Is this the Change you voted for.

“I believe we can reconfigure our civilian national-security force. We still have a national security apparatus on the civilian side, in the way the State Department is structured and USAID, that harkens back to the Cold War,” Obama said.

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded,” he said.

Under the plan, all middle and high school students would be required to do 50 hours of community service.

Will your kids be drafted into the new brown shirt Obama police?

Is this the change we need?

Howard Stern sends a correspondent out to talk to Harlem voters about Obama. The only twist?
The correspondent intentionally attributes McCain’s positions to Obama, even saying “Do you support Obama’s choice of Sarah Palin to be his VP?” Incredibly, it didn’t seem to phase these voters in their support of Obama: And the took the views as ther own once told Obama had said them. Talk about ignorant blind sheep.

Watch out if Dems gain total control

Democrats are awaiting their Election Day sweep that will give their party a veto-proof and filibuster-proof majority in Congress and total, unstoppable power to enact whatever laws they want.

One of their first targets will be gun-owners. That’s no surprise, since virtually every gun-control scheme that has been perpetrated against the citizens of this country at the local, state, and federal level has been hatched by Democrats.

Yet Democrats falsely claim to be the true champions of the Constitution and our rights thereunder.

Barack Obama, despite his lip service to the Second Amendment, is an arch-enemy of gun-owners. His record as an Illinois legislator and a U.S. senator is proof of that.

Obama is documented as voting for every piece of anti-gun legislation that has come before him. He is on record as stating that handguns should be outlawed, for banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, for banning concealed carry, banning firearms kept in the home, banning most types of hunting rifle ammunition, and for favoring a federal law to nullify state laws that permit concealed carrying of handguns.

Obama can run from his record, but he can’t hide from it. Listen not to what he says, but examine his actual record instead. That’s where you will find the truth about Obama, and it’s ugly.

link

Read this folks Obama to pass a federal tax on your home…….

A plan by Barack Obama to redistribute American wealth on a global level is moving forward in the Senate. It follows Marxist theology — from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

His legislation refers to the “millennium development goal,” a phrase from a declaration adopted by the United Nations Millennium Assembly in 2000 and supported by President Clinton.

It calls for the “eradication of poverty” in part through the “redistribution (of) wealth of land” and “a fair distribution of the earth’s resources.” In other words: American resources.

During a time of economic uncertainty, the plan would cost every American taxpayer around $2,500.

If you’re worried abut gasoline and heating oil prices now, think what they’ll be like when the U.S. is subjected in an Obama administration to global energy consumption and production taxes. Obama’s Global Poverty Act is the “international community’s” foot in the door.

The U.N. Millennium declaration called for a “currency transfer tax,” a “tax on the rental value of land and natural resources,” a “royalty on worldwide fossil energy production — oil, natural gas, coal . . . fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for the airplane use of the skies, fees for the use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels.”

Co-sponsors of S. 2433 include Democrats Maria Cantwell of Washington, Dianne Feinstein of California, Richard Durbin of Illinois and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. GOP globalists supporting the bill include Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Richard Lugar of Indiana.

Lugar has worked with Obama to promote more aid to Russia to promote nuclear nonproliferation. Lugar also promotes the Law of the Sea treaty, which turns over the world’s oceans to an International Seabed Authority that would charge us to drill offshore and have veto power over the movements and actions of the U.S. Navy.

Obama has called on the U.S. to “lead by example” on global warming and probably would submit to a Kyoto-like agreement that would sock Americans with literally trillions of dollars in costs over the next half century for little or no benefit.

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama has said. “That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.”

In an Obama White House, American sovereignty will become an endangered species. The Global Poverty Act is the first toe in the water of global socialism.

Barack Obama tells a plumber in Ohio he wants to “spread the wealth around,” eliciting criticism that his economic recovery plan is socialist in nature.

Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to “spread the wealth around” —

“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed “more and more for fulfilling the American dream.”

“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,” Obama responded. “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

The lawsuit against Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy claiming he doesn’t meet U.S. residency requirements had a motion for a temporary restraining order denied Friday. Judge Surrick denied Berg’s emergency request, ecause Obama had not yet been served with the legal complaint and a summons.

Once the senator is served, Berg will be able to move the suit forward in court. The case is still “very alive and active,” according to an e-mail message from his office.
The lawyer plans to file another motion for a temporary restraining order once Obama has been served.

Berg said he was encouraged that Judge R. Barclay Surrick did not dismiss the lawsuit. The litigation also sought “expedited discovery.” “We’re still waiting to serve the senator,” Berg said in a telephone interview Wednesday.
Discovery would include examining the candidate’s birth certificate and adoption papers, among other documents, Berg said.

In the motion’s supporting memorandum, Berg charges that the DNC failed to verify Obama’s eligibility to run for president.
In order to be eligible, presidential candidates are required to be “natural born” citizens and may not hold dual or multiple citizenship from foreign countries, according the suit’s legal memorandum.
According to Obama’s birth certificate, which his campaign posted on its Internet site in June to quell rumors, the senator was born in Hawaii on Aug. 6, 1961.
The lawsuit, however, questions the Democratic candidate’s claim that he was born in a Honolulu hospital.
The candidate’s late father, Barack Obama Sr., was a native of Kenya, and Berg claims the 47-year-old presumptive presidential candidate’s Kenyan relatives say he was born in the African country.
Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, grew up in Kansas, and his parents met at the University of Hawaii when Dunham was a student there, according to the Obama campaign.
Eventually, Obama’s father returned to Kenya, and his son grew up in Hawaii with his mother and for a few years in Indonesia after Dunham married an Indonesian man, Lolo Soetoro. As well, Obama lived with his maternal grandparents in Hawaii.
Dunham reportedly traveled to Kenya during her pregnancy, and she was prevented from boarding an airline flight from Kenya to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, the lawsuit alleges. She reportedly gave birth to Obama in Kenya, then flew home to Hawaii and registered his birth there.
Under U.S. law at the time of the Illinois lawmaker’s birth, if he had been born abroad, and one parent was a U.S. citizen, his mother would have had to live 10 years in the U.S., five of which after she reached 14 (years of age), according to court papers.
However, Dunham was only 18 years old when she gave birth to her son, not 19, Berg says, and Obama therefore would not have met U.S. citizenship requirements.
Berg concludes that the Democratic candidate is a Kenyan citizen. And because he never renounced his Kenyan citizenship, he is ineligible to run for president.

“Six days later (after the suit was filed), there’s not been one word from the Obama campaign, which tells me I’m on the right track,” he said.

http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20095084&BRD=1672&PAG=461&dept_id=33380&rfi=6

Factual Response to Washington Post False Statements on NRA Anti-Obama Ads

Washington Post Claim—500% Tax on Guns
It is unclear from the article exactly what weapons would have been covered by the proposed tax. … Even if Obama did support a big tax increase on the sale of certain types of assault weapons back in 1999, that is hardly evidence that he will move as president to tax the “guns and ammo” most commonly used by hunters.

Facts:
The Post quotes Obama out of context, claiming that he only wanted to tax “certain types” of guns in 1999. But the full sentence in the 1999 article reads, “Obama is also seeking 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.” Chinta Strausberg, Obama unveils federal gun bill, Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999, at 3. (emphasis added). Contrary to the Post’s assertion, the statement makes no distinction as to what type of guns Obama proposed to tax.
The Post is far too eager to let Obama off the hook just because he hasn’t mentioned the idea lately. Obama has supported the idea and has never repudiated that support. Therefore it is fair to say that the statement reflects his views on the issue.

Washington Post Claim—Ammunition Ban
Contrary to [NRA’s] claim, the Kennedy proposal of July 2005, SA 1615, was not aimed at “virtually all deer-hunting ammunition.” Instead, it would have authorized the attorney general to define types of illegal ammunition capable of penetrating body armor commonly used by law enforcement officials. During the Senate debate, Kennedy said that his amendment would “not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles,” a point contested by the NRA.

Facts:
NRA contested the point for a simple reason: The Post is wrong.
The Kennedy Amendment would have expanded the current ban on manufacturing “armor piercing ammunition” other than for sale to the government, 18 U.S.C. ‘ 922(a)(7), by banning any “projectile [i.e., bullet] that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines … to be capable of penetrating body armor.” The amendment called for testing of projectiles against “body armor that … meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.” S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, July 29, 2005.
Body armor is rated in different classes based on the level of protection it provides. The “minimum” level of body armor under Department of Justice standards that were in effect in 2005, Type I armor, only protects against the least powerful handgun cartridges; only Type III and higher armor protects against high-powered rifle cartridges. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Ballistic Resistance of PersonalBody Armor: NIJ Standard-0101.04 2-3 (June 2001).
However, there are many “projectiles that may be used in a handgun” that can also be used in a rifle. Handgun hunting is increasingly popular, and handgun hunters often use handguns that fire common hunting rifle cartridges such as the .30-30 Winchester. See, e.g., http://www.tcarms.com/firearms/g2ContenderPistols.php#spec_charts. A ban on “projectile[s] that may be used” in these handguns would have the effect of banning the same cartridges for rifle hunters. It would even ban rifle cartridges not commonly used in handguns, because any bullet may be fired in a barrel of the correct diameter, regardless of whether the barrel is installed on a handgun or on a rifle.
Finally, it is true that Sen. Kennedy denied his 2005 amendment would ban hunting ammunition. However, in a floor debate on a substantially identical amendment the previous year, Kennedy specifically denounced a hunting rifle cartridge:
Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 [sic] caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers’ armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.
It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America.
Cong. Rec. S1634 (daily ed. Feb. 26, 2004). The relatively low-powered .30-30 Winchester was introduced in 1895 and “has long been the standard American deer cartridge.” Frank C. Barnes, Cartridges of the World 52 (8th ed. 1997). As noted above, the .30-30 may be fired in a handgun.
Even apart from the Kennedy Amendment, 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.” See Lynn Sweet, Obama’s 2003 IVI-IPO questionnaire may be getting closer scrutiny, Chicago Sun-Times, Dec. 11, 2007 (available at http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_column_obamas_2003_iviip.html). The rifles that were 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. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30) (repealed Sept. 13, 2004). Therefore, this statement also supports a ban on hunting rifle ammunition.

Washington Post Claim—Gun Ban
The … claim refers to semiautomatic rifles and pistols covered by the assault weapons ban, which expired in March 2004.

Facts:
While Obama does support the ban (which actually expired in September, not March, of 2004), the statement in the advertisement is based on Sen. Obama’s vote for much broader legislation and his public statement in favor of banning all semi-automatic firearms.
On March 13, 2003, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee for a bill that would have enacted a much broader gun ban. (The vote tally sheet is available at http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf).
The bill under debate that day, SB 1195 (available at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/93/SB/PDF/09300SB1195lv.pdf), would have made it illegal to “knowingly manufacture, deliver, or possess” a “semiautomatic assault weapon.”
The bill defined a “semiautomatic assault weapon” to include “any firearm having a caliber of 50 [sic] or greater.” See SB 1195, page 2, line 10 (emphasis added). Under this bill, a firearm did not actually have to be semi-automatic to be a “semiautomatic assault weapon.”
Shotguns 28-gauge or larger (by far the majority of shotguns owned in the United States) are all “.50-caliber or greater.” See National Rifle Ass’n, Firearms Fact Book 183 (3d ed. 1989). SB 1195 did exclude any firearm that “is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action” and “any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.” SB 1195 p.3, lines 12-23. However, the bill did not exclude firearms with hinge or similar actions, such as single-shot or double-barreled shotguns used by millions of hunters.
Anyone who possessed one of these firearms in Illinois 90 days after the effective date would have had to “destroy the weapon or device, render it permanently inoperable, relinquish it to a law enforcement agency, or remove it from the state.” SB 1195, p. 5, line 33. Anyone who still possessed a banned gun would have been subject to a felony sentence. SB 1195, p. 5, line 15. This “seizure and surrender” provision was much more severe than the former federal “assault weapons” ban, which had a “grandfather clause” to allow current lawful owners to keep their guns. See 18 U.S.C. 922(v)(2) (repealed).
Obama also supported banning a large class of popular hunting firearms on a 1998 Project VoteSmart survey. One of the questions, and the relevant part of Obama’s responses, were as follows:
Indicate which principles you support (if any) concerning gun issues.
X a) Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
X b) Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
See Illinois State Legislative Election 1998 National Political Awareness Test (available at http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490#826:) (emphasis added). Millions of American hunters have used semi-automatic rifles and shotguns for over a century.
Finally, of course, a ban on hunting rifle ammunition (such as the Kennedy amendment Obama supported) would have been a very effective ban on the use of hunting rifles.

More evidence that Obama is anti gun he has atacked the NRA as such he is atacking all gun owners who are members.

—cut—
Obama Campaign Threatens Legal Action Over NRA Ads

Friday, September 26, 2008

Campaign and DNC Launch Assault On First Amendment!
Earlier this week, NRA-PVF released a series of radio and television spots to educate gun owners and sportsmen about Barack Obama’s longstanding anti-gun record. In response to the NRA-PVF ads, a clearly panicked Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are doing everything they can to hide Obama’s real record by mounting a coordinated assault on the First Amendment.

They have gone to desperate and outrageous lengths to try to silence your NRA by bullying media outlets with threats of lawsuits if they run NRA-PVF’s ads. They have sent intimidating cease and desist letters to cable operators and television stations, threatening their FCC licenses if they run the ads.

Obama and the DNC have been using strong-arm tactics reminiscent of Chicago machine politics 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.

And now, Obama and the DNC have opened a new front in their assault on your First Amendment rights by calling on their followers to contact these station managers to demand that the stations not run NRA-PVF’s ads.

NRA stands behind the accuracy of these ads, and NRA attorneys have responded to the Obama campaign’s despicable and abusive attempt to trample on the First Amendment by sending a thorough rebuttal to station managers. This rebuttal clearly and conclusively refutes the Obama campaign’s fallacious claims that the ads are inaccurate. For more information, and to see the letter, please click here.

To learn the truth about Barack Obama’s anti-gun record, please visit www.GunBanObama.com. This website is loaded with features and information that you, as a gun owner, need to know. This is a must-see website that you will want to pass along to anyone you know who loves freedom and supports the Second Amendment. While you’re there, don’t forget to take the “OMatch,” compatibility quiz to see if you and Barack are a match.

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden was trying to convince rural Virginians the other day that he’s a devoted gun owner who will not allow presidential nominee Barack Obama to “fool with my Beretta.”
“Senator Biden must think America’s gun owners are dumber than rocks,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Here is a man who has supported every restrictive gun control and gun ban law that ever landed on his desk, suddenly telling Virginia residents that he’s a gun owner, and very pro-gun.
“Biden tried to sound folksy in Virginia, talking about his ‘little over and under’ Beretta,” Gottlieb noted. “Senator, it’s not your Beretta that concerns American gun owners, but their own Colts, Smith & Wessons, Kimbers, Winchesters, Marlins, Remingtons, Mossbergs, Springfields, Kahrs and Brownings.
“If Biden really does own an over-and-under Beretta, has he fired it lately,” Gottlieb wondered. “What model is it, what’s it chambered for, and where is it? Why does he think that’s a more worthy gun to own than, say, an AR-15, or a Benelli semi-auto? What makes a Beretta shotgun more deserving of protection against Draconian legislation than a .45-caliber Model 1911, a .357 Magnum Ruger Blackhawk, a .50-caliber Thompson/Center or a .22-caliber Colt Diamondback? Would Joe Biden know the difference between any of these guns if he saw one?
“Joe Biden has spent the last three decades on Capitol Hill voting not merely against guns, but against the law-abiding American citizens who own these guns,” Gottlieb stated. “He has voted against their civil rights, and against their traditional values, and now he is running as second fiddle to a Chicago suburbanite who has dismissed such citizens as bitter, and clinging to their guns and religion.
“And now we are supposed to believe that Joe Biden is a gun-toting defender of the Second Amendment, after years of trying to dismantle it,” Gottlieb concluded. “This guy has spent a career in Washington, D.C. assaulting the civil rights of gun owners. Now he’s insulting their intelligence.”
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms ( www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

By Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman posted here

Judging from the Democratic Party platform, remarks from presidential nominee Barack Obama and his selection of anti-gun Sen. Joseph Biden as a running mate, the long, transparent courtship of gun owners by Democrats is over and instead of a goodbye kiss, there was a slap in the face; the political approximation of a domestic assault.

The party platform tries to patronize gun owners by claiming to “recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.” But then the document quickly reveals that Democrats have changed their tune but not their agenda: “We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons ban…”

Gun owners know that the ten-year “ban” on so-called “assault weapons” – which included more than 200 types of commonly-owned firearms – had no measurable impact on violent crime, and that reinstating it is all about symbolism rather than substance. They know that gun shows are the source of less than one percent of guns used by violent criminals. They know anti-gunners believe “common-sense laws” include licensing, registration and a surrender of the “right to carry” to the discretionary whims of police chiefs and sheriffs.

The party chose Obama as its standard-bearer. He once served on the board of the vehemently anti-firearms civil rights Joyce Foundation. During his first run for public office he supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns and semi-automatic rifles. He supports mandatory waiting periods on all gun purchases. He told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review in April that “I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” insulting millions of armed citizens who care about self-defense in the process.

Gun owners know Biden as an anti-gun extremist. He consistently earns “F” ratings from gun rights organizations. He claimed credit for writing the original legislation to ban semiautomatic sport-utility rifles that are owned by millions of Americans who have harmed nobody.

The proverbial last straw for the firearms community was Obama’s remark during his acceptance speech that “The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.”

The “reality” is that gun rights are the same for everyone, no matter where they live. And gun owners know from experience that Democrats falsely believe that the only way to keep guns away from criminals is to oppressively regulate gun ownership for everyone.

Mr. Obama told his faithful that Sen. McCain “doesn’t get it.” Actually, Democrats “don’t get it.” You do not woo people by treating them like criminals, and you cannot “support” someone’s civil right at the same time you regulate it to irrelevancy.

It is now clear to gun owners that Democrats only asked them to the dance just to get through the door.

How come as more time does by all the finger pointing from the left seems to end up going right back at the left? Now they are more involved in this latest meltdown. Things that make you go hmmmmmm.

The meltdown of Fannie and Freddie should be a transformative moment in American politics. It should discredit the whole Democratic economic agenda. It is too bad that it happened in the middle of the most interesting Presidential election in a generation because there are lessons to learn from it. Several points.

Let’s start with some numbers. Contributions since 1989(!) to ALL members of Congress. Note that this is an aggregate over time. Note how a guy who has been in Congress for 3 years manages to come in 3rd on the list.

Name
Office Party/State Total

1. Dodd, Christopher J
S D-CT $133,900

2. Kerry, John
S D-MA $111,000

3. Obama, Barack
S D-IL $105,849

4. Clinton, Hillary
S D-NY $75,550

5. Kanjorski, Paul E
H D-PA $65,500

First, this is a Democratic scandal. In yesterday’s WaPo Al Hubbard and Noam Neusner ask “Where was Senator Dodd?” The answer is clear. On the take. Open Secrets notes who gets money from these guys:
“Fifteen of the 25 lawmakers who have received the most from the two companies combined since the 1990 election sit on either the House Financial Services Committee; the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee; or the Senate Finance Committee. The others have seats on the powerful Appropriations or Ways & Means committees, are members of the congressional leadership or have run for president. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate banking committee, has received the most from Fannie and Freddie’s PACs and employees ($133,900 since 1989). Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) has received $65,500. Kanjorski chairs the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs.”

But they miss the important point. The GSEs give to Democrats primarily.

And this is the second point. These are partisan instituttions. Republicans tried to reform it, but got out lobbied every time. Hubbard and Neusner described how this works:

“The administration did not accept half-measures. In 2005, Republican Mike Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, brought up a reform bill (H.R. 1461), and Fannie and Freddie’s lobbyists set out to weaken it. The bill was rendered so toothless that Card called Oxley the night before markup and promised to oppose it. Oxley pulled the bill instead.”

When there was a Republican Congress, Congressional leadership tried to do the right thing, but Fannie and Freddie’s lobbyists picked off some weak Republicans. With a Democratic Congress, Fannie and Freddie just feed at the trough.

Third, these guys are some of the most powerful figures in the Democratic lobbyist-operative firmament. Obama was forced to fire James Johnson, his first VP Vetter. Johnson had been CEO of Fannie Mae. But it doesn’t stop there. Johnson, while a consultant for Fannie and Countrywide, was passing out below market loans to Senator Dodd, among others.

The recent CEO of Fannie was Franklin Delano Raines. (what do you bet his parents politics were?) Raines was a Clinton OMB Director and worked in the Carter White House. Raines was replaced with an actual business guy.

Fourth, it doesn’t stop there. Not only that, but the affordable housing racket is also used as a way to launder government money into corrupt Democratic voter registration practices. One of the organizations pushing subprime loans and other “affordable housing” financial vehicles… ACORN, which got a sweet deal in the Housing Bill.

What is the upshot of all of this? The housing meltdown has both causes and effects that are ideologically aligned with Democratic objectives. While gutting the regulatory apparatus for a huge segment of our economy, leading Democrats were receiving contributions and below market loans from the very people whose regulations their were gutting. It was used to move money into Democratic grassroots campaign vehicles. And it moved substantial parts of the economy into government control. According to financial analyst Barry Richoltz, “socialism for the rich.”

This should be a long-term stain on the credibility of Democratic Party’s economic management. Too bad no one has the attention span to notice.

story from -here-

Obama who was raised in Indosina and never even came to America until he was 10 says someone from a small down can not be VP.

What an insulting comment and its the second time he has degraded anyone who does not live in a city. Its now clear that this is not a mistake he hates small towns and will only support the city people.

This is the second disparaging remark I’ve seen come from his campaign about small towns. Not everyone comes from a big city.

First people from small town america cling to their guns and religion and now someone from a small town (i.e. not an elitist) isn’t good enough to be vp.
from Sean Hanity site

Michelle Obama quotes lines some radicalFar Left book in her DNC Convention speech.

What to make of Michelle Obama’s use the terms, “The world as it is” and “The world as it should be?” From whence do they originate? Try Chapter 2 of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals. In last night’s speech, Michelle Obama said something that peeked my curiousity. She said:

“Barack stood up that day,” talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, “and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about “The world as it is” and “The world as it should be…”

And, “All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do – that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be.”
Here’s an excerpt from Chapter 2 of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals:

“The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means… The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be.”

Full story

indonesian-citizen

Old school records for Obama show that he was a indonesian citizen and a muslem. This jives with him using a indonesian pasport to travel in the 80s.
This page now updated to include a photo of the records.

Reports on Obamas birth certificate posted on his website show its been photoshoped.

Techdude delivers a final report that exceeds my wildest expectations. It is irrefutable, empirical evidence – Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. Why? Why a COLB (certificate of live birth) forgery? That is the question.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

See law suit here

Since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, in order to serve as President, one must be a “natural born citizen” and may not hold dual citizenship or multiple citizenships with foreign Countries. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

There appears to be no question but that Defendant Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a U.S. citizen. It is also undisputed, however, that his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Obama’s parents, according to divorce records, were married on or about February 2, 1961.

Defendant Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and it is uncertain in which hospital he claims to have been born. Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, his half-brother and half-sister all claim Obama was born not in Hawaii but in Kenya. Reports reflect that Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of

pregnancy (which, apparently, was a normal restriction, to avoid births during a flight). By these reports, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew home and registered Obama’s birth. There are records of a “registry of birth” for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.

Upon investigation into the alleged birth of Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama’s birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. Wikipedia English Version, under the subject “Barack Obama,” states Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital. Wikipedia Italian Version, under the subject “Queens Hospital,” states Barack Obama was born in Queens Hospital.

There are further references circulating on the internet claiming examination of the hospital’s records in Hawaii show no birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama), Obama’s mother. However, there are records of a “registry of birth” for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961, in the public records office in Hawaii.

Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008 stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen.
————–

Investigation further showed that, in 1981, Obama traveled to Pakistan, using his Indonesian passport. At the time of his travels to Pakistan, Obama was twenty (20) years old. He certainly knew that he retained his Indonesia citizenship, and it is implausible that he could not have known that he had failed to regain his United States citizenship (if, again, he had been born in Hawaii). Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship. Had Obama regained his United States citizenship, he would have been traveling on a United States Passport.

—————

Further investigation led to Obama’s State Bar Registration and Public Disciplinary Record. On the Illinois State Bar Registration and Public Disciplinary Record, it specifically asks for “Full former name(s). Obama put “None”, when in fact he went by the name Barry Soetoro, and Barry Obama. It is further believed Obama has used the name Barry Dunham. Obama lied on the State government form that he signed under the penalty of perjury.

Even if Obama had and maintained United States citizenship (which Plaintiff believes he failed to do) he also holds citizenship in Kenya and Indonesia. Obama has divided loyalties with foreign countries. Thus, Obama carries multiple citizenships, and is ineligible to run for President of the United States. United States Constitution, Article II, Section I.

See more here.
FINAL REPORT ON OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE FORGERY CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN

As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he “never saw or approved the questionnaire,” and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama’s handwriting.

When the U.S. Supreme Court voted last year to hear a case on the constitutionality of the Washington, D.C., handgun ban, Mr. Obama’s campaign told the Chicago Tribune: “Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional” and that “local communities” should have the ability “to enact common sense laws.” Other than Washington, D.C., the only American cities with handgun bans are Chicago and four of its suburbs. As a state senator, Mr. Obama voted against a 2004 bill (which passed overwhelmingly) to give citizens a legal defense against prosecution for violating a local handgun ban if they actually used the firearm for lawful self-defense on their own property.

Mr. Obama’s campaign Web site touts his belief in the Second Amendment rights to have guns “for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.” Conspicuously absent is the right to have firearms to defend one’s self, home and family. In 2001, as a state senator, Mr. Obama voted against allowing the beneficiaries of domestic violence protective orders to carry handguns for protection.

Some Illinois gun control advocates recall Senator Obama as a “friend” who represented a “solid vote” in favor of increased restrictions on firearm sales.

Forty states currently allow most law-abiding adult citizens to carry concealed handguns for lawful protection, after a background check and (in almost all such states) a safety class. Of course those laws only apply to carrying within the relevant state. Mr. Obama told the Chicago Tribune in 2004 that he favored a national ban on concealed carry, to “prevent other states’ laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents.”

Blacks Have a Choice to Be, or Not to Be, a ‘Victim’

As someone who knew Obama for a little while — we were both at the University of Chicago — it has been hard to recognize the person that I knew from the one portrayed in the campaign. The person that I knew was not one who sought to build bridges with those he disagreed.

Academia is overwhelmingly filled with liberals and many even to the left of that, but most liberal academics enjoy arguing with those whom they disagree with. Debate and discussion over lunch and in the halls is what makes academia a fun place to be.

But Obama was not like that.

Possibly it was his anger over our differences over the gun issue or a broader anger with those with whom he disagreed, but attempts to engage in discussions ended with a stern looks and a turned back. That was true whether I met him at school or someplace else. There was anger there.

If Obama was angry with Jon Lotts views on guns then he would not make a fit president.

Full story on race and Obama is here.

A March 2 commentary in National Review Online (NRO) demonstrates the hypocrisy that often abounds in the campaigns of anti-Second Amendment candidates. This time, the transgressor is Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

In his NRO column, Jim Geraghty recalls how a few years ago, Obama (then a state senator) proposed enactment of a federal law prohibiting licensed gun dealers from operating within five miles of a school or park. Of course, considering the geography of most cities and towns, banning a lawful business operation within a five-mile radius of a school or park would very often amount to an outright ban on those businesses.

While that endeavor certainly demonstrates his disdain for FFLs and their legitimate business, another vote demonstrates Obama’s apparent tolerance for what others would no doubt consider controversial businesses. On a Senate bill to prohibit sex-related shops to operate within a five-mile radius of schools or houses of worship (which failed), Obama took a pass, and voted “present.”

The Obama spin: He was trying to avoid mandates on local authorities!

Advocating a law to forbid federally licensed gun dealers from legally selling constitutionally-protected products, while showing support for, or, at minimum, indifference to, holding purveyors of pornography to the same standard is not only hypocritical, it’s outrageous!

Pity New Orleans Police Superintendent Warren Riley. When it comes to firearms, Chief Riley (along with his boss, Mayor Ray Nagin) just doesn’t get it.

As you’ll recall, Nagin and Riley were major players in the travesty that occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. At that time, the dynamic duo’s idea of maintaining order and public “safety” was to instruct police and other law enforcement officers to confiscate lawfully- owned firearms from the city’s citizens, stripping them of their means of self-defense at precisely their time of greatest peril.

Last month, we reported on a widely circulated picture of the beleaguered Nagin looking gleeful and appearing to point an AR-15-type rifle directly at Chief Riley while Riley held a similar firearm. We all know that the number one rule of gun safety is to always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction, and the two anti-gun officials paid a public relations price for their safety indiscretion.

Well, this week Riley is back in the news; this time for suggesting in an interview on local radio station WWL, that, “An assault weapons ban in New Orleans would make crime fighting easier…”

Before espousing the need for yet another law that has been proven ineffective, Riley should consider that the City of New Orleans has already lost two highly questionable firearm cases in court, and there are already more than enough laws on the books to prosecute criminals who illegally possess firearms. He should also consider the fact that any proposal such as that discussed in the interview would violate his state’s firearms preemption law.

(If you’ve forgotten how the Second Amendment was trampled upon following Hurricane Katrina, or if you have friends or family members who still naively believe “it can’t happen here,” please see NRA’s compelling video on the subject by clicking here.)

Sweeping federal gun control legislation proposed by Sen. Barack Obama (D-13th) would increase the penalties on gun runners who are flooding Chicago’s streets with illegal weapons.

At an anti-gun rally held at the Park Manor Christian Church, 600 E. 73rd St., headed by the Rev. James Demus, Obama also said he’s backing a resolution being introduced into the City Council by Alds. Toni Preckwinkle (4th), Ted Thomas (15th), Leslie Hairston (5th) to call for a “shot-free” millennium celebration.

Obama outlined his anti-gun plan that includes increased penalties for the interstate transportation of firearms. The maximum penalty now for bringing a gun across the border is 10 years in prison. Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home. [!!!]

He’s proposing restricting gun purchases to one weapon a month and banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for “antique” weapons. Obama is also proposing increasing the licensing fee to obtain a federal firearms license.

He’s also seeking a ban on police agencies from reselling their used weapons even if those funds are used to buy more state-of-the-art weapons for their agencies. Obama wants only those over 21 who’ve passed a basic course to be able to buy or own a firearm.

He’s proposing that 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. He’s also banning the sale of ‘junk” handguns like the popular Saturday Night Specials.

Obama is requiring that all people working at a gun dealer undergo a criminal background check. He’s also asking that gun manufacturers be required to develop safety measures that permit only the original owner of the firearm to operate the weapon purchased.

Additionally, he wants an increase of the funds for schools to teach anger management skills for youth between the ages of 5-13. Obama is also seeking 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.