13 October 2008

Barack Obama And The 2nd Amendment

It's too bad "fact check" organizations aren't publicly traded during the election season as they seem to be the only businesses that keep on swinging through the market slide. Of course, if they were investment puddles, perhaps people would actually check the facts about these fact check groups.

I really started to question these "unbiased" public servants *wink* when I noticed a growing similarity between their take on most issues and the rhetoric of the Obama. Based on their analysis of honesty, it seemed that I had misjudged the product of Chicago chicanery and that he is actually more honest than a man who gave up freedom for torture because of his integrity. Could this be possible? Admittedly, it is difficult to judge on subjects where I am Valentine Michael Smith trying to understand "the one who groks." But what if it's an issue that is relatively simple to verify. Take, for example, Barack Obama's stance on the 2nd Amendment.

The NRA has released several ads condemning Obama, claiming that he would be the most anti-gun president in American history. They claim that Obama has a ten point plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment, which includes banning the use of firearms for home defense.

For his part, Obama has started to portray himself as John Wayne lite, riding upright with the reins of his white stallion clenched in his teeth as he tramples through freedoms wielding a class envy tax shooter in each hand. And to prove his hardline, bitter gun-clinging beliefs, he has taken the favored approach of liberal machismo and employed lawyers to write snitty letters to media outlets that play NRA ads besmirching his image.

So who is right? Does Obama have a long record of anti-second Amendment votes and comments or is he Charlton Heston without gravitas? Let's get back to those fact checkers in paragraphs 1 and 2.

First there is FactCheck.org, which claims that the NRA "distorts" Barack Obama's anti-gun positions. FactCheck.org, of course, is a product of the Annenberg . . . wait a minute. Isn't the Annenberg Foundation at the center of the Ayers/Obama controversy? It's coming back to me now . . . those records from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an organization that Obama chaired and that Ayers co-founded, that are supposed to be made available to the public. But wait, just because there is an Obama connection, does that mean that this organization takes a liberal stance when fact checking? Especially when it comes to guns? Well . . .

Just last year, FactCheck's primary funding source, the Annenberg Foundation, gave $50,000 to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence for "efforts to reduce gun violence by educating the public and by enacting and enforcing regulations governing the gun industry." Annenberg made a similar grant for $100,000 in 2005.
So it seems the funders of FactCheck.org have targeted the NRA through a desire to regulate lawful gun ownership.

So what about another prominent "fact checking" org: PolitiFact.com?

Not only did PolitiFact claim that the NRA ads were misleading, they flat out nah-nah-boo-boo'd the National Rifle Association with the dreaded rating of "Pants on Fire" (which either means they are really-really lying or Bill Clinton is making the intern rounds again). This must be serious stuff. And PolitiFact isn't funded by an anti-gun foundation, no, they're run by a newspaper: The St. Petersberg Times. Yep, a main stream media type . . . and a lippy liberal one at that. In fact, the St. Petersberg Times, endorsed Obama, has been caught fabricating stories of racism on behalf of Obama, and they even top Bill O'Reilly's defamation list. Now, I'm not saying that O'Reilly is the most sane fellow stepping the globe, but whether you like him or not it should at least raise eyebrows that a "fact check" organization tops a prominent pundit's hall of shame.

So when we check the facts it appears that the fact checkers have their own agenda to serve. And if we can't trust them, who can we trust? Well, The Khaki Elephant for one. But if you must, go and check out the facts for yourself. Word of warning to Obama supporters who want to bitterly cling to their guns . . . the NRA's case is very well documented.

Here is a sampling of the NRA on Barack Obama:
  • Obama voted to allow the prosecution of people who use a firearm in defense of their homes (Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165, vote 20)
  • Obama endorsed a ban on all handguns (Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Questionnaire, 9/9/96, Politico, 3/31/08)
  • Obama supported increasing taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500% (Chicago Defender, 12/13/99)
  • Obama voted in support of liability lawsuits against firearm manufacturers for the misuse of their products by others (U.S. Senate, S. 397, Vote 219)
  • Obama voted to limit gun purchases to one a month (Illinois Senate, H.B. 2579, Vote 34)
  • Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting (U.S. Senate vote, S. 397, Vote 217)
  • Obama has opposed right to carry laws (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/2/08; Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04)
  • Obama has repeatedly claimed that local jurisdictions have the capability to institute their own gun laws (Baltimore Sun.com, 2/15/08) -- which conflicts with the recent Supreme Court Decision District Of Columbia vs. Heller

So while Fact Check organizations cry liar-liar, the evidence is clear. Barack Obama hopes to bring his brand of Change to the 2nd Amendment


  1. Michael Ejercito said...

    The Obama campaign sent letters to TV stations demanding that they not run the NRA ads, saying that their licensing requirements prohibit them from broadcasting false, deceptive, and misleading advertising.

  2. M.A. said...

    Great post. I've been getting emails from factcheck.org. I will scrutinize them a little more closely now.

    Michael...Obama trying to control what material the TV stations are allowed to show? Sounds like Cuba and China (to name a few places).

  3. NEO, SOC said...

    m.a. - that's just what Obama and the democratic party want! A socialist regime that controls speech they determine is "non-profitable". They want to disarm the people before they subjugate them,

  4. Michael Ejercito said...

    Michael...Obama trying to control what material the TV stations are allowed to show? Sounds like Cuba and China (to name a few places).

    That should be the bigger scandal.

  5. johnny said...
    This comment has been removed by the author.
  6. Anonymous said...

    I do agree. These organizations have as much credibility (with me) as political pollsters.

    Don't forget, everyone.

    Get out and VOTE.

    McCain on 4 November

    Obama on 7 November

  7. Freadom said...

    Excellent post. Yes, and Obama on November 7.

  8. Khaki Elephant said...

    That should be the bigger scandal.

    It is among those of us looking beyond the mainstream media. And the rest of the country will be forced to acknowledge it if he is elected an moves forward with the ridiculously name "fairness doctrine"

  9. Khaki Elephant said...


    McCain on 4 November

    Obama on 7 November