I am pleased to be asked, and very please provide Ohio University senior Jesse Hathaway the opportunity to give his perspective on the ongoing vote fraud in Ohio and the Buckeye State’s ongoing vote fraud enabler, Jennifer Brunner.
This is being posted in its entirety with Jesse’s permission. Jesse’s original article is here; it follows up on a related article from a few weeks ago found here. Also, click here to go to an archive of Jesse’s columns since September of last year.
Here goes:
Voter fraud: Democrats dish out tricks and no treats
Published: Friday, October 31, 2008
Three weeks ago, I wrote about allegations of voter registration fraud in Ohio, and what Secretary of State Jennifer “No Driver’s License, No Green Card, No Problem” Brunner has been up to in her quest to avoid doing any kind of election enforcement in Ohio whatsoever.
Since I last covered this issue, the Ohio Secretary of State’s office has declared that poll workers “may not challenge a voter on Election Day” if the “information provided by the person” doesn’t match the “records maintained by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (including data originally obtained from the Social Security Administration database).” In other words, if people were to go to Baker Center and try to vote under false pretenses, there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them. The same goes for absentee ballots; if people turn in absentee ballots with faked addresses or names, it’s now forbidden for Ohio boards of election or other interested parties to challenge those ballots. Is this the ultimate expression of universal suffrage: granting all people the right to vote, regardless if they are real or imaginary?
The Ohio Republican Party took its case against Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Democrats point to the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous “no” vote as verification that Brunner is doing her job in accordance with the law, but the Supremes’ given reason for voting “no” is not mentioned. The case of Republican Party of Ohio v. Brunner was in play for almost a month, and none of the state and federal judges thought the Ohio Republican Party was legally unable to make the specific kind of complaint that was being made. That is to say, the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case, but the technicalities. If they had, however, past history suggests that they would have sided with the Ohio Republican Party: 11 of 17 different federal judges over the course of ORP v. Brunner’s life found that Brunner’s policies were not in accordance with election law. If 11 of 17 federal judges each rule in the same way, on the same case, chances are they’re probably right.
Mad-dog Democrats might argue that all 11 of those federal circuit judges are brainwashed Republican zombies, and are part and parcel of some kind of vast right-wing conspiracy. However, these people also argue that Bush stole the 2000 and 2004 elections, citing debunked magazine articles and hyper-partisan news outlets. The people taking this tact have a tenuous grasp on reality as it is, so it’s better to speak no more of them, as they’re of no import.
As if Brunner’s willful incompetence wasn’t bad enough, Gov. Ted Strickland joined in, accusing Republicans of “[trying] to instill fear in Ohio voters” and calling the Ohio Republican Party’s attempts to force Brunner to enforce the law “despicable.” Feeling left out, U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown piped up, saying that Republicans were “using a systematic and coordinated effort of […] lawsuits and official government positions to scare Ohioans and suppress voters.”
Well, that’s an interesting comment, Sen. Brown. Considering that Secretary of State Brunner got caught red-handed trying to suppress Republican votes in Hamilton County a few weeks ago, and there is this sudden outbreak of Ohio Democrats trying to scare Ohioans out of wanting a fair election; is it really the Republicans who are trying to “scare […] and suppress”?
Today’s Halloween, and appropriately, there are a lot of scary things going on. Unfortunately, Ohio Democrats have a bag full of tricks and no treats for Ohio voters.
The number of people who will get tax cuts from Obama keeps on shrinking — From $250,000 …. to $200,000 …. to $150,000 …. to $120,000 (per Bill Richardson on KOA this morning, as played by Rush just a few minutes ago).
They started hidin’ Biden. Richardson steps right in, and steps right in it. Gotta love it.
The road to tax increases for all continues. Perhaps, and hopefully, there’s a cliff ahead on November 4.
Patrick makes great points about the charitable giving record (spreading the wealth, as it were) of the Democrats’ “Do as I say, not as I do” ticket, and its sharp contrast with John McCain:
Obama and Biden Refused to Spread Their Wealth
By Patrick Poole
Thinking about Barack Obama’s impromptu lecture to Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher about his plans to “spread the wealth,” I wondered whether Obama was a practitioner of his own “spread the wealth” principles when he had the opportunity to do so, or whether he was the cheap political opportunist and redistributor of the wealth of others that he appeared to be.
Looking at Obama’s charitable giving in since 2000 based on his tax returns, we find that Obama consistently refused to follow his own advice to “spread the wealth” when he had the opportunity to do so. This is especially true in years when he made nearly $250,000 or more. Their contributions didn’t increase until Barack Obama’s extraordinary book deal helped make him a millionaire and Michelle Obama received nearly $200,000 raise in May 2005 when she assumed a new position with her employer as vice president of “community and external affairs” – coincidentally, just months after he husband joined the US Senate.
As the chart below shows (HT: TaxProf Blog, who has PDF links to all returns listed), from 2000-2004, Obama’s charitable giving averaged less than 1 percent:
In fact, during that 2000-2004 period Obama gave substantially less than the average family making more than $150,000, which averages giving of 2.2 percent of total income according to University of George Professor Russell James. And a study published in January by the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy found that nationwide in 2004 more than two-thirds of American households – the vast majority of which made significantly less than the $207,647 Obama made that year – still gave an average of over $2,000, or 3 percent of their income.
Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, was even stingier about spreading his wealth. When his tax records were released in September, they revealed that over the past decade he had only donated an average of $369 each year. In 2007, his charitable giving was only $995, or 0.3 percent of income in a year when his tax returns reported $319,853 in income.
By comparison, John McCain gave more than one-quarter of his income in 2006 and 2007 (28.6 and 27.3 percent respectively). And according to the New York Observer, since 1998, he has donated royalties on his books totaling more than $1.8 million.
When Barack Obama and Joe Biden could voluntarily give more of their own income and had the means well beyond most Americans to do so, they refused. In the event that Barack Obama is elected President, however, he and his Democrat allies in Congress intend to force others with the full might of the US government to do what he refused to do on his own.
Note: This is the sixth of what will be 13 daily posts on why Barack Obama is a dangerous, objectionable, and objectively unfit candidate to be president of the United States (while many of the other candidates are not). Previous Posts — Part 1 (Obama “Part of the Problem” on Fan and Fred); Part 2 (”Energy”); Part 3 (”Punished”); Part 4 (”Number One”); Part 5 (”Earmarks”); Part 6 (’The Chicken Button’ and the Chicken Who Pushed It); Part 7 (”Trust” on Bill Ayers); Part 8 (”Middle Class”); Part 9 (”Not This Time”); Part 10 (”Income Taxes”); Part 11 (”The Anti-Reagan”).
MAN: Senator Obama, I’m standing where you stand: all the way to the left. Your 2007 voting record made you the most liberal member of the US Senate.
Left of Hillary Clinton. Left of Ted Kennedy. And even left of your running mate Joe Biden. Barely. He was number 3. You, Senator Obama, are number one. Left of Everyone.
ANNOUNCER: What happens when we elect America’s most liberal Senator to the White House? Please, America, let’s never find out.
To any common observer to politics it’s no surprise that the first name listed when doing a Google search for “most liberal senator” is Barack Hussein Obama. Each year National Journal rates the members of the senate and in their results published on 31 January 2008, they ranked the Messiah as the most liberal with a score of 95.5%. This placed him to the left of such socialist democRATs as John Kerry, Bernie Sandars, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the hero of Chappaquidick - Ted Kennedy. I’m sure he’s honored.
In 2006, he was ranked to the left of Hillary Clinton in his record on pro-growth policies. In 2005, he was ranked to the left of such notable fiscal conservatives such as Chuckie “Free Credit Report” Schumer, Joe “Plagiarists ‘R Us” Biden, Robert “KKK” Byrd , John Francois Kerry, Ted “The Swimmer” Kennedy, and Patrick “Leaky” Leahy.
He has a 0% rating from the Americans for Tax Reform and a 13% rating from Citizens Against Government Waste. His hatred for the Second Amendment was clear with his support of the DC gun ban, and further it is no surprise that the NRA gives him a F rating, and the Gun Owners of America gives him a 0% rating.
If you have any question as to his radical far left extremist positions, he has a 83% rating from the ACLU, and an 83% rating from the government school indoctrinators at the NEA. Can you smell the socialism that BO is cooking? Or is that a lack of deodorant?
This is day 11 of the HOPE-ON Project (Help Ohio Prevent Electing Obama Now). Turn HOPE-ON on, and Obama off!
NOTE: The HOPE ON Callout Campaign will cite the vast differences between the stated or voter-perceived positions of certain Democratic candidates for political office in Ohio and Barack Obama, the presidential candidate these Democrats have nonetheless endorsed.
The lucky person receiving today’s not-so-coveted callout is 15th District Congressional candidate Mary Jo Kilroy.
_____________________________________
Here is roughly how a call earlier this week to the campaign of Mary Jo Kilroy, who is a Democrat running for Congress in Ohio’s 15th District, transpired.
Upon identifying myself by name and asking the person who answered the phone whether Ms. Kilroy had endorsed Barack Obama, I was told “I would assume so,” but was put on hold with the mute off. During that time, I heard someone say in the background that “I think it’s really strange that someone would call about that.” (Really?)
Eventually, I ended up with a guy who I think is the communications director, someone named “Brad.” Brad told me that “of course” Kilroy supports Obama, informed me that “I know who you are,” and asked me “When’s the story going to run?” Ever helpful, I told him that depending on priorities, it would either run not at all or would go up sometime in the next 7 days.
Boy, that was a lot of effort to get what should have been an easy answer.
But it’s really easy to understand. MJ “Of Course” Kilroy is yet another in a long line of Democrats posing as moderates while supporting that left-of-Nader agent of (redistributionist) change, Barack Hussein Obama.
First, and most obvious, Kilroy is extraordinarily hostile to innocent human life. You must be so to get the “coveted” Emily’s List (EL) endorsement. And she has.
As a refresher, here’s how Thomas Edsall of the Washington Post described the litmus test EL applies to candidates in April of 2002 (article copied to BizzyBlog host from ProQuest library database, for fair use and discussion purposes only):
A candidate must meet three qualifications to be considered for an EMILY’s List endorsement: back abortion rights, including the right to late-term (or ‘partial birth’) abortions; be a Democrat; and, in primary elections, be a woman.
As I said in connection with Robin Weirauch’s candidacy in OH-05 last year, this is NOT a status quo position, but a radical position that advocates the reinstatement of partial-birth abortion, the heinous procedure the Supreme Court outlawed earlier this last year.
At that time I wrote the following, which completely applies to MJ “Of Course” Kilroy:
Grasp the impact, folks: EL only supports candidates who want reinstitute a practice that is so barbaric that ardent pro-choicers ….. can’t even work up the nerve to unequivocally use its proper and widely-accepted name — partial-birth abortion, a term used for at least two decades. Instead, they prefer to whitewash it, “describing” it as “a certain late-term abortion procedure.”
Yeah, right. A description of partial-birth abortion (WARNING: contains graphic and likely upsetting language) is here (begins at third paragraph).
A video clip from “A Distant Thunder” describes the procedure more dramatically, and appropriately:
By the way, in its decision earlier this year, the Supreme Court allowed “partial-birth abortion” as an acceptable term for the purposes of legal argument.
But Kilroy is even MORE radical than EL. Why? Because she, “of course,” supports Barack Obama.
As noted earlier this week, Obama’s hostility towards and disregard for innocent life go further than EL does in at least the following ways:
Obama, unlike even many allegedly “pro-choice” legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice.
Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies.
Obama, as an Illinois state senator, opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist’s unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. The Obama campaign lied about his vote until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done. In fact, Sen. Obama continues to lie about his inhuman voting record in regard to the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even stooping so low as to run a disgusting television adattacking the disabled survivor of a botched abortion.
He has co-sponsored a bill that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. Despite being falsely positioned as an anti-cloning bill, what it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.
Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos (often referred to as “adult stem cell research”). But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.
Despite all of this, MJ Kilroy has “of course” endorsed Barack Obama. Given the powers of the presidency Obama could assume and his ability to carry out his over-the-top agenda, that makes his views her views, whether she likes it or not.
I suspect that Kilroy’s life-hostile, life-disregarding radicalism is not widely known to voters in Ohio’s 15th congressional district. It should be. Hopefully it now will be.
But there’s more, on another matter.
Like her party’s standard-bearer, MJ “Of Course” Kilroy seems to have a certain affinity for people who are hostile to our country and our way of life.
I can’t explain Ms Kilroy’s motivations. But I can document said affinity, and, if I have the time, I will — sometime in the next 4 days. :–>
The whole post is at S&L, so you can avoid the need for the hazmat suit that would be needed to safely visit DKos.
Despite the furious attempts to keep it under wraps, Obama’s hoodwinking has been exposed for all with open eyes to see. This in turn exposes Obama-supporting candidates in Ohio and elsewhere who are attempting to hoodwink their voters — which is why they need to be called out, and forcefully.
Since I won’t be able to get to all “deserving” candidates, the following, in order of importance, identifies the most obvious hoodwinks (fill in the blanks for the candidate involved):
1. Protecting Innocent Life
A mountain of evidence demonstrates that Candidate ________________’s claim to be prolife and his/her support of Barack Obama are incurably incompatible. Candidate ________________’s claim to be prolife and his/her failure to speak out forcefully against the life-hostile record and plans of Barack Obama is unforgivable. These points are not arguable. His/her support of Obama signifies acquiescence to the fondest dreams of those who wish to make human life a matter of state-sanctioned convenience, and to impose their will on those who disagree.
Given Obama’s power to issue life-hostile Executive Orders and his clear intent, based on his track record and rhetoric, to nominate life-hostile judges, Candidate ________________’s possible cop-out that an Obama administration would not make things worse is completely untenable, and either hopelessly naive or fundamentally dishonest.
2. Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Candidate ________________’s claim to support individual gun rights and his/her support of Barack Obama are incurably incompatible. Further, Candidate ___________________’s failure to speak out forcefully against the Second Amendment-hostile record and plans of Barack Obama is unforgivable. These points are not arguable. His/her support of Obama signifies acquiescence to the gun-grabbers’ fondest dreams.
Given Omama’s power to issue Second Amendment-hostile Executive Orders and his clear intent, based on his track record and rhetoric, to nominate Second Amendment-hostile judges, Candidate ________________’s possible cop-out that an Obama administration would not make things worse is completely untenable, and either hopelessly naive or fundamentally dishonest.
3. (NEW ADDITION) Economy and Taxes
Based on Barack Obama’s long record of class warfare-driven, redistributionist, Constitution-hostile rhetoric and votes, it is clear that Candidate ________________’s claims to be a reliable defender of free-market capitalism, a fundamental believer in this nation’s founding documents, and his/her support of Barack Obama are incurably incompatible. Candidate ________________’s failure to speak out forcefully against the economic and redistributionist tax plans of Barack Obama is a grave disappointment. These points are not arguable. His/her support of Obama signifies acquiescence to the fondest dreams of those who value redistributing wealth over growing the economy and making everyone wealthier, in the process subverting the clear intent of our Founders without the required consent of the people through a constitutional amendment.
Given his power to producer- and taxpayer-hostile Executive Orders and the possibility of producer- and taxpayer-hostile majorities in the Senate and the House, Candidate ________________’s possible cop-out that an Obama administration would not make things worse is completely untenable, and either hopelessly naive or fundamentally dishonest.
….. where the percentage of undecideds goes UP in the final weeks as seen here?
Nancy Pelosi, call your office.
McCain-Palin, it’s long past time to start associating congressmen and senators with “(redistributive) change.” If they support Obama, they support “(redistributive) change,” regardless of their posturing.
Note: This is the eleventh of what will be 13 daily posts on why Barack Obama is a dangerous, objectionable, and objectively unfit candidate to be president of the United States (while many of the other candidates are not). Previous Posts — Part 1 (Obama “Part of the Problem” on Fan and Fred); Part 2 (”Energy”); Part 3 (”Punished”); Part 4 (”Number One”); Part 5 (”Earmarks”); Part 6 (’The Chicken Button’ and the Chicken Who Pushed It); Part 7 (”Trust” on Bill Ayers); Part 8 (”Middle Class”); Part 9 (”Not This Time”); Part 10 (”Income Taxes”).
MAN 1: Senator McCain, history has shown us your economic plans will work. WOMAN 1: When Ronald Reagan took office, the economy was far worse than it is today. MAN 2: You understand that Reagan’s plan worked. Senator Obama does not. WOMAN 2: Ronald Reagan cut marginal tax rates, dividend, and captial gains taxes. Senator Obama will raise them. WOMAN 3: Ronald Reagan cut taxes on small businesses. Senator Obama will raise them. MAN 4: Ronald Reagan cut spending and reduced the size of the federal government. Senator Obama plans to increase spending by nearly a trillion dollars. So who’s right? WOMAN 1: During Reagan’s eight years, the Gross Domestic Product nearly doubled. The net worth of a middle class household, again, nearly doubled, and 14 million new jobs were created. MAN 5: Senator McCain, we are hopeful. MAN 4: Because your economic policies are the policies of Ronald Reagan. MAN 2: As a nation in crisis, we’d be fools not to embrace your ideas. ANNOUNCER: What happens when we pick the alternative? Please America. Let’s never find out.
The big economic news of the day is that the GDP went down 0.3% during the third quarter. The drop was less than expected, but still not good. And if it happens again in the fourth quarter, we will have achieved the much-discussed recession that has been a regular topic during this election season.
Combine with that the credit crisis, lost jobs, and a huge stock market hit - and it’s obvious we need to grow our economy … now. History shows that you do not grow the economy by raising taxes and expanding government. You do the opposite - just like Reagan did.
The record is clear that Reagan cuts taxes across the board, reduced the size of government, and ushered in an extended period of economic propsperity. But those on the other end of the political spectrum can’t (or won’t) accept these lessons of history. Mention “Reagan” to a liberal and you will start an argument. Mention “trickle down” and you might have a fight on your hands.
Barack Obama ignores history by promising higher taxes to those who have annual income over $250,000. Or mabye $200,000? Or $150,000? And at the same time he is promising these higher taxes, he is also proposing massive new spending, including the biggest entitlement of them all - national health care (if you don’t believe me, catch the rerun of Obama’s 30-minute informercial). These policies are poor in good economic times - right now, they are a recipe for disaster.
Barack Obama going forward will be the same Barack Obama we’ve seen in the past. Higher taxes. New programs. Big spending. Liberal policies. He truly is the Anti-Reagan.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Additional BizzyBlog Comment:
This “worst economy since the Great Depression” and/or “worst financial crisis since the Great Depression” crap is getting very old (after the election, someone’s going to have to explain where the freeze on credit is hiding). The economy during the 1980 election was much worse.
In 1981, when Reagan took office after the disastrous Democratic Party-dominated years of Jimmy Carter, the prime rate was in double digits (at one point, it was over 20%. Both unemployment and inflation were much, much higher than they are currently. We get one Democrat-manufactured quarter of negative growth thanks to the purveyors of the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy and we’re supposed to chuck the free-market capitalism that has made this country the envy of the world for “(redistributive) change,” or Carter and McGovern on steroids, and beyond. No thanks.
Actually, it’s a 0.0749158% contraction if you consider compounding. I’m sure readers appreciate the rounding.
So according to Uncle Sam’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, the value of all goods and services produced in the economy during the quarter ended September 30 was, in real terms, on a seasonally adjusted basis, and subject to revision, 99.925% of the value of all goods and services produced in the economy during the quarter ended June 30.
Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin.
Watch how many media reports fail to report that minus 0.3% is an annualized rate.
Regardless, the purveyors of the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy and their media friends have gotten the negative number they so longed for in hopes of influencing the presidential election. Nice work, guys; you must be REALLY proud.
Chuckie Schumer scheduled a press conference two weeks ago in anticipation of this Aramageddon-like event so he could promost another round of “stimulus.” I’d say that gas prices falling 50%, largely because President Bush and the Republicans in Congress finally got off their butts and insisted on allowing offshore drilling (affecting worldwide oil-supply expectations) is stimulus enough.
Schumer has no shame. You could make a case that his antics with IndyMac Bank might be responsible for a large portion of the GDP drop.
Couldn’t get to in the column: Much of the blame for the early voting fiasco in Ohio goes to the allegedly GOP-controlled General Assembly. Despite the fact that voters soundly rejected the misnamed, George Soros-inspired 2005 Reform Ohio initiatives, which included early voting (Issue 2), the Assembly preemptively passed HB 234, which adopted much of what was in Issue 2, and opened the door for ACORN’s fraud artists and fraud-enabling Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. Thanks, guys and gals.
If we give a rip about the integrity of elections, we need to return to:
One day.
One vote.
Rare exceptions.
Oh, and while I’m at it, the only person who should be allowed to turn in a voter registration card should be the registering voter (imagine that), and only to a Board of Elections official or employee on payroll. BOEs should of course be sufficiently staffed to do appropriate but controlled outreach.
NOTE: The HOPE ON Callout Campaign will cite the vast differences between the stated positions of certain Democratic candidates for political office in Ohio and Barack Obama, the presidential candidate these Democrats have nonetheless endorsed.
The lucky person receiving today’s not-so-coveted callout is 16th District Congressional candidate John Boccieri.
OVERVIEW: John Boccieri supports Barack Obama’s candidacy for president, even though Obama voted and spoke out consistently in favor of curbing individual gun rights as a state legislator and US senator, and even though a foundation where Obama was a director for eight years nearly succeeded in causing the Supreme Court’s recent Heller decision to end them.
Therefore John Boccieri does NOT support the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Earlier this week, I spoke to a person at John Boccieri’s office. I asked that person if Boccieri has endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. I was told that the two “share literature,” and that they are “100% a team.”
But this post is about John “100% a Team” Boccieri.
Boccieri spoke briefly at Monday’s rally, saying: “Change is coming to Canton, Ohio and America, and that change’s name is ‘Barack Obama.’”
John Boccieri is clearly okay with a number of “changes” Obama would make that he (Boccieri) says he opposes. One of the most important involves the recently, barely-affirmed individual right to keep and bear arms, something the Democrat claims to support at his web site (bold is mine):
John is a strong supporter of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Whether for personal security or hunting and recreation, John will stand up for the Second amendment.
Really? Why won’t he stand up for the Second Amendment by standing up to Barack Obama?
In February, the Associated Press’s Nedra Pickler wrote the following in her coverage of an Obama news conference (bolds are mine):
Although Obama supports gun control, while campaigning in gun-friendly Idaho earlier this month, he said he does not intend to take away people’s guns.
At his news conference, he voiced support for the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, which is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month.
“The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn’t born (sic) out by our Constitution,” Obama said.
To be clear (because Obama wasn’t, and Pickler covered for him), the DC ban “took away (many) people’s guns.”
But after the Supreme Court’s Heller ruling that threw out the DC handgun ban, Obama said he supported the decision. All of this came after he refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.
This takes “having it all ways” to a new level.
Barack Obama’s earlier position supporting the DC handgun ban reflects his core beliefs. His record of career-long, dedicated, and persistent antagonism to individual gun rights is irrefutable, and overwhelming. The following is only a partial list providing more-than-sufficient proof:
Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.
Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.
He voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.
He has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.
Obama also supports local gun bans in Chicago and other cities.
Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.
Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.
Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.
Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.
Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping, one-gun-a-month sales restrictions, a ban on inexpensive handguns, gun owner licensing and gun registration, and mandatory waiting periods.
Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.
You must be thinking that it couldn’t get worse. Oh yes it can, and it does — much, much worse.
You see, Obama was a director at an organization that worked mightily to make the Heller decision go the wrong way. They almost succeeded.
Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”
A Pajamas Media column by David T. Hardy earlier this month revealed that the Foundation engaged in the law-review equivalent of push-polling:
During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.
The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.
Joyce’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.
In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.
(The Review) solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment. ….. Joyce had bought a veto power over the review’s content.
….. The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times.
….. The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) ….. expand(ed) its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the “Second Amendment Research Center” as a thinktank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation.
….. The Center proceeded to generate articles denying the individual right to arms.
….. The Joyce directorate’s plan almost succeeded. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenters were persuaded in part by Joyce-funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents.
John Boccieri, you are “100% a team” with a guy who almost took away the “Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms” you claim to hold so dear. This is 100% indefensible.
What’s more, John, you know full well that a president Obama will nominate federal judges who will overturn Heller at their first available opportunity. What good will your platitudes about supporting Second Amendment rights be then?
This leaves us at essentially the same place we were yesterday with Steve Driehaus’s objectively indefensible support of Barack Obama while claiming to be pro-life. The mountain of evidence just presented proves that John “100 % a Team” Boccieri’s claim to support individual gun rights and support of Barack Obama cannot exist in the same universe. As with Driehaus on life-related matters, Boccieri’s failure to speak out forcefully against the Second Amendment-hostile record and plans of Barack Obama cannot exist in the same universe. It is not arguable.
The points just proven hold for each and every candidate for public office who claims to be pro-Second Amendment but who also supports Barack Obama. You have nowhere to run, and nowhere to hide. Your support of Obama signifies acquiescence to the gun-grabbers’ fondest dreams.
Among many, many others, that includes YOU, Ted Strickland. Whether Obama wins or loses, you have totally forfeited your pro-Second Amendment credibility for the balance of your pitiful political career, and it will NOT be forgotten.
Though it is very limited, there is still time for Boccieri and others to get their political situation in alignment with their alleged values. All they have to do if forcefully repudiate Obama’s candidacy, as well as any and all financial and other support they might have received from him. Absent that, Boccieri, and the others, are unworthy of serious consideration. Their words are, well, empty shells.
I was going to go after Boccieri for being prolife and supporting Obama. But after this video, I don’t know what to think, because Boccieri clearly doesn’t know what to say (HT Weapons of Mass Discussion):
16th District voters can be excused for thinking that John Boccieri is from another planet. Well, not exactly. But despite recent cosmetic attempts to make it look otherwise, he is from another district far, far away.
Note: This is the tenth of what will be 13 daily posts on why Barack Obama is a dangerous, objectionable, and objectively unfit candidate to be president of the United States (while many of the other candidates are not). Previous Posts — Part 1 (Obama “Part of the Problem” on Fan and Fred); Part 2 (”Energy”); Part 3 (”Punished”); Part 4 (”Number One”); Part 5 (”Earmarks”); Part 6 (’The Chicken Button’ and the Chicken Who Pushed It); Part 7 (”Trust” on Bill Ayers); Part 8 (”Middle Class”); Part 9 (”Not This Time”).
MAN: Senator Obama, you have promised that you will cut taxes for 90% of America. But you’ve also voted to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. So that means our income taxes will actually go up.
Did you think this was going to get past us?
So let’s make this real simple: if you allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, how many taxpayers would pay more taxes?
VIDEO: 100% of AMERICA
MAN: This is not good change.
ANNOUNCER: What happens when we elect a President who raises our taxes? Please, America, let’s never find out.
Well, what happens when we elect a President and Congress pledged to raise taxes?
Recession. And if they raise them enough, toss in some protectionist legislation, and near compulsory unionization for good measure, depression.
And what exactly does “share the wealth” mean? It means that some bureaucrat whispers to some politician in Washington how much of the income of your work you’ll be allowed to keep. Disagree? Well, sharing under the Obama plan means that the IRS and courts will have you tossed in chokey. Question The One? At minimum, some minor state official will be trolling through your records looking for dirt.
On the specifics of The One’s tax plan, Steven Malanga in Real Clear Markets notes that the primary question is where does wealth originate? With the State, or with the People? It’s the people. Free citizens and free markets produce wealth. Governments take a portion of that wealth in taxes, for some legitimate purposes (police, firefighters, national defense, courts), and some illegitimate (bridges to nowhere, Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac, ACORN, etc.), but they don’t create wealth. Wealth must be created in order to be taxed.
Ahhh, you say, but we can tax the rich to pay for benefits to the poor!
Well, who’s rich? Obama has been claiming that his tax proposals only hit those making over $250,000. But wait! As Jim Geraghty notes, Paul Krugman, the noted Nobel Laureate and Right Wing Extremist columnist for the NT Times says that The One’s real proposal starts hitting at about $182k per year. Keep looking for this number to continue to move downward. Tigerhawk and the New York Post now note that Joe Biden has now moved the bidding down to $150K. If they win on Nov. 4, look for a number close to $50K on Nov. 5.
Also, keep in mind that the truly rich have the luxury of employing the best tax lawyers available to keep their taxes down. They can structure their income streams to avoid The One’s grasp. Aspiring middle class types like Joe the Plumber? Forget about it.
Cesar Conda lays out the gory details in National Review Online. The essence of the Obama the Redistributor’s plan hits directly at the twin engines of economic growth and prosperity – capital formation and liquidity, and individual incentives.
And the much publicized Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts? Transfer payments designed specifically not to allow you to keep more of what you’ve earned or saved, but to make you dependent on government for checks.
Make too much? Say get a smidgen of a raise to make over $40,000? You could lose $0.40 on the dollar of tax credits that The One has condescended to grant.
The Heritage Foundation provides a handy side by side comparison of the McCain and Obama tax plans here.
Change you can believe in? Heck, these guys are out to take the change from your sofa cushions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
BizzyBlog Comments:
Over and above what the vid covers, Obama’s plans to raise corporate income taxes and assess some form of windfall profits tax on oil companies would have the following effects:
Increase the costs of goods and services for everyone;
Increase unemployment at companies who can’t pass all of the additional tax burden on in the form of higher prices because of competitive conditions;
Depress wage growth.
As noted at many other places, Obama-Biden’s definition of who is going to get stuck with a tax increase is moving ever downward, from an original $250,000, to $200,000, to $150,000 in just a few days. At that rate, by Election Day, even people people earning no income will be paying “income” taxes. Hey, why not? That’s just as absurd as telling people who pay no income tax that they’re getting “tax refunds.”
Except for the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Even the New York Post had a big decline during the past 12 months.
Circulations as of September 30 for daily and Sunday with one-year changes, along with a chart showing 5-year results and percentage changes, are after the jump.
Note: This column originally appeared at Pajamas Media on Monday. I understand, and am grateful, that it has gained a fair amount of e-mail circulation. A related BizzyBlog post from that day is here.
Based on when the first comment appeared, the YouTube post went up at about 8 PM Eastern Time Sunday. Within hours, it was the lead item at Drudge. As of 6 AM ET on Monday, the original post had over 2,500 comments. Proving that the Internet never sleeps, dozens of center-right blogs were on it before sunrise.
This is, and should be, a big, big deal, because it leaves Obama nowhere to hide. He clearly exposes himself as a far-left socialist who believes that income and wealth redistribution should have been an integral element of the 1960s civil rights movement.
Here’s a full transcript, following the show host’s routine introduction:
Obama: You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the courts, I think where it succeeded was to get formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples — so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as I was able to pay for it I’d be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. And one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which to bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.
….. Karen (Caller): The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?
Host: You mean the courts?
Karen: The courts, or would it be legislation at this point?
Obama: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. Y’know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.
You look at very rare examples where during the desegregation era where the court, for example, was willing to, for example, order changes that cost money to local school districts, and the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, y’know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
The court’s just not very good at it, and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So, I mean, I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, y’know I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. …..
This is astounding stuff from a man who is one election away from the presidency. In politer tones, he is saying things that would make his mentors — Jeremiah Wright, “Fr.” Michael Pfleger, and William Ayers, not necessarily in that order — proud as peacocks. Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are probably beaming too.
Especially when bookended with his recent “spread the wealth around” comment to Joe the Plumber, Obama’s statements reveal a man who:
Looks at the Constitution as a real impediment to “justice.” Oh if we could just “break free” from those gosh-darned “essential constraints.”
By characterizing them as “more basic,” proves that he sees “political and economic justice” as more important than the fundamental human rights built into the Constitution. I wonder who gets to define “justice,” or who gets to decide what “necessary compromises” to basic rights have to be made to achieve that “justice”? Is ACORN’s election cheating justified because the so-called “justice” it is working to achieve is more important than playing by the rules?
Who is obsessed with “redistributive change.”
In fact, I suggest henceforth that every time readers hear the word “change” from Team Obama, they insert the work “redistributive” in front of it.
The Obama campaign’s key economic ideas revolve around income and wealth redistribution:
Their plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire — but (supposedly) only for those making $250,000 or more per year. Joe Biden, in his famously botched interview with WFTV’s Barbara West, characterized keeping the tax system that we’ve gotten used to for the past six years as giving hundreds of billions of dollars in breaks to the wealthy (her should have said “high earners,” but you shouldn’t expect too much from a guy who thinks the word “jobs” has three letters). No Joe, it’s simply continuing what’s been in place.
The accompanying plan to give “tax cuts” to 95% of Americans while tax the daylights out of the top 5%. The problem, unless you’re fixated on “redistributive change,” is that over 30% of Americans pay no federal income tax. The labyrinth of credits and other behavior-changing inducements Team Obama is offering will cause the IRS to write millions of checks to non-poor people who never paid in a dime of tax, and millions more to people who had to pay in very little. These aren’t “tax cuts.” They’re government handouts.
Oh, and there’s this little idea being bandied about by advisers and other Obama acolytes both in and out of Congress to end 401(k) plans as we know them. Some of their ideas include:
Ending the tax deductibiliy of employee 401(k) contributions.
Current year taxation of investment earnings.
A carrot-stick government takeover of what has been a privately-run system — “….. all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.”
If you’re a 401(k) plan participant, you have real investments, in a real account, under your control. Does anyone really believe that the “guaranteed” government-run accounts under consideration will have those characteristics?
In the real world, the entire rationale for establishing or retaining 401(k) plans, and more than likely IRAs as well, would be eliminated. The plans would disappear. I suggest that this is the goal.
Many readers may be thinking that the creators of the current POR Economy (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) wouldn’t dare try to pull off what would amount to a multitrillion-dollar transfer of wealth to the government.
Really? Go to this YouTube video (starting at the 0:45 mark) of Obama mentor Father Michael Pfleger and watch him, at his animated, white guilt-addled worst, tell the audience at Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ that (bold is mine):
I promised …. to address the one (white person) who says, “Don’t hold me responsible for what my ancestors did.”
But you have enjoyed the benefits of what your ancestors did. And unless your are ready to give up the benefits, throw away your 401 fund, throw away your trust fund, throw away the money you put away, and the company you walked into because your daddy, and your granddaddy, and your great-granddaddy ….. unless you’re willing to give up the benefits, then you must be responsible for what was done in your generation, because you are the beneficiary of this insurance policy!
“Fr.” Pfleger does have one thing right: If we gave our investments up to the government, we would indeed be “throwing them away.”
No wonder Team Obama is pushing the travesty known as “early voting” so hard. They’re praying that as many Obama voters as possible will cast their ballots without learning the true nature of the person they are supporting.
The final full week of this presidential election campaign has come down to whether or not enough voters, the vast majority of whom overwhelmingly reject the idea of income and wealth distribution, will learn the truth about the self-styled agent of (redistributive) change.
A Round Valley High School teenager critically injured while riding an ATV last month is now touting the use of safety helmets. He and his doctors believe a helmet saved his life when a truck hit his ATV.
Cody Sommers, a sophomore at Round Valley High School, hopes to educate other teens about the importance of helmet safety.
“Wearing a helmet saved my life, and I hope that my story can convince others to wear helmets while riding ATVs and bicycles,” Cody said in a recent hospital press statement.
Sommers was driving his ATV on the morning of Sept. 17 on the way to a bus stop when he was hit by a truck. He was thrown about 100 feet on impact and airlifted to St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center with critical injuries, according to the press release.
“Trauma surgeons removed Cody’s spleen and kidney, and he received 13 units of blood in his first several hours at St. Joseph’s. He also suffered damage to his liver, numerous fractures, pelvic injuries and a collapsed lung, but he did not sustain any head trauma because he was wearing a helmet at the time of his accident.”
After spending just over a month in the hospital, Sommers was released Monday and is happy to be recuperating back at home. During the accident, he suffered many injuries including dislocating his pelvis from his spine. Doctors had to screw the pelvis back to his spine on both sides and, for the next three months, he is not allowed to put any weight on his legs.
For now, he’ll spend his time getting well. According to his mother, Candy Sommers, her son will spend time on the Internet attempting to get caught up on his sophomore year of studies. He plans to return to Round Valley High School next fall for his junior year. When time permits, Sommers plays with his PlayStation III, listens to music or wheels himself around the house in his wheelchair.
Sommer’s friends and family have held several fund-raisers on his behalf.
“At one of the car washes, they raffled off a safety helmet similar to the one Cody was wearing,” his mother said. “The Phoenix woman who won the raffle called to make arrangements to pick it up, but during the conversation she decided instead to donate the helmet back to Cody.
“The community has pulled together so much to help us. We really appreciate all their help, cards and notes. Cody’s hospital room was wallpapered with the pictures and cards he received. They really cheered him up,” Candy said.
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) wasn’t on my callout list for this week.
She has shown that she didn’t have to be. She outed herself two weeks ago (HT to Rush Limbaugh and the incomparable Mark Steyn at the Corner), and, by inference, her party’s standard-bearer, as hardened soc-, soc-, soc-, (yeah, we can still say the word) socialists:
U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D. Toledo) whipped the crowd up before Mr. Obama took the stage yesterday telling them that America needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers.
I see no record of Obama objecting.
The Blade, of course is down with the struggle, having endorsed Ms. Kaptur for another congressional term last weekend.
Toledo’s August unemployment rate was 8.7% (September’s report comes out tomorrow), putting it 339th out of 369 cities the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics listed. That rate is the highest in Ohio by far; the next worst are Youngstown and Lima (tied for Number 318, 7.8%).
Combine Kaptur’s obsession over “guarantees” with the Blade’s willingness to endorse those who have been part of the problem for years, and you understand why things are as bad as they are in the Glass City. If you’re going to blame Bush, you’re going to have to explain why Cincinnati (6.3%) and Columbus (6.2%) are coming in just above the national average of 6.1%.
Obama wants to take what Kaptur wants nationwide. We’ll end up with a country that looks more like Toledo in its current condition, and less like Cincinnati — or for that matter, less like the well over a dozen red states with below-average unemployment.
Note: This is the sixth of what will be 13 daily posts on why Barack Obama is a dangerous, objectionable, and objectively unfit candidate to be president of the United States (while many of the other candidates are not). Previous Posts — 
Except for the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Even the New York Post had a big decline during the past 12 months.
