Conffederate
Confederate

March 31, 2008

Running From His Record: Obama's Lies Confirmed by His Own Hand

I ripped into Barack Obama's utter disdain of firearms and his desire for blanket bans on entire classes of firearms in a post for Pajamas Media back on February 22. The article, Obama Shooting Himself in the Foot with Anti-Gun Stance, noted:

In his answers to the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test, Obama said he favored a ban on "the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons."

By definition, this would include all pistols ever made, from .22 target pistols used in the Olympics to rarely-fired pistols kept in nightstands and sock drawers for the defense of families, and every pistol in between. Obama's strident stand would also ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, whatever their previously legal purpose.

Obama's desire to ban all semi-automatic firearms (including those most commonly used for hunting and target shooting) and all handguns are positions well to the left of mainstream American views, as are many of the other political positions he took in the 1998 survey.

Running as a moderate and inclusive presidential candidate a decade later, Obama has tried to explain away his leftist positions on that survey, and an earlier 1996 survey, as being the work of campaign aides who misstated his positions.

The Politico bursts that explanation this morning, in a report that notes that Obama himself answered questions in an interview with the group that created the 1996 questionnaire, and even included the candidate's hand-written notes on an amended version of their questionnaire.

Some members of IVI-IPO, the group that authored the 1996 survey, are not happy with Obama's changing views.

The group had endorsed Obama in every race he'd run including his failed long-shot 2000 primary challenge to U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) until now.

The group's 37-member board of directors, meeting last year soon after Obama distanced himself from the first questionnaire, stalemated in its vote over an endorsement in the Democratic presidential primary. Forty percent supported Obama, 40 percent sided with Clinton and 20 percent voted for other candidates or not to endorse.

"One big issue was: Does he or does he not believe the stuff he told us in 1996?" said Aviva Patt, who has been involved with the IVI-IPO since 1990 and is now the group's treasurer. She volunteered for Obama's 2004 Senate campaign, but voted to endorse the since-aborted presidential campaign of Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) and professed disappointment over Obama's retreat from ownership of the questionnaire.

Other members of the group still support Obama, but it frankly doesn't matter.

Barack Obama has tried to package himself this time around as a uniting, moderating force in American politics, but his dozen-year long record from 1996 through his current Senate ranking as America's most liberal Senator shows him to be well to the left of mainstream positions not only among Americans in general, but even within the Democratic Party.

Instead of running on his liberal views, Barack Obama is trying to minimize the public's exposure to them without refuting his still-held radical beliefs, just as he's tried to run away from his relationship to a radical Marxism-inspired church with a bigoted, America-damning pastor without quitting the church or severing his relationship with Wright, just as he has no refuted his dinner-party friendship and board of directors relationship with a proud terrorist who lost his girlfriend in the group when she blew herself up trying to create bombs to target a dance for American soldiers.

Far from being a uniting force in American politics, Barack Obama has shown himself time and again to be a shifty radical attempting to lie his way into higher office. Unfortunately, his hope of surviving the general election un-vetted by the media and his opponents is falling apart.

Amusingly, the superdelegate system that Democrats created to avoid another embarrassing McGovern-type landslide defeat is primed to fail in it's primary mission by nominating another left-wing radical with little chance of winning, and a real possibility of of suffering another embarrassing landslide defeat once the gloves come off in the general election.

I can hardly wait.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at March 31, 2008 10:29 AM
Comments

It's almost like everyone is waiting for the Obama lie of the day to be revealed now. Yesterday it was the WAPO finally connecting the dots on the Selma/Kennedy myth, although others had already done it. Today it's Politico puncturing previous lies about a 1996 survey. Friday, it was moonwalking about his Wright position with the hags on the views.

And people have a hard time understanding why Hillary won't quit? Go figure.

Posted by: daleyrocks at March 31, 2008 10:44 AM

Make that the hags on The View.

Posted by: daleyrocks at March 31, 2008 10:46 AM

I'm not sure a rep for deception is going to adhere to Barry well enough to hand Hillary the nod, especially because she excels in this area and has for years. Can a Clinton call ANYone a liar? Ha! Folks on the Right snort, and quite rightly, at JSMcCs "StraighTalk" but as a political asset, his "truthing" puts him far past the two empty garment bags in opposition in this particular area of character. As with so much bearing on McCain he looks pretty bad until you hold him up to the competition.

Posted by: megapotamus at March 31, 2008 11:37 AM

Obammy is baaaaaaad, baaad I tell ye..he's a commie an' he hates Ameriky.

Posted by: chris lee at March 31, 2008 11:45 AM

Chris - He's just an empty suit. No one really knows what he believes because he votes present or refuses to reveal it until the media spotlight gets too hot. Even then, his statements are noncommittal. He's the Rubberband Man, the Gumby candidate.

Posted by: daleyrocks at March 31, 2008 11:53 AM

I need to understand this attitude. Clearly the issue is not the responsible gun owner or collector. In all honesty, I don't know why any rational person of good taste would need to own an uzi or any other semi-autimatic. Clearly the issue is the problem of gang violence and gun toting psychos , why do you frame his position in such a disingenuous way?

Posted by: chris lee at March 31, 2008 12:03 PM
In all honesty, I don't know why any rational person of good taste would need to own an uzi or any other semi-autimatic.

Beclown yourself, much?

The overwhelming majority of firearms sold in the United States to responsible gun owners are semi-automatics, from pistols purchased for self defense and many kinds of competitive shooting, to semi-auto rifles purchased for target shooting, hunting, collecting, and plinking, to many models of shotguns common in both hunting and target shooting.

When you don't even know the difference between a machine gun and the nearly ubiquitous semi-automatic action (your obvious intent, even though Uzis are made both ways), you should probably simply not comment, and thus keep your ignorance hidden.

It is Obama who has a dishonest position, counting on ignorant fools such as yourself to swallow it reflexively, without the first bit of knowledge about the subject.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 31, 2008 12:14 PM

chris - Ir would be nice if you tried to educate yourself before opining on a subject, but whatever.

If your concern is gang gun violence, do you think the members of the gangs purchased their weapons legally, Chris?

Posted by: daleyrocks at March 31, 2008 12:58 PM

[[Obammy is baaaaaaad, baaad I tell ye..he's a commie an' he hates Ameriky.]]

Well hes said as much! But you know, actually Barry is a great American who loves his country, he just claims its an evil, s### hole (despite the fact that Barry and his lovly wifey earned more than one million bucks last year.) You never know, had he stayed in Kenya he could be making more.

Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at March 31, 2008 01:00 PM

Chris

CY probably used too many words for you to understand. Allow me to simplify:

The Uzi you are thinking about (and I use that phrase advisedly) is generally envisioned as an AUTOMATIC weapon. Which means if you hold the trigger down--the trigger is that little thingy under the back of the barrel (the part where the bullet thingy's come out)--bullet thingy's keep coming out of the hole at the end(known by people of poor taste as the muzzle).

A SEMI-automatic means that the person shooting the gun has to pull the trigger thingy for each bullet to fire. People have been using semiautomatics for target shooting, hunting, and home defense since they were introduced at the turn on the 20th century.

Keeping up?

An automatic weapon is (effectively) illegal to own for private citizens. This has been the law of the land since--wait for it, drumroll please--1934.

I guess good taste means never having to inform oneself. Or defend oneself. Which explains a lot...thanks for the insight.

Posted by: iconoclast at March 31, 2008 01:03 PM

Something tells me Chris probably believed this...

http://antiprotester.blogspot.com/2007/08/propaganda-of-week.html

Posted by: Lamontyoubigdummy at March 31, 2008 01:14 PM

Chris wants to ban my gun? That's a "semi automatic"

Are liberals really so stupid they don't know the difference between a semi automatic and an automatic?

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at March 31, 2008 01:23 PM
Obammy is baaaaaaad, baaad I tell ye..he's a commie an' he hates Ameriky.

Actually, he is. A commie. His mother was one, his mentor in his teenage years was one, he hung out with communists at college, he worked for them in Chicago, he was mentored by leftist activists in Chicago, he forged alliances with them, he still receives support from them and supports their initiatives in the UN.

I've pulled together a few details from his past on my blog that sketch out the picture.

Nobody familiar with Obama's background was the least bit surprised by Rev Wright's extremism. Nobody familiar with his background is surprised that Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. The surprise, for those of us who know who he is, is that he's gotten away with pretending to be centrist for so long. Obama is a closet radical. Really.

Posted by: Plumb Bob at March 31, 2008 01:53 PM

You are all such heartless, cynical shills for the gun lobby. The general public can get behind people owning pistols for self defense, a rifle to hunt and so on. Obviously, we have an issue in this country with certain types of weapons getting in the hands of gang members and psychotics like VT and Columbine, You KNOW that's the issue. Your outrage is.. "HOW DARE HE TAKE AWAY "OUR" MACHINE GUNS." You know we have to find a solution to this, presumably none of you fall in the category of psychos and crips.

Posted by: chris lee at March 31, 2008 01:55 PM
I need to understand this attitude.

Then shouldn't you be asking questions instead of making asinine, ignorant comments?

Posted by: Pablo at March 31, 2008 02:11 PM

FYI, Chris, I live in one of 21 states that allow civilians with proper permitting to own fully-automatic weapons, sawn-off shotguns, suppressed firearms, disguised guns (AOW's)... care to guess how many of them are used in crimes every year?

That's right: none.

And since I am NOT a "psychos or crips" , why shouldn't I have a Class-III or DD? Why should I be responsible for the crimes of another?

If we were to follow YOUR logic we'd have to have YOUR computer confiscated: There is a higher likelihood that you're using it for illegal purposes (pr0n, digital property rights violations, et cetera) than there is that I'm using my guns to commit crime.

Posted by: DaveP. at March 31, 2008 02:12 PM
Your outrage is.. "HOW DARE HE TAKE AWAY "OUR" MACHINE GUNS."

No, you blithering idiot.

Our "outrage" (more like disgust on the level of stepping in something unpleasant) is that you aren't bright enough to figure out that semi-automatics ARE NOT machine guns (nor, for that matter were any of the firearms used at NIU, VT, or Columbine).

As I stated quote clearly above, semi-automatics are the most common type of pistol for self defense, are the most common type of rifle in many kinds of target shooting, extremely common in hunting, plinking, etc.

You are either too dumb, or too lazy, to learn the difference between "semi-automatic" and "automatic."

I've never banned anyone for being mindlessly stupid, but I'm considering making an exception in your case.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 31, 2008 02:12 PM

chris - Do you have a solution which helps prevent gangs from getting their hands on guns without prohibiting everyone else from owning guns?

Posted by: daleyrocks at March 31, 2008 02:12 PM

Poor Chris, no doubt when the SCOTUS rules in favor of individuals and their constitutional right as such to own and bear arms, he'll cut his wrists in protest.

Make sure to get clear video of the event, and post it on your myspace page!

Posted by: Conservative CBU at March 31, 2008 02:14 PM
The general public can get behind people owning pistols for self defense, a rifle to hunt and so on.

Every pistol manufactured today is a semiautomatic. Every one.

You are a shill for the gun grabbing communists.

Posted by: Pablo at March 31, 2008 02:14 PM

That's it.

Chris Lee, be she a purposeful moron or an accidental one, had uttered her last stupidity here (at least under her present IP address).

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 31, 2008 02:34 PM

Obama is trying to hide his looney left-ness and for the most part he is getting away with it, and when it comes to the general he'll get away with even more, the public at large doesn't pay attention to anything that isn't jammed down their throats by every media outlet in the country, over and over again, but the MSM, as everyone here knows, is in the bag for Obama and they will not allow his halo to be sullied, and we haven't seen anything yet, in October merely mentioning that you don't like his tie will get you life in front of a firing squad, hate to be so negative, but that's what's going to happen..

Posted by: shoey at March 31, 2008 03:07 PM

to elaborate;

the liberal media is getting all this stuff about Obama out now because they know that ppl aren't paying attention yet, most voters won't start to really pay attention until october, but by then all the networks will say that all this stuff is "old" news and ignore it, they may be freakin' a-holes but they aren't stupid and they have a plan...

Posted by: shoey at March 31, 2008 03:22 PM

Pablo

From the website, it appears that S&W at least still manufactures revolvers. Not that it changes anything....

Posted by: iconoclast at March 31, 2008 03:46 PM


I don't think all of the MSM is in the bag for Obama. There are enough who fear a McGovern-style or favor Hillary, or just want to increase circulation/viewership so that this bad stuff will leak out. All it takes is one defection to kill a cartel, after all. And there are enough MSM reporters to badly damage Obama (or Hillary).

What might be very interesting is an open floor fight in Denver. After the first vote, I believe the delegates become uncommitted. There is a possibility--which people recognize given the comments about AlGore stepping into the race--that D delegates and party leaders might recognize the challenges posed by nominating either Hillary or Obama. Fear of offending the black voters and fear of offending the feminist voters might drive them to consider a "none of the above" approach and hoping to to defang the hard feelings that would occur were Obama or Hillary to be nominated by the superdelegates.

Of course, done wrong might result in BOTH blocks not getting out there in sufficient numbers.

Posted by: iconoclast at March 31, 2008 03:59 PM

Is there a Mumia/Obama connection?
Have Mr. or Mrs. Obama made any comments (or any contributions) regarding Mumia Abu-Jamal, the infamous Philadelphia cop killer?
Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: Jec at March 31, 2008 05:20 PM

iconoclast,

From the website, it appears that S&W at least still manufactures revolvers. Not that it changes anything....

Indeed. One round per trigger pull, with the next round automatically available, right? Pity that we won't be able to explain it to chris.

Posted by: Pablo at March 31, 2008 06:06 PM

Pablo, the difference is that a revolver is a manual repeater: it requires mechanical energy from the firer to bring up the next round in the firing order; as opposed to semiautomatics, which do so themselves with no intervention by the firer, using residual energy from the shot just fired.

Besides, there are several nonrepeating handguns out there: Derringers, single-shot hunting and target pistols, et cetera.

It is fair to say that both revolvers and semis are repeating weapons though.

Posted by: DaveP. at March 31, 2008 07:21 PM

Pablo is trying to redefine "semiauto". He is wrong to try and do so since his redfinition will never be accepted, and even if it were, could lead to problems with defining the limits of handgun acceptability. In that sense, therefor he is "dangerous". Chris is just a moron.

Posted by: mytralman at March 31, 2008 07:49 PM

Mytralman, Pablo isn't the one trying to redefine terms, you are.

According to this site as well as others:

A semi-automatic firearm is a gun that requires only a trigger pull for each round that's fired, unlike a single-action revolver, a pump-action firearm, a bolt-action firearm, or a lever-action firearm, which require the shooter to manually chamber each successive round.

Therefore, since a double-action revolver (by far the most common today) fires one bullet for each trigger pull, and subsequently moves the next round into position, it is by definition "semi-automatic."

This is as opposed to "automatic" firearms, which continue firing bullets as long as the trigger is held down (and the ammo holds out).

Posted by: C-C-G at March 31, 2008 08:37 PM

Huh. I wouldn't call any revolver, even a double-action, a semi-automatic -- I'd reserve that terminology for the guns that use the energy from the fired round to chamber the next round. So if it uses a magazine, it's a semi-auto; if it has a wheel, it's a revolver.

Under this definition, which would include double-action revolvers under the term "semi-automatics", what would you call the type of gun I consider a real semi-auto -- the type that uses a magazine and has a slide? Can't call it a "semi-automatic" anymore, so what would you call it?

Posted by: Robin Munn at April 1, 2008 12:38 AM

I think DaveP is using the same definition I am, since he mentions a revolver using "mechanical energy from the firer to bring up the next round in the firing order," whereas semiautomatics use the energy of firing the round. That's true whether the revolver is a single-action or double-action: the energy that rotates the chamber and cocks the hammer can be felt in the increased weight of the trigger pull. But the extra energy is being supplied by the shooter, not by the round being fired.

To me, a semiautomatic has always been a gun with a slide and a magazine. To classify double-action revolvers in that category just feels wrong.

Posted by: Robin Munn at April 1, 2008 12:46 AM
He is wrong to try and do so since his redfinition will never be accepted, and even if it were, could lead to problems with defining the limits of handgun acceptability.

Well, let me make myself perfectly clear: law abiding citizens should be able to own any damned handgun they like. And unless I miss my guess, the SCOTUS is about to agree with me.

Everything's going to be fine, mytralman.

Posted by: Pablo at April 1, 2008 04:28 AM
To me, a semiautomatic has always been a gun with a slide and a magazine. To classify double-action revolvers in that category just feels wrong.

It isn't something I'd do with someone who knows what the heck they're talking about. But it's accurate enough to illustrate a very basic point for the simpleton.

Posted by: Pablo at April 1, 2008 04:30 AM

We need about 100,000 Americans to go before a judge and publicly declare
that their middle names are their legal names for all public purposes.
And they should also declare themselves as supporters of the Hussein
for Imam--whoops I mean president coalition. Hussein will be the
first Muslim president. Free Burkhas for everybody! Hussein's first
act will be to replace the flag with the red crescent. Hussein has
always hated that other flag with every fiber of his being. Which is
why he won't pledge to it and won't wear a flag lapel pin. But Hussein
will proudly salute a flag representative of a non European religion!
When Hussein takes office every child will be required to attend a
Madras just as Hussein did when he was a child. It is so good to be
able to use a candidate's middle name and talk about his formative
years and his education. Because if you couldn't that would mean
that the candidate is ashamed of what he was and what he has become.
Welcome to a pork free world with no ham or pizza. You must not offer a pork chop
to Hussein. You must not put pork grease on your hands or your money
and certainly not hallowed ground. No pork anywhere!

Alice Jones, tinfoil hat wearing saucer nut recently came out of the closet and
revealed that she is a radical Muslim and a supporter of Hussein for
for president. Alice, who had previously grown famous for taking Klan money
for bringing up black people exclusively in conjunction with disease, violence,
and/or poverty, surprised everyone by endorsing a black candidate for president.


---coming to you from under the straight talk express.


****Hussein '08 !!!*****


Posted by: zed at April 1, 2008 06:02 AM

Mmmm... taste the crazy.

Posted by: Zifnab at April 1, 2008 08:55 AM

For once, Zifnab, I agree with you. We have our crazies on the right side of the aisle too.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 1, 2008 05:50 PM

I've been saying, since it looked like he was going to run, the Obama was a commie. Now, I was being a bit hyperbolic, but not overly so, using the stances he had taken on those occasions he actually stood SOMEWHERE. Then the Rev Wrong stuff came about, Hannity had whined about him for most of the campaign, and got the man on tv, etc. . .and Black Liberation Theology came out as Wright's message that Obama took to heart and "Brought Him To Christ". Based on Liberation Theology, Black Liberation and standard Liberation Theologies are simply MARXISM add god.

Egad, I was right.
He really is a damned communist.

Posted by: JP at April 1, 2008 06:13 PM

Hey all, kind of new here.

I am guessing that Chris is the village idiot?

Posted by: Eric at April 3, 2008 06:31 PM