Gun Control

[Miniv]

I did not write my post pointing any fingers at any candidate. However, there have been cities and counties throughout the country (I don't know who their political leaders are or were) who have had laws introduced preventing them from purchasing firearms for personal use, just in this last year or two. Watch -- this is how it will happen.......very gradually.

Guns are ugly because of what they do when the wrong person is handling them...........But if you give up your right to have one, God help you.......In My Opinion.

 

[Minimor]

For those that have nothing against gun control, or are even somewhat in favor of it--do you have any idea how much gun control costs a country?

Ask how much gun control has cost Canada. Ask how effective it has been. Criminals can still get guns here, even with all the money that has been spent on gun control and the national firearm registry. Perhaps it's just a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of war, but we're still talking millions, not thousands, of dollars. A shocking waste of taxpayer money if you ask me. But of course...no one did.

 

[Camelotcavs]

Can anyone point out to me when and where Obama said he was going to repeal the 2nd Amendment?

His record speaks for him:

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

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_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, 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_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, 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/2007/12/11/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.

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.)

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.

 

[LowriseMinis]

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nr...gets_obama.html

"Regarding a Constitutional right to guns, Obama says:

Obama, "Sportsmen": Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns.

On the issue of urban policy, Obama says he favors "commonsense measures" to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children, and that he would bring back the expired "assault weapon" ban and make it permanent:

Obama, "Urban Policy": Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."

NRA Claim: "Ban use of Firearms for Home Self-Defense"

False: Obama is proposing no such ban.

NRA Claim: "Ban Rifle Ammunition Commonly Used for Hunting and Sport Shooting"

False: Obama is not proposing to ban hunting ammunition. And he did not, as claimed in an NRA TV spot featuring a Virginia hunter named Karl Rusch, vote to "ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition." What Obama voted for was a measure to ban "armor-piercing" ammunition, which the measure's sponsor has said repeatedly would not cover hunting ammunition.

NRA Claim: "Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns"

False: Obama says he does not support any such handgun ban and never has. He supports "reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns" (not manufacture) and has said a ban is not "politically practicable."

NRA Claim: "Mandate a Government-Issued License to Purchase a Firearm"

Misleading: Obama indeed has spoken in favor of licensing handguns, but so far as we can determine he hasn't called for registration of hunting weapons. And he's said a national gun registration law isn't politically possible: "I just don't think we can get that done."

NRA Claim: "Pass Federal Laws Eliminating Your Right-to-Carry"

True: In 2004, while running for the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat he now holds, Obama indeed called for "national legislation" to prevent anyone but law enforcers from carrying concealed firearms.

NRA Claim: "Expand the Clinton Semi-Auto Weapons Ban to Include Millions More Firearms"

Partly true: The NRA refers here to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which was put in place during former President Bill Clinton's administration. Title XI of the legislation spoke directly to regulations on assault weapons. The law outlawed the semi-automatic versions of 19 kinds of military-style assault weapons, but it expired in 2004. The "assault weapon ban" was always a misnomer, however. Fully automatic weapons – like the military assault rifle carried on battlefields – had always been illegal to own without a very hard-to-obtain federal license, under legislation going back to the days of Al Capone. They remain so today.

NRA Claim: "Appoint Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary Who Share His Views on the Second Amendment"

Unsupported: The NRA's fact sheet points out that Obama has voted against the two newest members of the U.S. Supreme Court. Obama voted against the confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005 and Justice Samuel Alito in 2006. They happen to be two of the five justices that voted in favor of the Court's decision to overturn the District of Columbia's longstanding handgun ban this year. The New York Times has reported that Obama "favored Democratic filibusters to block many Republican nominees deemed too conservative." But the NRA can point to no statement by Obama calling for a Second-Amendment test for his judicial appointees, and we could find none.

NRA Claim: "Increase Federal Taxes on Guns and Ammunition by 500 Percent"

Uncertain: This claim is based on an article that appeared in the Chicago Defender on Dec. 13, 1999, when Obama was in the Illinois state Senate. According to the Defender, at an anti-gun rally, Obama "outlined his anti-gun plan," which, among other things, sought to "increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] -- weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths." As a U.S. senator, however, Obama has not pushed for any such tax on ammunition.

NRA Claim: "Close Down 90 Percent of Gun Shops in America"

Uncertain: This claim also is based on the1999 Defender article. It reported Obama was pushing "all federally licensed gun dealers sell firearms in a storefront and not from their homes while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park." The NRA states that the 5-mile limit would have resulted in the closing of 90 percent of gun shops in the country. But as a U.S. senator Obama hasn't pushed for a 5-mile limit and isn't proposing one as part of his presidential campaign.

Obama "The Most Anti-Gun President"?

In another mailer making similar claims about Obama, the NRA says, "Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history," which is a pretty tall statement. We don't know how George Washington, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson might have felt about armor-piercing ammunition or assault weapons. We can, however, quote what Obama has said about the Constitutional right to bear arms most recently, after the Supreme Court swept away the D.C. handgun ban. He issued a statement calling for striking a balance between gun rights and public safety:

Obama (June 26): 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. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today’s decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

Will He or Won't He?

At a campaign stop in Duryea, Pa., in early September, Obama again attempted to reassure gun owners that he doesn't intend to take away their guns, and couldn't even if he wanted to:

Obama (Sept. 5): The bottom line is this. If you’ve got a rifle, you’ve got a shotgun, you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it away. Alright? So they can keep on talking about it but this is just not true. And by the way, here’s another thing you’ve got to understand. Even if I wanted to take it away, I couldn’t get it done. I don’t have the votes in Congress.

 

[Camelotcavs]

Factcheck And Brady Campaign Share Same Sugar DaddyMORE NEWS9/23/2008 - Impartial? Independent? NO!

FactCheck and Brady Campaign in Bed with Annenberg Foundation

FactCheck supposedly exists to look beyond a politician's claims. Ironically, in its analysis of NRA materials on Barack Obama, these so-called "FactCheckers" use the election year campaign rhetoric of a presidential candidate and a verbal claim by one of the most zealous gun control supporters in Congress to refute facts compiled by NRA's research of vote records and review of legislative language.

There's another possible explanation behind FactCheck's positions. Just last year, FactCheck's primary funding source, the Annenberg Foundation, also 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. (source)

Regardless of the cause, it's clear that while FactCheck swoons over a politician's rhetoric, NRA prefers to look at the more mundane details - like how that politician voted on a bill and what kind of impact that legislation had or may have had on law-abiding gun owners.

FactCheck claims that NRA advertisements "distort" Barack Obama's anti-gun positions, but FactCheck's own sources prove otherwise. In fact, even Obama's campaign has refused to deny his most extreme positions.

FactCheck also dismisses NRA's statements as "contrary to what [Obama] has said throughout his campaign." But as FactCheck says, "believing something doesn't make it so." And unless FactCheck is an arm of the Obama campaign, isn't it their job to find out if Obama is telling the truth?

FactCheck claim: "Obama is proposing no ...ban" on use of firearms for self-defense in the home.

FactCheck is wrong. Obama supported local handgun bans in the Chicago area by opposing any allowance for self-defense. Obama opposed an Illinois bill (SB 2165, 2004) that would have created an "affirmative defense" for a person who used a prohibited firearm in self-defense in his own home.

As FactCheck notes, the bill was provoked by a case where a Wilmette, Ill. homeowner shot an intruder in self-defense in his home; the homeowner's handgun was banned by a town ordinance. (After the U.S. Supreme Court found Washington, D.C.'s similar ban unconstitutional, Wilmette repealed the ordinance to avoid litigation.)

The legislation was very plainly worded, but as limited as its protection was, Obama voted against it in committee and on the floor:

It is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another ...when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.

If a person cannot use a handgun for self-defense in the home without facing criminal charges, self-defense with handguns in the home is effectively banned.

Even aside from SB 2165, Obama's support for a total handgun ban (see below) would be a crippling blow to defense in the home, since (as the Supreme Court recently affirmed) handguns are "the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family." (District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2818 (2008)).

FactCheck claim: Obama "did not ...vote to 'ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition."

FactCheck is wrong. Obama voted for an amendment by longtime ammunition ban advocate Sen. Edward Kennedy (S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, Vote No. 217, July 29, 2005), which would have fundamentally changed the federal "armor piercing ammunition" law (18 U.S.C. ' 922(a)(7)), by banning any bullet that "may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines... to be capable of penetrating body armor" that "meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers."

Federal law currently bans bullets as "armor piercing" based upon the metals used in their construction, such as those made of steel and those that have heavy jackets. (18 U.S.C. ' 921(a)(17)). The Kennedy amendment would have fundamentally changed the law to add a ban on bullets on the basis of whether they penetrate the "minimum" level of body armor, regardless of the bullets' construction or the purposes for which they were designed (e.g., hunting).

Many bullets designed and intended for use in rifles (including hunting rifles) have, over the years, been used in special-purpose hunting and target handguns, thus they "may be used in a handgun."

The "minimum" level of body armor, Type I, only protects against the lowest-powered handgun cartridges. Any center-fire rifle used for hunting, target shooting, or any other purpose, and many handguns used for the same purposes, are capable of penetrating Type I armor, regardless of the design of the bullet.

Obama also said, on his 2003 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, that he would "support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons." (source) The rifles banned as "assault weapons" under the 1994 Clinton gun ban fire cartridges such as the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester - the same ammunition used in common hunting rifles.

It's true that in 2005, Sen. Kennedy denied his amendment would ban hunting ammunition. But in a floor debate on an identical amendment the previous year, Kennedy specifically denounced the .30-30 Winchester rifle cartridge, used by millions of deer hunters since 1895. "It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America," said Sen. Kennedy. (Congressional Record, 2/26/04, p. S1634.)

Isn't it FactCheck's job to be skeptical of politicians' claims, especially when the plain language says otherwise?

FactCheck claim: "Obama says he does not support any ... handgun ban and never has."

FactCheck is wrong. Obama has never disavowed his support for a handgun ban. On Obama's 1996 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, he clearly stated his support for "state legislation to ...ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." Although Obama first claimed he had not seen the survey, a later version appeared with his handwritten notes modifying some of the answers. But he didn't change any of his answers on gun issues, including the handgun ban.

FactCheck itself cites Obama's 2003 questionnaire to the same group. When asked again if he supported a handgun ban, he could simply have said, "No." Instead, as FactCheck notes, he "avoid[ed] a yes-or-no answer" by saying a ban on handguns "is not politically practicable," then stated his support for other restrictions.

The 1996 and 2003 positions are not at all contradictory. Many anti-gun groups, such as the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, support total bans on handguns but also support lesser regulations that are more "politically practicable."

FactCheck claim: Saying Obama supports gun licensing is "misleading."

FactCheck is wrong. Obama's fancy election-year footwork - claiming he doesn't support licensing or registration because he doesn't think he "can get that done" - isn't enough to get around his clear support for handgun registration and licensing.

What's really misleading is the idea that handgun registration isn't really gun registration. Handguns are about one-third of the firearms owned in the United States, and American gun owners know better than to think registration schemes will end with any one kind of gun.

FactCheck claim: Saying Obama would appoint judges who agree with him is "unsupported."

This FactCheck claim is just strange. Don't most Americans expect that the President will appoint people who agree with him to all levels of the government? And putting all Obama's campaign rhetoric about "empathy" aside, why would judges be any different?

And on the larger issue of Obama's view of the Second Amendment, FactCheck once again takes Obama's spin at face value. While Obama now claims to embrace the Supreme Court's decision striking down the D.C. gun ban, he refused to sign an amicus brief stating that position to the Court. And when Washington, D.C. television reporter Leon Harris said to Obama, "You support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," Obama nodded - and again didn't disavow his support. (WJLA TV interview, 2/11/2008.)

 

[AppyLover2]

Question: If there weren't an element of doubt about Obama's position on gun control why would the NRA and the Illinois Rifle Association be raising the issue? I haven't seen or heard anything about it here (except for the email I posted) but I understand it's getting a lot of publicity in some states.

 

[Cathy_H]

Karyn, I was in the process of researching Factcheck.org since it has been quoted on here so often. Thanks

Factcheck.org, used as a resource by so many who wish to debunk negative coverage of Obama, is also a Division, or Project, of the Annenberg Foundation................Senator Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Division, or Project, of the Annenberg Foundation.

William (Bill) Ayers, unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist was instrumental in founding the Challenge, thanks to his ties to Mayor Richard Daley. The first Daley was also a pal of Thomas Ayers, Bill’s father, former CEO of ComEd (owned by Exelon).[incidentally, the current CEO of ComEd, Frank M. Clark, is a major money bundler for the Obama campaign.]

ACORN has received payments of nearly a million dollars from the Barack Obama Campaign in 2008, Apparently the payments were funneled through Citizens Services Inc.,

Chicago-based Woods Fund, which has a history of issuing controversial grants. Ayres and Obama served together on the Funds board (and are still listed). [Other grantees during their tenure included PLO employee Rashid Khalidi and the Obamas' church, Trinity United.]

Is there a direct connection between the Annenberg Foundation and ACORN, or are they just three degrees of separation apart, with Ayres and Obama smack in the middle? We are curious about that. [Walter Annenberg, founder of the $500 million gift that funded the Annenberg Challenge, had deeply rooted Chicago ties that clearly intersect with some of the same ties to Thomas and William Ayres.]

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/2...-family-affair/

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994

http://www.factcheck.org/about/

 

[Bassett]

This all a lot of bunk. We cannot believe fact check any more than any other source. I go by the way a candidate votes and his record is PRETTY scary in my opinion.

I dare anyone on here to actually say they think if guns were banned, that they actually think if a person wanted a gun they wouldn't be able to get one.

Just think of the saying that has been around for many years. If guns are banned ONLY the criminals will have them.

 

[Nathan Luszcz]

Well Basset people like me or you won't be able to get them... but those that have no scruples will have no problem getting them any more than they do now. Gun CONTROL starts with keeping them out of the hands of crooks... not out of the hands of honest (mostly) citizens.

 

[Pepipony]

Question: If there weren't an element of doubt about Obama's position on gun control why would the NRA and the Illinois Rifle Association be raising the issue? I haven't seen or heard anything about it here (except for the email I posted) but I understand it's getting a lot of publicity in some states.

Because they want a Republican in office. Period.

 

[LowriseMinis]

Interestingly enough, FactCheck has a bit about that in their article, too.

The NRA Response
The NRA responded to this article on its Web site, claiming that we are not impartial or independent and are linked to the Brady Campaign. We think the facts show otherwise.

The NRA argues that both FactCheck.org and the Brady Campaign have received funds from the Annenberg Foundation, and concludes that we’re both “in bed with” the foundation and therefore we are biased.

It was actually news to us that the Annenberg Foundation has given to Brady. We had to look it up. Here’s what else we discovered: The Annenberg Foundation also has given $14.6 million to the conservative Hoover Institution, $12.3 million to the Reagan library and $3.1 million to the George H.W. Bush library. That’s a pretty crowded bed.

The truth is, the Annenberg Foundation has never advised us on what to say about gun control or any other issue.

The NRA’s claim that we are biased also ignores the fact that we have been as critical of gun-control advocates when they stray from the facts as we are of the NRA’s falsehoods. See, for example, “A False Ad About Assault Weapons.”

 

[AppyLover2]

...has never advised us....

Does that phrase sounds vaguely familiar to anyone else?

Because they want a Republican in office. Period

Good for them. Glad to hear it.

 

[Southern_Heart]

Cathy, Thank you... Thank you.... for posting this. I tried before but got flamed pretty bad for it.

Yes! Bassett I beleive you just can't trust Factchecker.

I also beleive the right to bear arms.

The day I give up my rights to bear arms will be the day that they will have to pry my gun out of my cold dead hands.

Joyce

Karyn, I was in the process of researching Factcheck.org since it has been quoted on here so often. Thanks
Factcheck.org, used as a resource by so many who wish to debunk negative coverage of Obama, is also a Division, or Project, of the Annenberg Foundation................Senator Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Division, or Project, of the Annenberg Foundation.

William (Bill) Ayers, unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist was instrumental in founding the Challenge, thanks to his ties to Mayor Richard Daley. The first Daley was also a pal of Thomas Ayers, Bill’s father, former CEO of ComEd (owned by Exelon).[incidentally, the current CEO of ComEd, Frank M. Clark, is a major money bundler for the Obama campaign.]

ACORN has received payments of nearly a million dollars from the Barack Obama Campaign in 2008, Apparently the payments were funneled through Citizens Services Inc.,

Chicago-based Woods Fund, which has a history of issuing controversial grants. Ayres and Obama served together on the Funds board (and are still listed). [Other grantees during their tenure included PLO employee Rashid Khalidi and the Obamas' church, Trinity United.]

Is there a direct connection between the Annenberg Foundation and ACORN, or are they just three degrees of separation apart, with Ayres and Obama smack in the middle? We are curious about that. [Walter Annenberg, founder of the $500 million gift that funded the Annenberg Challenge, had deeply rooted Chicago ties that clearly intersect with some of the same ties to Thomas and William Ayres.]

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/2...-family-affair/

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994

http://www.factcheck.org/about/

 

[LowriseMinis]

There's no pleasing some people. No matter what sources I post, someone will find exception with them.

 

[Cathy_H]

While we may not lose our right to own a gun - what good will a gun be if you cannot afford the bullets?

Obama & Barney Franks have told you, they WILL raise your taxes and this does not exclude bullets!

And not only might this freedom be lost or greatly restricted but we may also lose our freedom to listen to some of our favorite radio talk shows under Obama..... See below.

[SIZE=12pt]Obama Wants NRA Ads Banned[/SIZE]

The Obama camp has been threatening television and radio stations to keep them from airing anti-Obama ads. The latest target is the NRA and stations in Pennsylvania........ The NRA says Obama's camp are sending out these "intimidating cease and desist letters" to cable operators and television stations, threatening their FCC licenses if they run the ads......... The NRA charged that "Obama and the DNC have been using strong-arm tactics to try and cover up the truth and silence NRA by forcing the stations to assist them in hiding Obama's radical anti-gun record." .... See Newsmax story here http://www.newsmax.com/politics/Obama_Want.../27/135118.html

OBAMA AND THE CONSPIRACY TO KILL TALK RADIO

Looking ahead, liberals have targeted talk radio. .

The left uses allegations of hate speech to set the stage for censorship.

Fairness Doctrine -- The FCC instituted said doctrine in 1949,

The Fairness Doctrine " In practice, it meant that if a TV or radio station say editorialized in favor of one side of an issue, it had to provide equal time to the other side. In 1987, the Reagan FCC repealed the grotesque anachronism. Now, the left is panting to bring it back. This is how the Fairness Doctrine would be applied to talk radio: If a station broadcast three hours of Rush Limbaugh -- or Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or Dr. Dobson -- in the afternoon, it would have to provide equal time to The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Father Michael Pfleger or Osama bin Laden. (And my addition Bill Ayers).

The problem is no one would listen to the later, hence it would sell no advertising and talk stations would very quickly switch to sports, weather, pet psychologists or 1970s' elevator music -- exactly what the left intends. ..............It is absolutely true: The right rules talk radio, because radio is the most market-driven medium.

" "[SIZE=12pt]The Fairness Doctrine is one appointment away from being resurrected.[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]The FCC is governed by five Commissioners -- two from each party. The chairman is a presidential appointee. Obama wins, appoints a new chairman and there's a huge bulls eye drawn around talk radio. !" [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]When you cast a presidential vote in November, you won't just be voting on federal judges or the future security of our nation, you'll also help to decide the fate of talk radio[/SIZE] -- a medium that's gone from 360 stations in 1990 to over 1,300 today. [SIZE=12pt]If there's an authentic voice of the people, this is it, which is why the left both fears and hates it. Its future is in your hands.[/SIZE]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2049374/posts

 

[HGFarm]

The only people gun banning is hurting are the LAW ABIDING citizens. It does NOT stop the criminals from purchasing, stealing and using guns! However, when caught, they get slapped on the wrist, maybe do a couple to a few years, and out they go, back into society to do it again.

How many of you remember the Morton Grove gun ban? (that finally just this year fell by the wayside I understand and I understand the crime there shot up- the year it passed it increased by 15.7% which was 12% over surrounding areas) In 1982, the year after Morton Grove's ban, the town of Kennesaw GA, passed an ordinance mandating residents to own firearms. They have just passed their 25th anniversary- not a resident has been involved in a fatal shooting, as an attacker, victim or defender. The crime rate plummeted for several years after passing this with the crime rate in 2005 a lot lower than it was in 1981 before the law was passed. I dont know of many places that can claim that! The crime rate of the then population of just over 5200, was above the national average. With a population now of over 28,000, the crime rate is half what it was 25 years ago, though the population has increased that much!

Do you know the murder rate in Chicago is up 18% since last year?? Why is that? Assaults there with guns are on the rise too. What is being done regarding CRIMINAL activitiy and laws to prevent this or lock these people up? My understanding is that Chicago has a near absolute gun ban on handguns- but of course, only law abiding citizens pay attention to any laws. The courts are now fighting the gun ban laws there, but the mayor says he is going to defend the ban. It is obvious that banning guns is INEFFECTIVE against violent crime!

Obama refused in 2001 to support extending the death penalty for Illinois murderers connected to gang activity. He claimed it 'unfairly' targeted 'minorities and the poor'. No, I think it targeted murderers and gangsters.

There are many instances showing that banning guns does NOT reduce crime - it increases in the areas the bans are in place. And the crime is not being committed by you and me and the other every day citizens, who try to abide by the law.

I will not EVER give up my guns, and if they dont ask for that, they will pass such ridiculous laws regarding ammunition, etc.. it will make it the next best thing to taking them all away. There are other ways to make life miserable when you cant just remove the amendment giving us the right to bear arms.

What is being done to come down harder on the criminals? Not much from what I can see!! Only the citizens who have to survive day to day and put up with the jerks who would rather rob and murder for a living. Then our tax dollars can support them while they are in jail (if they even have to do any time) and provide their medical and dental care too!!

Getting off my soapbox - this is one issue that just burns me.....

 

[Bassett]

Me too, Laurie.

 

[Cathy_H]

MAKE SURE you listen to the last few sentences in this video............. Woman testifies on gun control.

 

[HGFarm]

Woohoo, you go Cathy H. Thanks for posting that! Yep, THAT is exactly what it is about- protecting ourselves from 'them'.... or we will be right back where we were before the Revolutionary War..... Oh... or are we there already??!!! Taxes and control... hmmmm - can make on think...

 

[Miniv]

MAKE SURE you listen to the last few sentences in this video............. Woman testifies on gun control.

I just watched the U-tube.......and you are right. It IS about those last few sentences the woman said!

And on a side note -- I would like to SMACK the idiot's face who is sitting up behind that table.....leaning his head on his hand with a disgusting smirk on his face. WHO IS THAT???? That guy needs to drummed out of office.......What an arrogant FOOL.