OBAMA & BIDEN

Washington, DC, Jan 27 (BNO NEWS) The following is the full text of President Barack Obama�s State of the Union Address 2010.

(Watch live here)
(As prepared for delivery)

�Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For two hundred and twenty years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They have done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they have done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.

It�s tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable � that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements; our hesitations and our fears; America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, and one people.

Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history�s call.

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted � immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.

But the devastation remains. One in ten Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. For those who had already known poverty, life has become that much harder.

This recession has also compounded the burdens that America�s families have been dealing with for decades � the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.

So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They�re not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These struggles are what I�ve witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana and Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children � asking why they have to move from their home, or when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.

For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don�t understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded but hard work on Main Street isn�t; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can�t afford it. Not now.

So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope � what they deserve � is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories and different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared. A job that pays the bills. A chance to get ahead. Most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.

You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids; starting businesses and going back to school. They�re coaching little league and helping their neighbors. As one woman wrote me, �We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged.�

It is because of this spirit � this great decency and great strength � that I have never been more hopeful about America�s future than I am tonight. Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it�s time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength.

And tonight, I�d like to talk about how together, we can deliver on that promise.

It begins with our economy.

Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there�s one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, it�s that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal.

But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn�t just do what was popular � I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.

So I supported the last administration�s efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took the program over, we made it more transparent and accountable. As a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we have recovered most of the money we spent on the banks.

To recover the rest, I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks. I know Wall Street isn�t keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.

As we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed.

That�s why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65% cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.

Let me repeat: we cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95% of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas, and food, and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven�t raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.

Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. 200,000 work in construction and clean energy. 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders. And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.

The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That�s right � the Recovery Act, also known as the Stimulus Bill. Economists on the left and the right say that this bill has helped saved jobs and avert disaster. But you don�t have to take their word for it.

Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act.

Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created.

Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn�t be laid off after all.

There are stories like this all across America. And after two years of recession, the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have started to gain back some of their value. Businesses are beginning to invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again.

But I realize that for every success story, there are other stories, of men and women who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where their next paycheck will come from; who send out resumes week after week and hear nothing in response. That is why jobs must be our number one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight.

Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America�s businesses. But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.

We should start where most new jobs do � in small businesses, companies that begin when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides its time she became her own boss.

Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession and are ready to grow. But when you talk to small business owners in places like Allentown, Pennsylvania or Elyria, Ohio, you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they are mostly lending to bigger companies. But financing remains difficult for small business owners across the country.

So tonight, I�m proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I am also proposing a new small business tax credit � one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. While we�re at it, let�s also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment; and provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment.

Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. From the first railroads to the interstate highway system, our nation has always been built to compete. There�s no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

Tomorrow, I�ll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help our nation move goods, services, and information. We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities, and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it�s time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the United States of America.

The House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same. People are out of work. They are hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.

But the truth is, these steps still won�t make up for the seven million jobs we�ve lost over the last two years. The only way to move to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth, and finally address the problems that America�s families have confronted for years.

We cannot afford another so-called economic �expansion� like the one from last decade � what some call the �lost decade� � where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation.

From the day I took office, I have been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious � that such efforts would be too contentious, that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for awhile.

For those who make these claims, I have one simple question:

How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?

You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China�s not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany�s not waiting. India�s not waiting. These nations aren�t standing still. These nations aren�t playing for second place. They�re putting more emphasis on math and science. They�re rebuilding their infrastructure. They are making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs.

Well I do not accept second-place for the United States of America. As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may be, it�s time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.

One place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks, I�m interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy.

We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions. We can�t allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy.

The House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. And the lobbyists are already trying to kill it. Well, we cannot let them win this fight. And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back.

Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history � an investment that could lead to the world�s cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched. And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year�s investment in clean energy � in the North Carolina company that will create 1200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put 1,000 people to work making solar panels.

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. This year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future � because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.

Third, we need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. To help meet this goal, we�re launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security.

We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. And that�s why we will continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.

Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people.

This year, we have broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. The idea here is simple: instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform � reform that raises student achievement, inspires students to excel in math and science, and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to inner-cities. In the 21st century, one of the best anti-poverty programs is a world-class education. In this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than their potential.

When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all fifty states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families. To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let�s take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let�s tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years � and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service. Because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. And it�s time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs � because they too have a responsibility to help solve this problem.

Now, the price of college tuition is just one of the burdens facing the middle-class. That�s why last year I asked Vice President Biden to chair a task force on Middle-Class Families. That�s why we�re nearly doubling the child care tax credit, and making it easier to save for retirement by giving every worker access to a retirement account and expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg. That�s why we�re working to lift the value of a family�s single largest investment � their home. The steps we took last year to shore up the housing market have allowed millions of Americans to take out new loans and save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments. This year, we will step up re-financing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages. And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform.

Now let�s be clear � I did not choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn�t take on health care because it was good politics.

I took on health care because of the stories I�ve heard from Americans with pre-existing conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who�ve been denied coverage; and families � even those with insurance � who are just one illness away from financial ruin.

After nearly a century of trying, we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we�ve taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care. And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make our kids healthier.

Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office � the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress � our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.

Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering what�s in it for them.

But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I�m finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber.

As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we�ve proposed. There�s a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Here�s what I ask of Congress, though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.

Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it�s not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves. It�s a challenge that makes all others that much harder to solve, and one that�s been subject to a lot of political posturing.

So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.

Now if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis, and our efforts to prevent a second Depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt.

I am absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. So tonight, I�m proposing specific steps to pay for the $1 trillion that it took to rescue the economy last year.

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don�t. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.

We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can�t afford and don�t work. We�ve already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we will extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year. We just can�t afford it.

Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we will still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That�s why I�ve called for a bipartisan, Fiscal Commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can�t be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The Commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s.

I know that some in my own party will argue that we cannot address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. I agree, which is why this freeze will not take effect until next year, when the economy is stronger. But understand � if we do not take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery � all of which could have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.

From some on the right, I expect we�ll hear a different argument � that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, and maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is, that�s what we did for eight years. That�s what helped lead us into this crisis. It�s what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do it again.

Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it�s time to try something new. Let�s invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let�s meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let�s try common sense.

To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust � deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.

That�s what I came to Washington to do. That�s why � for the first time in history � my Administration posts our White House visitors online. And that�s why we�ve excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.

But we can�t stop there. It�s time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress. And it�s time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests � including foreign corporations � to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don�t think American elections should be bankrolled by America�s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that�s why I�m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

I�m also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. You have trimmed some of this spending and embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. Tonight, I�m calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single website before there�s a vote so that the American people can see how their money is being spent.

Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don�t also reform how we work with one another.

Now, I am not na�ve. I never thought the mere fact of my election would usher in peace, harmony, and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, have been taking place for over two hundred years. They are the very essence of our democracy.

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We cannot wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about their opponent � a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants should not be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual Senators. Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, is just part of the game. But it is precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it is sowing further division among our citizens and further distrust in our government.

So no, I will not give up on changing the tone of our politics. I know it�s an election year. And after last week, it is clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern. To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it�s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let�s show the American people that we can do it together. This week, I�ll be addressing a meeting of the House Republicans. And I would like to begin monthly meetings with both the Democratic and Republican leadership. I know you can�t wait.

Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who�s to blame for this, but I am not interested in re-litigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let�s put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough. Let�s reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let�s leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future � for America and the world.

That is the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we have renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We have made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security, and swifter action on our intelligence. We have prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of Al Qaeda�s fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed � far more than in 2008.

In Afghanistan, we are increasing our troops and training Afghan Security Forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. We will reward good governance, reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans � men and women alike. We are joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitment, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am confident we will succeed.

As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. We will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.

Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform � in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world � must know that they have our respect, our gratitude, and our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home. That is why we made the largest increase in investments for veterans in decades. That is why we are building a 21st century VA. And that is why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families.

Even as we prosecute two wars, we are also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people � the threat of nuclear weapons. I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons, and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. And at April�s Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring forty-four nations together behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists.

These diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of these weapons. That is why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions � sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That is why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran�s leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: they, too, will face growing consequences.

That is the leadership that we are providing � engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We are working through the G-20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We are working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science, education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We are helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bio-terrorism or an infectious disease � a plan that will counter threats at home, and strengthen public health abroad.

As we have for over sixty years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That is why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. That is why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; and we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity.

Abroad, America�s greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

We must continually renew this promise. My Administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws � so that women get equal pay for an equal day�s work. And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system � to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nations.

In the end, it is our ideals, our values, that built America � values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren�t Republican values or Democratic values they�re living by; business values or labor values. They are American values.

Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions � our corporations, our media, and yes, our government � still reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people�s doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates into silly arguments, and big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.

No wonder there�s so much cynicism out there.

No wonder there�s so much disappointment.

I campaigned on the promise of change � change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren�t sure if they still believe we can change � or at least, that I can deliver it.

But remember this � I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I can do it alone. Democracy in a nation of three hundred million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That�s just how it is.

Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths. We can do what�s necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what�s best for the next generation.

But I also know this: if people had made that decision fifty years ago or one hundred years ago or two hundred years ago, we wouldn�t be here tonight. The only reason we are is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and grandchildren.

Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going � what keeps me fighting � is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism � that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people � lives on.

It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his company, �None of us,� he said, ��are willing to consider, even slightly, that we might fail.�

It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession, �We are strong. We are resilient. We are American.�

It lives on in the 8-year old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti. And it lives on in all the Americans who�ve dropped everything to go some place they�ve never been and pull people they�ve never known from rubble, prompting chants of �U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A!� when another life was saved.

The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people.

We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don�t quit. I don�t quit. Let�s seize this moment � to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more.

Thank you. God Bless You. And God Bless the United States of America. �

More at : State of the Union Address by the President Obama - Full Text http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politics/state-of-the-union-address-by-the-president-obama-full-text_100310796.html#ixzz0dzjBuzOF

State of the Union: Obama v. Constitution

"The duty imposed upon him to take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will 'preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.' The great object of the executive department is to accomplish this purpose; and without it, be the form of government whatever it may, it will be utterly worthless for offence, or defence; for the redress of grievances, or the protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people." --Justice Joseph Story

The ObamaPrompter

In the wake of Barack Hussein Obama's first State of the Union address, much of the critical analysis from Republicans posited that he should do "this" instead of "that."

Unfortunately, when there is no more constitutional authority for a president to do this rather than that, Republicans fail to distinguish themselves from Democrats since both parties are then advocating unlawful extra-constitutional policies.

Obama's SOTU teleprompters fed him a steady stream of poll-tested rhetoric, none of which comports with the authority granted the Executive Branch, unless, of course, one subscribes to the adulterated "living constitution" as amended by judicial diktat.

Predictably, Obama offered only Socialist solutions to all ills, and not a single suggestion that individual responsibility or the private sector economy should shoulder that burden, at least not without government "incentives," a.k.a. centralized social and economic planning.

In 6,200 words (second longest SOTU after Bill Clinton -- two narcissists who just can't hear enough of themselves), Obama referred to himself repeatedly, and alleged that he was the anointed spokesman for "we," the American people, more than 100 times.

On the other hand, he mentioned the Constitution only twice.

First, in his opening remarks Obama said, "Our Constitution declares that from time to time the president shall give to Congress information about the state of our union."

Correct.

Second, he asserted, "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution, the notion that we're all created equal..."

As the Internet meme goes these days: FAIL! Uh, uh, uh, -- that "notion" was enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, third paragraph, first sentence. One would think that this alleged professor of "Constitutional Law" at the University of Chicago Law School would have noticed such a simple, yet substantial, error.

Our Constitution is devoted to clearly delineating the limited role of the central government from the unlimited rights of the states and the people.

To that end, James Madison, author of our Constitution, wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

Accordingly, Obama mentions freedom only once, and made absolutely no reference to liberty.

Nowhere in our Constitution is there any authority or provision for these key proposals from Obama's SOTU:

1. The power to further centralize regulation of our economy.

2. The power to completely regulate our national health care system. (Note: both the Democrat and Republican proposals lack constitutional authority). Obama even repeated his claim that the American people are just not smart enough to get on board: "I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people."

3. The power to further regulate and tax the production of CO₂.

Obama reiterated his claims that the current recession was caused by "Wall Street," and then went on to insist that the only hope for ending the recession was government "investment," a euphemism for taxing money out of the private sector, taking bureaucratic handling fees out, then giving it to political constituencies.

To correctly interpret Obama's SOTU, you need only filter everything he says through his foremost pledge that the his administration's charge is the "fundamental transformation of the United States of America."

That is a line Obama lifted from the primary architect of his Socialist platform, Robert Creamer, who had earlier proclaimed, "If Barack Obama is elected president, then we have the opportunity to fundamentally transform American politics and the economy."

It's likely that you've never heard of Bob Creamer, because Barack Obama is very adept at concealing his association with his Marxist patrons.

In his younger days, Obama was not concerned about such associations: "I chose my friends carefully," he wrote. "The more politically active black students; the foreign students; the Chicanos; the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets."

But when he announced his aspirations to become a U.S. senator in 2004, Obama began to cover his tracks. He stopped associating publicly with Leftist colleagues and mentors such as Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, Bob Creamer and others.

Creamer is a member of Obama's Chicago mob, a fellow "community organizer" and disciple of Saul Alinsky. Like all of Obama's Chicago benefactors, Creamer believes that he is above the law, or, more appropriately, that he is the law in today's age of the rule of men. But like Tony Rezko, another of Obama's slick Chicago political backers, Creamer was caught with his hand in the till and was convicted of a felony (bank fraud) back in 2004 when Obama was a state senator. Creamer got a softball sentence, though: five months in a minimum-security facility for white-collar criminals and another 11 months of house arrest.

With all that time on his hands, Creamer authored a book, "How Progressives Can Win," which, along with Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," serves as the template for Obama's campaign to "fundamentally transform" America.

Obama didn't use the word "transform" in his SOTU, but he did insist that government must "lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth," under the pretense of "reform," in order to "give our people the government they deserve."

"I campaigned on the promise of change, change we can believe in. I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe that I can deliver it. I never suggested that change would be easy ... and when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy."

And well, it should.

Though Obama's efforts to nationalize the nation's health care sector have been temporarily stalled, he has no intention of giving up, announcing that he is redoubling his efforts to expand central government controls over the private sector under cover of "economic crisis." As White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

Leading up to his SOTU, Obama endeavored to portray himself as a fiscal conservative: "We can't continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences, as if waste doesn't matter, as if the hard earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like monopoly money, that's what we've seen time and time again, Washington has become more concerned about the next election than the next generation."

This is subterfuge.

Obama endeavors to portray himself as a constitutional conservative: "We will lead in the observance of ... the rule of law. ... Don't mock the Constitution. Don't make fun of it. Don't suggest that it's not American to abide by what the Founding Fathers set up. It's worked pretty well for over 200 years."

This is deception.

Obama endeavors to portray himself as a resolute commander in chief. Regarding Operation Iraqi Freedom he decreed, "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31st, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end." On Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, he declared, "After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home." On the treatment of captive terrorists, he says, "I will restore America's moral standing." On the Long War with Jihadistan, Obama claims, "The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam."

This is farce.

Obama is a dangerous neophyte in matters of national security, and he shows no signs of improving.

If Republicans really want to defeat Obama's Leftist agenda, they need to adopt the tried and true conservative message founded on Essential Liberty. Only then can they truly take control of the debate.

And while Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's response to Obama's SOTU address was encouraging, the current crop of Republican leaders continues to play by Democrat rules, attempting to sell a dangerous and debilitating elixir: "We don't offend the Constitution as bad as they do."

Bottom line: Republicans must refocus on First Principles and govern accordingly.

Republicans can best distinguish themselves from Democrats by, first and foremost, honoring their sacred oath to "support and defend" our Constitution.

To that end, Obama declared, "If you abide by the law, you should be protected by it."

True, but on the other hand, if you are not going to abide by the law, you should be impeached.

P.S. If you are going to seat two police officers next to your wife in the gallery, the two who brought down the Ft. Hood jihadi terrorist, you might at least acknowledge them.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

Obama passing new law to allow searching of PC's, Laptops, and media devices

"In extreme secrecy from the public, the Obama administration is hammering out an international treaty with other several other countries and the EU ......under ACTA, the government will get sweeping new powers to search and seize material thought to be in breach of copyright. But why all the secrecy? What it will do on a larger scale is let big brother watch you; however, this time on a completely different level."

"Border guards will be given unprecedented powers to search travelers without warning. They will be able to go through and confiscate any material a person has on their laptop."

"America is being overtaken by a culture of surveillance. "

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Major general says president's eligibility needs proof
'Most important, what I really want is the truth'

Posted: February 26, 2009
11:40 PM Eastern

By Bob Unruh
� 2009 WorldNetDaily

Retired Maj. Gen. Carroll Childers

On the heels of two active duty members of the U.S. Military serving in Iraq calling for President Obama to prove his eligibility to be president, a retired major general has agreed to join the case, saying he just wants "the truth."

WND reported earlier when 1st Lt. Scott Easterling confirmed to California attorney Orly Taitz that he wanted to be a plaintiff in the legal action she is preparing on behalf of members of the U.S. Military, both active and retired. A second soldier who asked that his name be withheld for now became part of the action just a day later.

Now retired Maj. Gen. Carroll D. Childers has submitted a statement to Taitz and her DefendOurFreedoms.us website, agreeing to be a plaintiff in her pending action.

"I agree to be a plaintiff in the legal action to be filed by Orly Taitz, Esq. In a petition for a declaratory judgement (sic) that Barack Hussein Obama is not qualified to be president of the U.S., nor to be commander in chief of the U.S. Armed forces, in that I am or was a sworn member of the U.S. Military (subject to recall)," he wrote.

If recalled, he would be "unable to follow any orders given by a constitutionally unqualified commander in chief, since by doing so I would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting fraud and committing acts of treason," he wrote.

In an accompanying letter, Childers said, "What I really want is the truth; is Obama a natural born citizen of the United States. If not a natural born citizen, America has been defrauded and then we would be stuck with Joe Biden whose only redeeming attribute is that he is probably not a communist."

He said he is an engineer after serving for 38 years in Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Operation Desert Storm and other locations.

Childers said there were a long list of reasons he didn't support Obama for president, including "his crime associates in the USA � his promise to make coal power industry bankrupt � his spread the wealth admission � his associations with foreign leaders unfriendly to the USA � (and his lack of) integrity."

But he said he believes Obama is not eligible to be president, a claim Obama spokesmen have described to WND as "garbage."

WND has reported on multiple legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. Or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 290,000 others and sign up now!

Several of the cases have involved emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court in which justices have declined to hear arguments. Among the cases turned down without a hearing at the high court have been petitions by Philip Berg, Cort Wrotnowski, Leo Donofrio and Taitz.

Military.com reported Easterling's concerns following WND's report and confirmed that Army officials said they were aware of the lieutenant's letter. The officials, Military.com said, are trying to balance the "military requirements under the Uniform Code of Military Justice versus critical freedoms that all Americans enjoy."

Commenters on the website called the soldier "a delusional racist," "moronic and irrelevent (sic)," and undeserving of his uniform.

However, some defended him.

"The questions about the POTUS and his birth were questions raised during the campaign � quite often in this website. This question was not always answered in a fashion which was clear cut yea or nay," said one forum contributor. "There are lawsuits ongoing � therefore there are other doubters."

Said another, "If anybody does their research they find out that a full investigation was conducted regarding McCain's eligibility (born on a military base on foreign soil), but no such investigation was done for BO. BO admits to traveling to Pakistan in 1981, when it was illegal to do so for US citizens at the time, how did he pull that off?

"Open your eyes, lemmmings (sic)," the participant wrote.

Another pointed out that the lieutenant certainly has a right to his opinion, but most importantly, he is staying true to his duty.

"All of your rhetoric truly makes me question your morality. Some of you say that this LT needs to be reprimanded in this way or that, but what you people forget to see through your blinders is that this LT is still fighting the fight, no matter what. He still is part of the reason you have the right to say the things you do. He still believes the American way of life is still precious and should stay that way no matter what. And whether he chooses his God given freedom to voice that God given right is up to him."

Another had a pointed comment about the entire issue.

"Why doesn't the president just put his credentials out there and stop all the speculation?"

Another member of the military who contacted WND, who identified himself only by his initials, explained: "I am in the United States Air Force and I had to produce my birth certificate to enter the service. What documents did Mr. Obama use to enter in the race for president? I had to produce my birth certificate to have a passport issued. Does Mr. Obama have a passport? What documents did he use to get it? My children have to produce their birth certificate to get a driver's license. Does Mr. Obama have a driver's license? What documents did he use to get it? I had to produce a birth certificate to get a Social Security number issued for me and my children. Does Mr. Obama have a Social Security number issued? What documents did he use to get it? "

Taitz explained the issue isn't resolved as many Obama supporters claim.

The "Certification of Live Birth" posted on the Internet actually doesn't confirm a birth location.

"[Hawaii] statute 138 allows foreign born children of HI residents to get HI [Certificates of Live Birth] and get them based on a statement of one relative only," she said.

She also said Hawaiian officials, while they confirmed a birth certificate exists, did not exclude the possibility it was "one obtained for a foreign born child."

She also cited Obama's immigration to Indonesia at age 5, when he was considered an Indonesian citizen.

Also, in a case being handled largely by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation in California, lawyers hired to represent Obama have admitted that such disputes should have been resolved in Congress.

That case is seeking documentation of Obama's attendance at Occidental College, and in an effort to keep all of those records secret, a law firm has argued that state and federal courts have no authority over the case.

"Federal law establishes the procedure for election of the President and Vice President and provides the exclusive means for challenges to their qualifications," the court filing said. In the absence of objections filed by members of the Senate and House of Representatives, "which would have been resolved by those bodies," Obama was declared the president.

Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions, the biggest being why, if there exists documentation of Obama's eligibility, hasn't it been released to quell the rumors.

Instead, a series of law firms have been hired on Obama's behalf around the nation to prevent any public access to his birth certificate, passport records, college records and other documents.

obama free sign for home

make this your back ground

Make this a back ground

make this your back ground 2

here is one more

http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com/2009/02/obama-threatens-keyes-and-other.html

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Obama Threatens Keyes and other Eligibility Plaintiffs

As many of you know, I am party to one of the lawsuits seeking evidence that would help to establish, one way or the other, whether Obama in fact meets the U.S. Constitution's eligibility requirements for the office of President of the United States. To understand my view of the critical issues involved see the WND articles The End of the Constitutional Republic, and Obama, Oaths and the End of Constitutional Government.) Now Obama's lawyers have filed a motion to quash our effort to obtain the relevant documents (cf. Bob Unruh's WND article Sanctions sought in eligibility case.) I am told that it includes a demand that monetary penalties be assessed against me and the other plaintiffs in the suit. Though not unexpected, this motion confirms Obama's ruthless determination to destroy anyone who continues to seek the information the Constitution requires. Why should they demand penalties against citizens who are simply seeking the enforcement of the Supreme Law of the Land? It is simply because their persistence runs contrary to the will of a supposedly popular demagogue? This smacks of tyrannical arrogance. That Obama thus signals his intent to bring financial ruin on those who won't accept his cover-up of the circumstances of his birth is a tactical escalation. It confirms the common sense suspicion that he won't act forthrightly in this matter because he has something to hide.

As one of the targets of this escalation, I need no more convincing proof of the ruthless disposition so far successfully masked by his empty rhetoric of hope and change. Obviously he means to offer hope only to those willing to surrender their most basic rights. To any who insist on questioning his actions, he offers the drastic change of ruin and destruction. So be it. We shall be among those who learn firsthand the meaning of the sacrifices made by the Founders of our free republic, as they pledged and gave up their lives, their fortunes and the world's esteem.

To tell you the truth, I expected Obama's ruthlessness, as I expect that it will escalate until his threats extend to liberty and even life itself. Tyrants are like that (yeah, they are.) What I am not so certain of is the disposition of the people of this country, and in particular of those who still avow allegiance to the Constitutional Republic. For all their posturing in opposition to Obama's socialist schemes, Republican Party leaders show no disposition to notice, much less decry, his determination to subvert the Constitution. But does the self-serving reticence of such so-called leadership truly represent the disposition of the people whose sovereignty they seem so ready to abandon? In politics as in war, real leadership does not consist in titles and position, but in those willing to stand in the forefront of the battle, where taunts and wounds and even death await the ones who raise a rallying flag. The fate of that flag depends, however, not on their willingness to brave the dangers, but on the courage and heart of those who, seeing that flag, return with renewed courage to the fight. Though they know not if it will stand or fall, will they decide that either way it should not meet its fate without them?

People who have been watching recent events with any discernment must realize by now that, for all his talk of material salvation for the masses, the Obama faction really means to strengthen only those willing to serve in the army of their domineering ambition. Thanks to the phony stimulus package, they will soon have billions of taxpayer dollars with which to nourish this servile allegiance to his will. Including myself, many of the people willing to articulate and act against his overthrow of Constitutional liberty have nothing in their coffers except the grace from God to see a little truth, and the courage to speak it, drawing upon the example of His Son. But time and again in America's history, a little truth has been sufficient to reach into the reserve of love for God and liberty on tap in the patriot hearts and consciences of those who would be free.

So to my fellow plaintiffs with the courage to stand firm, and to all those who may lose by the price they pay for it, I say keep faith and pray- not so much for yourselves as for the heart and conscience of the good people of your country. Trust that there still burns a candlelight of liberty within them, and a thought for those who would rather be consumed as its wick than surrender to the wickedness that now seeks its destruction.

Worth considering? Then don't forget to DIGG IT!!!!

What- Will-He-Do. aspx

January 2009

Cover Story
Obama and Law Enforcement: What Will He Do?
One of the most liberal presidents in recent U.S. history takes office this month. Will he be good or bad for cops?
by David Griffith

As this issue of POLICE arrives in your mailbox, Barack Obama is preparing to become the 44th President of the United States. And if you assembled the other 43 men who have held the office and asked them to give him advice, they would tell him that regardless of what your goal was when you ran for president or the positions of your platform, events shape the presidency more than the presidency shapes events.

Case in point: George W. Bush. The much despised departing President Bush came into office with the goal of healing the divide between Democrats and Republicans and uniting the country. He leaves office with the country more divided than ever.

Such are the perils of the office.

No one knows how Obama's presidency will play out. The only thing we do know is what he has said that he plans to do in the next four years. The following is an examination of what he's said about issues near and dear to American law enforcement and commentary from leading law enforcement experts on how it will affect you.

The Courts

One of the greatest powers of the president is the constitutional duty to nominate justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justices don't serve at the pleasure of the president or at the electoral will of the people. Once seated, they and all federal judges serve until they choose to leave the office, die, or are impeached. Some judges serve for decades. Which means that the choice of Supreme Court judges is often the only lasting legacy of a president's term.

Even before President Obama was elected, pundits and legal scholars were handicapping his court appointments. Experts believe that between now and the time that he runs for re-election in 2012, the new president will have the opportunity to replace two justices. John Paul Stevens, 88, and Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, 75, are expected to retire.

POLICE Magazine legal columnist Devallis Rutledge says that little will change if Obama gets to name replacements for these liberal justices because he would just be replacing liberal with liberal.

"Just replacing Stevens and Ginsburg with people of like philosophy wouldn't make a substantial difference," Rutledge explains. "Where the difference would come is if President Obama gets to nominate a successor for one of the justices who consistently favors law enforcement. "

According to Rutledge, right now the court is constituted with four liberals and four conservatives with Justice Anthony Kennedy swinging back and forth. That has been to the benefit of law enforcement.

But if Obama gets to replace a conservative justice, that could end the conservative advantage in many rulings. "Just about everything would be affected if that happens," Rutledge says.

Some examples of what Rutledge believes could happen if a liberal majority is seated in the Supreme Court include:

Expanded application of the evidence exclusionary rule
Reduced consideration of the "good faith" exception for bad warrants
More lawsuits against police officers
A prohibition or restriction on the death penalty
Three strikes laws could be judged as constituting cruel and unusual punishment
That's a nightmare scenario for law enforcement, but it's unlikely to happen. Like Rutledge says, Obama will probably only be able to swap liberal for liberal. Also, what happens when a judge becomes a Supreme Court justice is anyone's guess. For example, David Souter was nominated by Republican George Herbert Walker Bush, but he's generally voted liberal. So there's no guarantee that a liberal president like Obama will necessarily end up nominating a justice who consistently votes liberal.

Since the Supreme Court is likely to remain largely conservative at least for now, Rutledge says a bigger concern is the lower courts. "The Supreme Court hears 80 to 110 cases per year. Most cases are settled at another level," he says. "There are a lot of openings at the district court and the appeals court levels that the next president will fill. Those judges are set for life, and they will affect a lot more cases because they rule on a lot more cases."

Crime and Punishment

During the heat of a campaign most liberal presidential candidates get characterized as soft on crime. Obama's record on this issue is more centrist than say a Michael Dukakis or a John Kerry.

As a U.S. senator, he has co-sponsored legislation to combat methamphetamine production and use, helped establish a national database of sex offenders under the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act, supported reauthorization of the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, and sought to expand the hate crimes statutes with the Matthew Shepard Act.

Also, while serving in the Illinois State Senate, Obama worked with law enforcement to establish a compromise on a bill that would have made it necessary for agencies to videotape all capital crimes interrogations. Under that compromise, smaller agencies with no video equipment are allowed to audio tape the interrogation.

But make no mistake about it, Obama was a liberal legislator both at the state and the national level. For every cop-friendly, pro-law and order stance that he has taken in his career, he has also taken at least one predictably liberal stance. He opposed an Illinois bill that would have mandated the death penalty for gang members who kill cops; he supports drug courts for "non-violent" drug offenders; he wants crack cocaine penalties to match powder cocaine penalties; and he helped draft a racial profiling law that requires Illinois officers to record the race, age, and gender of all drivers they stop for traffic violations so that it can be analyzed by the state.

Jim Pasco, executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police, says that he believes Obama is a practical man. And that conservative law enforcement officers should not worry so much that the new president is a liberal. "A principled liberal just like a principled conservative is no threat to the republic," Pasco says.

Pasco adds that Obama's history shows that he is willing to work with law enforcement to find a middle ground. "I am told by the Illinois FOP, by the state president and by the Chicago president, that while Obama was in the state legislature he was instrumental in crafting a compromise [on racial profiling] that our members could live with."

The FOP endorsed Republican John McCain in the presidential election. Yet Pasco believes it can work with Obama.

The National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) did endorse Obama, primarily because of his support for collective bargaining legislation that covers public safety officers nationwide. But NAPO also says it believes law enforcement will receive more funding from the Obama administration than it would have from McCain.

"In no way do we feel that President Obama is going to be 'happy land,'" says Andy Mournighan, NAPO's director of governmental affairs. "We have no guarantees, but we are looking forward to more funding and more federal support for state and local law enforcement. "

Mournighan says that NAPO was very pleased with the Clinton administration' s approach to funding law enforcement, and it expects that Obama will also loosen the spigot on grants for additional personnel and training.

Former Clinton administration "Drug Czar" and former NYPD commissioner Lee Brown also believes that the Obama administration will be good for law enforcement funding. "Under President Bush we have seen a cutback in the monies available for law enforcement and criminal justice. I think there will be a major difference when President Obama takes over," Brown says.

Brown, former president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), says that he and IACP have called for the new Obama administration to create a commission on crime similar to the one that the Johnson administration created in 1967. "We have to bring together the best minds in the country from all disciplines to look at what can be done to reverse the trend of crime." According to Brown, the new president is receptive to the idea. "He has consistently indicated his support for law enforcement and that he will be more accessible to the leaders in law enforcement [than President Bush]. That being the case, they can lay out the issues as they see them and with the receptive ear of the president, I believe we can get things done."

Gun Control

So much has been written about President Obama and guns that there's no reason to spend a lot of time discussing it here. The Internet is on fire with pro-gun groups claiming that Obama is going to make it more difficult, if not impossible, to buy semi-auto pistols and so-called "assault rifles." Consequently, at a time when the rest of the country is financially depressed and nobody is buying anything, gun stores are making monumental sales.

Is there reason for all of this panic? Maybe.

Obama has come out in favor of the rights of cities to regulate gun ownership; he supports laws that allow victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers; he didn't support a law in the Illinois Senate to exempt from prosecution people who use guns to defend their homes and families in cities that prohibit gun ownership; his Attorney General nominee Eric Holder filed a friend of the court brief supporting the District of Columbia's draconian gun restrictions in D.C. v. Heller; and Vice President Joe Biden authored the 1994 crime bill that included the assault weapon ban.

All of that said, Obama has supported law enforcement access to guns, including concealed carry for off-duty and retired law enforcement officers. And experts say there is no interest in Congress in rolling back the officer carry law known as H.R. 218.

FOP's Pasco believes the panic over Obama and gun control is just that, panic. "We specifically asked President Obama in a meeting last June what he favored in the way of additional firearms legislation. His response to us was that he would not support any firearms legislation that the FOP did not support. At this point we are not supporting any firearms legislation. And we take him at his word."

Homeland Security

If you read Barack Obama's position papers on homeland security and anti-terrorism, they sound great. He wants to strengthen cyber-security, secure chemical plants, prevent nuclear and bio terror attacks, monitor ports, enhance airline security, tighten border security, and in general make America safer.

It sounds wonderful. But it's short on details such as how do you accomplish these things and who is going to pay for it.

One of the first things that President Obama is likely to accomplish in this area is really pretty easy to do. He will remove the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from the Department of Homeland Security. Experts contacted for this article applaud this move.

"Culturally, FEMA does not belong in DHS," says FOP's Pasco. "Culturally, police officers are proactive. They work to prevent things from happening. Culturally, FEMA is reactive. FEMA officials show up after something has happened and try to make things better. We opposed putting FEMA into DHS in the first place, and we would support any effort by Obama to move it out of there."

Another change that Obama wants to make at DHS is to allocate Homeland Security grants based on need and threat level and not to every agency. On the campaign trail he said that DHS grants had been transformed into "pork" by Congress. Lobbyists and law enforcement officials are skeptical that he can do anything to end this practice. They shrug their shoulders and say that it's just the way that Washington works.

One specific homeland security detail that Obama says he wants to address is improving communications between public safety agencies. He has even proposed creating the position of National Chief Technology Officer that would be responsible for making sure that law enforcement has the tools it needs to respond to mass casualty incidents.

Of course, the biggest concern that homeland security hawks have about Obama is his belief that terrorism is a law enforcement, not a military, concern. They fear that his desire to close the Camp X-Ray detention camp at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base; his opposition to wiretaps; his stance on Iraq; and his belief that terrorists can be tried in federal courts may lead to more 9/11s and handcuff American intelligence operations in the War on Terror.

Only time will tell. But it should be noted that President Obama may be more reluctant to limit anti-terrorism measures than candidate Obama. One month after the election, he was already receiving flak from anti-war groups such as Code Pink for his cabinet nominees. And as a senator, he did vote to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act.

What this means is that Obama will likely take a centrist point of view on homeland security and neither Code Pink nor homeland security hawks will be happy during the next four years.

Illegal Immigration

President Obama supports immigration reform. He believes that illegal immigrants who pay a nominal fine, learn English, and have not violated any other laws should have access to a path to citizenship. Opponents of this reform call it "amnesty."

The one thing that both sides can agree on is that the system as it exists is broken. Nobody knows this better than the men and women of the DHS agency called Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

John Clark, former deputy assistant secretary for ICE, says he is optimistic that President Obama and the next Congress can address immigration. As is, he says ICE officers are frustrated by the nation's schizophrenia about illegal immigration.

"We could do too much or too little," Clark says. "It didn't matter. There was always somebody on the other side saying more or less or whatever."

One person who said that ICE was doing too much was President Obama himself.

In a speech to the National Council of La Raza in San Diego last June, Obama told the audience that the nation's immigration system "isn't working" and "communities are being terrorized by ICE and nursing mothers are being torn from their babies."

That comment elicited howls of protest from the Federal Law Enforcement Officer's Association, and Obama backpedaled.

Clark says such comments are infuriating. "We were given laws to uphold and enforce, and our politicians who can't seem to grapple with the immigration problem are pointing fingers at us saying we're not doing the right thing."

He adds: "Interior immigration enforcement is very, very sticky. Having been messed up as long as it has, it's almost an impossible task trying to make some sense of it and use the resources we have to do the job."

Perhaps more than anything Obama has said or done, his appointment of Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano to head DHS gives Clark reason to believe that illegal immigration will be a front burner issue in the new administration. "She came to our headquarters and discussed some issues, and I am cautiously optimistic that she's a very good pick. I think the way she's been dealing with the immigration issue in Arizona is a pretty good model."

Interesting Times

In our October Briefing Room survey, POLICE asked our readers if they were voting for McCain or Obama. More than 82 percent said they were voting for McCain.

The overwhelming majority of POLICE readers did not vote for Obama, but he is now president.

Whether that will be good or bad for American law enforcement no one really knows. What we do know is that the next four years will be interesting. Of course, "interesting" doesn't necessarily mean good.

COPYRIGHT � 2009 POLICE Magazine. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

American gun owners should be up in arms

STORY TOOLS
E-mail story
Comments
iPod friendly
Printer friendly
More Opinion Columnists
OPINION: Hispanics play role in Obama's victory
OPINION: Americans need civics lessons
Auto industry should restructure
Social Bookmarking

American gun owners have good reason to doubt the sincerity of liberal Democrats now in control of Congress and soon to control the Oval Office, who claim to support firearm civil rights.

Far too many red flags are being waved for gun owners to take a benign posture just six months after a landmark Supreme Court ruling confirmed what they had known all along; that the Second Amendment affirms and protects a fundamental individual civil right to keep and bear arms.

President-elect Barack Obama is on record supporting gun registration, permanent renewal of the ban on so-called "assault weapons," slapping an exorbitant increase on the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition and banning handguns outright. His buffoonish vice president-elect, Delaware's Joe Biden, is a veteran gun control advocate who wrote the original "assault weapons" legislation.

Recently, it was revealed that prospective Obama administration employees were being asked this invasive question: "Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage."

Aside from demonstrating a serious ignorance of gun laws - only five states require some level of gun registration, and only in New York City and in New York's Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester counties is there a renewal requirement - this question suggests that gun owners, or kin of gun owners, will face anti-gun discrimination in their job search. Call it guilt by association, either with firearms or with a relative who owns one.

If this is the kind of "change" we can expect under the Obama administration, gun owners have reason to worry. The more that Democrats "change" the more they stay the same. American citizens flocked to gun shops after the election. Many of those people, ironically, were first-time gun buyers or gun owners who voted for the Chicago Democrat. Obama reinforced gun owner apprehension by appointing Rahm Emanuel - point man for the Clinton administration on gun control issues - as his chief of staff. Eric Holder, his expected nominee for Attorney General, signed an amicus brief in support of the Washington, D.C. gun ban, while arguing that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, positions soundly rejected by the Supreme Court.

Both houses of Congress are controlled by Obama's Democratic Party and leadership positions are occupied by devoted anti-gunners. As we detailed in our recent book, "These Dogs Don't Hunt: The Democrats' War on Guns," the party excels in pro-Second Amendment rhetoric, but labors to reduce that right to a highly-regulated privilege.

This brings us around to Mayor Greg Nickels of Seattle. He has promised to ban even legally-carried guns from city (make that public) property, by executive order. Nearly 250,000 Washington State residents are licensed to carry concealed handguns, and it is also legal in the Evergreen State to carry handguns openly, without a license.

Nickels was advised by the state attorney general that he lacks the authority under Washington's model pre-emption law to enact a gun ban, but he has vowed to do it anyway.

Gun owners see this as imperial arrogance, and suspect that if Nickels can ignore his own state's pre-emption statute, then Congress and a Democratic president might just presume to ignore the Constitution.

Alan Gottlieb is founder of the Second Amendment Foundation and Dave Workman is senior editor of Gun Week.

Eric Holder Was a Gun Control Nightmare

Friday, November 21, 2008 11:03 AM

By: Jim Meyers

Barack Obama�s nomination of Eric Holder for attorney general will not sit well with advocates of Second Amendment rights � Holder has consistently championed stronger gun-control measures.

As deputy attorney general in the Bill Clinton administration from 1997 to 2001, Holder �was a strong supporter of restrictive gun control,� according to The Volokh Conspiracy, a Web site that focuses on the legal system and the courts.

He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three-day waiting period on handgun sales, rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month, banning possession of handguns and so-called "assault weapons" by anyone under age 21, a gun show restriction bill that would have given the federal government the power to shut down all gun shows, and national gun registration.

�He also promoted the factoid that �Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence� � a statistic that is true only if one counts 18-year-old gangsters who shoot each other as �children,�� noted the Web site, founded by law professor Alexander Volokh.

After the 9/11 attacks, Holder wrote an opinion piece for The Washington Post arguing that a new law should give "the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale." He also said prospective gun buyers should be checked against the secret "watch lists" compiled by various government entities.

Earlier this year, Holder � who would become the first African-American attorney general � co-signed an amicus brief in support of the District of Columbia�s ban on all handguns and on the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home.

Holder also played a key role in the snatching of 6-year-old Cuban Elian Gonzalez from his Miami relatives� home in April 2000, according to the Web site. Gonzalez was to be sent to Cuba where his father lived.

Although a photo clearly showed a federal agent pointing a gun at the man who was holding the terrified child, Holder claimed that the federal agents sent to capture Gonzalez had acted "very sensitively."

David Kopel, author of the Volokh Conspiracy report, observed: �If Mr. Holder believes that breaking down a door with a battering ram, pointing guns at children (not just Elian), and yelling �Get down, get down, we'll shoot� is an example of acting �very sensitively,� his judgment about the responsible use of firearms is not as acute as would be desirable for a cabinet officer who would be in charge of thousands and thousands of armed federal agents, many of them paramilitary agents with machine guns.�

Holder has already come under fire due to his involvement in the Mark Rich pardon in the final hours of the Clinton presidency.

Billionaire Rich renounced his U.S. citizenship and moved to Switzerland to avoid prosecution for racketeering, wire fraud, tax fraud, tax evasion, and illegal trades with Iran in violation of the U.S. embargo following the 1979-80 hostage crisis.

Seventeen years later, Rich wanted a pardon, and he retained Jack Quinn, former counsel to the president, to lobby his old boss.

Holder had originally recommended Quinn to one of Rich's advisers, political analyst Dick Morris reported. And he gave substantive advice to Quinn along the way.

Once the pardon was granted, Holder sent his congratulations to Quinn.

Obama�s victory spurs gun owners to stock up

BY MARTHA BELLISLE � mbellisle@rgj.com � November 14, 2008

The glass case by the back wall in the Gun Trader store on East Plumb Lane usually is lined with a row of black, semi-automatic handguns, according to the shop's owner.
But today it sits empty. And on the walls, Frank Morreale said he usually stocks about 25 varieties of assault weapons, but now only has only one.

Since Barack Obama was elected president on Nov. 4, and the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress, Reno's gun shops have been selling out of various weapons and ammunition, out of fears that new, stricter gun laws will soon be passed, shop owners and managers said.

And warehouses have been slow in restocking, they said. "People are panicked," Morreale said. "Everything's selling like crazy." Mike Ford, owner of the Nevada Gun Exchange, agreed.
"He's anti-gun," Ford said of Obama. "So, everybody is buying guns. The same thing happened in '94 with Clinton. People are picking up what they can."

During his campaign, Obama said he respects the Second Amendment, which protects a person's right "to keep and bear arms," and supports sportsmen, hunters and the protection of families.
But Obama also has said that he believes in the need to enforce tough gun laws that already are on the books and supports the need for federal controls over the flow of guns to criminals and in the inner cities.

He also said on his Web site that he supports the renewal of the federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004. The ban prohibits the manufacture of some semi-automatic guns with large magazines. Obama has said that these weapons "belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."

As a U.S. senator, Obama voted to leave gun-makers and dealers open to lawsuits; and as an Illinois state legislator, he supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on all firearms. During an October appearance in Ohio, Obama sought to reassure gun owners. "I will not take your shotgun away," he said. "I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

Gun advocates take some solace in the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 this summer to strike down the District of Columbia's 32-year ban on handguns. For now, gun rights supporters hold a narrow edge on the court, but Obama could appoint justices who would swing it the other way.

People are responding, said John Clement, manager of the shop, Bizarre Guns. "I'm retired law enforcement and none of these laws affect criminals," he said. "Where's the common sense? Any government that doesn't trust its citizens with guns is a government that shouldn't be trusted."

Amy Curtis-Webber, executive director of the Washoe County Democratic Party, said the reaction is based on confusion about Obama's position on gun control. "Every time (Obama) was asked about this he said backs the Second Amendment," she said. "He never said he was going to take people's guns away. People are basing that reaction on misinformation. They didn't look closely at his platform."

But Sam McGuire, a Fallon gun-owner who has lobbied for the National Rifle Association, said he has heard from many people in the region who are worried about the direction the country has taken. "There's a lot of scary stuff that can happen," he said. "People in Nevada tend to take for granted that we have that freedom (to carry guns), but people are edgy about that going away. My phone is ringing off the hook."

He said many feel they need to buy what they can now, in case certain types of weapons are pulled. "There's lots of statistics that support that more guns means less crime," he said. "An armed society is a polite society. No one will attack you if they know you have a gun. No one wants to die." "If the administration takes away the option to defend yourself, nothing will stop the criminals from doing what they do best."

But Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Washington D.C.-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said the statistics don't show that more guns result in less crime. "The states with highest rates of gun deaths are the states with weakest gun laws," he said. But the states with tough gun laws see fewer murders, he added. "It hasn't enslaved anyone," he said, "it has just made them safer."

Everitt said these types of stories are cyclical, and are an effort to increase business. "It benefits the shops to tell people they better come in now and get their guns," he said.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

osted by John Lott at 4:02 PM, 14 November, 2008. @ http://johnrlott. blogspot. com/

Gun Owners not welcome to serve in Obama's Administration?  CNS has the story here:

   President-elect Barack Obama�s transition team is showing its hostility toward lawful firearm owners by �weeding out� job applicants who own firearms themselves, a Second Amendment group says.

   The Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) notes that question 59 � part of a 63-item questionnaire given to Obama administration job applicants � asks for information about firearms owned by the applicant and his or her family.

   Found in the questionnaire�s �Miscellaneous� section, question 59 reads, �Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.�

   Other questions in the Miscellaneous section ask about the applicant�s postings on Facebook and MySpace Web sites; health and medical status; associations with groups that could be used against the applicant; and any other information that could prove embarrassing to the applicant.

   Although it�s not clear that gun ownership would disqualify a job applicant, ISRA says question 59 shows the Obama team�s �distaste� for firearm owners.

   "Question 59 provides clear insight into how Obama and his people perceive firearm owners," said ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. �The questionnaire poses a number of questions asking the applicant to reveal any unethical activities, or embarrassing Internet chats, then wraps up by asking if anyone in the applicant's family owns a firearm. Obviously, Obama feels that owning a firearm is akin to talking dirty in Internet chat rooms.�

   Pearson says the attitude is not surprising, given that Obama � as an Illinois State senator -- voted for SB1195, which included a provision calling for gun owners to be registered in the same manner as sex offenders.

   "Once again, we have to ask ourselves just what candidate Obama was talking about when he said he has 'respect' for the 2nd Amendment," said Pearson. . .

CHECK OUT THIS LINK Below

http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:lZ5nLB1m2TMJ:www.change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/+gun+site:change.gov&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

CRIME AND LAW ENFORCEMENT

Support Local Law Enforcement: Barack Obama and Joe Biden are committed to fully funding the COPS program to put 50,000 police officers on the street and help address police brutality and accountability issues in local communities. Obama and Biden also support efforts to encourage young people to enter the law enforcement profession, so that our local police departments are not understaffed because of a dearth of qualified applicants.
Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Supports: America is facing an incarceration and post-incarceration crisis in urban communities. Obama and Biden will create a prison-to-work incentive program, modeled on the successful Welfare-to-Work Partnership and work to reform correctional systems to break down barriers for ex-offenders to find employment.
End the Dangerous Cycle of Youth Violence: As president, Barack Obama will support innovative local programs, such as the CeaseFire program in Chicago, that have been proven to work. Such programs implement a comprehensive public health approach that implements a community-based strategy to prevent youth violence. He will also double funding for federal afterschool programs and invest in 20 Promise Neighborhoods across the country to ensure that urban youth have meaningful opportunities to succeed.
Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. 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.
End Racial Profiling: Barack Obama cosponsored federal legislation to ban racial profiling and require federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to take steps to eliminate the practice. He introduced and passed a law in the Illinois State Senate requiring the Illinois Department of Transportation to record the race, age, and gender of all drivers stopped for traffic violations so that bias could be detected and addressed.

November 1, 2008

Lawmaker wants to know source of leak on Obama's aunt

Posted: 01:09 PM ET

Conyers called for an investigation into the leak over Obama�s aunt.

WASHINGTON (CNN) � A Democratic lawmaker on Saturday asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to investigate a leak to reporters regarding the immigration status of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's aunt, suggesting the Bush administration may have been behind it.

"I was startled to read in today's Associated Press that a 'federal law enforcement official' has leaked information about an immigration case involving a relative of Senator Obama," said a letter sent to Chertoff by Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee.

"Even more troubling, the AP reports that it 'could not establish whether anyone at a political level in the Bush administration or in the McCain campaign had been involved,' a very disturbing (suggestion) indeed," the letter said.

"This leak is deplorable and I urge you to take immediate action to investigate and discipline those responsible."

The AP reported Saturday that Obama's Kenyan aunt, Zeituni Onyango, is living in the United States illegally, even though an immigration judge rejected her request for asylum four years ago. The story cites two sources, one of them a federal law enforcement official.

CNN has not been able to independently verify the aunt's immigration status. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Kelly Nantel declined comment, saying the agency "is prohibited from commenting on any individual's status."

Filed under: Barack Obama � John Conyers

OBAMACRIMES.COM

Hannity's America - Obama & Friends - History Of Radicalism Part 1

Hannity's America - Obama & Friends - History Of Radicalism Part 2

Hannity's America - Obama & Friends - History Of Radicalism Part 3

Hannity's America - Obama & Friends - History Of Radicalism Part 4

Hannity's America - Obama & Friends - History Of Radicalism Part 5

Hannity's America - Obama & Friends - History Of Radicalism Part 6

> Barak osama says he supports reinstating the clinton gun and magazine
> ban as currently caller for in s.2237, introduced in Congress by Sen.
> joe biden, his running mate. Biden also introduced one of the first
> federal semi-auto bills in 1989 and worked hard to push the clinton
> gun and magazine ban through the Senate in 1993.
> This position is not new for obama. On a 1998 "political awareness"
> survey, he stated as "principle" that he would support "banning the
> sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons."
> In 2003, while serving the Illinois state Senate's Judiciary
> Committee, obama-though he touts his credentials as a legal
> scholar-voted in favor of a terribly drafted bill that would have
> banned (so-called :semi-automatic assault weapons") many firearms that
> weren't even semi-autos.
> Under s.b.1195's definitions, all single shot and double barreled
> shotguns 28 gauge or larger, and many semi-auto shotguns, would have
> been banned, along with hundreds of models of rifles and handguns. If
> s.b.1195 had passed, any Illinois resident who possessed one of these
> guns 90 days after it went into effect would have faced felony
> charges. Fortunately, less radical views prevailed, and the bill died
> at the end of the legislative session.
> On October 21, 2004, during his US Senate campaign, obama said the
> guns covered by the clinton ban "have only only one purpose, to kill
> people," he added, "I think it is a scandal that [President Bush] did
> not authorize a renewal" of the ban.
> On April 22, 2007, Radio Iowa News reported that obama said, "It's
> hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semi-automatic".
> And on July 15, 2007, Fox News reported that obama called for Congress
> "to permanently reinstate an assault weapons ban"
> A new ban surely will be reintroduced in Congress in 2009. osama would
> sign a ban into law, as he has made clear throughout his Carree. With
> osama lobbying from the Whitehouse, it would be more likely that
> Congress would pass a ban. Longtime NRA members may recall that 1991,
> when president George H.W. Bush was in office, many Democrats voted
> with Republicans to defeat a gun and magazine ban in the House of
> Representatives by 70 votes. But in 1994, when president clinton was
> in office, many Democrats who voted against the ban in 1991 buckled
> under pressure from their party's leader and voted for it.
> The brady campaign says that banning "assault weapons" and magazines
> that hold more than 10 rounds is one of it's top 3 priorities in 2009.
> As their records show, it has long been a priority of barac obama and
> joe biden.

The federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition is a rare creature: a federal tax that is fully supported by those who pay it. Long guns and long gun ammunition are taxed at 11 percent; handguns and handgun ammunition are taxed at 10 percent. The tax is a key source of funding for wildlife conservation projects and shooting range construction across the nation.

But in 1999 then-state senator obama proposed increasing these taxes by 500 percent. It's safe to say that obama wasn't hoping to build more shooting ranges.

Right now, a rifle that a manufacturer sells for $500 carries a tax of $55. Under obama's proposal, that amount would rocket to $330. This would turn a tax willingly paid by sportsmen into a tool to punish gun buyers and would have it's biggest impact on those who can least afford to pay such an exorbitant tax-at least, until the loss of sales drove gun stores and manufacturers out of business.

Obama claims that if he is elected president, he "will protect the rights of hunters." But in 2005, halfway through his first year in the Senate, obama voted for a ban on practically all center-fire rifle ammunition used for hunting or any other purpose. The ban was proposed by Sen. edward kennedy as an amendment of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that blocked reckless law suits against the gun industry.

If the kennedy amendment had passed, it would have banned the manufacture of most center-fire rifle ammunition as "armor piercing" ammunition. Unlike current law which classifies bullets as "armor piercing" ammunition based on the metals used in their construction, the kennedy amendment would have banned ammunition based on it's velocity and energy.

For obvious reason, the Departments of Justice and Treasury rejected that concept in the 1980's, when it was first proposed. And when Bill Clinton and then Rep-charles schumer tried to revive it in the 1990's, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms studied the issue and rejected it again.

Fortunately, the Senate acted to "protect the rights of hunters," but without obama's help, the kennedy amendment failed by a vote of 64-31, with John McCain among those opposing this sweeping ban.

In 1996, Obama filled out a questionaire saying he supported legislation to "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns". In 1999 then state senator obama proposed banning so-called "junk" guns--a code word for affordable hand guns that anti-gun activists used to call "Saturday Night Specials". In 2003, obama voted to limit hand gun purchases to 1 per month. This year as District of Columbia v. Heller headed to the Supreme Court, more than 300 members of Congress signed a brief urging the court to declare that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and to overturn DC's hand gun ban. Obama and his running mate, joe biden fefused to sign the brief. Obama reacted to the Heller case by saying "the notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws...isn't borne out by our constitution." Obama also supports ted kennedy's bill to ban the manufacture of all currently existing semi-automatic hand guns.

In addition to Chacago, a number of suburban Illinois cities and towns banned the possession of handguns completely in the 1980's (though several of these laws have been repealed since the Heller decision and NRA is challenging the rest in court).One of these bans, in the town of Wilmette, led to a 2003 case in which a local resident used a handgun to defen himself from a dangerous repeat offender. Though the shooting was found to be justified, the armed citizen was charged with possessing a handgun in violation of Wilmette's law and faced jail time.

The injustice of prosecuting a person for defending himself in his own home led Illinois lawmakers to propose legislation that would make self-defense an "affirmative defense" against prosecution for handgun possession in towns like Wilmette.

Both in committee and on the floor of the Illinios senate, barack obama was given the opportunity to stand up for a crime victim and for the right to self-defense, or to stand in support of local gun bans. He chose gun bans. Obama voted 4 times against the measure, which passed over his opposition, and over a veto by Illinois' anti gun Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a long time obama ally.

Barack obama's support for local gun bans is even more significant now as he tries to convince voters he is no threat to gun rights. And his actions in 2004 should remind gun owners that (to borrow from his party's platform) what doesn't work in Chicago, probably won't work in Chyenne, either.

The Real Obama�From Someone Who Knows

Friday, October 24, 2008

Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson Issues Open Letter to Nation's Sportsmen Regarding Obama's TRUE History in the Illinois Senate

We've repeatedly warned readers not to believe Barack Obama when he claims to support our Second Amendment rights. We have told you the truth--that Barack Obama is the most anti-gun presidential candidate in American history! Hands down. No question. Barack Obama opposes the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding, freedom-loving, American firearm owners.

We've given the facts, and provided the documentation. But if you know someone who's still not convinced, you'll want to share with them a recent, open letter to our nation's gun owners, hunters, and sportsmen, written by Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) Executive Director Richard Pearson. Pearson's credentials include deep involvement in the firearm rights movement for more than 40 years. He's been the chief lobbyist for the ISRA for the past 15 years. And, most importantly, because of his personal experience, he knows Barack Obama's true stance on the Second Amendment.

In his letter, Mr. Pearson says, "I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than does Barack Obama."

Mr. Pearson goes on to describe just some of Obama's anti-gun voting record, saying, "While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forcibly confiscate banned guns." Obama also voted FOUR TIMES against legislation that would protect a homeowner who use a firearm in defense of home and family!

It doesn't get much plainer than that, folks. This letter is a must-read for every pro-freedom, pro-self-defense, pro-Second Amendment American.

To read the entire letter, please click here. Then be sure to forward the link to every Second Amendment supporter you know. The truth about Obama's stance on firearms and the Second Amendment needs to be told�again!

To see Obama's whole record for yourself, please visit www.GunBanObama.com.

Motion for Order deeming Request for Admissions Admitted

Press Release 10 21 08 - Obama - DNC Admit All Allegationsof Federal Court Lawsuit

Motion for Order re Req. for Admissions - Admitted

YOU THINK YOU ARE IN LUCK WITH BIDEN LOOK HOW FAIR HE LIVES BY ME

View Larger Map

No BAMA

Phillip Berg is the attorney who filed suit against Obama

Phillip Berg is the attorney who filed suit against Obama 17

HI-CALIBER Investigations �
http://hi-caliber.blogspot.com/2008/10/jessica.html

October 05, 2008

Obama's Actions vs. Obama's Words

Eric Jeffery

Clear thinking, intelligent voting requires research into the actions of our politicians, not just following what they say. This statement holds true more this year than any other. Barack Obama�s actions do not match his words. Going back to his years as a state Senator, followed by his select votes in the U.S. Senate, show his true nature, that of a far left Liberal. This statement is not meant as derogatory, it�s meant as a fact. Whether we look at his allies and their actions towards Israel, or we investigate Barack Obama�s votes on gun control or whether we go into his voting record on taxation, it�s clear that what he says today does not match what he�s done in the past. Everyone must understand that past action is the best determination of future activity. Take a look for yourself, understand what�s occurred and act on actions, not words.

Mr. Obama realizes now that he�s running a national campaign that he must have the Jewish vote so obfuscates his true nature. Mr. Obama states he is a strong proponent of Israel and he believes the country has a right of self defense. As a Jew I cannot understand how my people can even consider voting for Mr. Obama, let alone do so in such large numbers. As Mr. Obama has no real votes for or against Israel, Jews must look at the associations of Mr. Obama and not listen to his words. Early in his career, Mr. Obama joined a church lead by a former black Muslim who is a blatant anti-Israeli. When he moved to Chicago Obama joined a new church, one lead by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a pastor that compares Israel to apartheid South Africa. This man was a close friend and mentor for Mr. Obama for 20 years. In addition, Louis Farrakhan, a notorious anti-Semite, is a strong proponent of Mr. Obama which should scare Jews off in entirety. Lastly, to list out a bunch of true data on this issue, I directly quote from the Jewish Task Force, Jews Against Obama:

� Obama�s foreign policy advisors from the Carter Administration are notoriously anti-Israel and anti-Semitic.
� A non-profit organization with Obama on its board gave money to the terrorist-supporting Arab American Action Network, which favors Israel's destruction and is completely against America enforcing any of her immigration laws.
� Obama helped raise money for Muslim terrorist refugee camps in the Middle East.
� Obama has been endorsed by communist Daniel Ortega (former head of the Weather Underground organization), communist Tom Hayden, Jesse Jackson, and Muslim racist and anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan.
� Obama�s National Campaign Cochairman is congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., a notorious racist and anti-Semite.
� Obama�s Pastor, who Obama claims is his mentor, traveled with Muslim racist and antisemite Louis Farrakhan to Libya in 1984 to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

Actions, those by a person or people we associate with, matter. Everyone understands we must accept judgment based on that which our friends and allies do. I would not have success as a professional if I hung around gang bangers and drug dealers. Voters, especially Jews, must hold Barack Obama accountable for that which his mentors, advisors, and associates do.

Investigating Mr. Obama�s actions on gun control becomes difficult as he�s not actually done that much on this issue, there are a lot of words, but not a lot of action. With that said, recently Mr. Obama clearly stated that he supports the 2nd Amendment. He went so far as to say that the founding fathers meant to grant an �individual right� to gun ownership. This statement placates the large gun ownership crowd in union households and others important voters in key swing states. Folks that listen to words now have a comfort level in voting for Obama. The truth in his actions; however, is a far cry from his words of late. Barack Obama voted against protecting gun manufacturers from litigation based off misuse of their products. In 2000, Mr. Obama voted to restrict gun purchases to one per month and he disagreed with the Bush administration allowing the 1994 gun ban to sunset. Lastly, and mot damning, is when Mr. Obama filled out a 1996 questionnaire he clearly indicated he would ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns as well as ban assault weapons and create mandatory waiting periods and background checks. Investigating the few gun votes on Mr. Obama�s record, we must understand that his actions indicate a strong anti-gun bias.

Lastly we must look at how Obama votes on taxation. Before doing this; however, everyone must understand that Barack Obama outright lies when he says his tax plan will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. First, 40% of Americans don�t pay any Federal taxes so Mr. Obama cannot help them. Secondly, as Barack Obama wants the Bush tax cuts to expire, he will, in effect, raise taxes on anyone paying taxes. With that out of the way, let me clear up a misleading statement of the McCain camp � that statement that Mr. Obama voted 94 times to raise taxes. Truthfully, the number is 71, the other 23 times votes against tax cuts. Bottom line, Mr. Obama clearly votes for tax increases.

Talk is cheap; actions matter. Clearly Mr. Obama says one thing but his record shows the exact opposite. As voters we must act, not only on November 4th when it matters, but in the days and weeks ahead of time. Don�t just read articles, investigate the truth. Look at different web sites, acquire information, choose issues that matter and vote, not on what the candidate says, but what the candidate and his associates do. If, at the end of your research you decide that gun control, a weak Israeli stance, and higher taxes are for you, vote for Barack Obama.

Sources:

http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
http://jtf.org/
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/02/obama_farrakhan_jeremiah_wrigh.php
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obama_and_israel.html (MUST READ)
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html

Eric Jeffery
Clifton, VA
ejeffery@techie.com

WEBCommentary Contributor
Author: Jim Kouri, CPP
Date: October 5, 2008

Barack Obama's Cop-Killer Supporters

by Jim Kouri

While Barack Obama's friends and supporters in the news media downplay his friendship and business relationship with former terrorist and Marxist university professor Willam Ayers, one aspect of the Ayers terrorism saga that's totally ignored is his reputation as a cop-killer.

For instance, in Nyack, New York, Ayers' terrorist group the Weather Underground launched an armored-car robbery that left two Nyack, NY police officers -- Officer Waverly Brown and Sergeant Ed O'Grady -- mortally wounded. In addition, the Brinks armored-car driver, Peter Paige was also shot to death by the Weathermen.

Quite simply, Ayers' group of killers left five children without fathers as a result of the brutal and vicious armored car robbery.

Progressives for Obama signatories include Weathermen Howard Machtinger, Jeff Jones, Steve Tappis and Mark Rudd. Machtinger helped author the the mission statement of the Weathermen that called for revolutionaries within the United States to wage a 'people's war' and attack from within. The government would fall and 'world communism' eventually would be instituted.

In addition to the New York police officers killed, a 1970 pipe bomb in San Francisco set by the group killed another police officer and critically wounded yet another cop. When given the opportunity to serve on boards and appear at press conferences with Ayers, an up-and-coming politician named Barack Obama jumped at the chance.

Recently released records from the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois, Chicago show that Obama and Ayers attended board meetings, retreats and press conferences from 1995 to 2001 as directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

Another major fundraiser for Obama is William Ayers, who also sat on the board of the Woods Fund with Obama and is a professor at the University of Chicago.

Bill Ayers -- along with his wife Bernadine Dohrn -- was an active member of the Weather Underground, a radical left-wing group that advocated violence against the United State. Both Ayers and Dohrn went "underground" in 1970 after others in the group accidentally detonated a bomb in a Greenwich Village (New York City) townhouse. The blast killed three of the group's members including Ayers' girlfriend at the time.

While Ayers and Dohrn were hiding from law enforcement, the Weather Underground participated in the bombings of the US Capital, the Pentagon and a State Department building. In 1981 Ayers and Dohrn turned themselves in to federal authorities, but all charges were dropped as a result of alleged "government legal misconduct." In his 2001 memoir, Ayers wrote, "I don't regret setting the bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

Ayers and Dohrn are known to have held at least one fundraiser for Barack Obama in their Chicago home.

During Obama's last year on the board of The Woods Fund (2002), he participated in awarding grants, including a $70,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, a Chicago-based group founded by Rashid and Mona Khalidi. In another suspected quid pro quo arrangement similar to those with Ayers and Rezko, Rashid Khalidi also held a fundraising event in his home for Barack Obama.

In the Middle East, Rashid Khalidi was known as a man to be reckoned with. From 1972 through 1983, Khalidi was the director in Beirut of the official Palestinian press agency, FAFA. His wife worked there as well.

According to sources who served in the US Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency, when the Khalidi's left Chicago for Columbia University in New York, Rashid was honored with the Edward Said Chair in Arab Studies at that Ivy League university. Their goodbye party in Chicago included testimonials from Bill Ayers and Barack Obama.

Jim Kouri, CPP
Editor, HouseConservatives.com

HERE ARE MY LINKS TO SOME WEB SITES
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76438

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76308

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76560

http://againstobama.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/old-school-dirty-politics-of-obama/

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/09/21/dems-threaten-anti-iran-rally-organizers-irs-attack-if-they-let-

http://www.theobamafile.com/

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

O MY LOOK AT OBAMO & BIDEN MEETING

Obama Letter NRA Ad

When Hillary Clinton told a tall tale about "landing under sniper fire" in Bosnia, she was accused of "inflating her war experience" by rival Democrat Barack Obama's campaign.

But the campaign has been silent about Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, telling his own questionable story about being "shot at" in Iraq.

"Let's start telling the truth," Biden said during a presidential primary debate sponsored by YouTube last year. "Number one, you take all the troops out - you better have helicopters ready to take those 3,000 civilians inside the Green Zone, where I have been seven times and shot at. You better make sure you have protection for them, or let them die."

But when questioned about the episode afterward by the Hill newspaper, Biden backpedaled from his claim of being "shot at" and instead allowed: "I was near where a shot landed."

The senior senator from Delaware went on to say that some sort of projectile "landed" outside a building in the Green Zone where he and another senator had spent the night during a visit in December 2005. The lawmakers were shaving in the morning when they felt the building shake, Biden said.

"No one got up and ran from the room-it wasn't that kind of thing," he told the Hill. "It's not like I had someone holding a gun to my head."

The rest of the press ignored the flap at the time because Biden was viewed as having little chance of ending up on the Democratic presidential ticket. But even after Biden was selected to be Obama's running mate last month, his claim to have been "shot at" drew no scrutiny from the same reporters who had savaged Clinton for making a similar claim that turned out to be false.

FOX News has been asking the Obama campaign for details of the alleged shooting in Iraq ever since Biden was tapped to be vice president. Biden campaign spokesman David Wade promised an answer last week, but failed to provide one.

Meanwhile, the gaffe-prone Biden has again raised eyebrows with another story about his exploits in war zones - this time in Afghanistan. Biden said he will grill Republican rival Sarah Palin in Thursday's vice presidential debate about "the superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan where my helicopter was forced down."

"If you want to know where Al Qaeda lives, you want to know where Bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me," Biden bragged to the National Guard Association. "Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are."

But it turns out that inclement weather, not terrorists, prompted the chopper to land in an open field during Biden's visit to Afghanistan in February. Fighter jets kept watch overhead while a convoy of security vehicles was dispatched to retrieve Biden and fellow Senators Chuck Hagel and John Kerry.

"We were going to send Biden out to fight the Taliban with snowballs, but we didn't have to," joked Kerry, a Democrat, to the AP. "Other than getting a little cold, it was fine."

Biden never explicitly claimed his chopper had been forced down by terrorists. Nonetheless,

John McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said Obama-Biden officials have been less than forthcoming about Biden's dramatic war stories.

"They never explained Biden's helicopter story from last week - which is very similar to the story about getting 'shot at' in Baghdad," Rogers said.

Bill Sammon is deputy Washington managing editor for FOX News Channel.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/30/unlike-clinton-biden-gets-pass-saying-shot-iraq/comments/

'Nobody Knows Obama's Record on Guns Better Than I Do,' Says Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson

   SPRINGFIELD, Ill., Sept. 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following
was released today by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA):

    "One of the most blatant lies ever to come from a politician's mouth,"
is how the ISRA is characterizing a recent statement by U.S. Senator Barack
Obama. Speaking in the latest issue of "Field & Stream," Obama claims that
Illinois sportsmen know him as an advocate for their rights. On the
contrary, Obama's voting record while a state senator clearly indicates
that he has nothing but contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner.

    "Any sportsman who counts Barack Obama as one of his friends is
seriously confused," said ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson.
"Throughout his tenure in the Illinois Senate, Obama served as one of the
most loyal foot soldiers in Mayor Daley's campaign to abolish civilian
firearm ownership. While a state senator, Obama voted for legislation that
would ban and forcibly confiscate nearly every shotgun, target rifle and
hunting rifle in the state. Obama also voted for bills that would ration
the number of firearms a law-abiding citizen could own, yet give a pass to
the violent thugs who roam our streets. And, inexplicably, Obama voted four
times against legislation that would allow citizens to use firearms to
defend their homes and families."

    "Let us also not forget that Obama served as a director of the Joyce
Foundation," continued Pearson. "While on the Joyce Foundation board, Obama
funneled tens of millions of dollars to radical gun control organizations
such as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence
Policy Center."

    "If Senator Obama considers his legislative record and his
philanthropic endeavors to be acts of advocacy on behalf of sportsmen's
rights, then I submit that the Senator is seriously confused as well,"
asserted Pearson.

    "Nobody knows Obama's record on guns better than I do, and it's rotten
to the core," said Pearson. "I've been involved in Illinois politics nearly
as long as Obama has been alive. In that time, I have never encountered a
legislator who was more hostile towards or more disinterested in
sportsmen's rights than Barack Obama."

    _ _ _

    The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and
responsible firearms ownership. Founded in 1903, the ISRA represents the
interests of over 1.5 million law-abiding Illinois firearm owners.

    WEB SITE: http://www.isra.org

SOURCE Illinois State Rifle Association

Obama Wants NRA Ads Banned

Saturday, September 27, 2008 8:10 PM

By: Newsmax staff Article Font 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.
Earlier this week, the National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund 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.
The Obama camp is particularly angry with an NRA ad entitled "Hunter" which lays out Obama's record on gun control.
You can see the "Hunter" ad -- Go Here Now.
Other NRA ads include "Way of Life" and another focusing on Joe Biden's record, "Defend Freedom, Defeat Obama."
This week, Obama's campaign general counsel Bob Bauer wrote seeking to censor the ads at stations in Pennsylvania.
"Unlike federal candidates, independent political organizations do not have a 'right to command the use of broadcast facilities,'" Bauer writes. "Moreover, you have a duty 'to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.'"
"This advertising is false, misleading, and deceptive," Bauer continued. "We request that you immediately cease airing this advertising."
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 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.
The NRA has set up a web site detailing its position on Obama at www.gunbanobama.com.
A copy of the NRA's letter to station, written by its counsel Cleta Mitchell, follows below:

MEMORANDUM
CLIENT-MATTER NUMBER
999100-0130
TO: Station Managers
FROM: Cleta Mitchell, Esq.
Counsel to National Rifle Association
DATE: September 25, 2008

RE: Documentation for Advertising by National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund ("NRA-PVF")

This firm serves as counsel to the National Rifle Association (�NRA�) and the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund ("NRA-PVF"), which is the federal political action committee of the NRA and the sponsor of certain advertising purchased and soon-to-be purchased on your station. It has come to my clients� attention that the Obama for President campaign is engaging in an effort to prevent or stop the airing of certain ads by NRA-PVF, falsely alleging that the ads are �inaccurate�. The Obama presidential campaign apparently relies on an article appearing in the Washington Post on September 23, 2008 to support its contention hat the NRA-PVF ads should not be aired.

The Washington Post is hardly an objective news source on any subject related to the issues to which the NRA is dedicated, having spent decades attacking not only the NRA but also fighting against the legislation and policies NRA supports to protect the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as supporting every conceivable government proposal or policy any officeholder or candidate suggests to weaken and disrupt the guarantees of the Second Amendment. It is therefore no surprise that the Washington Post would now attack the NRA for advertisements which truthfully disclose the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment record of Barack Obama, the candidate supported by the Washington Post.

Attached please find the point-by-point refutation of the Washington Post�s article about the NRA-PVF ads regarding Obama�s record on the Second Amendment, as well as an article disclosing the bias of the decidedly not neutral �FactChecker� on which the Washington Post article is ostensibly based.

The NRA devotes 100% of its time and resources to protecting the Second Amendment and fighting for government policies and legislation furtherance of the rights of the American people to keep and bear arms.

The legislative and policy record of candidates and officeholders such as Barack Obama are well known and documented by the NRA on an ongoing basis. NRA-PVF�s advertising during the 2008 election cycle is based on that extensive research and documentation, which is being furnished to you with this Memorandum.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that your station disregard the shamefully false assertions from the Obama campaign and its attorneys regarding the NRA-PVF ads and that the ads run in accordance with the purchase(s) made by NRA-PVF in the media buy.

By Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman

Breaking up is so hard to do. 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.

It was inevitable. After Democrats lost Congress in 1994 because their actions brought legions of angry gun owners to the polls, the party re-packaged its rhetoric and tried to sell itself as a friend of the Second Amendment. American gun owners, who are increasingly becoming gun rights activists, are not the fools Democrats think they are. As we note in our new book These Dogs Don�t Hunt: The Democrats� War On Guns, Democrats earned their reputation as being the party of gun control. Instead of rhetoric, they need to repudiate their long-standing animosity toward gun owner rights.

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.

Alan Gottlieb is founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (saf.org) and Dave Workman is senior editor of Gun Week (gunweek.com). They are co-authors of These Dogs Don�t Hunt: The Democrats� War On Guns.

Atlah

gun ban obama

Out West, Obama Faces Gun Battle

September 15, 2008 10:26 PM

DENVER, Colo. -- Colorado is home to more than 100,000 dues-paying members of the National Rifle Association, all of whom should have received THIS MAILER sometime in the last week, which says he would be "the most anti-gun president in American history," and refers gun rights enthusiasts to the website GunBanObama.com.

Obama is aware of this of course, and he's on the radio airwaves out here -- as well as, according to readers of Ben Smith at Politico -- Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland. Virginia, Ohio, and New Hampshire.

The ad features former Washington Redskin Ray Schoenke, who helms the American Hunters and Shooters Association, which styles itself as a moderate alternative to the NRA, while the NRA deems it to be a bogus bunch of gun-grabbers.

"It's important to me that our next President protects our Second Amendment rights to own guns and defend ourselves," says Schoenke. "Barack Obama and John McCain will both make sure we can keep our guns. But what about keeping our jobs? Barack's got a real plan that invests in creating jobs here at home and cuts taxes a thousand bucks for working families. John McCain? I saw a lot of cheap shots in my day, but McCain's false attacks on Obama are just a fake to hide the ball. His plan sells out American workers. McCain will keep giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas. And he'll look the other way while China breaks our trade deals. It's the same old Bush playbook. Look, when the coach loses eight years in a row, you don't bring him back for a ninth season! We just can't afford more of the same."

Listen to the ad HERE.

Obama's facing some tough skeptics out here, though, and comments like the ones he made in Duryea, Penn., earlier this month don't necessarily help.

"There�s rumors going around that you're going to take away the guns," said a hunter at a glass factory.

"I think this is a great question so I just want to clear it up," Obama said. "Because I know there are probably some sportsmen here in the audience. I believe in the Second Amendment, and if you are a law-abiding gun owner, you have nothing to fear from an Obama administration! I mean this has been this has been peddled again and again�

"I�ll be honest, and I�m sure there�s some NRA members here," Obama continued. "Their general attitude is 'Look, we don�t want anything, and if you even breathe the word "gun control" or "gun safety," then you must want to take away everybody�s guns.' Well, that�s just not true...

"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."

That "I don't have the votes in Congress" line has ricocheted around the country�

- jpt

Click on the pic to get the book

LOTT: Obama's gun ban rhetoric

For it before being against it, now no longer for it

John R. Lott Jr.
Friday, August 29, 2008

The District's gun ban had prohibited residents from registering handguns and keeping them in the city. Immediately after the ban was imposed in 1976, the homicide rate dropped and it has leveled off in recent years, after peaking in 1991.

OP-ED:

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign just won't let the gun issue rest. Mr. Obama and his campaign surrogates continue to assure gun owners that he is on their side, and it appears to be paying off. John McCain only leads Mr. Obama among hunters by 14 percentage points, just about half the 27-point lead that President Bush held over John Kerry in 2004. If Mr. McCain had a similar lead, he would be ahead in most polls, particularly in many battle ground states.

Yet, despite all the Democratic claims to the contrary, Mr. Obama is undoubtedly the most anti-gun candidate ever nominated by a major party for president.

A couple of weeks ago, Brian Schweitzer, Montana Democratic governor, told national reporters that Mr. Obama "Ain't ever going to take your gun away." An Obama adviser, Stanford Law Professor Larry Lessig, said recently on Hugh Hewitt's national radio show that "I think that he has always been an individual rights person on the Second Amendment." Another advisor, Professor Cass Sunstein at Harvard, told Time Magazine in June: "Obama has always expressed a belief that the Second Amendment guarantees a private right to bear arms." The list goes on.

The day the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.'s gun ban, Mr. Obama claimed the court's decision merely ratified his own position. He told Fox News he had "said consistently that I believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and that was the essential decision that the Supreme Court came down on." So, has Mr. Obama consistently supported individuals' rights to own guns and opposed the D.C. handgun ban? Last November, Mr. Obama's campaign told the Chicago Tribune that "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional." After the Illinois senator's statement supporting the Supreme Court striking down the ban, the campaign quickly disowned the Chicago Tribune quote as a staffer's "inartful attempt" to characterize his position.

Yet, Mr. Obama personally voiced support for the D.C. ban at other times. In February, he did this himself, not something that he could blame on a staffer.

ABC New's local Washington, D.C. anchor, Leon Harris, asked Mr. Obama: "One other issue that's of great importance here in the district as well is gun control ... but you support the D.C. handgun ban." Mr. Obama's simple response: "Right." When Mr. Harris said "And you've said that it's constitutional," Mr. Obama again says "right" and is clearly seen on tape nodding his head "yes."

But this is not new. Mr. Obama has a long history of supporting city gun bans. The Associated Press described his 2004 vote on a gun control bill: "He also 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."

A candidate questionnaire shows that Mr. Obama supported a ban on handguns in 1996. In 1998, he backed a ban on the sale of all semiautomatic guns (a ban that would encompass the vast majority of guns sold in the U.S.) In 2004, he advocated banning gun sales within five miles of a school or park (essentially a ban on all guns sold in almost all the states). Possibly, even more importantly, he served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, probably the largest private funder of anti-gun and pro-ban groups and research in the country.

The Obama campaign "flatly denied" the 1996 statement supporting a ban on handguns, blaming it instead on a staffer from his state senate race who they said had incorrectly filled out the candidate questionnaire. But the Politico obtained a copy of the statement and found Mr. Obama's own handwritten notes on it indicating that he had personally checked and corrected answers.

His newfound support for gun ownership raises serious questions; not only where he stands on the gun issue, but also how trustworthy he is. With new legal cases being filed against Chicago's gun ban over the last couple of weeks, will some reporter finally ask Mr. Obama why he has not only never spoken out against Chicago's ban, he actively supported it? The release of the new Democratic National Platform's discussion of "what [gun control] works in Chicago" implies Mr. Obama still supports Chicago's gun ban. The platform also wants to take away so-called "assault weapons." Also unclear is what his position means for who he would nominate to the Supreme Court. Mr. Obama's recent comments to Rick Warren, pastor of the evangelical Saddleback Church, showed he opposed nominating those members of the Supreme Court who voted that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

Mr. Obama doesn't even admit that he has changed his position on guns. In a July interview on "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," the senator admitted that there has been a "shift in emphasis" on various issues, but on guns he held firm: "There wasn't a shift there." Mr. Obama's campaign can ill afford the opposition that gun owners showed toward John Kerry. Yet, when did Mr. Kerry ever support a ban on handguns or all semi-automatic guns?

John Lott is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland

Joe Biden The Gun Banner

1972 crash still haunts driver's family

Click on joe to see the Real Man

Joe Biden on Gun Control

This candidate has withdrawn from the election

Strongly supports restrictions on access to firearms

Q: Sen. Biden, what could the federal government have done to save those kids at Virginia Tech? A: What they could have done is three things. 1. In the so-called Biden crime bill, we put 100,000 cops on the street. I've worked with law enforcement for the past 30 years, with armor-piercing bullets, waiting periods, etc. But the one thing that's clear: We should not have let the assault weapons ban lapse. 2. We should close this so-called gun show loophole, so you can't go into a gun show and buy a gun that you couldn't buy walking into a gun shop. 3. We have let the country down in the way in which we have not focused on mental illness. We should know that your kid is safe at college. If teachers determine that a child is a danger, the school should be able to take them off the campus.

South Carolina 2007 Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007

I'm the guy that originally wrote the assault weapons ban that became law. Then we got defeated. Then Diane Feinstein sent to town on it and did a great job. Look, we should be working with law enforcement right now to make sure we protect people against people who are not capable of knowing what to do with a gun because they are either mentally imbalanced and/or because they have a criminal record.

Watch Video Now (new)

Biden scores F by NRA on pro-gun rights policies While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But our successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly three million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs. While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But our successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly three million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs. The following ratings are based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates; the NRA assigned a letter grade (with A+ being the highest and F being the lowest).

NRA website 02n-NRA on Dec 31, 2003

Strongly supports a ban on assault weapoons

Watch Video Now (new)

South Carolina 2007 Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007

Strongly supports running background checks on individuals purchasing guns.

Watch Video Now (new)

Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. Vote to table or kill a motion to require that all gun sales at gun shows be completed by federally licensed gun dealers. Also requires background checks to be completed on buyers and requires gun show promoters to register with the Treasury.

Bill S.254 ; vote number 1999-111 on May 11, 1999

Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. Require background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)50; N)50; VP decided YES

Lautenberg Amdt #362; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-134 on May 20, 1999

Photos and Video

PostTalk: Joe Biden

Chris Cillizza and Dan Balz interview Biden, who criticizes the Bush Iraq war strategy and Army Gen. David Petraeus for offering an overly optimistic assessment of hte situaiton on the ground.

� More Photos and Video About Biden �

*** KEEP OUR RIGHTS ALIVE AND GOING ***
Cell 484-266-7353 & Office 610-268-7007
FAX 1-888-897-1827
righttobeararms@parighttobeararms.com

Barack & Joe 2 Lose Nuts

Pa Right To Bear Arms ( the right of the people to keep and bear arms) Phone 484-266-7353 ©

NEWS FLASH

WELCOME PAGE

illegal-immigrant

profits ahead of the safe

Live Ustream & Chat Lines

Please HelpGrand Ole Opry

Pa Right To Bear Arms

Self Defense News

GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA

Supreme Court tackles gun

Pa Right To Bear Arms BUS

GETTYSBURG 2010

Starbucks

Us And State Reps

Companys That Support Us

Firearms Education

Mayors Against Ill Guns

Guns For Trucking

Guest Book & Tv Show

US & State & Carry Permit

Gun Amao

Firearms Owners Against C

Pat Toomey For Senate

Health Care Bill B/S

Chester Co Friends of Nra

NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert

National Park Service

OpenCarry.org

Pa Open Carry

Limbs For Carla

Campaign for Liberty

Mexico

My Club Links

HOUSE BILLS

Second Amendment Rally

STOLEN GUNS

Schools For Guns

Steve Bryant

ROLLYE JAMES SHOW

Tom Gresham Gun Talk

RECALLS

SOUND OFF ON GUN LAWS

Sonia Sotomayor

Hb s 22

HONOR FLIGHT

House Bail Out Bill

Thank You to veterans

WEB SITE DONATIONS

WANTED PERSONS

Pa Universitys No Guns

US Supreme Court

KILLED In Line Of Duty

Finance Bill IS BULL SHIT

Daily Local Ches Co Pa

Chester Co Pa NEWS

Arizona

Alabama

Alaska

California

Connecticut

Colorado

CHICAGO Il Guns

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Indiana

Illinois

Kansas

Kentucky

MaryLand

Maine

Michigan

Missouri

Montana GUN LAWS

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com/2009/02/obama-threatens-keyes-and-other.html

Saturday, February 14, 2009

http://www.policema g.com/Articles/ 2009/01/What- Will-He-Do. aspx

January 2009

Cover Story
Obama and Law Enforcement: What Will He Do?
One of the most liberal presidents in recent U.S. history takes office this month. Will he be good or bad for cops?
by David Griffith