2008 Elections

Bitter has the details.  This is a runoff election and the Democrats are making a major effort to win the race.  We need to show up, too -- Senators are too important to throw away right now.  If you're interested in helping out, there's a rally with Wayne LaPierre, the NRA president, TODAY.  That way Saxby will understand where his help is coming from.

America has a new President-Elect, if not yet a new president.  The man who won the election did not receive my vote, nor was he even my preferred choice between the two major party candidates; nonetheless, he appears to have won the election by enough of a margin that even the worst-case scenarios of voter fraud, poll intimidation, or campaign finance problems would not have changed the results.  I may not have chosen the man as president, but I will not challenge his legitimacy in the office.

Nor will I deny the historical impact of his success.  Obama may usher in a post-racial America despite the best efforts of some of his more fervent supporters, and indeed perhaps even against his own professed views.  From this moment forward, there can be no more excuses that the "system" won't allow a black man or woman to succeed.  Those who do not will need to take the responsibility for their lack of success upon their own shoulders.  That could be a truly transformative proposition.

For those who have doubted his experience and talents, in whose number I count myself: give the man a fair chance to do the right thing for the country.  He might surprise us.  In fact, given that his record includes more "Present" votes than anything else, surprise is perhaps inevitable.  Note that "a fair chance" does not necessarily exclude stocking up on firearms likely to be targeted for bans in a democratic-controlled government.

I don't expect the next four years to go particularly well for America, and I'm sure that I'll be opposing many of the initiatives that our New Glorious Leader proposes, but I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised.

... I was dreading something like this as a worst-case scenario, but not actually during the election! 

I very very sincerely hope that these two people are acting entirely on their own without any sort of direction or encouragement from the Obama campaign.

UPDATE: Also in Philadelphia, poll watchers tossed out of half a dozen polling stations.

If you have not already voted, you should be voting right now rather than reading this blog.  After all, if you are reading this blog, I am fairly sure you're going to vote the right way.  But you still need to get out and do it.

... but somehow I doubt that will be how it plays out.  Suffice to say that living in a world where Obama controls the mechanisms of the State doesn't look like a world where ordinary Americans can expect their privacy to be respected.  At a minimum we should be seeing very strongly worded condemnations from the Obama campaign, even if they officially had nothing to do with this.  The next step should be criminal charges for the official who ordered the probe (the individual who actually performed it appears to have acted in good faith).

Wondering whart sort of impact Obama's judges might have on the court system?  Even if the Supreme Court is not likely to have a lot of vacancies, the lower courts could see a dramatic increase in the number of judges appointed by a Democrat.  And remember, Obama's choice of model justices voted against Heller.  That should scare you.  Beldar has more comments on possible judicial picks from Obama, and so does Sandy Froman (former NRA president).

I'll summarize it even shorter:

• Supports banning handguns (manufacture, sale, and possession -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in!)
  
• Supports punishing people who use handguns in self-defense
• Opposes concealed carry -- including supporting federal legislation to ban state laws which permit it.
• Supports a ban on most rifle ammunition
• Supports increasing firearms taxes 500%
• Supports banning single-shot and double-barreled shotguns
• Supports banning many semi-automatic firearms
• Served on the Joyce Foundation, a major funder of anti-gun causes, and under his direction donated almost $19 million to anti-gun groups.
  
• Opposed 4 of the 5 justices who voted in favor of the Heller case, which established Supreme Court protection for the individual right to own a firearm.

Read the whole thing.  If you are a gun owner and considering voting for Obama, think again, and think fast.

Sure, destroying the economies of several swing states will help recover from a recession.  Voting for Obama is like voting for the train that's about to run you over, and hoping it will change it's path fast enough to miss you.  But the thing about trains is that they run on tracks...

... from a Hiilary volunteer absorbed by, and disillusioned with, the Obama campaign.  Take with a grain or two of salt.

Forget national reciprocity, Obama supports a federal ban on concealed carry.  There's audio.  

Dear NRA Member,

It has come to our attention that with Halloween upon us, the Barack Obama campaign and its allies are up to dirty political tricks.

NRA members in key presidential battleground states have informed us they have received deliberately misleading phone calls from someone professing to represent the NRA, asking voters to support Barack Obama. This is an absolute and intentional lie.

NRA has long been on record as opposing Barack Obama, as Barack Obama has long been on record as opposing the rights of law-abiding gun owners. For example, Barack Obama:

• Voted to allow the prosecution of citizens who use a firearm for self-defense in the home (Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165. 3/25/04);
  
• Voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to put America?s firearms industry out of business (S.397, vote 219, 7/29/05);
  
• Voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting (United States Senate, S. 397, vote 217, 7/29/05);
  
• Supported a 500% increase in federal taxes on guns and ammunition (Chicago Defender, 12/13/99);
  
• Voted to ban hundreds of rifles and shotguns commonly used for hunting, including single-shot, over-under and side-by-side shotguns (Illinois Senate SB 1195, 3/13/03); and,
  
• Proposed restrictions that would close 90% or more of all gun stores in the U.S. (Chicago Defender, 12/13/99).

For more information on the TRUTH about Barack Obama's hostility toward the Second Amendment, please visit www.gunbanobama.com.

If you receive a call to this effect, please know that it is a deliberate attempt by Barack Obama supporters to mislead gun owners. Our opponents know that you can make the difference in this election, and they?ll stop at nothing to try and deceive you!

Thank you for your support, and remember to "Vote Freedom First"! on November 4th.

 Sincerely,

Chris W. Cox
Executive Director, NRA-ILA

This tactic, presumably by the Obama campaign, is just slimy.  It's one thing to avoid talking about your past positions on guns, and quite another to falsely claim the endorsement of a major interest group like the NRA while lying about your own record.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that the Obama campaign has formed a group of supporters who also happen to be NRA members, and has instructed themselves to introduce themselves as NRA members.  That would be barely squeaking by, implying the endorsement without actually claiming it.  But confusion is inevitable in such circumstances, and that makes the tactic slimy.

I'm not a fan of most campaign finance laws, but I do think there are a few legitimate elements:

• Donations should be public, so the people can evaluate who is supporting a candidate
• Donations should be limited to those eligible to vote (arguably, those who are eligible to vote for the specific candidate).

The idea behind these rules is to ensure that the public has a chance to vet the supporters of a particular candidate, and to prevent foreign powers from funding their favored candidates in return for policy concessions.  Actual campaign finance laws go substantially farther than that -- but after breaking his pledge to use public financing for his general election campaign, Obama has found a way around the disclosure law. 

He is taking in the vast majority of his campaign donations -- $150 million in September -- through online credit cards.  In theory, I'm ok with that; it makes sense.  But he has turned off the standard credit card verification methods that match the credit card number with the name, address, and zip code of the doner. 

Anyone who has ever made a purchase over the internet is familiar with those requirements.  The online merchant requests that you fill out a form with that information along with your credit card, and if you make a mistake, you get an error message instead of a completed purchase. 

What most people don't know is that they are not a requirement.  Instead, those security measures are best described as a "strong recommendation" that can be disabled if, for some reason, a website operator wants to allow for an increased chance of fraudulent purchases.  (I have implemented credit card processing sites in the past; that's how I know).  The Obama campaign site currently requests the necessary information to do that verification, but does not actually deny donations where the information doesn't match.

What makes this particularly tricky is when you consider legal requirements to report campaign donations.  After the election, and likely after the campaign has already spent the majority of its money, Obama will have a list of names, addresses, and companies who donated to his campaign that needs to be disclosed.  And he will have absolutely no way to know that the names and addresses associated with each donation are accurate.

Sure, it's easy enough to guess that donations from "Mickey Mouse" are probably not real.  But would anyone expect the campaign to contact millions of real-sounding names and offer to refund their donations after the election?  Or to refund by default those who cannot be contacted?

No.  For obvious reasons, only the most inept donations will be detected and refunded, and even those will only be handled at a pace that normal humans operate -- a pace that means the Obama campaign won't have to worry about actually refunding money until after the election. 

Without the automated verification process that credit card processors use by default, it is impossible to assign any confidence to the donor names reported by Obamas campaign to the FEC.  It is impossible to enforce limits on individual contributions.  The Obama campaign appears to have worked out how to completely ignore even those campaign finance laws that do not depend on voluntary participation, and bring Chicago machine politics into the internet age.

There's been a lot of fact-checking going around about Obama's positions on gun issues.  First he was against them, then he was still against them, then he still was against them, then gun owners were bitter and clingy, then he supported the DC ban, then the Supreme Court struck it down, and finally he supported the Supreme Court... except that he would appoint judges in the mold of those who voted to uphold DC's ban, and then the Brady Campaign to Ban Guns endorsed him...

Confused yet?  That's exactly where Obama wants you.  He wants people who like guns to think he's for gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment, and he wants people who hate guns to think he hates them too -- so long as they are quiet about it and don't interfere with the election.

So one way to find out is to ask people who have met him and talked to him about the issue.  Let's ask John Lott:

I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, when we were both at the University of Chicago Law School. Indeed, when I introduced myself to him, he said, "Oh, you are the gun guy."

I responded, "Yes, I guess so." His response, as I recall it, was, "I don't believe that people should be able to own guns."

When I said it might be fun sometime to talk about the question and his support of Chicago's lawsuit against gunmakers, he simply grimaced and turned away, ending the conversation.

Well, that wasn't very helpful to Obama's case for supporting gun rights.  How about someone who lobbied Obama on gun issues while he was in the Illinois legislature?

Hello, my name is Rich Pearson and I have been active in the firearm rights movement for over 40 years. For the past 15 years, I have served in the Illinois state capitol as the chief lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association.

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.

Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. 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 supported a bill that would shut down law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month.

Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home and family.

Read the whole thing.

Richard Feldman writes: 

"Obama supports the Second Amendment and he's unabashed about saying so."

What about when Obama was saying that he supported DC's handgun ban?  What about his proposals to ban gun stores from anywhere south of the North Pole?  What about his support for handgun bans in Chicago and its suburbs, including voting to prosecute people who defended themselves from a criminal with a handgun?  What about Obama's endorsement from the Brady Bunch? 

Why aren't the leaders of the "gun rights" movement in America pleased with the fact that the Democratic nominee for President has reached out to gun owners in re-assuring them that he supports gun ownership?

Because he's lying.  It really is that simple.  There's a lot more to it than votes from 10 years ago... like Obama's infamous claim that gun owners were "bitter" and "clinging to their guns and religion." 

As a gun owner, I want both parties' nominees to support my rights. As a gun owner it's in my interests that the gun issue has been largely resolved by the Heller case. I can cast my ballet on the basis of other more contentious and significant issues that need to be decided.

It would be nice if both parties did in fact support gun ownership.  When warranted, the NRA has endorsed Democrats (including some in this election).  But it would be a mistake to imagine that the Heller case "resolves" the gun control issue. It was a 5-4 decision, vulnerable to any of those five justices retiring from the bench under an unfavorable presidency. 

Furthermore, the Heller case is only the first step.  It demonstrated that the Supreme Court would protect an individual right to keep and bear arms from the Federal government, to at least some minimal degree.  But the issue of incorporation against state infringements is still on the table, and the next battlefield is likely to be Chicago -- the other major gun-ban city, and not insignificantly Obama's home turf.  If Obama feels comfortable living under and supporting a gun ban with his legislative powers, can we really trust him with the power to appoint Supreme Court justices who just might decide that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean anything after all?

As a voter, I haven't made up my mind who I'm supporting on November. But, in my view, Obama has neutralized gun as an issue. It sure would be helpful if NRA leaders looked ahead to the problems facing Americans who own guns and not just backwards to the good old days of " liberal gun grabber" bashing. It's worn pretty thin and really has gotten kind of old. Frankly, guys, our side won - move on already!

Denial is more than a river in Eqypt.

It seems the Obama campaign has allegedly somehow acquired and misused one of the mailing lists for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.  The message apparently included the NSSF list itself in the message.  The NSSF has issued a press release with evidence and a demand letter asking for $250,000 in damages, on the basis that the list is a trade secret. 

I'm not terribly familiar with trade secret law, but what I do understand is that trade secrets are not necessarily protected very heavily by law.  Generally, if someone signs a contract saying they will protect a trade secret, they can be penalized according to that contract if they do not.  If the owner of the secret is careless with it, the secret can become valueless such that remedies are no longer available.  Given that the list was attached to the whole message that was sent out, it's clear that the list is no longer a trade secret.

So the real question here is how the sender of the message acquired the list.  There are a couple obvious scenarios -- a disgruntled staffer, or one who supports Obama, passing on the list.  But the press release uses very strong words about the Obama campaign's involvement:

The Obama campaign in Indiana, on September 27, unlawfully obtained and made unauthorized use of a proprietary media list belonging to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) ? the trade association for the firearms industry.  Sen. Obama used this list to e-mail a press release concerning National Hunting and Fishing Day.

"Unlawfully obtained" is a pretty strong description.  It suggests a deliberate effort by the campaign to obtain the mailing list, and given that the value of the list was destroyed (by including it in mailing, presumably inadvertantly) the damages claim might actually stick.  But hat presumes the NSSF can prove that the Obama campaign deliberately made efforts to obtain the list in an underhanded fashion.  If they can't prove that, I think the NSSF legal team may be stuck going after whoever leaked the list for contract violations.

If true, these allegations really put the anti-gun complaints about NRA spies in perspective, don't they?

... This is only a surprise in the sense that they might have chosen to oppose Obama without endorsing McCain, thinking that if McCain loses it would hurt their political victory record.  But it seems that the prospect of Obama winning the Presidency is enough to encourage a little risk-taking in opposition.

While McCain hasn't been perfect on gun issues, he's been good enough for the NRA.

Yes, you read that right -- a lengthy newspaper article reporting on an America Hunters and Shooters Association event which attracted "over a dozen" people.  Great showing there, guys.  I can see that there are lots of sportsmen willing to support Obama.  In fact... I bet there are over a dozen.  And I won't even count the executive board of the AHSA in that number.

"It's the first time in my memory someone has come down and presented the other side. Just because we are Democrats, we're not anti-gun," said UMWA member Babe Erdos.

You know, I can believe that there are ordinary rank and file Democrats who are not anti-gun.  But the list of elected Democrats who support pro-gun causes is rather short when you look at their votes rather than their campaign rhetoric.  And Obama's record as an elected Democrat is quite clear.

.. on Obama's gun prevarication.  To summarize, Obama knows he can't win the election if he seriously pisses off gun owners -- so he's running from his old record in the race.  But what will he do once he's in office? Look at where his campaign contributions are coming from.  Specifically, two law firms representing patent holders on "smart gun" and "ballistic fingerprinting" technology have made contributions to the Obama campaign totalling nearly $700,000. 

If Obama wins, can there be any doubt that he will attempt to pay off those supporters with favorable policies?  He won't even need to be specific about it; the patents already filed mean that his supporters will profit from any law requiring the use of either or both technologies, without any need for embarassing earmarks.

... that is, the 8 years that Obama spent as a director of the Joyce Foundation, funding anti-gun causes in a frankly underhanded manner.

Radley Balko, a left-leaning libertarian, linked to an article ("False Allegations of Intimidation by Obama Campaign") purporting to debunk allegations of intimidation by Missouri officials.  The article itself needs a debunking.  The whole issue started with this letter sent to Missouri television stations that aired the NRA's ad.  Let's examine the important quotes from the letter:

Unlike federal candidates, independent political organizations do not have a "right to command the use of broadcast facilities.  See CBS v. DNC, 412 U.S. 94, 113 (1973).  Because you need not air this advertisement, your station bears responsibility for its content when you do grant access.  See Felix v Westinghouse Radio Stations, 186 F.2d 1, 6 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 909 (1950).

Moreover, you have a duty "to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising."  Licensee Responsibility With Respect to the Broadcast of False, Misleading, or Deceptive Advertising, 74 F.C.C.2d 623 (1961).  Failure to prevent the airing of "false and misleading advertising" may be "probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility."  Cosmopolitan Broad. Corp. v. FCC, 581 F.2d 917, 927 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

This advertisement is false, misleading, and deceptive.  We request that you immediately cease airing this advertisement.

The letter is signed by the General Counsel of Obama's campaign.  So, let's hit the bullet points:

• Signed by the official legal counsel of the Obama campaign
• Cites legal cases supposedly supporting Obama's position
• Uses pseudo-legal language referencing the cited cases to "request" stations cease airing the NRA's advertisement.
  
• Broadcasters are licensed by the FCC, which in the past has imposed significant requirements on political content.
• The news report on the "Truth Squad" in Missouri contains the quote, from the anchor, "They plan to respond immediately to any acts that might violate Missouri ethics laws."
• The "Truth Squad" also includes "others, prosecutors and sheriffs", according the Obama campaign.

In defense, the prosecutors who actually give on-air quotes do talk about responding by "getting the truth out".  But in the context of the Obama campaign's legal threats, combined with the selective use of "prosecutors and sheriffs" in the Obama's campaign's official statement, tells a tale of intended intimidation that is difficult to deny.

If your business depended on a federal license to operate, would you feel comfortable ignoring legal threats from the possible future president -- especially with local prosecutors appearing on television in support of his claims?

That's how we got the term "chilling effect".  Radley, you should be ashamed of yourself for not getting the whole story.

Thanks for this toy go to the NRA Political Victory Fund.

... it seems we have a choice, in November, between two candidates who aren't exactly inspiring on free speech.  One candidate's biggest legislative accomplishment is a campaign finance reform law that threatens individual speech but mostly hasn't been enforced against ordinary individuals.  The other candidate has formed a fascist network of pseudo-state actors to "hold accountable" those who spread "lies" about him by threatening to yank the FCC license from broadcasters who run paid NRA advertisements that are absolutely accurate. 

I don't much like either option.  But at least McCain's ugly law allows for broadcast advertising, even if it is limited and regulated, and even that has been enforced in a relatively lackluster manner.  Obama appears intent, even eager, to apply the full force of the law upon his political opponents with no regard to truth or open discourse.  Rather than buying advertising time to refuse these ads, Obama's campaign has made the tactical decision to try to force them off the air with legal threats.

That's unAmerican.  If I had my druthers I'd disqualify Obama for even trying it.  Since I don't, the voters should take note of this as a sign of how a President Obama would government -- and soundly reject him as a significant threat to freedom of speech.

... and yet its spokespeople say things like this:

shrill PTA hockey-mom... aggressively hostile to all intelligent women everywhere... nausea and a general recoiling... antagonistic, anti-female... nasty caricature of femininity... homophobic, Creationist evangelical nutball... anti-choice, God-pandering woman... basically wants to shove women's rights back about five decades... deer-in-the-Palin-headlights fans... bizarre, dangerous sentiment... gaggle of strangely named kids who hunt and don't believe in evolution and get pregnant before they're old enough to buy a pack of Marlboros... not giving a damn for equal pay, or honest sex education, or separation of church and state, or alternative energy, or a woman's right to choose, or their own daughters' rights if they get knocked up after being raped or incested... the baby bump she gave McCain... shrill charade and damn well recognize an imposter in their midst...

The fury the left turns on those who disagree with them is truly something to behold.  But it's not very convincing.  Oh, and speaking of prejudice:

Truly, it's usually men who are the knuckleheaded ones, who will flip their vote merely over a single inconsequential issue ("I like everything about Obama except he supports gun control, and I love my guns, so I guess I gotta go for McCain"). Women, according to the eternal mythology, are no such dupes, and choose more wisely, from deeper intuition, instinct.

I don't think the gun issue is "inconsequential", but even if I did, I wouldn't vote for Obama.  I have lots and lots of reasons for that.

Xavier has a lengthy list of the various anti-gun positions and statements Obama has made.  There's no doubt that Obama cannot be a candidate for gun owners.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Barack Obama has made his big mistake.  While trying to reassure Pennsylvania voters that he would not be taking their guns away, he came up with the following:

"Even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in Congress.  This can't be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I'm not going to take away your guns."

In all fairness, Obama was explicitly trying to reassure voters that he wouldn't institute gun confiscation programs.  But in the process he admitted that he wants to.  And someone who wants to confiscate guns -- remember that he supported the DC gun ban before he was against it, and the assault weapons ban is still an official part of the Democratic platform -- will not have any objection to other forms of gun control.