Obama On The Right To Bear Arms
Posted April 4th, 2008 by Da King
Barack Obama supports a citizen's right to bear arms, as stated in the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
Sort of. Sometimes. Except when he doesn't, which is usually. Got it ? Me neither. I'll try to sort it out.
On the campaign trail in rural Iowa in 2007, Obama said the following: (link)
"I respect the Second Amendment. I think lawful gun owners should be able to hunt, be sportsmen, protect their families."
About three sentences later in the same speech, Obama said this:
"So the point is, though, we should be able to do that, and we should be able to enforce laws that keep guns off the streets in inner cities…"
See what I mean ? Obama say he supports the right to bear arms for people in rural areas, but then turns around and says guns should be banned in urban areas. I recall no such distinction in the Constitution. In addition, who needs to protect their families the most, low crime rate rural america, or high crime rate urban america ? The question is rhetorical, because the answer is self-evident.
Here's more of Obama's nuanced position on guns, as reported by Bob Owens:
In his answers to the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test, Obama said he favored a ban on “the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.”
By definition, this would include all pistols ever made, from .22 target pistols used in the Olympics to rarely-fired pistols kept in nightstands and sock drawers for the defense of families, and every pistol in between. Obama’s strident stand would also ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, whatever their previously legal purpose.
In 1999, Obama proposed to make it a felony for the gun owner if a firearm stolen from his residence and used in a crime was not “securely stored” — effectively negating the homeowner’s right to self-defense.
For someone who claims to support the Second Amendment, Obama sure doesn't support the Second Amendment. Did you get a load of the part where Obama wants you to be charged with a felony if someone breaks into your house and steals your gun, and then uses it to commit a crime ? What kind of Orwellian police state garbage is that ? If your gun is "securely stored", it won't be much use to defend your family in case of an emergency. By the time you unlocked and loaded the weapon ("securely stored" means the bullets are stored in a separate place), you and your entire family could be dead. So much for self-defense.
The gun issue is also one of those where Obama has weakly voted "present" in the past. In 1999, he voted "present" on Illinois legislation that would have required teens 15 and older to be tried as adults for firing weapons on or near school grounds. There's leadership for you.
Obama has voiced support for the Washington D.C. ban on handguns, which is a direct contradiction of his alleged support of the Second Amendment. He also voted against protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits, and invariably votes on the side of gun control. He's against concealed carry laws. The National Rifle Association gives Obama a grade of 'F' on supporting the Second Amendment. You can find some of Obama's voting record on guns here.
In 1996, on an Illinois voter group’s questionaire, filed under his name during his bid for a state Senate seat, Obama responded that he supported bans on the sale, possession, and manufacture of guns. Obama denied ever having taken such a stance, and denied even having filled out the questionaire, until handwriting analysis determined it was Obama's handwriting on some notes that were written in the margins of the questionaire. (Link). Oops, you're busted Barack. I can't wait for the "I misspoke" or "I misremembered" excuse that will surely come if the media every bothers to mention this, which they probably won't.
This issue appears to me to be Obama attempting to have it both ways, like a good little double-talking politician. You can't say you support the right to bear arms and then vote against it at every turn. The Second Amendment doesn't mean Iowa can have guns, but Illinois and D.C. can't. It appears Obama really supports the standard liberal doctrine on guns (ban them), like he does on every other issue, but he doesn't want to come out and say so, because it will cost him votes in the general election. Instead, he's trying to tell everybody what they want to hear, in order to get as many votes as possible. If this is what Obama calls "change you can believe in", then, sorry Barack, but I don't believe you.
Too bad the media is too busy getting a tingle up their leg to notice stuff like this.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:42 am
There has to be some regulation of dangerous weapons or firearms. Weapons owners can certainly be able to hunt and protect their families in a framework of regulations. For example, I want laws to prevent people from taking machine guns out and about in my community.
The Ohio Republicans really fouled up when they passed laws overruling concealed firearms laws in communities like Cleveland. If the citizens and law enforcement of Cleveland need a law to prohibit people from covertly transporting weapons to commit crimes in their community, then they should be allowed to prohibit concealed weapons.
That was just one in a series of hypocritical actions overruling "home rule" that the lame duck Ohio republicans did after they lost the executive offices in November 2006. The GOPs are always crowing about returning political power to lower levels of government or to the people. When it came time to make a decision, though, they just gave the weapons industry what they wanted.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
"In addition, who needs to protect their families the most, low crime rate rural america, or high crime rate urban america ? "
This would be common-sense to most of America however, the liberals see this otherwise. It's clear that we've evolved into a country that places law-abiding citizens secondary, behind hardened criminals. Yellow-bellied judges, shady lawyers, and a violence coveting media have brought this chaos upon us.
Every day we witness hardened criminals slapped on the wrist by yellow-bellied judges, shady lawyers reeling for any technicality and blaming society for their client's misdeed, and our branches of law enforcement continue to have their hands tied and apprehensive efforts stalled. Once criminals meet their fate, it's more than humorous how people come out and say how the person was an upstanding citizen. They never inform us though, that they had a rapsheet longer than a roll of toilet paper. Vicious crimes are treated as misdemeanors, capital punishment is ruled as "inhumane", and our rights to self-defense are interrogated as if we were the criminals.
Criminals will always have access to guns and I stress always! It is simply in their sub-human instinct. DC has one of the worst crime rates and yet the laws make it nearly impossible to defend one within their own home? Why is it that the media always seems to project sadness for a gunned down perpetrator, yet villify the individual protecting his life? Why does a pro-choice constituency turn into pro-life advocates when it comes to the scum of the earth receiving their just reward………………a permanent slumber! So we can provide them with a taxpayer funded education, while in incarceration?
Nonetheless, Osama can chalk this one up with his strikeforce doubletalk. I'm not buying it, nor can he have my weapons. That is…………….unless he pries them from my dead hands. Anyone that believes in the constitution, and not the far-left's translation of it, will see through this mirage as they have Osama's hollow candidacy.
Bring back the Old West!!!
April 4th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Alex here fell into the kool aid vat while drinking this time.
And King: Your point is what? That Democrats, like Obama, like all Democrats, want some semblance of regulation on the distribution and ownership of potential terrorist weaponry.
The right to bear arms amendment NOWHERE includes words or phrasing addressing the right to bear arms in relationship to fighting crime. Perhaps that was all understood at the time, but the amendment speaks of militia, the state, etc…..but not protection against criminals.
Realizing this is the truth, then just like with automobiles, all guns should be tracked, licensed, data based and limited as communities see fit. You know, like those dangerous automoblies we drive around.
Straws can be grasped at….no question….but they won't hold you up when Obama becomes the next president in a landslide.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Obama will not be the "next president in a landslide." Now you are the one drinking your kool aid, Rev.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Rev: That Democrats, like Obama, like all Democrats, want some semblance of regulation on the distribution and ownership of potential terrorist weaponry.
This doesn't pan out, Rev?
"In his answers to the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test, Obama said he favored a ban on “the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.”
What you're calling potential terrorist weaponry, also includes my Glock. I would be very hesitant to take on Al-Qaeda with merely a 9mm and this is not classified as terrorist weaponry. It is semi-automatic though which qualifies for Obooba's theory. Therefore, your justification for Obama's intentions seem to be nullified. I'm not sure I would like him to obstruct me from obtaining an AK-47 either. That's my dream piece, but preferably the Russian or Serb version.
We watch the moral behavior of society erode on a daily basis and I believe there will be anarchy one day. If the leeches are to be armed, I'm protecting my interests with firepower as well.
I did enjoy the Kool-Aid vat comment. Got a roll out of it.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Rev,
You ask what my point was. My point and purpose was to inform people about Obama's take on the Second Amendment, which includes some very contradictory views. I thought I made that pretty clear. It's called 'talking about the issues', you know, like we're supposed to do.
The Second Amendment states that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The rule of law also recognizes the right to self defense. I don't think it takes much more to reach the conclusion that a gun may be used in self defense.
Plus, if guns can't be used against criminals, why do the police carry them ?
I have no problem with guns being registered. Never said that I did.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
King writes,
"My point and purpose was to inform people about Obama's take on the Second Amendment, which includes some very contradictory views."
Thanks King, but fear not. The NRA will rip B. Hussein Obama apart (or H. Clinton) in the coming election.
Remember this: Algore attributed his defeat in 2000 to the NRA as did Clinton earlier for Dim congressional loses during his terms as president.
And who can forget how effective the NRA was in mocking Kerry as a pampered pink poodle when that prig tried to pose as a hunter.
BO's anti-Second Amendment views will be fully exposed. There's just no reason to do it now when he's battling another gun-grabber.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Closely read the Constitution and Federalist Papers. In no way does it advocate every (or even most) citizens should have the right to bear arms. It's the general discourse of the gun lobbyists and modern firearm supporters that have led to this bizarre line of thinking.
April 4th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
It's a bizarre line of thinking to believe every privelege or right has to be found in the constitution or the federalist papers.
My guess is most households in the rural society of 18th century America did have a firearm or two around and nobody thought enough about it to include this issue in the constitution. It would be like establishing the right to own a tea kettle.
April 4th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Unfortunatley I dont think we know the full scope of Obama's true intentions. His sentiments are left but not rigid. But what are his actual intentions? The more I learn the more I am concerned. As Ted Kennedy stated the reason socialism has failed for 6,000 years his he was not in charge. Does Obama put himself in the same category as the egomanical T Kennedy. More on topic I have never owned a gun(live in safe communtiy) nor wanted one but when they tell me I cant have one is the day I get my first.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Graham: In no way does it advocate every (or even most) citizens should have the right to bear arms. It's the general discourse of the gun lobbyists and modern firearm supporters that have led to this bizarre line of thinking.
Beg to differ, Graham.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)
Our friend John Roberts answered this arguement when pressed the anti-gun DC lawyers. The DC lawyers stated that the constitution refers to our military branches that are regulated. However, chief justice John Roberts stated that "people", along with the militia, have this right. The amendment goes out of it's way to mention people, along with militia. Therefore, two different entities are meant.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
So Alex which militia are you in? Graham is absolutely right. If you want to use a textual argument, only white men would be allowed to own a gun under your view, since that was the plain meaning of the text at the time it was written. This would hold for structural and historical arguments as well.
I couldn't care less if you guys have your guns. Interesting article though, King, on Obama's vascillation on the 2nd amendment. When are you going to write one on the positions McCain has changed since 2000, which is clearly more recently than the old quotes you attribute to as showing Obama's changes?
April 4th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Mr. King,
When the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, I take it to mean weapons one could hold like handguns or rifles, not cannons or bombs. Therefore, a whole lot of personal weapons are covered, but it implies the government's power to restrict at least the type of weaponry that is covered.
It also states that the reason for this right is to maintain a "well regulated militia". Some of the founders wanted to avoid having a standing army. Some felt it necessary to preserve the right to own the means to overthrow a malign government. But we do have a standing army, and the idea of over throwing the government with arms is an absurd fantasy of the truly deranged. However, it still says "well regulated", so it still allows for things like registration, and other limits.
I don't presently own a gun. I used to hunt, but stopped because I became too lazy to clean what I shot. If I did own one, it would be for protection. But the utility of a gun for protection depends on its proximity and its readiness to fire. I've lived in my neighborhood for nearly twenty years, so I think I have a good idea of the threat level. It is in no way high enough to risk the inherent dangers of having a gun in any kind of a state of readiness.
April 5th, 2008 at 5:46 am
frank,
Don't you think the founding fathers would have looked at us like we were totally insane for even discussing whether or not the people have a right to own guns ? They assumed the right, they all owned guns, they were revolutionaries who threw off the chains of England in favor of liberty, and they included the Second Amendment in the Bill Of Rights because they wanted to explicitly state that the government could not take that right away, thereby throwing the chains of the new government back on the people.
If you are implying that we should forfeit our Second Amendment rights because the government has superior firepower, that is a most unconvincing argument to me, not to mention a disheartening one. That's the argument of a defeated slave, not a free man. Don't forget that the Bill Of Rights is not intended to spell out each and every allowable freedom for the individual, it's intended to spell out the limitations of the power of the state.
As with all other constitutional rights, you may exercise yours as you wish. Just don't try to impose your will to take away my rights.
April 5th, 2008 at 6:24 am
I remember when my then four-year old son came home from a friend's house exclaiming, " so-and-so showed me his dad's gun in the top of the closet"—I mulled over how to handle this crazy scenario and ended up calling the parents to explain what had happened—they were embarrassed and changed their arrangement and had a good heart-to-heart with their four-year old, as I did with mine, including the admonition to never do anything like that and to immediately tell an adult and parents if encouraged to do some stupid thing like that again.
I don't know enough about current gun laws, however , I can imagine a day when owning one or two would be something I would do. But, I would certainly want classes on how to use them and store them, etc. I would want all my neighbors and all citizens to have to take those classes, as well. Also, being a relatively good law-abiding citizen, I would want to know that all guns are registered in some sort of national, accurate registry so that stolen guns used in crimes can be traced as to where they were stolen from… also, the registration of said guns would be another tool law enforcement would use as a filter against those who are mentally unstable or criminal and should not be in the possession of a gun.
Illegal guns would always be available, no matter what….I am not that foolish to think they would disappear…so in the event that our government would turn against us, I am sure "where there is a will, there is a way", if you get my drift.
I don't know how gun shows are operated, however, I do think that resold guns should also be tracked from their source and buyers should be required to pass registration laws as to knowledge of using and storing guns, and criminal, unstable mental status background checks.
I used to know that most guns were used against owners' own family members in crimes of passion. So teaching people to "really think hard" about that impetuous decision should be part of gun training.
April 5th, 2008 at 6:33 am
Oh, and as for the original intent of the blogarticle:
This "forked-tongue" talking is exactly one of the reasons this liberal does not like or trust Mr. Obama. You may counter with, "Hillary is no good either", but in comparing the two, there just is no comparison—she is by far the smarter, more astute, sophisticated, and prepared in my opinion—that she is a woman, just like me, is just a bonus in my eyes—I would vote for Hillary if she were a man, as well, or a black man, or a black woman, or an alien from outer space.
If McCain wins, well, for a republican, he's not half-bad.
So I'm pretty happy, all in all. Anybody but Bush is a huge improvement. These days, we Americans must lower our bar of expectations….unfortunately, our choices are just above mediocre, at best. Except for Hillary—she's more than mediocre, in my opinion.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:45 am
It's a very sad commentary on the state of a nation-in-decline, when an Obama or a Hillary can receive serious consideration for the office of Commander-in-Chief.
Crazy kook acknowledges "our choices are just above mediocre, at best", and on this we would agree. Then she goes on to make an exception for one of the most ethically challenged, lying and conniving wenches to ever take the world stage. Go figure. I wish there were some test that could be administered to determine a person's ability to make rational decisions. Those who failed would be ineligible to cast a ballot. The democratic party would lose most of their support.
I know this is a little off topic, and I apologize, but the comment about our lack of choices made me consider an irony.
Leftists love to bash Bush and conservatives for the current state of affairs, but look at who (or what) their ideology produces in the way of candidates. Kerry, Obama and Clinton(s). I was getting my hair done the other day, (I say hair done, because it was being cut in a beauty salon. I used to say haircut when I had it done in the barber shop) and the topic of discussion among the females (I was the only male in the place) was basically that men were pigs. One by one, and sometimes two at a time, these poor gals offered up their stories of bad relationship after bad relationship, abuse heaped upon abuse. Not once did these damsels consider that it might have been the result of the males that they were attracting and latching onto, and that they had to share responsibility for their poor decision making.
I considered bringing this point up, but discretion really is the better part of valor. I didn't want anything cut except my hair.
Just a little food for thought, directed at my leftist brothers and sisters.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:23 am
The Founders would look at the gun violence in urban areas and agree to do something about it.
We must take a centrist position on guns, at the very least. That means regulating and tracking guns.
The Bill of Rights guarantee has a militia context. There's just no getting away from it. If society wants to pass gun laws, they should be able to do so without opponents screaming 2nd amendment rights. It's apples and oranges.
One of the problems here is that the NRA has taken an extremist position on regulation. No, the NRA is not some black hat wearing villain. However, they need to use more common sense and honesty in their appeal to the 2nd amendment.
Finally, I don't trust John Roberts…at all.
April 5th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
balladeer—let us be honest, here at least….everyone is a liar at some point or another—even Mother Teresa was a liar at some point. If someone tells me they don't lie, well, they're undoubtedly lying. Depending upon what is being lied about is how I judge a person's abilities—and, in fact, a politician should have a pretty good liar apptitude–it goes with the territory and is inevitable.
Hillary's lies concerning "sniper fire" in Bosnia are innocuous compared to lying about an idiot demigogue whom you consider to be a close confidante, advisor, or spiritual guide to your morality—for twenty years. "Avoiding the truth" is no less a lie when discussing your affiliation with people like Farrakhan or Oil Executives who contribute to your campaign coffers.
Lying about the reasoning behind dragging OUR children into a war is outright sinful. Lying about being in the National Guard but being gone the whole time is a real window on somebody's sense of what is right and wrong.
My lies about not using those chicken eggs that came out of my backyard chicken's ovasphincter in the cake batter I just fed to my children are lies, but to the greater good of using organic, eco-friendly food stuffs in my cooking—whether they ever know the truth does not really matter too much to me.
My support of Hillary—even knowing most of her faults—is a rational choice on my part—she speaks for me.
April 5th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Crazy kook, I learned as a young child that right is right, if no one does it; and wrong is wrong, if everyone does it.
Rationalizing someone's character flaws by pointing to the character flaws of another isn't justification, it's simply pointing out two people with character flaws.
So this campaign has degenerated into a liars contest, and voters are left trying to determine which candidate's lies are innocuous, serious, compulsive, etc. How very sad.
I'm no Obama supporter, but you may be the only person who believes he can tell them better than Hillary. She learned from the best, and Obama can't touch her.
What lie did Mother Teresa tell?
April 5th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Mr. King,
Excuse me for not making myself clear. What I attempted to say was that the second amendment guaranteed the right of people to own a wide array of weaponry. But the amendment also states its reasoning that a well regulated militia is necessary to maintain a free state. Therefore, they wanted an armed citizenry from which to draw in times of crisis. However, well regulated means what it says.
I don't understand why you think I would take away your right too own a gun. I am glad people do. It provides a deterrence. I just said that after weighing the benefits vs the dangers, owning a gun is not necessary for me.
As for taking on the government, I think their firepower superiority and willingness to use it have been demonstrated. This does not make me a slave, however. It simply means that one way change the government has been blocked. Force is rarely a permanent solution to a problem but comservatives don't seem to get this. One's freedom is determined by how many constraints he allows to be placed on him.
The second amendment is indeed important as are all the rest. We cannot pick and choose. This is why the acceptance by the right of Bush's claims to extra constitutional powers as a war president is so disappointing.
April 5th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Balladeer: You don't have to call it 'getting your hair done' just because you get your hair cut in a salon. You're worrying everyone here with that kind of talk.
April 5th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Balladeer—I am not the only Hillary supporter, certainly not the only one who believes some lies are less harmful than others. The campaign has not degenerated to a liars contest.
I am dissappointed that Hillary embellished, knowingly or not, however the plane was filled with others who say that, yes, they were told there was gunfire in the hills surrounding the airport, and, yes, Hillary and Chelsea were instructed to put on flak jackets and with the possibility that they would need to run with their heads down—this is true. Read the accounts of others on the plane. The circumstances were not that way when they actually deplaned on the runway—no big lie there. I don't think we are witnessing a giant character flaw with this, other than her seeming need to appear more "manly" and brave by embellishing—however, lying about your associations with those who use their pulpit to incite hatred about an entire race of people and to spread maliciousness about Jews and Israel, to make the idiotic conspiracy claim that AIDS was invented by whitey to destroy blacky—no, someone in Africa had unprotected sex with a baboon, the last I heard. In Rev Wright's case, and in Bush Jr's. case to purposely take us to war and use OUR children to stock that war—those are lies I consider severe pointers to real big character flaws. In fact, in Bush's case, I think he should be tried as an outright criminal. In Obama's case, I think he should have shown some true character by leaving that church early on, and telling Wright that he is an idiot. Hillary should not have put fancy embroidery on her story of landing in Bosnia.
I met and interviewed Mother Teresa about twenty-five years ago at Walsh College in Canton when she recieved an honorary doctorate there. At the time, I worked for PBS. I won't tell you what she lied about.
That is forever between her and me. My lips are sealed.
April 5th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Frank, you said:
'One's freedom is determined by how many constraints he allows to be placed on him.
The second amendment is indeed important as are all the rest. We cannot pick and choose. This is why the acceptance by the right of Bush's claims to extra constitutional powers as a war president is so disappointing."
Amen to that, brother. Well said.
April 6th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Like most leftists, Comrade Hillary is a liar to her very core. To leftists [liberals & progressives], the ends justify the means and lying is a legitimate tactic for them and their constituency.
HC's absurd story of being under sniper fire is just the most recent lie — although saying it is 'her most recent lie' might be eclipsed by a new Hillary lie in the few minutes it takes for this to be posted.
Regarding Snipergate, Hil's supporters better hope their little airhead was lying about it otherwise Hillary can be judged as being so delusional that she needs to be committed for her own sake.
Yes, Comrade Hillary is a phony through and through.
Let's review some of her most notable whoppers.
a) Cattlegate — where this she supposedly turned $1,000 into a $100,000 is a short time
b) the Rose law firm's billing records
c) Filegate — the missing FBI files
d) Travelgate,
e) Whitewater and Castle Grande.
f) her role in destroying women who her husband sexually assaluted
g) having been instrumental in brokering the Irish peace deal,
etc., etc. etc.
Oh, yes, the woman even lied about where her name "Hillary" came from, about being a "life-long NY Yankees fan" when she decided to interlop into New York, how she — a hater of the U. S. military — tried to sign up as a U.S. Marine but was turned down, and so on.
So deeply ingrained is deceipt in this woman, that she lies even when she does not have to.
Not to recognize that both the Clinton are conginial liars is willful ignorance and a denial of objective reality. Trusting this dumpy little comrade is itself a delusion that afflicts particularily those of the kook feminist persuasion.
April 6th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Ghost—"me thinks thou dost protest too much"
April 6th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Gee, it didn't take me long to stumble across another NEW whopper by Comrade Hillary.
Check it out, King. This one invloves Ohio.
American Thinker
April 05, 2008
Hillary "Misspeaks" Again?
Rick Moran
Apparently, Hillary Clinton's nose is growing longer by the day. Here's the latest from the imagination of the former First Lady.
Clinton has been eliciting tears and anger with her story about a pregnant women who was denied care for herself and baby at an Ohio hospital resulting in her death.
But according to the hospital, the story is not entirely accurate. In fact, it's not very accurate at all. Actually, it's a lie:
The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio.
But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.
“We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System.
Linda M. Weiss, a spokeswoman for the not-for-profit hospital, said the Clinton campaign had never contacted the hospital to check the accuracy of the story, which Mrs. Clinton had first heard from a Meigs County, Ohio, sheriff’s deputy in late February.
Oooops.
Of course, she can say that it's not her fault the story is incorrect because she heard it 3rd hand. But one wonders the standards of truth her campaign uses when these 'misstatements' are exposed.
Update: Clarice Feldman adds, Hillary lies so much that if she ever told a half-truth it would improve her credibility.
++++
That crazy kook of a woman writes: —"me thinks thou dost protest too much."
Hardly. I don't protest nearly enough.
I only scratched the surface of Hillary's lies. To do full justice to the subject, it would take a book of which there are several out with a detailed listing of Comrade Hillary's lies and even criminal behavior.
If the fems were honest with themselves they'd admit they know Hillary is a sleaze and a liar and confess to supporting her because SHE'S A WOMAN. Grow up!
April 6th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Ghost….dude….save your powder.
Obama will be the Democratic candidate. Don't waste all that Limbaugh cheese on Hillary. You may burn out before the Big Show starts.
Forget Clinton, and go back to splicing Reverend Wright video clips.
Just looking out for your interests.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:19 am
crazy kook,
Your attempts to downplay Hillary's obscession with lying are not convincing.
I believe that you would support her no matter what she says, and that is both revealing and troubling.
Perhaps Ghost is right. Maybe you are willing to support a sleaze and a liar as long as that sleazy liar is female. The blacks and the Reverends support Obama simply because of his skin tone, so supporters of both candidates have more in common than they care to admit. It's called superficiality. The leftists have a trademark on it's application to political candidates.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Rev: The Founders would look at the gun violence in urban areas and agree to do something about it.
We must take a centrist position on guns, at the very least. That means regulating and tracking guns.
Our founders would cry if they saw our current judicial system. The lawyers and criminals are the only ones happy with it……that says it all. They used to have firing squads, hangings, electrocution, lethal injection, and while some still exist……………….they are used more and more sparingly. Too bad noone has a sparing attitude when it comes to our tax dollars, being utilized to support these scumbags. The media scrutinizes everything the police do and now they're afraid to even bother enforcing the law. We need a regulated militia of vigilantes. Let them take care of the business under the radar.
If you don't like John Roberts, wait till you get a load of who we'll replace Darth Bader Ginsburg with.
April 6th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
I support Hillary because she is smart, prepared, heads upon heads above the rest in grasp of the issues—and it is a BONUS to me that she is a woman—no I would not support just any woman, because she is a woman. I support her because she is the best candidate, in my opinion.
Now, lay off of her. You guys sound like pure woman-haters to me, and you're scaring me with your fervant hate-spewing comments.
Notice that I almost always clarify and let you know that these are MY OPINIONS—you are entitled to yours as I to mine. We are in America.
April 6th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Rebecca,
Why do you label anyone who disagrees with you as expressing hate? Sounds like you’re paranoid
And come on! Hillary engaged in criminal behavior; she just wasn't prosecuted for it for political reasons.
But as one wag noted above — why get exercised over the loathsome Hillary when she can't even win the Dim nomination from a guy with a funny name and whose national experience is just two years in the U.S. Senate?
Well, "that crazy kook of a woman" would say that it's because I'm a 'woman hater.' But the that's not it. Rather it's that I'm a ghost because of the Clintons. What, you think I drove to Fort Marcy Park and shot myself there? Come on. That park is just where they dumped my body.
And the Ghost won't rest until the Clintons are vomited out of public office. Let them be celebrity if they want, but public office is too sacred a trust to be soiled by either of those two huckesters. And amazingly, even Dims & libs are now coming to agree with this view.
April 6th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Now, lay off of her. You guys sound like pure woman-haters to me, and you're scaring me with your fervant hate-spewing comments.
Come on guys, you heard the lady. Beside, if you appreciate home cooked meals, ironed shirts, and a clean house…………you'll do what's best.
April 7th, 2008 at 5:10 am
http://www.cleveland.com/schultz/index.ssf?/base/living-0/120747066426150.xml&coll=2&thispage=1
Go to the above link all Hillary haters: here is what backlash will be about for you for years to come. Mark my words.
And Ghost—those accusations of yours are dubious still, and wait till the stuff on Obama and McCain starts trickling out all this summer–
We are commenting on a 'gun' and 'right to bear arms" article—I don't know you, you don't know me—Thank God–you hate spewers are scary people—who knows what kinds of vicious acts you might be capable of or you of me?
PS: Hillary did hear that repeated "dead baby;dead woman" story from a person out of law enforcement—I'm sure she thought that might be a reasonable source to quote—without that story, she might just tell mine—without health care I am not dead, but almost and broke from it all to boot.
April 7th, 2008 at 8:40 am
That article pretty much sums up one of the most endearing traits of the dems, kook woman–a self-righteous desire to control people's minds.
Anyone who criticizes Barack is a racist, while anyone who criticizes Hillary is a sexist.
April 7th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Not criticism, but the audacity to suggest or outright plead for Hillary to acquiesce—not only an insult to all her supporters for whom she speaks—but an insult to our democratic process of selecting a candidate—this is the point I stress—not mind control—allowing this woman to stand up in this centruy at this time—just like Barack or Nader or McCain or even me….who you guys named a kook…which I am not, but seems the only way I can speak to you on this forum, to degrade myself…from now on, call me Presidential Candidate Rebecca–
April 7th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Rebecca,
As a Hillary fan, and since you linked to that Connie Schultz piece, you should really like the new post I wrote. It's called 'The Case For Hillary.'
You probably won't like what I'm about to say to Vince, however.
Vince,
Like you, I consider the words 'Clinton' and 'liar' to be almost synonymous. The list of Clinton lies is so long that I've probably forgotten more of them that I can remember. Your list was a pretty good start. You know another Clinton list that's real long ? The one that shows how many Clinton associates went to jail or were indicted.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:28 am
frank,
Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say before, because I mostly agree with your last comment. I think guns should be legal, but I have no problem with them being registered. I also am not a gun loon who thinks my next door neighbor should be allowed to purchase an Abrams tank and fifty rocket launchers if he wants to.
Your one statement, "Force is rarely a permanent solution to a problem but comservatives don't seem to get this", reminds me of a saying I heard that goes something like this: "Violence never solved anything - except WWI, WWII, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, etc, etc." I prefer the Martin Luther King approach to injustice myself, but sometimes, force is the only way.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Alex: You are consistent, I'll give you that much.
"We need a regulated militia of vigilantes. Let them take care of the business under the radar.
If you don't like John Roberts, wait till you get a load of who we'll replace Darth Bader Ginsburg with."
Thankfully, Republicans won't get to nominate the next Supreme.
But I must ask you….you're not really an advocate for anarchy and lynch mobs…are you?
April 7th, 2008 at 11:35 am
"you're not really an advocate for anarchy and lynch mobs…are you?"
I see no reason to bring Berkeley into this…or is there a conservative speaking on a college campus somewhere ?
April 7th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
My apologies Presidential Candidate Rebecca.
But the article seems to confuse the Dem situation more than anything. As King's most recent post illustrates, Clinton actually has a very good case for staying in and I think even a decent chance of winning.
Obama and his supporters seem to care nothing of the democratic process, but I don't see how it's sexism. Mostly, it's elitism. They know what's good for the unwashed undereducated and they know how best to manipulate the 'existing rules,' so it all works out for the best!
April 8th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Here’s a link to an American Spectator piece on how B. Hussein Obama is trying to win the votes of rural Pennsylvanians.
http://spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13018
[I'd say BO is as much for 2nd Amendment rights as he is for the rights of unborn babies not to be butchered in abortion mills.]
April 9th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Exactly right, Vince. It's the same thing Obama did with the NAFTA issue in Ohio. It's the same old political doubletalk. Whatever it takes to fool the people into voting for him.
I don't know how even the pro-choice crowd can approve of partial birth abortion. That's some sick stuff. Obama voted FOR it. I guess he doesn't ever think a woman should be "punished" with a baby.