Obama’s gun-control history in the Illinois Senate

Comments Off on Obama’s gun-control history in the Illinois Senate

My brother asked me how he could find out Obama’s voting record while he was a Senator in Illinois, so I did some research and found this good article about it.

While a board member of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations

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.

Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a “friend” of the law-abiding gun owner?

And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the company they keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger – a renegade Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shop owners and pro-gun legislators. Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago who has declared that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed to own a gun. And let’s not forget Obama’s pal George Soros – the guy who has pumped millions of dollars into the UN’s international effort to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a “friend” of the law-abiding gun owner?

By now, I’m sure that many of you have received mailings from an organization called “American Hunters and Shooters Association(AHSA)” talking about what a swell fellow Obama is and how he honors the 2nd Amendment and how you will never have to worry about Obama coming to take your guns. Let me make it perfectly clear – everything the AHSA says about Obama is pure hogwash. The AHSA is headed by a group of left-wing elitists who subscribe to the British view of hunting and shooting. That is, a state of affairs where hunting and shooting are reserved for the wealthy upper-crust who can afford guided hunts on exclusive private reserves. The AHSA is not your friend, never will be.

In closing, I’d like to remind you that I’m a guy who has actually gone nose to nose with Obama on gun rights issues. The Obama I know cannot even begin to identify with this nation’s outdoor traditions. The Obama I know sees you, the law abiding gun owner, as nothing but a low-class lummox who is easily swayed by the flash of a smile and a ration of rosy rhetoric. The Obama I know is a stony-faced liar who has honed his skill at getting what he wants – so long as people are willing to give it to him.

That’s the Barack Obama I know.

Rich Pearson served for the past 15 years in the Illinois state capitol as the chief lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association.

The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only, not of Spero News.
Read the article here
Advertisements

Joe Biden: Gun Laws Won’t ‘Guarantee’ End To Mass Shootings

Comments Off on Joe Biden: Gun Laws Won’t ‘Guarantee’ End To Mass Shootings

At least he’s being (somewhat) honest:

Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged that new gun laws would not “fundamentally alter” the likelihood of another mass shooting, though he insisted there has been a “sea change” in American views on guns in the wake of Newtown.

“Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now,” Biden told reporters Thursday afternoon after he spent over an hour lunching with Democratic senators at the Capitol.

“But there are things that we can do, demonstrably can do, that have virtually zero impact on your Second Amendment right to own a weapon for both self defense and recreation that can save some lives,” he said.

“I’m not saying there’s an absolute consensus on all these things,” Biden said, “but there is a sea change, a sea change in the attitudes of the American people. I believe the American people will not understand — and I know that everyone in that caucus understands — they won’t understand if we don’t act.

“The visual image of those 20 innocent children being riddled with bullets has, has absolutely, not only traumatized the nation, but it has caused– like the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

As evidence, he pointed to what he said was new support from evangelical Christian groups for some gun regulation. Biden told reporters that support from conservative religious groups that represent largely rural constituencies was different than it’s been during past legislative fights over guns.

NBC News

The President’s Enumerated Powers, Rulemaking by Executive Agencies, & Executive Orders

Comments Off on The President’s Enumerated Powers, Rulemaking by Executive Agencies, & Executive Orders

In light of President Obama and his Executive orders on gun control among other things, I decided to post an article by a friend of mine Publius Huldah, a retired Constitutional lawyer here in Tennessee. You see Executive orders are not law and she explains why.

What are the Enumerated Powers of the President?

The powers of the President are “carefully limited” and precisely defined by our Constitution.  In Federalist Paper No. 71 (last para), Alexander Hamilton asks,

…what would be … feared from an elective magistrate of four years’ duration, with the confined authorities of a President of the United States?…[emphasis added] 2

The answer to Hamilton’s question is this: There would be nothing to fear if Presidents obeyed the Constitution. But they don’t obey it because the dolts in Congress don’t make them obey it!

Well, then!  Here is the complete list of the President’s enumerated powers:

Art. I, Sec. 7, cls. 2 & 3, grants to the President the power to approve or veto Bills and Resolutions passed by Congress.

Art. I, Sec. 9, next to last clause, grants to the executive Branch – the Treasury Department – the power to write checks pursuant to Appropriations made by law – i.e., by Congress.

Art. II, Sec. 1, cl.1, vests “executive Power” [see below] in the President.

Art. II, Sec. 1, last clause, sets forth the President’s Oath of Office – to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”.

Art. II, Sec. 2, cl.1:

  • makes the President Commander in Chief of the armed forces when they have been called by Congress into the actual service of the United States. 3
  • authorizes the President to require the principal Officers in the executive Departments to provide written Opinions upon the Duties of their Offices.
  •  grants the President power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, 4  but he can not stop impeachments of any federal judge or federal officer.

Article II, Sec. 2, cl. 2 grants to the President the power:

  • to make Treaties – with the advice and consent of the Senate. 5
  • to nominate Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, federal judges, and various other officers – with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Article II, Sec. 2, cl. 3 grants to the President the power to make recess appointments, which expire at the end of Congress’ next session.

Art. II, Sec. 3:

  • Imposes the duty on the President to periodically advise Congress on the State of the Union, and authorizes the President to recommend to Congress such measures as he deems wise.
  • Authorizes the President, on extraordinary Occasions, to convene one or both houses of Congress [e.g., when he asks Congress to declare War]; and if both houses can not agree on when to adjourn, he is authorized to adjourn them to such time as he deems proper.
  • Imposes the duty upon the President to receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.
  • Imposes the duty upon the President to take care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and
  • Imposes the duty upon the President to Commission all the Officers of the United States.

That’s it! Anything else the President does is unlawful and a usurpation of powers not granted.

Read her entire article here

Court: Obama appointments are unconstitutional- NLRB Defies Court Ruling

Comments Off on Court: Obama appointments are unconstitutional- NLRB Defies Court Ruling

The court rejected that argument, but went even further, finding that under the Constitution, a recess occurs only during the breaks between formal year-long sessions of Congress, not just any informal break when lawmakers leave town. It also held that presidents can bypass the Senate only when administration vacancies occur during a recess.

President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.

The ruling also throws into question Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been challenged in a separate case.

Obama claims he acted properly in the case of the NLRB appointments because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. But the three-judge panel ruled that the Senate technically stayed in session when it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called “pro forma” sessions.

GOP lawmakers used the tactic – as Democrats have in the past as well – to specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power. GOP lawmakers contend the labor board has been too pro-union in its decisions. They had also vigorously opposed the nomination of Cordray.

The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid. It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.

On Jan. 4, 2012, Obama appointed Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union lawyer Richard Griffin and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the NLRB, giving it a full contingent for the first time in more than a year. Block and Griffin are Democrats, while Flynn is a Republican. Flynn stepped down from the board last year.

Obama also appointed Cordray on the same day.

The court’s decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation’s labor unions to organize new members.

Read article

In a statement emailed to reporters, National Right To Work Foundation President Mark Mix said:

“As a result (of the ruling), the Board has lacked a quorum since January 3, 2012, and under a U.S. Supreme Court precedent established in 2010, the court’s ruling invalidates the Board’s biased and decidedly pro-Big Labor rulings since that time.  The court’s decision in Noel Canning is a victory for independent-minded workers who have received unjust treatment at the hands of the pro-Big Labor NLRB and will hopefully serve as a persuasive example to other federal courts deciding on the validity of Obama’s purported recess appointments.”

The  ruling also puts other Obama recess appointees in jeopardy. As the AP notes:

The ruling also throws into question Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been challenged in a separate case.

Read the ruling here.

Now we learn this: Can you say lawless! Acting as if Obama is a King or Dictator, the NLRB will defy the court…Amazing.

NLRB: We will continue to act despite the Appeals Court decision

Mark Gaston Pearce, chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, issued the following statement in reaction to today’s DC Appeals Court decision that President Obama use of recess appointments to install three people on the NLRB last year was unconstitutional.

Pearce indicated that the NLRB will attempt to continue on regardless:

The Board respectfully disagrees with today’s decision and believes that the President’s position in the matter will ultimately be upheld. It should be noted that this order applies to only one specific case, Noel Canning, and that similar questions have been raised in more than a dozen cases pending in other courts of appeals.

In the meantime, the Board has important work to do. The parties who come to us seek and expect careful consideration and resolution of their cases, and for that reason, we will continue to perform our statutory duties and issue decisions.

Pearce, in short, is indicating that the NLRB’s strategy is to act as if the court’s ruling that the appointments were unconstitutional somehow only applies only to the particular case that went before the Appeals Court and hope that the White House can get the Supreme Court to quickly review the case.

It’s a pretty brazen strategy, but consistent with a broader administration strategy to simply ignore the court’s ruling.

Washington Examiner

Sheriffs CAN Block Federal Gun Control

Comments Off on Sheriffs CAN Block Federal Gun Control

Here’s another great article about  the power of your local ELECTED Sheriff against Gun Control or any other unconstitutional law passed in DC.

Now, as Washington gears up to consider imperious plans to limit guns, require fingerprinting and registration, impose additional taxes and fees, ban particular features or functions outright, and even confiscate weapons of self-defense, Mack has told WND that there’s hope remaining in local law enforcement.

It’s not complicated, he said.

“Gun control is illegal and it’s against the Constitution,” he said. “What people don’t realize is that the Second Amendment was designed to protect us from the power of the federal government.”

He said he would expect sheriffs across the country to defend the rights of ordinary Americans.”  (From an Article by Michael Carl at WND)

Think about it for a moment.  When the conflicts between local citizens and the federal agents begin, who is the person to get between them?  Your local sheriff, that’s who.

When I was sworn-in, many years ago, as a deputy sheriff, I swore to uphold and protect the US Constitution.  As Mr. Carl points out in his very enlightening article, gun control is illegal.  It is a violation of the US Constitution.  The 2nd Amendment says plainly your right to keep and bear (“bear” means “to carry”) arms shall not be infringed.  Infringed means “to go against,” to change, to limit,  and on, and on.  In plain language it means the government cannot, legally, do a darned thing to infringe your rights under the Second Amendment.

Seems to me, a local sheriff would be well within his rights, in upholding the law (the constitution)  to arrest any, and all, federal agents who persist in an attempt to enforce any federally imposed gun control laws in his jurisdiction.

Here is a little known fact:  ” … no matter what gun control laws are passed by the federal government, they can only be enforced in your area if your county sheriff allows them to be.”

” … the county sheriff is the highest governmental authority in his county and he does not have to bow to the tyranny of the federal government if he deems such actions to be unconstitutional or unlawful.  In essence, the county sheriff has more legal authority within his county than the governor or the state or even the president of the United States.”—Read more:

I agree with the writer of the article at godfatherpolitics.com.  But I see two problems.  One: The American government is no longer bound to the constitution.  Having decided the constitution is no longer valid, since we MODERN Americans have outgrown its lack of moral relativism, our current government just does whatever the heck it pleases and rams it down the throats of the citizens.

Two: The American citizen is so totally ignorant of his/her rights under the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, that they no longer protest when their government goes rogue.  Of course, there is always the ten percent who either don’t get the word or don’t give a da*n.

Given the above information, don’t you think it might be prudent to contact your local sheriff and inquire where he/she stands on gun control and the enforcement of unconstitutional laws in his/her jurisdiction?

E

 

Diane Feinstein Gun ban in 1995 – She wanted to Ban all guns, Force turn in

Comments Off on Diane Feinstein Gun ban in 1995 – She wanted to Ban all guns, Force turn in

Folks, here they come, to heck with the 2nd amendment, it’s in the way as far as they are concerned…

Despite what Feinstein claims, the Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice brief done in 1999, midway through the period of the original assault weapons ban found, “The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.” In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control studied multiple gun control laws including the AWB and found, “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.” Likewise, a National Research Council panel in 2004 performed a critical review on firearms, and noted that the ban “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence”.

The reason the AWB had little, if any effect on gun violence was revealed in a 2004 National Institute of Justice report which found that rifles were rarely used in gun crimes. This finding is verified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports database which shows that of the 8,583 murders committed using firearms in 2011; only 323 were committed using rifles of any kind, including the small fraction referred to as “assault weapons”. To put this into context, the same 2011 data show that over twice as many murders, 723 in all, were committed using bare hands and feet.

Feinstein tells us a gun ban is about saving the children and reducing crime, but her comments on 60 Minutes in 1995 reveal her true plan is to disarm the American people.

On Thursday, Feinstein will introduced her dream bill to disarm the American people. The legislation is open-ended and includes provisions to re-register firearms and submit the fingerprints of law-abiding Americans as if they’re sex offenders.

Feinstein’s bill will also include a buy-back provision that will allow the government to confiscate all firearms. Both Feinstein and New York governor Andrew Cuomo have said that is their plan.

It is a gun confiscation bill.

Somebody should ask her what she’s proposing to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. Including those coming in from across the border. This sceme is meant to disarm us law abiding citizen’s and will do nothing to address the problem

I have news for Ms. Feinstein ….a 51% vote in the Senate won’t ban the 2nd amendment……you MUST add an amendment to the Constitution and have 3/4 of the States to ratifiy that amendment.

Joe Biden shows the length Democrats will go to steal our guns. In 2008 during the election, he told voters Obama wouldn’t take his shotgun or his Beretta. The Beretta is a semi-automatic pistol. But in 1989, Biden introduced his own version of the assault weapons ban.

School Obama’s Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards

1 Comment

Well, well…say it isn’t so….

Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.

The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak.

If you dismiss this by saying, “Of course they have armed guards — they get Secret Service protection,” then you’ve missed the larger point.

The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC’s David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren’t used (and weren’t even allowed).

Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

Breitbart

Some more comments:

  • Only the important people get armed guards. The rest of us little pissants are supposed to give up our guns and become victims.

  • WTexas

     Yes, you are correct. They want to dissarm us so we can’t fight back against their ill intentions.  They are currently evaluation how the general population will respond to arms confiscation.

  •  Lurking behind the debate over gun control in the US is the debate over expanding government versus freedom. The framers of the US Constitution came down on the side of freedom and limited government. The founders knew men naturally desire to be free, even if some men abuse that freedom. They likewise knew that it is inherent in government, even a necessary government, to diminish freedom. Many bureaucrats in government, today, do not understand the limits of government in the US and come down on the side of an ever-expanding government power. They want to diminish more and more freedom. Whenever an incident with guns happens that abuses freedom, these power-hungry, government bureaucrats become afraid. They know citizens have guns and there may come a time when those citizens will use their guns to keep their freedom. There is only so much Americans will take from their government. High taxes, corruption, and self-serving politicians are tolerable up to a point, but there is a point beyond which government officials should not go. When they go past that point, citizens will take out their guns. If government officials go to bed at night and fear citizens have guns, it is a good thing. Let them fear and let freedom ring.

    A large majority of the military and police forces will not obey orders to confiscate firearms. The multiple of reasons when polled were as follows, its a suicide mission. Majority of lawful gun owners would rather shoot the trespassing personnel intending on stealing from them then hand over the 2nd amendment so for the police they would likely prefer to resign then be shot in the face for breaking the constitution. The job is risky enough and doesn’t pay enough nor could it pay enough to go door to door and say hand over your property please, which brings us back to the being shot in the face. Rest of the reasons were its not a lawful order, even if passed into law its unconstitutional, not in line with the bill of rights and its being pass would be treason. Some Military and police have an understanding of whats right and whats wrong, most are conservative.