Can we get a libertarian for Obama? « Bricks
Obama is anti Second Amendment.
Obama thinks he can talk our way out of terrorism.
Has Obama seen a tax that he didn’t like?
Obama attends a racist church.
This Conservative Libertarian refuses to vote for anyone like that.
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 
February 17, 2008 at 23:53
I’m glad that Conservative Libertarian is in a very small minority.
LikeLike
February 18, 2008 at 00:06
Perhaps not as small a group as you might think.
LikeLike
February 18, 2008 at 00:17
“The Fundamentalist Right-Wing Evangelical Conservative Christian Republican Nazis will have to block me again, I guess. You have to wonder, though, what are they so afraid of? I have never used profanity, nor have I ever posted any dirty picture on any blog I’ve ever had, yet they keep banning me. Perhaps the thing that bothers them the most; the thing they absolutely refuse to permit – is the truth.”
Paranoid, or Napaleon syndrome perhaps? I’m no Republican, nor an evangelical, and I am certainly not a Nazi.
Have some fun with life kip.
LikeLike
February 18, 2008 at 06:45
http://www.trugop.org/Editorials/2ndAmendment.htm
Like I said, McCain is in action no better than Obama in many of the issues. And Obama, at least, is not anti-1st amendment.
Cutting taxes is meaningless without balancing the budget. Tax cuts with an unbalanced budget are *not* libertarian; read up on your Milton Friedman. The Republicans have done a good job of convincing some libertarians that supply-side economics match their positions, when that definitely isn’t the case.
Obama is far from a perfect candidate, but now that Ron Paul has no chance of winning I think he’s the best realistic choice for libertarians. If you want to vote principle, by all means vote 3rd party. Just don’t convince yourself that McCain matches your views better than Obama.
Thanks for the comment.
LikeLike
February 18, 2008 at 09:37
Could you be anymore wrong in some of your statements against Obama?
“Obama is anti Second Amendment.”
I never heard Obama say he wants to outlaw guns. Obama is for smart gun laws and regulation. This also happens to be the least important part of the Bill of Rights.
“Obama thinks he can talk our way out of terrorism.”
What? Huh? I think what Obama is against is invading nations based on lies and having no real ties to Al-Qaeda. Not to mention the one trillion dollar price tag. Sure that you libertarians are against wasting tax payer money.
“Obama attends a racist church.”
Ummm… You have any creditable links for this statement? This because it is a Black Church?
lesowijs, you made a some good points in your comment. Glad realize Ron Paul has no chance of winning. Remember seeing a post two days before Super Tuesday stating the reasons how Ron Paul was going to win it.
LikeLike
February 18, 2008 at 11:34
MJ, do your own research. He is all that I wrote about, and worse. BTW, I am no fan of McCain, not at all.
Lesowijs, at least you make sense. Even if I do not agree with you. I am sick of picking the lesser of two evils. I will most likely be writing in a candidate.
Ron Paul simply will not win, for reasons that I have noted extensivly elsewhere on this blog. I do like the shake up that he has given the others that are in the race though.
LikeLike
February 18, 2008 at 11:39
“In 1963, John F. Kennedy was murdered in Texas by a fervent admirer of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. In 2008, a large Cuban flag emblazoned with the image of Che Guevara, Castro’s brutal henchman, is prominently displayed in a Barack Obama campaign volunteer office in Houston. Obama has been widely compared to JFK, most notably by the late president’s brother and daughter. President Kennedy, a stalwart anticommunist, despised Castro and his gang of totalitarian thugs. But when word broke last week that Obama’s supporters in Houston work under a banner glorifying Che, the campaign’s reaction was to brush it off as an issue involving volunteers, not the official campaign. After two days of controversy, the campaign issued a statement calling the flag ‘inappropriate’ and saying its display ‘does not reflect Senator Obama’s views.’ Would JFK have reacted so mildly?… That this sadistic thug’s face also adorns the office of a U.S. presidential candidate’s supporters is appalling and disgraceful. That the candidate couldn’t bring himself to say so is even worse.” —Jeff Jacoby
“Senator Barack Obama rejects the ‘politics of the past’ while borrowing from its phoniest chapters. His promised caravan toward a new Camelot, with Teddy Kennedy bringing up the rear, may generate feelings in Chris Matthews’ leg and cause women to swoon, but over time it is likely to pall and bore. Obama’s speeches are like cotton candy, sweet but substanceless and dangerous to one’s health if turned into a steady diet. Is he saying nothing? Unfortunately not. Glimpsed through the haze of his sophistical rhetoric is something, and it is tiresomely false, namely, the dogmatic assertion that ‘hope’ and liberalism are synonymous. His reliance on sentiment and rhetoric rather than reasoning to advance that assertion will not inspire a new politics of bipartisan unity but revive old and bitter resentments. Liberalism, after all, has no monopoly on hope, and the chapters of history to which Obama makes implicit reference—the New Frontier and Great Society—concluded in despair. While the Democrats won’t stop squealing over him for some time, the larger culture has already begun to mock Obama as a platitudinous lightweight.” —George Neumayr
Up to now, the force of Sen. Obama’s physical presentation has so dazzled audiences that it has been hard to focus on precisely what he is saying. ‘Yes, we can! Yes, we can!’ Can what? Listen closely to that… speech. Unhinge yourself from the mesmerizing voice. What one hears is a message that is largely negative, illustrated with anecdotes of unremitting bleakness. Heavy with class warfare, it is a speech that could have been delivered by a Democrat in 1968, or even 1928… It is a depressing message to ride all the way to the White House… In late December, Gallup released a poll in which 84% of respondents said they were satisfied with their own lives. At some point in the next 10 months, people will have to square Sen. Obama’s Grapes of Wrath message with the reality of their lives. Unease about the economy is real, but Sen. Obama is selling more than that. He is selling deep grievance over the structure of American society. That’s the same message as John Edwards, or Dennis Kucinich for that matter.” —Daniel Henninger
LikeLike
February 18, 2008 at 11:41
“A few more primary wins and B. Hussein Obama will be able to light up a cigarette during a televised speech and still get the nomination. It looks like the only thing that can stop him now is an endorsement from Al Gore. Gore is always lunging into a movement just as it has passed its prime—the Internet, Howard Dean, global warming, trying to talk black when he campaigns at a black church. He probably bought a big house a few months ago. Gore is such a supremely unlikable human being, he even subverted the mainstream media’s affection for liberalism during the 2000 election. And my brave little Hillary needs a bold move after the Potomac primaries this week. If she can’t trick Gore into endorsing Obama, she may have to divorce Bill.” —Ann Coulter
LikeLike
February 18, 2008 at 23:34
patricksperry…
I made valid counter points to the post and you came back with no points of your own or any argruement at all but to say do my research? What did I say that was incorrect? Can you give me any links that backs up the blanket statements in the post?
Why are you quoting Ann Coulter? Every thing she says is wrong. The fact that she uses Obama’s middle name shows she is a bigot. Al Gore joins movements when past their prime? Al Gore promoted the internet before most people knew it even existed and it has not reached it’s prime yet so that is totally wrong. Howard Dean should have won the nomination since he only could have done better then Kerry who couldn’t beat the worst President of all time. Global warming concerns is actually gaining ground these days in the U.S. because of Gore and even the Bush administration is starting to acknowledge it so wrong again. What a dumb ass quote…
LikeLike
February 19, 2008 at 09:24
I love it! MJ, you took the bait! I wiil begin with the first item…
SOURCE:
http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm
Obama to Get the Dems ‘Barack’ into the Business of Gun Control
by Erich Pratt
Director of Communications
It sounded like a report from the National Enquirer. Dick Cheney and Barack Obama… cousins?
Say it ain’t so, Mrs. Cheney.
But in fact, the Vice-President’s wife revealed this bombshell in her recent book, Blue Skies, No Fences. According to Lynne Cheney, the current veep and the Illinois Democrat Senator, who wants to be the next president, are distant cousins — eighth cousins, to be exact.1
When hit with this revelation, the Obama campaign took the news in stride, saying that, “Every family has a black sheep.”2
All kidding aside, it’s too bad that Dick Cheney and Barack Obama didn’t do more shooting and target practice together in their youth, because today, they couldn’t be more polar opposites when it comes to the Second Amendment.
Whereas one would be hard-pressed to find an anti-gun vote on Cheney’s House record — as he served the state of Wyoming for many years — Obama’s gun record is just simply atrocious.
Oh sure, Obama told Iowa radio listeners last year that he is a “strong believer” in the rights of hunters and sportsmen, and that homeowners should have a firearm “to protect their home and their family.” But then in the next breath, he says, “It’s hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semiautomatic [sic].”3
Good thing the ban on magazines that Obama supports was not in effect during the Los Angeles riots of 1992. That’s when Korean merchants successfully used their semi-autos — with large magazines containing multiple rounds — to keep looters away from their stores. Their businesses remained standing, even while many others (which were left unprotected) burned to the ground.
Obama supports the existing gun control laws on the books. Nowhere in his literature or in his campaign speeches does he stake out a position in favor of repealing any gun control measure that has passed into law.
Not surprisingly, Obama supports the gun ban in the nation’s capital, saying the “DC handgun law is constitutional.”4 And he is opposed to people using guns for self-defense, when those guns are owned in localities like Washington, DC and Chicago where firearms are banned.
Illinois resident Hale DeMar was prosecuted by the town of Wilmette for using a handgun in his home to defend his family in 2003. Because Wilmette had imposed a ban on the possession of handguns, several Illinois state legislators introduced SB 2165 to protect the right of self-defense for residents like DeMar.
True to form, Obama voted against the pro-gun legislation.5
It is very telling that Obama moved further to the left than most of the liberal legislators in his state. The self-defense bill protecting gun owners like DeMar passed the state senate 41-16 and was later enacted into law over the governor’s veto (and over Obama’s opposition).
The concealed carry of firearms is another important issue for gun owners, and yet Obama is not only opposed to citizens carrying guns, he supports using federal laws to override those states which currently allow the practice.
In 2004, Obama said he supports a national ban on concealed carry because the states that allow it are “threatening the safety of Illinois residents.”6 Never mind the fact that concealed carry laws have improved the safety of citizens in the states that have enacted such laws.7
Obama has also taken a strong position in favor of the Clinton semi-auto ban which sunset in 2004. “I believe we need to renew — not roll back — this common sense gun law,” Obama said.8
Well, there’s nothing that’s “common sense” about the Clinton ban. Not only did it outlaw almost 200 types of firearms, legislators like Senator Chuck Schumer of New York tried to amend the law (before it sunset) to include additional types of semi-autos — even banning classic (wood-stock) long guns such as the Remington shotgun which Senator John Kerry received as a gift during his 2004 presidential bid.9
Bottom line: Senator Obama may not be as gun ban-crazed as the infamous Chuck Schumer. He may not lay awake at night dreaming of ways to disarm honest gun owners. But sure enough, Obama is a committed anti-gunner.
The chart below lays out the key votes and positions that Sen. Obama has taken over the past few years.
Barack Obama’s Gun-Related Votes The U.S. Senate Debated: Obama
Voted:
Supporting concealed carry for citizens10 Anti-gun
Banning many common semi-automatic firearms11 Anti-gun
Disallowing self-defense in towns where guns are banned12 Anti-gun
Imposing one handgun a month restrictions13 Anti-gun
Requiring lock up your safety trigger locks14 Anti-gun
Protecting gun dealers from frivolous lawsuits15 Anti-gun
Outlawing gun confiscations during a national emergency16 Pro-gun
Squelching the free speech rights of gun owners17 Anti-gun
Restricting the interstate sales of firearms18 Anti-gun
Repealing the gun ban in Washington, DC19 Anti-gun
——————————————————————————–
1Associated Press, “Research finds Cheney, Obama distant cousins,” October 17, 2007.
2Ibid.
3O.Kay Henderson, “Three leading Democrats talk about gun control,” Radio Iowa News, April 22, 2007.
4James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, “Court to hear gun case,” Chicago Tribune, November 20, 2007.
5Illinois State Senate, vote on SB 2165 (41-16), May 25, 2004.
6Obama says, “National legislation will prevent other states’ flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents.” David Mendell, “Democratic hopefuls vary a bit on death penalty,” Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004.
7See the Gun Owners of America fact sheet at http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm.
8John Chase, “Keyes, Obama are far apart on guns; Views on assault weapons at odds,” Chicago Tribune, September 15, 2004.
9Senators Chuck Schumer and John Kerry had both cosponsored S. 1431 in 2003, a bill that would have banned any semi-auto shotgun that also contained a pistol grip, which the bill defined as “a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” According to that definition, just about any semi-automatic shotgun would be banned.
10See supra note 6.
11About the so-called “assault weapons” ban, Obama says, “I believe we need to renew — not roll back — this common sense gun law.” See supra note 8.
12See supra note 5.
13As a state senator, “Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic ‘assault weapons’ and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.” “Obama Record May be Gold Mine for Critics,” Associated Press, January 17, 2007.
14On July 28, 2005, Senator Obama voted for a provision requiring gun dealers to include the sale of a lock-up-your-safety device with every handgun sold. The amendment, offered by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI), passed by a vote of 70-30. The provision amended the gun makers’ protection act (S. 397).
15On July 29, 2005, Senator Obama voted against S. 397, a bill that was designed to put an end to the frivolous lawsuits that were threatening to put many gun dealers out of business. While an argument could be made that a pro-gun Senator might vote against this bill because it contained a lock-up-your-safety provision (see supra note 14), the fact that Obama voted in favor of that trigger lock amendment (but against the overall bill) indicates his real animus against helping gun dealers protect themselves from the anti-gun lawsuits that were aimed at driving them into bankruptcy.
16On July 13, 2006, Sen. Obama voted for Emergency Powers language that saw only 16 of the most ardent anti-gun senators vote against it. The amendment provides that no money can be used by federal agents to confiscate firearms during a declared state of emergency. The amendment was added to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill (HR 5441).
17On January 18, 2007, Senator Obama voted against a pro-gun amendment to strike language in S. 1 that would infringe upon the free speech rights of groups like Gun Owners of America. The amendment, which passed, struck requirements that would have required GOA to monitor and report on its communications with its members, and could easily have led to government demands for GOA’s membership list (a.k.a. registration).
18Obama has frequently made statements which indicate that he would restrict the interstate sale of firearms. For example, he told the NAACP that, “We’ve got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren’t loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they’re not made in our communities. There aren’t any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit.” Senator Barack Obama, at the NAACP Presidential Primary Forum, July 12, 2007.
19See supra note 4.
Tommorow when I have more time I will continue…
LikeLike
February 19, 2008 at 10:44
patricksperry…
I took the bait? I stated Obama is for gun regulation. You baited me so you could post a two page comment and link to a bias pro-gun site telling us Obama is for gun regulation? Gee thanks…
I found it funny the mention of Mr. Cheney. Would he be the same Mr. Cheney who while drinking shot a friend in the face while “hunting” and after basically the victim was blamed? He must make all gun owners proud.
Yes, Obama is against most semi-automatic weapons, concealed guns in public, and out of state gun sales. These are all unneeded gun “rights”.
What you don’t understand is that being pro-gun regulation is not same as wanting to outlaw all guns or being anti-second amendment. There is a wider gap between the opposite ends then you think.
Our nation is facing numerous problems and excessive gun regulation does not make the top 100.
LikeLike
February 19, 2008 at 13:24
MJ,
What most people who want to regulate guns, especially more powerful guns, don’t realize is that the 2nd amendment was not just meant to allow citizens to have guns to protect themselves against criminals. It was meant to allow citizens to have the power to overthrow government itself. I can understand the liberal position but it entirely misses the point of the 2nd amendment. The founders wanted the citizenry to have the power to defend itself against GOVERNMENT, not (just) against other citizens. That is the justification for the absolute right to gun ownership – the prohibitions that liberals are in favor of would completely remove any teeth the 2nd amendment might still have. I say this as a person who doesn’t own a gun and doesn’t plan on ever getting one.
But I would agree that gun regulation is not a pressing issue in comparison to the other reasons I have for supporting Obama.
patricksperry,
I can understand your point about not voting for the lesser evil anymore. I usually feel the same way. But I feel like the War in Iraq is such a pressing issue that this year voting for the lesser evil is necessary. Especially since McCain is by far the worst Republican on this issue, and also the only Republican who could feasibly beat a Democrat. If Romney or Thompson or even Huckabee had won, I would probably be voting 3rd party or writing myself in. But beating McCain is essential.
For what it’s worth, if it helps at all, Obama’s chief economic adviser is Austan Goolsbee, a U of Chicago man. So we can hope that maybe Obama will listen to his advice regarding taxes.
LikeLike
February 19, 2008 at 13:56
lesowijs…
The argument that the people need guns to overthrow the government does nothing for me. Not sure if you keep up on the latest hardware the military has but unless we start letting citizens have jet fighters, tanks, and anti-missile defenses the people are not overthrowing anyone.
Now if we start downsizing the military maybe we would have a fighting chance.
The issue of the right to bar arms went to the supreme court twice and both times the court said our founding fathers did not intend that so make of that as you will.
In regards to your other point of taxes… How does the next president stop the bleeding without raising taxes? I hate taxes as much as the next person but we have borrowed something like 600 billion from China and we are still in Iraq and our debt is 3 to 9 trillion depending on the accounting method used and only will get worse. How do we pay for this? Oh, maybe go back to that downsizing of the military again. We can cut 40% of the military budget and close half our overseas bases, get the troops out of Iraq, and still be able to take Canada and Mexico if they rush the border.
LikeLike
February 19, 2008 at 20:19
The bottom line for me is that there is no instance where restricting guns would increase the amount of liberty in society. All it does is decrease liberty without helping anyone; gun prohibition simply does not do anything to stop crime. This has been borne out in every single study or analysis I can recall of the subject. So then the government has no legitimate role in regulating firearms; such regulation would take away liberty without giving any in return.
As for the taxes thing, well, that’s the idea. I don’t approve of any further tax cuts until the budget is balanced, but at the same time if our government practiced restraint there would be no need to raise them any further. We should immediately pull out of Iraq and *every single one* (not half) of our bases overseas, and shrink the military as much as feasible. Imperialism died a long time ago. I am very much not a conservative in any sense, and I am very much not for the “War on Terror.” I suppose I’d probably get called a “cosmotarian,” whatever that means.
If Gravel or Kucinich were somehow serious candidates, I would support them before Obama. Getting out of Iraq really is that important to me. As it stands, Obama is simply the most anti-war candidate available. Whatever else he’s good for is just gravy.
LikeLike
February 20, 2008 at 22:21
lesowijs…
Well nice we agree on the Iraq war. Back to the guns… All our freedoms have limits and are regulated. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater or print lies in a newspaper. Regulating guns is no different. As a matter of fact we have very liberal gun laws compared to most western nations. What is about guns that makes you feel more liberated? I am much more worried about other rights that really are be taken from us.
LikeLike
March 1, 2008 at 09:47
MJ,
I am much more worried about those rights too. That is why I support Obama at the moment. But just because some rights are more important doesn’t mean that other ones can just be brushed aside.
My view is that there is no reason to ban guns, and thus restrict liberty, unless there is a “clear and present danger” to others because of them. That just isn’t the case with guns, and you’d be hard pressed to prove otherwise. I live a couple hours from D.C., and you can easily see there the effects that complete gun prohibition has. By definition criminals don’t care about the law, and it isn’t very difficult to conceal a firearm. Even in areas that allow guns criminals usually have illegal ones. Legal gun owners very rarely commit gun crimes.
To have effective gun prohibition you would have to completely shut down all gun makers in North and Central America (not just the U.S.) and destroy all guns currently out there. You’d also have to ensure that all firearms for law enforcement and military could somehow only be used by them.
Gun prohibition does not correlate with violent crime rates. For example, Switzlerand has very liberal gun laws as well and yet the amount of gun crimes is barely a fraction of the U.S. We simply have a violent culture, and when I say culture I mean the people and the government. Were the War on Drugs ended while gun laws stayed the same violence levels would probably rabidly decline to around the level of Canada and the U.K.
LikeLike
March 1, 2008 at 10:53
Excellent points Les.
LikeLike