Filed under: barack obama, campaign, elections, Hugh Hewitt, Juan Williams, obama, politics, Supreme Court | Tags: barack obama, campaign, elections, flip flops, Hugh Hewitt, Juan Williams, obama, Supreme Court
Even Obama’s supporters are getting whiplash from following the ping-pong game of his ever changing positions. Here’s Hugh Hewitt speaking to the left-leaning Juan Williams last Friday on his show:
HH: Let me start with you, Juan. Are you more upset with the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller, or with Barack Obama’s backflip about it? He doesn’t really mind, it’s an individual right, he never really meant what he said about gun control. Which upsets you more?
JW: Well, it’s becoming a pattern with Mr. Obama. He’s running to the center, and he’s running away…it’s interesting, because I guess the far left has nowhere to go, so he’s their option. But it’s so transparent, that I don’t know how people can get away with it. It’s going to give John McCain something to run on, though, in the sense of saying as a matter of character, who’s the real self-sacrificing individual here versus the politician who always moves in terms of expedience and opportunism. He can make that case, apparently. But I will say this…
HH: Is he a bigger flip-flopper than John Kerry?
JW: …in answer to your question, I’m upset about that Supreme Court decision. I’m not a fan of guns. They scare me, and there are just too many of them on the streets of this big, hot city.
HH: Quick question, is Barack Obama a bigger flip-flopper than John Kerry?
JW: I’ll let you be the judge. I think that Obama’s a pretty big flip-flopper at this moment….
Full transcript here:
Filed under: AFTRA, Hollywood, SAG, Screen Actors Guild | Tags: AFTRA, Hollywood, SAG, Screen Actors Guild, strike
Oil Crisis… terrorism… sluggish economy… big deal. How can we fret about such mundane matters when ACTORS may soon be on strike?
Two top actors unions’ contracts with the major studios expire today, but they won’t be picking up picket signs yet.
Though a strike remains a possibility, the Screen Actors Guild, which represents nearly all movie actors and many TV actors, is awaiting the outcome of a membership vote by a second, smaller union, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, on a tentative deal with the major studios.
That vote is expected by July 8 and has sparked union infighting between AFTRA and SAG, which hopes to persuade AFTRA members to reject their proposed new contract to improve its own bargaining position. (More than a third of SAG’s 120,000 members also belong to AFTRA, which represents a broader range of performers.)
As far as acronyms go, I’m less concerned about AFTRA and SAG than I am about PPP (pointless political pontifications). If folks such as Susan Sarandon, Leo DiCaprio, and Matt Daemon find themselves with too much idle time on their hands, we can be sure to expect an increase in idiotic quotes and sanctimonious lectures from the Hollywood left on who we should vote for and how we should live our lives.
But then again, that’s entertainment…
Filed under: barack obama, Bill Clinton, campaign, democratic, election, elections, hillary clinton, obama, politics | Tags: barack obama, Bill Clinton, campaign, elections, hillary clinton, politics
No need for a lot of commentary on this one. Just a little Monday morning fun with our favorite ex clown-in-chief:
As Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were kissing and making up last Friday, Bill Clinton might have had other ideas, according to a report in The (London) Telegraph.
The paper reports that even as the former president and the current presumptive Democratic nominee prepare to meet to make their own amends, Bill Clinton reportedly told close friends Obama can “kiss my ass” to get his support.
The man gets so much more entertaining as he gets older… kind of like that eccentric uncle who places his dentures on the table as he sits down for a Thanksgiving meal.
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, cartoon, gun ban, gun rights, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, Washington D.C. | Tags: 2nd Amendment, cartoon, gun ban, gun rights, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, Washington D.C.
A “revolutionary” take from cartoonist Scott Stantis on the recent Supreme Court decision:
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, barack obama, campaign, flip flops, gun ban, gun rights, obama, politics, SCOTUS, tions, Washington D.C. | Tags: 2nd Amendment, barack obama, campaign, elections, flip flop, flip flops, gun ban, obama, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, Washington D.C.
Well the campaign for the Oval Office is in full swing now. And Democratic hopeful Barack Obama is getting into the spirit of things by doing a little swinging himself… to the center.
Here is Barack reacting to the recent Supreme Court decision which overturned Washington D.C.’s 32 year old handgun ban:
“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through commonsense, effective safety measures,” Obama said.
Obama said his view was supported by the court’s ruling that the Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns.” That language “reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe,” Obama said.
So SCOTUS was just reaffirming what Obama has said all along about the D.C. law… except for the minor problem that this wasn’t what he was saying. Here is what a campaign spokesman said about Barry’s official position on the gun ban back in November of last year:
“Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional,”
Of course, this was during the Democratic primary — back when it was safe for him to show his liberal stripes without repercussion. But Obama is saavy when it comes to touchy matters such as this. He knows that if he can get his staff to do or say something for him, he can always deny knowledge of it later. So in true form his campaign has now retracted the statement calling it “inartful” (which I suppose means “not helpful to him at the moment”).
Later in February, Obama came a little closer to revealing his position, nodding his head in agreement as a debate moderator said the following:
“You said in Idaho recently, I’m quoting here, ‘I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.’ But you support the D.C. handgun ban and you’ve said that it’s constitutional,” said the moderator, Leon Harris of Washington television station WJLA. Obama nodded as Harris spoke and said: “Right, right.”
“How can you reconcile those two different positions?” Harris asked.
Obama answered that the United States has conflicting traditions of gun ownership and street violence that results from illegal handgun use. “So, there is nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets,” Obama said.
So there it is from the candidate’s mouth, right? Well… not quite. You seem Obama didn’t actually SAY the words himself, thus giving him just enough grease to slip out of the trap. Here’s the spin:
The Obama campaign argued that Obama was simply acknowledging the question by saying “right.”
But as we know, flip-flops usually come in pairs. As it turns out, this is Barack’s second position reversal in 24 hours. As The Guardian points out:
On Wednesday Obama, once a critic of the death penalty, opposed the decision to strike down Louisiana’s death penalty for child rape not involving murder. “I think that the rape of a small child, six or eight years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our constitution,” he told a press conference.
The hard line was seen at variance with comments in his memoir that the death penalty was not a deterrent to crime. As an Illinois state senator he had opposed the death penalty for gang murders.
So a gang member shouldn’t die if he mercilessly kills someone execution style as they beg for their life. But if that same gang member rapes a child… not trying to be flippant on such an emotional issue but there is clearly some major inconsistency here. Again, Obama is moving towards the right, so we know that his real view about the death penalty is likely the liberal one… that it should never apply to anyone.
Going even further back…
Earlier this week, Obama reversed his opposition to a bill to legalise the Bush administration’s wiretapping programme. Last week, he reneged on a promise to uphold the public campaign finance system put in place after Watergate. And earlier this month, he was even more forceful than the Bush administration or the Israeli government in support of the Jewish state’s territorial claims to Jerusalem.
Wow, this guy is really adding to my workload. I’m going to need a spreadsheet just to keep up with all these reversals. How else am I going to document Barack’s contradictions as his campaign moves through all 57 states?
Stay tuned for more rubber-soled shenanigans…
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, gun rights, guns, SCOTUS, Second Amendment, Washington D.C. | Tags: 2nd Amendment, gun rights, SCOTUS, Second Amendment, Supreme Court, Washington D.C.
Just when a lot of us were pushing for Congress to abolish the Supreme Court and start afresh… the Gang of Nine goes and does something right:
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense, the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun control in U.S. history.
The court’s 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms restrictions intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
This is HUGE, folks. With the high court’s track record of late I wasn’t expecting the ruling to go this way at all. Whether you like guns or think they’re simply icky… fact is the Second Amendment is what gives teeth to the Constitution. Without this right we may as well kiss the rest of them goodbye. And even if D.C. were a state, their sovereignty under the 10th Amendment wouldn’t apply here because this right is specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Congrats for putting on your reading glasses for a change, SCOTUS.
Sweeeeet day for America…
Click here for a pdf of the full text of the decision.
Filed under: barack obama, campaign, campaign ad, election, elections, obama, politics, Public Law 110-181 | Tags: barack obama, campaign, campaign ad, elections, healthcare, obama, politics, Public Law 110-181
Barrack Obama introduced a new campaign ad this past Friday — sort of a warm introduction so that we could get to know the man and his accomplishments a little better. But a weak resume is somewhat like a tuxedo on a scrawny kid… sometimes it needs a little padding to make it work. National Review Online notes a little discrepancy in one of Barry’s bragging points:
About 46 seconds into the ad, we are told that Obama “passed laws” that “extended healthcare for wounded troops who’d been neglected,” and in the usual manner of these political commercials we are given a little citation at the bottom. The citation reads “Public Law 110-181 1/28/08”. That law is the only federal legislation cited in the ad — the other two items mentioned were from the Illinois legislature and referred to other issues raised in the ad.
Public Law 110-181 was the 2008 defense authorization bill. It passed the Senate by 91 to 3 in January, with six Senators not voting. Among those six absentees was Barack Obama. So he cites a bill he didn’t even vote for.
Here’s the actual quote from the ad itself:
“That’s why I passed laws moving people from welfare to work, cut taxes for working families and extended health care for wounded troops who’d been neglected.”
There is a possible loophole here if you read it carefully. Barack only claims to have “passed laws” on the first issue. On the last he doesn’t specifically make that assertion — leaving room for the possibility that he contributed to the bill without actually being present to vote on it. The National Review explores this angle:
Did he contribute to it in some way that might be reasonably referred to as extending healthcare for wounded troops who’d been neglected? It certainly doesn’t seem that way, as even Obama supporters at the Daily Kos discovered when they tried to answer some of the bloggers who pointed to Obama’s citation of the bill. They found that Obama had tried to insert an amendment that had to do with screenings for service members returning from deployments, and one that would ease the discharge of service members found to have personality disorders, but neither amendment passed.
So no matter how you slice it, Obama did not extend health care for wounded troops. Period. Whatever good intentions he may have had with the failed amendment, this is what we call a lie. Padding is just the polite term that is sometimes used. And it wasn’t an off-the-cuff misstatement, it was part of a carefully scripted introductory monologue that went through who knows how many levels of approval before Barry stamped it with his own. He either doesn’t pay attention to his own scripts or he simply thinks we’re too stupid for it to matter. There is no third choice.
The guy obviously has intelligence but that alone does not make a president. As we saw with Bill Clinton in the 90s and more recently with his actions in Hillary’s campaign, pure arrogance can take off quite a few IQ points. This was the introductory ad, folks. And Barack is the one speaking in it! He had to have known that it was going to be picked apart. Why tell such a blatant lie when it could be so easily checked? Why make an ad that ultimately helps the opposition by painting you as someone who is fast and loose with the facts?
If this is how the ad campaign kicks-off, we eagerly await the subsiquent installments. Bring it on, Barry.