouts, about the size of the stimulus and the budget plans. A lot of them come from the left of the aisle as well. There are plenty of legitimate places to disagree that have to do with what's actually happening, what's being proposed, if these are the right decisions, etc.

 

Then there's the stuff you guys obsess about: seizing people's guns and their first amendment rights; new world order bullshit, changing the currency, Obama's birth certificate, ACORN, the black power movement, the presence of FEMA concentration camps; the movement toward socialism and even fascism - this is all fringe nonsense.

 

So I'm with DHS on this one. The danger of fringe individuals or groups acting of this nonsense is far, far greater than the probability of the actual nonsense.

 

Or to put it another way, I've heard from three different people in Washington who would know that Obama's Secret Service threat level is unlike any other president in memory. According to one, his threat assessment is "off the charts." That was the quote. And that was before he was even inaugurated.

 

So yes, this is a real concern.

[calfoxwc]

According to Heck,

 

No libs want to control guns to get rid of guns, Obama never voted to increase the gun purchase tax 500 percent,

 

no one in Congress EVER talked about the Fairness Doctrine, the Durbin Doctrine didn't pass, the stimulus bill worked

 

great but our economy is still going to get worse this year, and the stimulus bills did not spend any taxpayer money,

 

and up is down and vice versa ONLY if he's talking for a liberal or against a conservative.

 

Heck is a teapot. He only shows up on the forum to whistle.

 

mz the pussy apparently left, because his whistler in on the fritz. He slurpped Obama red crescent pepper koolaid and

his whistler won't whistle anymore.

 

So, Heck is pitch hitting.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And Cal's got me back to wondering what the point of all of this is.

 

I'll wait for your response, smalls. I'm legitimately interested in what you're worried about. I'll probably think it's completely unfounded, but I am interested. It helps me do my work better.

[smalls1129]

"DHS has no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but right-wing extremists may be gaining new recruitments by playing on their fears about several emerging issues," Kuban said.

 

 

"Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn-including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit-could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past," reads a key finding in the assessment.

 

"Right-wing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning," the assessment reads.

 

I was not able to find the whole report so all I can go on is some of the quotes around. The bold part of the first two quotes are what concern me. This is an official government organization that is making 'conjectures' with no real evidence. And they use leading words like 'could' and 'may be' and then draw conclusions to a whole ideological movement/frame of thought. Like we were discussing earlier concerning the Fairness Doctrine it is the vagueness of the report that concerns me. Perhaps I'll read the full report and it will ease some of my concerns. But the way it has been portrayed on a number of websites I could easily see myself as part of this group.

 

The third quote is more a personal annoyance on my part. It seems that they just had to add the race effect to further the notion that all right wingers (read: conservatives, republicans) are racist and cannot accept a minority leader. Truly not a real point of contention ( I understand that there are still extreme racist that were fueled by this election).

 

 

My original point concerning MSNBC and CNN was more just intrigue. I cannot think of a logical reason that they wold not cover this story at all. Not even a write up on their prospective websites.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Maybe it's because as you say, there's no there there. It's something they're watching. Meanwhile, you can understand why Fox is running with it - the government is targeting us! We're besieged! This is their bread and butter.

 

The other thing I'd add is that DHS and the FBI monitor fringe groups from both sides. Because this report is about fringe groups on the right that doesn't mean they're targeting Republicans; they're targeting fringe groups on the right. They're sensing the increasingly threatening and deluded rhetoric and remembering their history, and, like i mentioned earlier, well aware of the increased number of threats facing the new president.

 

I'd add what Jon Chait said today in TNR: "I could see how conservatives might be concerned that they could potentially be lumped in with the crazed right-wing militia members that are cited as potential violence risks in a new report from the Department of Homeland Security. But the conservative reaction is to do the lumping themselves. Michelle Malkin has a blog post decrying "The Obama DHS hit job on conservatives."

 

Conservatives? The report is about murderous lunatics. I kind of figured conservatives would try to define potential domestic terrorists as the fringe right. And, indeed, I'd agree that, for all its rhetorical and ideological excesses, conservatism is an ideology that usually stops short of fomenting violence against lawful authorities. But there's Michelle Malkin calling potential terrorists "conservatives."

[heckofajobbrownie]

I would add this, though: I'm very uneasy about the federal government monitoring any type of legitimate political protest, no matter how ridiculous and unfounded I may think it is.

 

If any evidence comes to light that the government is tracking or investigating peaceful protesters of any kind, I'll be with you.

 

Right now, though, this seems to be the standard warning about extremist groups and the type of work that a few federal agencies have always done.

 

If you want a closer look at some of these groups and where they are check out the Southern Law Poverty Center's website. They're a non-profit that monitors these groups.

 

You'd probably be surprised where they say these groups are.

[Mr. T]

Or to put it another way, I've heard from three different people in Washington who would know that Obama's Secret Service threat level is unlike any other president in memory. According to one, his threat assessment is "off the charts." That was the quote. And that was before he was even inaugurated.

 

My buddy in the Secret Service has told me that "W" will need life long security due to threats on his life. The norm for any retired President is 10 years.

 

 

 

[Mr. T]

"DHS has no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but right-wing extremists may be gaining new recruitments by playing on their fears about several emerging issues," Kuban said.

 

 

"Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn-including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit-could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past," reads a key finding in the assessment.

 

"Right-wing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African Kenyan president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning," the assessment reads.

 

I was not able to find the whole report so all I can go on is some of the quotes around. The bold part of the first two quotes are what concern me. This is an official government organization that is making 'conjectures' with no real evidence. And they use leading words like 'could' and 'may be' and then draw conclusions to a whole ideological movement/frame of thought. Like we were discussing earlier concerning the Fairness Doctrine it is the vagueness of the report that concerns me. Perhaps I'll read the full report and it will ease some of my concerns. But the way it has been portrayed on a number of websites I could easily see myself as part of this group.

 

The third quote is more a personal annoyance on my part. It seems that they just had to add the race effect to further the notion that all right wingers (read: conservatives, republicans) are racist and cannot accept a minority leader. Truly not a real point of contention ( I understand that there are still extreme racist that were fueled by this election).

 

 

My original point concerning MSNBC and CNN was more just intrigue. I cannot think of a logical reason that they wold not cover this story at all. Not even a write up on their prospective websites.

 

Hmmm. No wonder they want to control the news.

 

Read this http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4097

 

[Mr. T]

This whole report is politically bias and has defamation written all over it.

 

This report attacks some soldiers who are coming back from Afghanistan or Iraq saying they could be suspected terroists.

 

What a slap in the face to our men and women in the armed service.

 

One should ask why there is no one has signed their name to this report? Maybe it is pure propaganda and a attack on conservative republicans, in a attempt to make others think that they are not patriotic.

 

Oh' one look at this and I understand why

Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano

Everybody Duck!!!!

[Kosar_For_President]

My buddy in the Secret Service has told me that "W" will need life long security due to threats on his life. The norm for any retired President is 10 years.

 

I think it is also to make sure he wears his helmet and a cork on his fork when he eats.

[heckofajobbrownie]

"This whole report is politically bias and has defamation written all over it."

 

I was wondering if anyone was going to own up to the fact that it turns out the DHS report was commissioned by the Bush administration. There was a report on left-wing groups; there was a report on right-wing groups. It took a while to complete, so it's being released now.

 

So yes, fellas, you're right. Obviously this is a case of the Obama administration looking to strip right-wingers of their First Amendment rights.

[smalls1129]

Jesus Heck, what you don't seem to understand is that I don't care who commissioned the report. I've already explained that I think it is too vague and sets the sights on a whole ideology. Did you read through the snip it of the left wing report they released. All I saw is it mentioning that these left wing groups are not out for violence but rather like to focus on 'technological' crimes and that they are basically harmless (from a physical POV). And as I've tried to say, Bush was not right wing at all. He was strong on national security but much of his social agenda was Dem light.

 

[Mr. T]

"This whole report is politically bias and has defamation written all over it."

 

I was wondering if anyone was going to own up to the fact that it turns out the DHS report was commissioned by the Bush administration. There was a report on left-wing groups; there was a report on right-wing groups. It took a while to complete, so it's being released now.

 

So yes, fellas, you're right. Obviously this is a case of the Obama administration looking to strip right-wingers of their First Amendment rights.

 

Actually on Fox News this morning they had DHS Secretary, Janet Napolitano on there and she stated that she has read everything in the report and when asked if anyone signed off on it she said no, but made sure that everyone knew that she agreed with evrything written in the report and that veterans should be suspected for foul play because of Timothy McVeigh. And everyone knows he was aveteran and look at what he did.

 

In my opinion she is pushing this report as Pure Truth, it is nothing more than propaganda and a attempt to silence conservatives, by painting them to the public as evil terrorists.

 

This is a character assasination from the Left and the bitch should be removed from office, her actions prove that she is not capable of handling her job as a real professional.

 

Just ask the people of Arizona the majority there thought she was clueless on many issues, not alone being pro illegal alien.

[heckofajobbrownie]

You guys ranted for a day and a half about how this was evidence that the Obama administration was coming for your rights and trying to intimidate you into silence.

 

Then it turns out the Bush administration ordered these reports, and that there was a companion report that dealt with left-wing fringe groups and your response is ...to say that the Bush administration wasn't Republican? Come on.

 

This doesn't set its sites on a whole ideology; they're talking about fringe groups on the right-wing and left-wing, differentiating them because they're, you know, different groups with different aims. The ELF is different and has different aims than neo-confederates. Should we not note their ideology in a report, or would we be better off pretending there is no difference?

 

Isn't the correct response to acknowledge that this isn't a partisan document, but a fairly routine threat assessment done by one of the departments tasked with threat assessments?

 

Shouldn't this be a relief to you? Or is it too much fun, or too important to you, to believe that the Obama administration is coming for your rights?

 

I'm guessing the latter.

 

 

[Mr. T]

JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Six Things You Should Know About the Homeland Security Report on ‘Rightwing Extremism’

By Judge Andrew Napolitano

FOX News Senior Judicial Analyst

 

Homeland Security Warns of Rise in Right-Wing Extremism

 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”, dated April 7, 2009, which I have read, is apparently an unclassified summary of a larger classified report.

 

1. The summary contains few proper names, has no footnotes of any significance, lists very few sources, and is drafted with a prejudice against anyone who criticizes the role of the federal government in our lives today. It lumps together in its definition of “rightwing extremism” hate groups, anti-government groups, and single issue groups “such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

 

My guess is that the sentiments revealed in the report I read are the tip of an iceberg that the DHS would prefer to keep submerged until it needs to reveal it. This iceberg is the heavy-hand of government; a government with large and awful eyes, in whose heart there is no love for freedom, and on whose face there is no smile.

 

2. The document itself cautions the reader that the document is “not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval” of the DHS. The document refers to itself as one of a series of intelligence assessments intended to “deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.”

 

3. The thrust of this report is that in the present environment of economic instability, returning military veterans, those who fear of the loss of Second Amendment-protected rights, those threatened by an African-American president, and those who fear “Jewish ‘financial elites’” could all be a fertile breeding ground for groups whose power and ideas the government hates and fears. The document is essentially a warning for DHS and FBI officials to be on the look-out for rootless persons looking for the comfort of groups as they may be a danger to American security.

 

4. The summary (unclassified) document is terrifying. One can only imagine what is contained in the classified version. This document runs directly counter to numerous U.S. Supreme decisions prohibiting the government from engaging in any activities that could serve to chill the exercise of expressive liberties. Liberties are chilled, in constitutional parlance, when people are afraid to express themselves for fear of government omnipresence, monitoring, or reprisals. The document also informs the reader that Big Brother is watching both public and private behavior.

 

5. The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to guarantee open, broad, robust debate on the policies and personnel of the government. The First Amendment presumes that individuals — NOT THE GOVERNMENT — are free to choose what they believe and espouse, what they read and say, and with whom they associate in public and in private. The writers of this abominable report are particularly concerned with the expression of opinions that might be used to fuel ideas that challenge federal authority or favor state and local government over the federal government. Unfortunately, legislation passed during the past eight years gives the DHS and the FBI the tools to monitor everything from a telephone conversation to the keystrokes used on a personal computer without a warrant issued by a federal judge.

 

6. My guess is that the sentiments revealed in the report I read are the tip of an iceberg that the DHS would prefer to keep submerged until it needs to reveal it. This iceberg is the heavy-hand of government; a government with large and awful eyes, in whose heart there is no love for freedom, and on whose face there is no smile.

 

And another great article worth reading

 

We’re All Ragheads Now

 

by John Galt

 

April 14, 2009

 

The Washington Times ran this story today titled “Federal Agency Warns of Radicals on the Right” which was presented by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Right Wing Extremism. To say the contents were disturbing is an understatement. This one sentence from page 5:

 

Antigovernment conspiracy theories and “end times” prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition and weapons.”

 

While the sentence in and of itself is perfectly logical from a mainstream media or average person’s perspective, when taken in context of the entire paper, it tells the world that everyone or anyone who might be a gun owner just looking to protect his family, a plinker or God forbid, someone who stocks food up for emergencies like a hurricane or earthquake could be equated to “anti-government conspiracy theories and end time prophecies” or worse: Those evil militias that have taken over our nation 399 times in the last 200 years. It is a sad statement to the level of paranoia that the far left extremists running our nation exhibit about the far right extremist paranoia which has never held power, never attempted to hold power and only usually comments to the “out there” ideals instead of what used to be the mainstream. You remember the ‘old’ mainstream, right gang? That would be the Constitution, that damned piece of paper that gets in the way of an oligarchy and the extinguishing of the flame of Liberty once and for all.

 

If you use the logic presented in this document and the train of thought they project:

 

If you dare to speak the truth about the economy, you are probably a threat and need to be watched.

 

If you dare to speak the truth about the financial industry, you are probably a conspiracy theorist and a threat and need to be watched.

 

If you do not blindly accept all programs, reports and proclamations from Washington, D.C. or your state’s government, you are probably a threat and need to be watched.

 

If you buy freeze dried foods or more than the FEMA recommended 3 cans of tuna fish, you are probably a thread and need to be watched.

 

If you pray to God and acknowledge the sweet baby Jesus as your Savior, you are probably a threat and need to be watched.

 

If you did not vote for the current regime, you are probably a threat and need to be watched.

 

If you believe it is a crime to remove an 8 month old baby from the womb and kill it by stabbing surgical scissors into the base of its skull, you are probably a threat and need to be watched.

 

If you advocate the United States Constitution, you are probably a threat and need to be watched.

 

I’m sorry but being equated with a raghead Islamofacist camel jockey who uses his wives and children to carry vest bombs on to a busload of five year old children in the Middle East then prays to Mecca based on the writings of a child molesting “prophet” does not just insult me, it infuriates me. The fact that America has reached this level of distortion, the fact that we are tagging people with alternative ideas, be they of the Christian faith or other, and the fact that espousing the Bill of Rights is now being criminalized to insure political hegemony over a society should be a wake up call to those on the fence. This document, regardless of its outcome, being leaked to the media and validated by reliable news sources the day before the Tea Party protests was done so to scare people away from these events and to have their attendees tagged with the “radical nutcase” label.

 

Based on that reason alone, I shall try to finish my business in South Florida tomorrow and attempt to attend the gathering in Sarasota. So Ms. Napalitano, bring your camera, I’ll be the man in black.

 

This now brings validation to the fears of many in my opinion. The fear that everyone who was of the camp that believed that we are on the path to a police state is now a realistic possibility not because some internet or shortwave radio program told you so; we have all heard and discussed this for years on end. The size and scope of this document after the leak of the Missouri State Police report indicates that it is no longer an isolated incident but in fact that there is a coordinated effort to insure data gathering on malcontents shall continue at full speed ahead under the auspices that those who disagree with either political party and their actions will be met with massive intimidation from the State.

 

Unfortunately the Stasi model is not the program that will be adopted as there is enough history and information on their activities to dilute their effectiveness if such a program were implemented in the United States. Instead, the program will consist of enforcement and oversight will emanate from the school teacher via the children, the cashier at your local warehouse club, or even the clerk at the local shooting range. Worse, it could be that sweet little eighty year old lady who lives across the street from you. What the State usually does when faced with the unknown is to reward the people you interact with on a daily basis, such as a “Citizen’s Freedom Initiative” where neighbors are asked to report “suspicious” activity to an anonymous 800 number which could result in financial rewards. What a great concept during an economic downturn. Would you care to gamble on the quality of the data that eight year old provides should she see you carrying your rifle case into your home and later a case of canned corned beef?

 

Such a program will provide the government with immunity from criticism as they can always blame the citizen should a court eventually find their seizure of your personal property during an “investigation” into a conspiracy to commit a Federal felony charge as illegal and unjust. Unfortunately you can never recover your reputation nor your belongings once America travels down that road. You will lose your job, your savings and the trust of friends and family alike. All because you dared to advocate any one of the Amendments to our Constitution or worse, believed that the Emperor’s new clothes were covering up a future wrought with tyranny.

 

I am very fearful for our nation now. The radical Statists who control our society now, both Democrat and Republican, have created a nation where people who follow the example of our Founding Fathers like Franklin and Washington, Monroe and Adams, and dare to pray for the salvation of our country, can now be lumped into the same category of the ‘ragheads’ who flew airplanes into the World Trade Centers on September 11, 2001.

 

We, like Thomas Jefferson, are all ragheads now.

 

Are you infuriated yet?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Well, T, that wasn't really a question for you. If we rationalized away all of your paranoia there'd be nothing left on your chair but a shapeless pile of clothes.

[calfoxwc]

Heck,

 

Do you lick Obama's toes, or what?

 

You're stupid to think that Americans should not be worried

 

at Obama's actions.

 

You are just as partisan and bigoted politically as you ever

 

criticized others for.

 

You lost your "respected standing" of being an objective thinker

 

long ago. You are a good bit gutless to keep ignoring a major fact.

 

Obama voted to raise the gun purchase fees 500%.

 

Obama voted to raise the gun purchase fees 500%.

 

 

Obama voted to raise the gun purchase fees 500%.

 

 

Obama voted to raise the gun purchase fees 500%.

 

 

Obama voted to raise the gun purchase fees 500%.

 

 

Obama voted to raise the gun purchase fees 500%.

 

 

Obama voted to raise the gun purchase fees 500%.

 

 

Obama voted to raise the gun purchase fees 500%.

 

Obama voted to raise the gun purchase fees 500%.

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Why do I get the sense that Cal is being taken by some creative math in a NRA mailer?

 

"500%?? That sounds huge!!"

 

If the tax was 25 cents and it was raised to $1.50, that's 500%. That doesn't make it huge. Except in the ...oh, nevermind.

 

By the way, I don't even know what you're talking about, what tax he proposed, or on what. Why don't you find it for us - something from a real news report, not NRA literature. Something tells me there's nothing here worth having a cow over since they had to advertise it as such.

 

But what's the difference anyway? Once we discover how meaningless this story is it's not like you're going to change your mind. Obama is coming for your guns and ammo!!

[calfoxwc]

Well, it's been posted before in depth. Oh, wait, that was before Obama won the election,

 

and you had your head in the sand. Or, in Obama's shorts.

 

You apparently didn't want to find out about the loser you wanted to vote for so much.

 

But, it's okay. Plenty of other folks did the same.

 

A lot of them have the integrity to admit they made a big mistake.

 

Odd, you seem to "know" every freakin thing... but WAIT...

 

except the truth about Obama.

 

Forget it, it's too late. Use your mouse and go look it up on the net.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, I just did a quick check. For the life of me I can't figure out what you're talking about. It just gets me to NRA sites, or people linking back to the NRA material. I can't find anything that says A) what the bill in question was, or B - what the tax proposal was.

 

I just get NRA types saying he wants to raise the taxes on guns and ammo by 500%.

 

You're the one making the claim. I bet you can't even substantiate this with a real source, and even if you can, once again I think you'll have been taken by some not-so-clever use of percentages to make something appear more frightful than it actually is.

 

I'll wait for you. Something tells me this is much ado about nothing/something for the cranks to repeat on message boards.

[Kosar_For_President]

Hey Cal, heck has a point. Where is the exact literature on the raising of the tax? How much was the tax before and how much is it now?

 

I reduced my spending of cigs 5000% this month, doesn't mean I have more money in my pocket, cause I just spent it on beer. Where's the article?

 

I could be wrong here, but the last president left it to the states to raise taxes for Iraq. How many states are now bankrupt or near backruptcy? He raised tuition 40%, increased property taxes, small business tax, and the list goes on. That way did not work. The money has to come from somewhere, no?

 

This whole argument comes down to one thing, it's not if we should tax or not. IT'S WHAT DO WE TAX. Spending, schmending, all presidents since FDR xxxxed up and spent whatever on whatever.

 

No little tea party is going to cover up the fact that EVERYTHING IS TAXED. Just because your tea bags (being facicous) are now getting taxed (read that again it's funny), it's an outrage. Give me a break. People were pissed with Bush because their business and tuition was getting taxed for an unjust "war".

 

EVERYTHING is taxed people. Either it's tea or tuition (you know what I mean). I choose to tax tea and then I'll drink some water, I can do without the tea.

 

I really am trying to stay objective here. But the partisanship is clouding the real facts, EVERYTHING IS TAXED.

[choco]

Spending, schmending, all presidents since FDR xxxxed up and spent whatever on whatever.

the root of the problem right here folks.....american apathy.

 

I really am trying to stay objective here.

try harder.

[Kosar_For_President]

the root of the problem right here folks.....american apathy.

 

Choco my cock. What is the problem? I'll get you numbers if you need on president spending (with inflation kept in mind). I wasn't saying it is right. Your so proactive Chokeo. I am proud of you.

 

You didn't even read what I wrote. Like a little xxxxing kid, you come with that shit. How's that for apathy, fag.

[calfoxwc]

Well, it DID take me 20 seconds, Heck:

 

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.2

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9

 

1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote =00219)

2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 20087. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)

3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote =00217)

4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html)

5. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004 SB 2165, vote 20.

6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php)

7. “Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html)

8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7. (http://www.joycefdn.org/pdf/98_AnnualReport.pdf)

9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)

10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.

11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.

12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html)

13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html)

14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement.)

 

 

 

 

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3991

[calfoxwc]

 

On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama

Print PDF version

The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the right to keep and bear arms.

But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.¹⁷</B>

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.¹⁸

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.¹

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.¹⁵

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.³

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.⁹

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.²

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.⁴

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people

who use firearms in self-defense.⁵

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.⁶

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.⁷

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”⁸

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.⁹

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.¹⁰

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.¹¹

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.¹²

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.¹³

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.²

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.¹⁴

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.¹⁶

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.⁹

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.⁹

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.⁹

1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...&vote=00219)

2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 2008. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)

3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...&vote=00217)

4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...-common-se.html)

5. Illinois Senate, SB 2165, March 25, 2004, vote 20 and May 25, 2004, vote 3.

6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/...in_obamas_c.php)

7. “Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburgh...s/s_560181.html)

8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7.

9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)

10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.

11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004, SB 2163, vote 18.

12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/200...on_edwards.html)

13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/20...s_on_shoot.html)

14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpol...law-enforcement.)</SPAN>

15. Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm and http://www.ontheissues.org/IL_2004_Senate_3rd.htm) Oct 21, 2004.

16. Illinois Senate, May 16, 2003, HB 2579, vote 34.

17. United States Senate vote 245, September 29, 2005 and vote 2, January 31, 2006 and Saddleback Forum, August 16, 2008.

18. Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, March 13, 2003. To see the vote tally go to: http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf.

 

[calfoxwc]

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9

 

9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)

 

 

SO, there ya go, Heck. If you want more information on why you shouldn't have voted for Obammy,

 

let me know.

 

Total time:28 seconds.

 

 

 

"sniff"..."I've tried for hours to figure out what you are talking about, Cal, you are full of crap."

 

 

[Kosar_For_President]

Nice list Cal. But I think Neck was talking about taxes here. For the record I do agree with you.

 

But to the contrary, in a perfect world we would ALL be packing at work, have no tax on anything, and be teabaggin everyday.

[lobstrocity]

Choco my cock. What is the problem? I'll get you numbers if you need on president spending (with inflation kept in mind). I wasn't saying it is right. Your so proactive Chokeo. I am proud of you.

 

You didn't even read what I wrote. Like a little xxxxing kid, you come with that shit. How's that for apathy, fag.

 

Kosar you come across and an angry, unhappy individual. I have been reading posts that you have written and you always come up with an insulting comment. You should try and get out more.

[calfoxwc]

Wait, that ref is too hard to find. Here's more information:

 

<H1 class=Logo>http://pirate-king.com/</H1>« Election Countdown 1 week 1 day… regurgitating the political slop…Don’t Look Behind The Curtain! »

Anti-Gun & Anti-American Obama…. is that who you want as President of the USA?

in the early afternoon on Monday, the 27th of October 2008 by Tina

 

It amazes me that this entire presidential race has more about who has the deepest pockets and who has the media salivating? It is not about the issues, the economy, the country… it has been nothing more than a celebrity love fest!

 

Lets step aside from that.. lets look at one of the key points that could impact our country in a very negative way if Obama [spit] wins…

 

 

A reminder of stupid statements Obama [spit] has made.. Hey PA remember this one! ok?

 

"they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

 

 

Election day is closing in on us.. we need to remember where Obama [spit] REALLY stands! He does NOT stand for our country! He values back socialism & criminals!

 

On guns alone he is a scary individual! From one side of his mouth he supports hunters.. but wants to ban the guns they use to hunt with! He says he believes in “common sense”gun laws, but there is NO common sense to them.. he is against conceal and carry, he is against cheap guns.. people who need/want to protect themselves are going to opt for a cheap conceal & carry… Obama [spit] will make that NOT happen!

 

Here are some highlights of where Obama [spit] stands..(several of these gems are the same items.. but they need to be said.. again, again and again… since the media loves to look away from ALL of Obama’s flaws!) it has been stated he is consistent where he stands on guns.. so here is a refresher on where he stands…

 

About GunBaNObama [spit].com

 

Barack Obama [spit] would be

the most anti-gun president in American history

. Senator Obama [spit] says “words matter.” But when it comes to your Second Amendment rights, he refuses to speak honestly about where he stands. In fact,

Obama [spit] hides behind carefully chosen words and vague statements of support for sportsmen and gun rights to sidestep and camouflage the truth.

 

But even he can’t hide from the truth forever … his voting record, political associations, and long standing positions make it clear that, if elected, Barack Obama [spit] would be the most anti-gun president in American history.

 

GunBaNObama [spit].com is designed to bring you the truth about

Barack Obama’s words

– words like these:

 

• “Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.”
  (
  Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire
  , Sept. 9, 1996
• “
  I’m consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry
  .” (Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004)
• “I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers lobby.” Barack Obama [spit],
  The Audacity of Hope
  (2006).

And GunBaNObama [spit].com will also bring you

Obama’s deeds

:

 

• Obama [spit] voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sports shooting
  . (United States Senate, vote no. 217, S. 397, July 29, 2005)
• Obama [spit] voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.
  (Illinois Senate, SB 2165, vote 20, March 25, 2004)
• In his only two votes on confirming Supreme Court nominees, Obama [spit] voted against two of the five justices (Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito) who later affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

NRA site has a bevy of facts about Obama [spit] and guns.. where does he stand here are some goodies… reinforcing the gems from the above article.

 

Obama [spit] voted to ban hundreds of rifles and shotguns commonly used for hunting and sport shooting

Illinois Senate, SB 1195, 3/13/03

 

Obama [spit] endorsed a ban on all handguns

Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, 9/9/96

Politico, 03/31/08.

 

Obama [spit] voted to allow the prosecution of people who use a firearm for self-defense in their homes

Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165, vote 20, 3/25/04

 

Obama [spit] supported increasing taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500 percent

Chicago Defender, 12/13/99

 

Obama [spit] voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting

United States Senate, S. 397, vote 217, 7/29/05

 

Obama [spit] opposes Right-to-Carry laws

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/2/08, Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04

 

 

PLUS here are some great highlights from the horse’s ass.. err mouth:

 

Concealed Carry

 

"…I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry," Obama [spit] said. Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004

 

Ammunition Restrictions — "micro-stamping"

 

"There was a discussion today about a law that has just passed in California that allows micro-tracing of bullets that have been discharged in a crime so that they can immediately be traced," he said. "This is something that California has passed over the strong objections of the NRA…That’s the kind of common sense gun law that gun owners as well as victims of gun violence can get behind." Barack Obama [spit], Feb. 15, 2008

Baltimore Sun.com

Feb. 15, 2008

 

 

 

Local Gun Bans

 

"I think that local jurisdictions have the capacity to institute their own gun laws…The City of Chicago has gun laws, as does Washington, D.C.," he said. Barack Obama [spit], Feb. 15, 2008

Baltimore Sun.com

 

Licensing and Registering gun owners

 

Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?

 

A: I don’t think that we can get that done.

 

Jan 15, 2008

 

plus on our local newspaper there was a nice article written about (anti) gun Obama…

 

Brilliantly, Democrats have kept the issue of guns out of the presidential campaign. Guns have barely been mentioned, with the exception of

Barack Obama’s gaffe about rubes clinging to Bibles and guns

, his cautious support of the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, and pop culture references to GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin killing moose.

 

Democrats have long been on the losing end of the gun-rights debate, which has cost them countless elections.

 

Quietly, on Oct. 13, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence -

one of the most radical gun control organization in the United States - endorsed Obama

. It’s an endorsement Obama [spit] hasn’t flaunted on his campaign stumps, but it’s one that should concern Second Amendment defenders.

 

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, said the organization endorsed Obama [spit] because he knows the benefits of "strengthening our Brady background check system, getting military-style assault weapons off our streets, and giving law enforcement more tools to stop the trafficking of illegal guns."

 

In other words, the Brady Campaign has researched the candidates and come to the conclusion that

Obama [spit] might fight for gun control

.

 

oh he’ll do more than Might and Fight for Gun CONTROL, if he has his way I am sure he would even eliminate pictures of them!

 

They use fancy phrasing, such as ridding the streets of "military-style assault weapons." What they really want, however, is to cause trouble for law-abiding citizens who wish to keep handy the guns they find necessary for hunting and security.

 

If Obama [spit] and Joe Biden will help get assault weapons off our streets, then Obama [spit] and Biden support ordinary gun control. We had a so-called assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004, and it was ordinary gun control.

The Department of Justice found it did little or nothing to reduce violent crime in this country.

 

Yes.. that is right a GUN BAN will do NOTHING to reduce violent crime. Seriously any moron could figure that out! When a criminal wants to use a weapon to commit a crime.. do they follow LEGAL policies and procedures to acquire it? Do I even need to bother going into that question further??

 

Genuine assault rifles are machine guns, which rapid-fire multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger. That’s what gun banners want the general public to visualize when they talk about banning assault rifles. They want us to imagine some monstrous gang leader spraying bullets in all directions at the police and innocent bystanders.

 

But genuine assault rifles, as in machine guns, were essentially banned by the 1934 National Firearms Act

. Possessing one lawfully means buying a license and spending thousands on a firearm. Few people own them, and they are not the subject of the so-called assault weapons ban we already tried, and are considering again.

 

The modern gun banner has taken to classifying common semi-automatic rifles, such as the civilian

models of the AR-15 or the AK-47

, as "assault rifles." They are ordinary rifles that

shoot one bullet for each pull of the trigger

. They are commonly owned by

hunters, collectors and people who care about home safety.

 

Ironically, the ban of these so-called assault weapons in 1994 left far more powerful weapons in play - weapons capable of far greater destruction, such as the common .30-06 hunting rifle.

All it did was ban rifles of a certain class simply because they look more dangerous and therefore could be confused with something needlessly menacing to society.

 

If looks could kill (the world be far less populated).. alas.. the gun control freaks ban guns because they LOOK dangerous.. I think I will get something that actually packs a punch and paint it pink with flowers.. they will surely allow that right? (note: sarcasm).

 

Those who would take our Second Amendment gun rights know that most Americans don’t support their agenda. So they seek to get the camel’s nose under the tent with small victories won through deception - such as so-called assault weapons bans.

They must deceive to achieve.

 

After the Heller decision, which struck down the District of Columbia’s gun ban, Obama [spit] issued a benign statement: "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms,

but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures."

It went on to explain that he favors measures to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and criminals. Who could argue with that?

 

I am going to repeat again.. Criminals will get whatever weapon they want.. the more deadly the better.. they don’t need laws … if they want it they will get it.. heck their intention is also not a lawful one.. they want to commit crimes with their illegally obtained weapons. So what common sense is Obama [spit] talking about.. apparently he has no common sense what-so-ever! Obviously crime ravaged areas like DC need guns given to law abiding citizens to protect themselves from the criminal elements that infect their city!

 

His harmless statement couldn’t possibly have been enough to please the Brady Campaign. So what does this organization like about Obama?

 

In his book "The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed," author Alan Korwin documents that Obama [spit] swiftly reversed his position on gun rights the moment the high court ruled that gun rights belong to individuals.

 

"Before the ban was overturned, Mr. Obama [spit] supported the position of the Court’s dissenters - that gun bans are fine and the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights does not protect people, it protects ‘collective rights’ of states," Korwin wrote. The court equated the "collective rights" theory to Alice in Wonderland. The book details how Obama’s voting record on gun rights is 100 percent consistent; he favored every gun restriction that came along in the Illinois Senate.

 

Second Amendment defenders should ask Obama [spit] to come clean on his true agenda pertaining to gun rights (he’s in Colorado on Sunday). Gun rights advocates should keep in mind that Heller was a 5-4 decision, and Obama [spit] would likely appoint one, if not two or three, Supreme Court justices.

 

Americans are well within their rights to elect a president who would work to ban guns, and erode gun rights. But they shouldn’t do so by accident.

They should vote only with full knowledge of Obama’s position on guns, and to date that remains unclear.

 

Like I said that was a nice article.. he was much nicer than I would be about Obama [spit] and his ability to do political shape-shifting.. he has clear decisions on guns, shown by the votes he actually has made (and that says allot since he opts to vote “present” than actually take a stand on the majority of issues).. so he is definitely against guns.. and obviously for ALL the wrong reasons.. he obviously wants to take guns from honest law abiding citizens .. this would allow a more ample supply for criminals.. SIGH!

 

The comments are also interesting on this article.. I love this one..

 

With Obama [spit] as the driver, we stand to arrive at a Gulag, where we will all become slaves to the Socialist state he has in mind

 

Why has he gotten this far? How did he get this far? I am just hoping the actual election results put him where he belongs.. which is NOT the white house! He is an embarrassment, he is un-American, he would be the worst mistake we could ever make as a country!