Posts Tagged ‘questionnaire’

Obama: “Now That I’ve Been Elected, One’s Associations Really ARE Important”

November 13, 2008

The exciting thing about an Obama presidency – aside from the very real possibility that an inexperienced radical will fail spectacuarly and send the whole country plunging to its ruin – is the neverending stream of hypocrisy that flows from the man.

The man whose campaign offered a constant stream of “that amounts to the charge of guilt by association” when reports of Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, and others surfaced, is now more fixated on “associations” than any President in history.  This from a man who would certainly fail to achieve a security clearance in any administration other than one in which he was President.

Jackie Calmes, writing for The New York Times, says:

A seven-page questionnaire being sent by the office of President-elect Barack Obama to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts may be the most extensive — some say invasive — application ever.

Now, it doesn’t surprise me one iota, but it will likely come as a surprise that the man who campaigned as the paradigmatic symbol epitomizing ‘hope’ and ‘change’ would prove himself to be the paradigmatic Stalinist instead.

My favorite quote of the article:

Just in case the previous 62 questions do not ferret out any potential controversy, the 63rd is all-encompassing: “Please provide any other information, including information about other members of your family, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the president-elect.”

As though anyone could actually embarrass the president-elect more than he has embarrassed himself and the country that voted for him with his own “sources of embarrassment.”

In 1992 it was a serious matter than Bill Clinton had once smoked marijuana; he had to convince voters that he “didn’t inhale.”  Obama used hard drugs like cocaine.  It is difficult to imagine a President having openly associated with openly anti-Semitic PLO functionaries such as Rashid Khalidi, but here we are.  It is beyond impossible to imagine a President having not merely associated with, but actively PARTNERED with, a terrorist who bombed the Pentagon and the Capital building.  But here we are.  It is utterly impossible to imagine a President who spent 23 years attending a racist and anti-American church and remaining with said church even AFTER the pastor shouted for all to hear, “God damn America!”  But here we are.

And his administration is worried that some detail about someone’s life could be “embarrassing”?

Obama’s Hometown Paper Says “Repeal 2nd Amendment”

June 30, 2008

You always got to like it when liberals show just how shockingly out of touch with reality – and with American life – they truly are.

It’s even better when it’s the hometown paper of a candidate for President who is solidly positioned as THE most liberal Senator in the country.

The Chicago Tribune today said, in its editorial titled, “Repeal the 2nd Amendment“:

No, we don’t suppose that’s going to happen any time soon. But it should.

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.

I would argue instead that the editors of the Chicago Tribune could use a brain.

Once you decide to destroy one fundamental civil right, you pretty much open the door to destroying all the rest of them. I mean, what the heck, why go for second when you can get first? Why not repeal the 1st Amendment? Then we wouldn’t have to read the drivel from those idiotic morons over at the Chicago Tribune.

Okay, so the Chicago Tribune wants to go the way of the Nazis, the Fascists, the Communists, and every single other totalitarian regime throughout history that has ever sought to solidify power by taking away the ability of its citizenry to defend itself against tyranny.

The language of the 2nd Amendment is crystal clear to anyone who isn’t radically committed to overthrowing it. If “the people” is a synonym for a “a well regulated militia,” then it follows that whenever we see the term anywhere else, we should NOT consider it as an individual right, but rather only the right of some government supervised and organized group.

Stop and think about it: do liberals want some white supremacist group starting a “militia”? Would they honor the gun rights of that militia? How about a bunch of American radical Islamicists who want to start a militia? Obviously not. Only a government supervised and government controlled entity such as the National Guard would qualify for liberals.

But is that “the people”? I’m not in the National Guard, and you probably aren’t either. So you aren’t “the people”?

Clearly, the “well regulated militia” was intended to be comprised of private individual citizens, “the people.” You could play the same stupid game with the first amendment, and argue that only the organized press should have free speech, because “the people” should have the Constitutional rights of speech and assembly only by means of “the press.”

You start to see what asinine nonsense this view is. It is terrifying that the Supreme Court was composed of such hard-core judicial activists in the past that they pretty much did whatever they wanted to do with the rights of Americans.

This editorial openly demonstrates just how radical the Chicago Tribune is, and how radically leftist Chicago politics are.

And it provides a neon “pointing finger” sign aimed at Barack obama.

Obama has said that he believed the Washington D.C. complete ban on handguns was constitutional, even as he has tried to say he’s also for individual gun rights. It’s one of his better “I voted for that bill before I voted against it” moments.

During An Interview, Obama Acknowledged His Support For The D.C. Gun Ban. Questioner Leon Harris: “One other issue that’s of great importance here in the district as well is gun control. You said in Idaho recently – I’m quoting here – ‘I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns,’ but you support the D.C. handgun ban.” Obama: “Right.” (Leon Harris and Sen. Barack Obama, Forum Sponsored By ABC And Politico.Com, Washington, DC, 2/12/08)

But Obama has previously held views on gun ownership even more radical than this:

In Response To A 1996 Independent Voters Of Illinois Questionnaire, Obama Indicated That He Supported Banning The “Manufacture, Sale And Possession Of Handguns.” Question: “Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” Obama’s Response: “Yes.” (Independent Voters Of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 General Candidate Questionnaire, Barack Obama Responses, 9/9/96)

Obama Was Director Of Anti-Gun Joyce Foundation, Which Spent Millions On Gun-Control Causes. “Adding even further skepticism to Obama’s claim of support for the 2nd Amendment is his previous service as a director of the Joyce Foundation. Since 2000, the Joyce Foundation has provided over $15 Million in funding to radical gun control organizations such as the Violence Policy Center and the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. The Joyce Foundation is tightly linked to the Soros Open Society Instit ute — an extremist group that advocates a worldwide ban on civilian firearm ownership.” (Illinois State Rifle Association, “ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward Law-Abiding Firearm Owners,” Press Release, 8/24/04)

In 2004, Obama Voted Against Self-Defense Rights. “[Obama] opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.” (Ryan Keith “Obama Record In State Legislature Offers Possible Ammunition For Critics,” The Associated Press, 1/17/07)

In 2004, Running For U.S. Senate Obama Called For Federal Legislation To Pre-Empt State Concealed Carry Laws. “In a February survey of Democratic primary candidates for the U.S. Senate by the Tribune, Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carried weapons except for law enforcement is needed.” (Liam Ford, “Keyes Backs Law On Concealed Guns,” Chicago Tribune, 8/25/04)

I in particular react to Obama’s vote against self-protection. There is a clear correlation between gun controls for ordinary citizens and sky-high crime rates. Washington D.C. – which had the most restrictive gun controls in the country for some 32 years – has spent most of those same 32 years as the murder capital of the United States.

If you force yourself into my home uninvited – and you are not a police officer exercising a lawful warrant – I will shoot you dead. That provides a rather powerful disincentive for you to try to break into my house, doesn’t it? But for most of his political career, Barack Obama has supported taking that right – and that ability to protect myself and my family – away from me and from other law abiding citizens.

Only law abiding citizens pay attention to laws; criminals don’t. That’s the difference between “law-abiding” and “criminal.” When it’s illegal for law-abiding citizens to own guns, then only criminals will have the guns.

People like Barack Obama are protected by armed Secret Service agents, or can afford to live in safe areas. But what about the rest of us? What about the millions of ordinary people who can’t count on their police arriving in thirty seconds or less? Shouldn’t they have the right to protect themselves in their own homes?

Barack Obama has come out of the radical leftist cesspool of Chicago politics. He’s trying to position himself as a centrist moderate for the general election, but the truth of the matter is, we simply shouldn’t trust this guy.