Jump to content

The ACORN falls not far from The One tree


Recommended Posts

ACORN describes itself as a “non-partisan” group devoted to helping the poor and to registering millions to vote. The organization has at least 350,000 dues-paying member families, and more than 850 chapters spread among at least 104 U.S. cities.

Selectively adding millions of Democratic names to the voter rolls remains one of ACORN’s most lucrative activities, for which this organization has been given millions of dollars by organized labor, non-profit foundations, and Democratic-controlled government agencies.

“Instead of trying to overturn ‘the system — to blow it up, as Wiley (one of ACORN's original New Leftist founders) wanted to do, ACORN burrows deep within the system,” wrote Manhattan Institute scholar Sol Stern, adding, “taking over its power and using its institutions for its own purposes, like a political ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers.’”

-- -- -- -- --

Critics & law enforcement (FBI included) accuse ACORN of involvement vote fraud, voter intimidation, shakedowns against businesses, and the promotion of socialist class hatred and class warfare.

ACORN has a public record of highly-publicized voter fraud allegations lodged against it :: OH ('04), WI ('04), FL ('04), NM ('04), CO ('05), MO ('06), WA (2007), IN ('08), MI ('08), NV ('08), MO ('08), plus numerous other instances, numerous cases resulting in indictments and convictions.

Recent news stories have reported 1 man was bribed with cigarettes & cash, to the tune of regsitering 72 times. A dog and the lineup of the Dallas Cowboys are just some of the 4 million voters that ACORN’s Project Vote claims to have helped register nationwide.

And although Acorn is supposedly a "non-partisan" entity, they have participated in every Democratic Convention since '80 with members elected as delegates, and ACORN Votes -ACORN's national Political Action Committee- :wacko: , endorsed Obama during the '08 Democratic Presidential Primary. Let's see why:

Obama was the Illinois director of ACORN’s controversial voter registration operation, and he trained the group’s leaders in the ways of radical, confrontational politics. He also paid ACORN affiliates during his recent Democratic primary contest. Leading up to the '08 OH Democratic Primary, Obama’s campaign paid Citizens Services, Inc. (a subsidiary of ACORN) $832,598 between Feb. 25 & March 17.

Obama was its lawyer in several pivotal ACORN cases & funded a number of its activities, as well. When he sat on the board of the prestigious Woods Fund for Chicago alongside former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, he oversaw and approved many grants for ACORN.

The Fund’s "non-ideological" public image "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government ‘establishments’ without undue risk of being accused of partisanship." --Woods Fund Committee Report

-- -- -- -- --

Obama’s mysterious, shrouded past as a “community organizer” is closely tied to ACORN, but apparently worried by the connection, his campaign has put claims of his ties to ACORN as a leading 'denial' item on its “Fight The Smears” Web site — a site the Obama campaign created to counter what they claim are partisan lies made up against their candidate. Unfortunately for the candidate's credibility, his campaign's own websites are bathed in self-hypocrisy ~

>>"• Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer."<< --fightthesmears.com

>>"When Obama met with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of his history with ACORN & his beginnings in IL as a Project Vote organizer, a nonprofit focused on voter rights & education.

Obama said, ‘I come out of a grassroots organizing background. That's what I did for three and half years before I went to law school. That's the reason I moved to Chicago was to organize. So this is something that I know personally, the work you do, the importance of it. I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.” --Obama's website

>>"• Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee."<< --fightthesmears.com

>>"Obama Trained Registrars And Ran Media Saturation Campaign. Chicago Magazine reported, “Within a few months, Obama, a tall, affable workaholic, had recruited staff and volunteers from black churches, community groups, and politicians. He helped train 700 deputy registrars, out of a total of 11,000 citywide. And he began a saturation media campaign with the help of black-owned Brainstorm Communications.” --Chicago Magazine, 1/93"<< --fightthesmears.com

>>"• Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992."<< --fightthesmears.com

>>"Project Vote often coordinates voter registration campaigns with local chapters of ACORN..."<< -- wikipedia :rolleyes:

>>"The National Voter Registration Act (of 1993) Implementation Project—a partnership between Project Vote, ACORN and Demos—aims to improve voter registration services at public assistance agencies."<< -- projectvote.org

>>"Project Vote! is nonpartisan, strictly nonpartisan." -- Chicago Magazine, 1/93"<< --fightthesmears.com

>>"“Voting experts at the DNC point to surging registration in several big cities, such as Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia. Most of that work has been done by the nonpartisan Project Vote. Its director, Sandy Newman, says his group has helped to register 150,000 new voters, almost all of them black, in Pennsylvania; 110,000 in Chicago; 70,000 in Michigan; 40,000 in Ohio; and 160,000 (with the help of the New York Public Interest Research Group) in New York City. ...most of these voters will cast their ballots for Mr. Clinton.” --Wall Street Journal, 10/92"<< --fightthesmears.com

Fact is, even tho they possibly may not have been legally linked, ACORN & Project Vote not only worked side by side & repeatedly, they were of the same ideology and involved a lot of the same people, and Obama unquestionably was involved in the practices & results both operation's utilized.

-- -- -- -- --

Because Obama had worked closely with Madeline Talbott in 1995 (one of ACORN's leaders), she specifically sought out this radical young lawyer to help craft its lawsuit to impose President Clinton’s '93 National Voter Registration Act, nicknamed “Motor Voter,” according to Chicago ACORN leader Toni Foulkes.

Obama’s ACORN lawsuit won, thereby slapping aside state officials who resisted Motor Voter because of what it soon proved to be: a 12-lane superhighway to massive voter fraud.

The Motor Voter law required bureaucrats at welfare offices, the Department of Motor Vehicles & other government offices to register as voters those who used their services. “Examiners were under orders not to ask anyone for identification or proof of citizenship. States also had to permit mail-in voter registrations, which allowed anyone to register without any personal contact with a registrar or election official.” --Wall Street Journal reporter John Fund in his book “Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy.”

As a completely unrelated sidebar, "at least 6 of the 19 Sept 11th terrorists were registered voters." -- Newsmax.com

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

This is a hugely-complicated issue (there's a lot more to it that the above), but hard data has, as usual, been consistantly sparse and/or lacking, but -oh boy!- the stink is there. I have been asking for details of BO's background throughout '08, as have untold others. Even here I have asked this predominantly Democratic-supporting body of members for details, yet no one bothered to answer even 1 inquiry. I know why- you don't know either. What I don't know is- why don't you care?

All the rotten & criminal associations and back-room deals- it's ONLY and ALWAYS about money & power - Obama is no GDamned different in the LEAST. More of the same, just more subversive this time around. NO change, NO hope.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been asking for details of BO's background throughout '08, as have untold others. Even here I have asked this predominantly Democratic-supporting body of members for details, yet no one bothered to answer even 1 inquiry. I know why- you don't know either.

I've been asking for McCain's economic policy for months now. Nada.

And speaking of voter fraud, how about those absentee ballot request mailers McCain sent out, you know, the ones with the "I am a registered voter" box that if unchecked would prevent the voter from getting an absentee ballot, and possibly even purge them from the rolls.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been asking for details of BO's background throughout '08, as have untold others. Even here I have asked this predominantly Democratic-supporting body of members for details, yet no one bothered to answer even 1 inquiry. I know why- you don't know either. What I don't know is- why don't you care?

What are you talking about? You've found out quite a bit about Obama--you know his father was Kenyan, his mother American. He was born in Hawaii, and grew up on the south side of Chicago with his single mother after his father abandoned him. You know he was into drugs and turned his life around by becoming a community organizer. Obama went to Occidental College in Los Angeles for 2 years before transferring to Columbia and getting his BA. Then he went to Harvard Law. You know his father went back to Africa and started another family there. You know that Obama is a Christian, and used to attend the Trinity United Church of Christ. He has a beautiful wife, and two wonderful daughters.

This information isn't really all that hard to find. There's this one website that's almost a clearinghouse for information--it's called "Wikipedia," and it has even more information if you feel you need to know even more details about Barack Obama.

All the rotten & criminal associations and back-room deals- it's ONLY and ALWAYS about money & power - Obama is no GDamned different in the LEAST. More of the same, just more subversive this time around. NO change, NO hope.

And the response from ACORN on the recent raid in Nevada:

Over the past year, ACORN has worked hard to help over 80,000 people in Clark County register to vote. As part of our nonpartisan voter registration program, we have review all the applications submitted by our canvassers. When we have identified suspicious applications, we have separated them out and flagged them for election officials. We have zero tolerance for fraudulent registrations. We immediately dismiss employees we suspect of submitting fraudulent registrations.

For the past 10 months, any time ACORN has identified a potentially fraudulent application, we turn that application into election officials separately and offer to provide election officials with the information they would need to pursue an investigation or prosecution of the individual.

Election officials routinely ignored this information and failed to act. In early July, ACORN asked to meet with election officials to express our concerns that they were not acting on information ACORN had presented to them. ACORN met with Clark County elections officials and a representative of the Secretary of State on July 17th. ACORN pleaded with them to take our concerns about fraudulent applications seriously. One week later, elections officials asked us to provide them with a second copy of what we had previously provided to them. ACORN responded by giving election officials copies of 46 "problem application packages," which involved 33 former canvassers.

On September 23, ACORN had received a subpoena dated September 19th requesting information on 15 employees, all of whom had been included in the packages we had previously submitted to election officials. ACORN provided our personnel records on these 15 employees on September 29.

Today's raid by the Secretary of State's Office is a stunt that serves no useful purpose other than discredit our work registering Nevadans and distracting us from the important work ahead of getting every eligible voter to the polls.

And while I know full well you won't believe a word of it, all of those seeming "contradictions" you bolded regarding Obama and ACORN are not really contradictions.

>>"• Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer."<< --fightthesmears.com

>>"When Obama met with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of his history with ACORN & his beginnings in IL as a Project Vote organizer, a nonprofit focused on voter rights & education.

Obama said, ‘I come out of a grassroots organizing background. That's what I did for three and half years before I went to law school. That's the reason I moved to Chicago was to organize. So this is something that I know personally, the work you do, the importance of it. I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.” --Obama's website

His history of joining them in a lawsuit and working toward similar goals without actually being affiliated. ACORN doesn't have a monopoly on community organizing.

>>"• Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee."<< --fightthesmears.com

>>"Obama Trained Registrars And Ran Media Saturation Campaign. Chicago Magazine reported, “Within a few months, Obama, a tall, affable workaholic, had recruited staff and volunteers from black churches, community groups, and politicians. He helped train 700 deputy registrars, out of a total of 11,000 citywide. And he began a saturation media campaign with the help of black-owned Brainstorm Communications.” --Chicago Magazine, 1/93"<< --fightthesmears.com

Again, ACORN isn't the only community organizing group in the United States.

>>"• Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992."<< --fightthesmears.com

>>"Project Vote often coordinates voter registration campaigns with local chapters of ACORN..."<< -- wikipedia rolleyes.gif

>>"The National Voter Registration Act (of 1993) Implementation Project—a partnership between Project Vote, ACORN and Demos—aims to improve voter registration services at public assistance agencies."<< -- projectvote.org

Often =/= Always. Obama did Project Vote in 1992, yet your "evidence" citing a contradiction is for a 1993 partnership. Did you misread, or are you trying to obfuscate the facts?

For the record, it seems Project Vote and ACORN often work together on many things, but they are separate organizations, and it appears were more separate back in the 1980s and early 1990s than they are now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ACORN suddenly is an issue with Republicans? They have been going through the courts trying to get as many Democrats as they can removed from voting lists. They intimidated the "hanging chad" counters in Dade County. They try to get laws passed to keep African-Americans and Hispanics from voting. The thing about ACORN is that all of the questionable registrations have been caught in advance. This ACORN scandal is just more AM radio nonesense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been asking for details of BO's background throughout '08, as have untold others. Even here I have asked this predominantly Democratic-supporting body of members for details, yet no one bothered to answer even 1 inquiry.

What is so critical that you need to know about him that you can't find? If you can't find it on the Internet already, then it's probably something ridiculously irrelevant. It's not like we all have a big Obama handbook of information, we know as much as you do, and find most of that information on the web just like you. Perhaps the people who you are asking simply don't want to do research for you.

Just because many of us are going to vote for Obama, doesn't mean we're a "Democratic-supporting body of members". That's one heck of a blanket statement. I personally don't care for democrats over republicans or vice versa, and I am probably voting Republican for state governor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody take offense, because I'm going to be blunt. Anyone who believes Barack Obama instructed ACORN to illegally register voters, or even that he knew what they were doing on the ground level, is an idiot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Croc ->>"What are you talking about? You've found out quite a bit about Obama...."<<

I knew all that and I didn't learn it here or on wikipedia {insert obligatory :rolleyes: at wiki mention as reliable information source}. I'm not referring to his personal family past, but his credentials-for-the-job past. You listed just one single thing that has any real bearing on his intended future job; community organizer, everything else is superfluous fluff. and he has never defined what being a C.O. entailed. Why?

>>"ACORN doesn't have a monopoly on community organizing."<<

Nor does it have a monopoly on fraudulent voter registration.

But if BO feels being identified as an ACORN community organizer is to the point it needs to be debunked as a 'smear', then why did BO mention being 'in the smack dab middle' with ACORN and thank them for their work? No denouncement? Can't you see this is at odds with itself?

>>"Obama did Project Vote in 1992, yet your "evidence" citing a contradiction is for a 1993 partnership. Did you misread, or are you trying to obfuscate the facts?"<<

Did you think the NVRAIP only took a few months to design, organize, lobby, draw up & vote in, or were you purposely being obtuse?

Olds ->>"I'm just curious Balthy.... if McCain were involved with ACORN, would you heap the same scorn on him for it? "<<

Of course; the practices & events were dishonest & illegal in some instances. Facts are facts, cheating is cheating, being a grabass opportunist is being a grabass opportunist. Why would I not condemn McCain.... ahhhhh: you are assuming I support him. If so, you likewise seem to be assuming I would excuse any & every potentially damaging incident & damning accusation in order to see my candidate get in, right ? :wink:

SoCal CTS ->>"The thing about ACORN is that all of the questionable registrations have been caught in advance."<<

Then how come there were multiple indictments for registration fraud ? Why is the FBI currently involved in an investigation if everything was caught "beforehand"? How did 1 man register 72 times? Why are there efforts to pull their federal funding? You & Croc are reading an ACORN spin doctor PR piece; of course they are going to fein outrage and lie thru their teeth to protect their $$.

siegen ->>"What is so critical that you need to know about him that you can't find? If you can't find it on the Internet already, then it's probably something ridiculously irrelevant."<<

What- it's not possible that hidden information could be ridiculously damaging ? I give you two quotes:

"I did not have sex with that woman."

"In fact I DID have sex with Miss Lewinsky."

Dirt is admitted to when it's revealed and no sooner in the political world. I point you to Edwards locking himself in the hotel bathroom from reporters at 2AM. They all have dirt, some have a few tons of it. They deny & deny as long as possible. Some have alledged that BO is using a few new tactics, such as the race card, to avoid serious scrutiny. He obviosuly has shielded details about his past, because we still know only bits-n-pieces 3 weeks from the election.

What would I like to know? Thanks for asking, I hope you can provide the answers :

I'd like to know what he studied in the colleges, under who and what grades he recieved. His professional background is so skimpy, we are forced to consider schooling experience in the measure of the man.

I'd like to know details about his 'community organizer' years- with whom, under what organizations, what programs he worked on and what he accomplished.

I'd like to see a list of his clients and their case overviews that he handled as a lawyer.

I'd like to know even a little bit about his political allies and the Woods Fund's activities.

The man is a ghost.

-- -- -- -- --

Let me ask you guys this: in all honesty, is there ANYTHING about Barack Obama and his bid for president that you are able to question? Is there even ONE THING you wish was somehow different, or wish was clarified for your sake, nevermind 'the opposition's' ? An icy finger of doubt anywhere ?

Edited by balthazar
Link to post
Share on other sites
Olds ->>"I'm just curious Balthy.... if McCain were involved with ACORN, would you heap the same scorn on him for it? "<<

Of course; the practices & events were dishonest & illegal in some instances. Facts are facts, cheating is cheating, being a grabass opportunist is being a grabass opportunist. Why would I not condemn McCain.... ahhhhh: you are assuming I support him. If so, you likewise seem to be assuming I would excuse any & every potentially damaging incident & damning accusation in order to see my candidate get in, right ? :wink:

Ok... good... cause you know this pic of McCain at an ACORN meeting surfaced today....... just sayin.

The beleaguered Democratic-leaning community group Acorn sends over this photograph: John McCain, in March of 2006, sitting beside Florida Rep. Kendrick Meek at an event Acorn co-sponsored in Florida.

The immigration event, which other photos show was packed with red-shirted Acorn member, was co-sponsored by the local Catholic Archdiocese, the SEIU, and other groups.

McCain, still spiting much of his party on immigration at the time, was the headliner.

Bertha Lewis, Acorn's chief organizer, said in a statement that came with the photo, “It has deeply saddened us to see Senator McCain abandon his historic support for ACORN and our efforts to support the goals of low-income Americans."

”We are sure that the extremists he is trying to get into a froth will be even more excited to learn that John McCain stood shoulder to shoulder with ACORN, at an ACORN co-sponsored event, to promote immigration reform," she said.

mccainacorn.jpg

He'd rather win the election than maintain his integrity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
siegen ->>"What is so critical that you need to know about him that you can't find? If you can't find it on the Internet already, then it's probably something ridiculously irrelevant."<<

What- it's not possible that hidden information could be ridiculously damaging ? I give you two quotes:

"I did not have sex with that woman."

"In fact I DID have sex with Miss Lewinsky."

Dirt is admitted to when it's revealed and no sooner in the political world. I point you to Edwards locking himself in the hotel bathroom from reporters at 2AM. They all have dirt, some have a few tons of it. They deny & deny as long as possible. Some have alledged that BO is using a few new tactics, such as the race card, to avoid serious scrutiny. He obviosuly has shielded details about his past, because we still know only bits-n-pieces 3 weeks from the election.

What would I like to know? Thanks for asking, I hope you can provide the answers :

I'd like to know what he studied in the colleges, under who and what grades he recieved. His professional background is so skimpy, we are forced to consider schooling experience in the measure of the man.

I'd like to know details about his 'community organizer' years- with whom, under what organizations, what programs he worked on and what he accomplished.

I'd like to see a list of his clients and their case overviews that he handled as a lawyer.

I'd like to know even a little bit about his political allies and the Woods Fund's activities.

The man is a ghost.

-- -- -- -- --

Let me ask you guys this: in all honesty, is there ANYTHING about Barack Obama and his bid for president that you are able to question? Is there even ONE THING you wish was somehow different, or wish was clarified for your sake, nevermind 'the opposition's' ? An icy finger of doubt anywhere ?

If Obama in an interview is asked what organizations he worked for, or what he studied, and he dodges the question or refuses to answer, then there will be some eyebrows raised for sure. But just because bits of information here and there haven't been posted on any popular websites or attained any media attention, doesn't mean that it must be dirt! Like I said, you have the same tools as everyone else does to find the information.

I have doubts about Obama, sure, everyone does even if they don't admit it. There are positives and negatives to every single person and every single presidential candidate. I don't like it when Obama bases an argument on a criticism of McCain or Bush. I question whether or not Obama will be able to implement his health care plan how he wants to, and if it will work as well as he wants it to, and if it is good for America. I worry about how he will pull us out of Iraq, and if he will do it intelligently. Among various other worries or questions. Who doesn't have these kinds of doubts about every president? In my opinion, it's between choosing someone who is ready to be president, although he's a little new, but is an intelligent and competent person; and choosing someone who has few skills outside of politics, comes off like he would kill to get into the white house, and picks the absolute worst possible VP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I find out about B.H.O. the less I like the guy.

http://www.panasianbiz.com/2008/10/09/39-b...terry-anderson/

Too bad that McCain, although the lesser of two evils, is no shining star himself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The more I find out about B.H.O. the less I like the guy.

http://www.panasianbiz.com/2008/10/09/39-b...terry-anderson/

Too bad that McCain, although the lesser of two evils, is no shining star himself.

Please fact check that first, much of it is parsing of words

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never been, am not now, nor will ever be a fan of Hell666ry Clinton.

She's a carpet-bagger, opportunist, anit-american & liar of epic proportions.

Edited by Sixty8panther
Link to post
Share on other sites
I also wish Hillary was the candidate. She is the most honest, sincere and intelligent candidate ever. She's religious without being hateful. She's tolerant and not at all elitist. She will be president some day.

I like Hillary, and would vote for her if she were the nominee, but I like Obama much better. I find it interesting you consider Hilary honest and sincere, because those are two qualities I find lacking in her that made me vote against her in the primary. She's a great policy wonk IMO, but her empathetic people skills leave a lot to be desired.

I do think she has a shot in 4-8 years, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I like Hillary, and would vote for her if she were the nominee, but I like Obama much better. I find it interesting you consider Hilary honest and sincere, because those are two qualities I find lacking in her that made me vote against her in the primary. She's a great policy wonk IMO, but her empathetic people skills leave a lot to be desired.

I do think she has a shot in 4-8 years, though.

Obama seems to be sincere but so many questions have arisen regarding his past that while I feel he is honest, I feel Hillary is more honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole campaign, running unprecedentally long, really has me wearied. BO is going to get in based on fluff and turning a blind eye to whomever he may be, and McCain is NOT my choice, either (even tho I do feel he definately has more credibility than BO). I never stumped for JM on this board (or any other), so your automatic assumption that it's nothing but 'us vs. them' or 'you vs. me' is off; the hope that I'm going to get in a snit over these much looser connections that you dismiss with a wave of the hand as completely unimportant in BO's case... ain't gonna happen. If you feel it's meaningless for BO, you must believe they're meaningless for JM, if you are approaching this entire matter levelly (tho I'm not saying that's the case).

According to all I've read, BO is far too untested, unproven & undocumented to be 'running the country', and the liberal mainstream media is nothing but a propaganda machine anymore, desperate for ratings in a shrinking market, so you certainly aren't going to see real investigative journalism from any of them. That's why this stuff needs to get out. If BO had a mainstream political background instead of a closely shielded one with a long roster of crazies & radicals, he's already have a monster lead instead of barely squeeking by with only a few weeks left.

I don't give a sh!t if he black or white or what his family situation is, but I do value his life experiences and influences, because they tell me far more about what he might do in different situations that the complete bullsh!t spewed out on the trail. Most of those experiences he's kept completely under wraps or has been brazenly obscure on, and the rest that's come out is certainly not reassuring. I value these things far more than the superfluous, but that's all we really have. It sucks- this could've been the country's Neo in reality, instead it's just a carefully crafted illusion.

RE: the pic- It should be obvious that sitting in an ACORN meeting 1 day and having your picture taken is world's away from training hundreds recruiters in questionable tactics and defending the organization in numerous lawsuits over a period of years... but you won't agree on that, I know.

What the F am I going to do in the booth on the 4th ??

Edited by balthazar
Link to post
Share on other sites
If BO had a mainstream political background instead of a closely shielded one with a long roster of crazies & radicals, he's already have a monster lead instead of barely squeeking by with only a few weeks left.

Don't you think the same could be said about McCain? He has the support of extreme right wing organizations like the NRA! Also, the pro-life abortion clinic bomber crowd, vigilante groups like the minutemen and other qausi-terrorist groups.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you think the same could be said about McCain? He has the support of extreme right wing organizations like the NRA!

God forbid an organization fight to protect something that's explicitly stated in the 2nd amendment!

Cause, you know, NO democrats from the south belong to the NRA right? Democrats have made anti-2nd Amendment a part of their platform, but the NRA only fights for one thing, to preserve the right to keep and bear arms. Your social views are not affected by that... in fact true liberalism would promote that right.

But then again, i know California is one of the most anti-gun states, so it does not surprise me that you believe that the NRA are extremists... despite the fact that well over half the nation believe in the right to keep and bear arms (albeit in various forms). And as to the minute men, well if the gov aint doing there job then there is nothing to prevent them from making citizens arrests or alerting the border patrol.

Edited by Teh Ricer Civic!
Link to post
Share on other sites
God forbid an organization fight to protect something that's explicitly stated in the 2nd amendment!

Cause, you know, NO democrats from the south belong to the NRA right? Democrats have made anti-2nd Amendment a part of their platform, but the NRA only fights for one thing, to preserve the right to keep and bear arms. Your social views are not affected by that... in fact true liberalism would promote that right.

But then again, i know California is one of the most anti-gun states, so it does not surprise me that you believe that the NRA are extremists... despite the fact that well over half the nation believe in the right to keep and bear arms (albeit in various forms). And as to the minute men, well if the gov aint doing there job then there is nothing to prevent them from making citizens arrests or alerting the border patrol.

Funny how people that support your views are not terrorists or extremists but there are two sides to every coin. Your fringe radical groups are our pro-constitution groups and vice-versa.

And as for the second ammendment, we are just one justice away from it being interpreted correctly. The militia has the right to bear arms. Not individuals.

Edited by SoCalCTS
Link to post
Share on other sites
And as for the second ammendment, we are just one justice away from it being interpreted correctly. The militia has the right to bear arms. Not individuals.

Which is why it is clearly stated as so in the CONSTITUTION itself.

Here is the argument i made for it in the other thread...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So as i casually peruse the US constitution, i found a few interesting things.

Article I (powers of the legislative branch) Section 8:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congres

So the legislative branch is responsible for the militia (what is now the National Guard). This is established in our Constitution.

Article II (presidential powers) Section 2:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

The president, as commander in chief, obviously can call upon these people (once again national guard) OR in times of war during a draft, he can call upon the great unorganized militia (aka draft).

And finally, the Second Amendment:

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.

Now, since the creating of the militias is defined by the Constitution itself the second Amendment would seem rather repetitive and thus useless to your typical anti-gun person.

However, since it IS defined in the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment DOES exist, one could only logically conclude that they were referring to individuals rights to bear arms. As such, the first half of the sentance can basically be ignored since that part is already covered in the Constitution.

Therefore the only logical way to read the 2nd Amendment in this context is to believe that the government cannot infringe upon their right to either keep firearms (which Heller v. DC provides for), but also to bear them which suggests open carry and concealed carry rights.

Of course this is all within reason, a convicted felon or other convicted criminal is stripped of their rights upon being found guilty (as they have breached the social contract) as such, by my interpretation of it, it is fully constitutional for these people to have their right to keep and bear arms deprived.

However, to deprive law abiding citizens of this right is unconstitutional by this reading of the Amendment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by Teh Ricer Civic!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Which is why it is clearly stated as so in the CONSTITUTION itself.

Here is the argument i made for it in the other thread...

Now either the 2nd amendment is just redundant, or the framers were total idiots.

"according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" establishes that Congress can put limits on gun ownership.

"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." - just affirms the right of the people to establish and keep the army. It does not establish that the people are the ones keeping guns at their homes.

This interpretation will come to pass soon enough. Supreme Court appointments are essential in order to preserve our freedom and nation and take back our nation from the armed criminals.

Edited by SoCalCTS
Link to post
Share on other sites
"according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" establishes that Congress can put limits on gun ownership.

"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." - just affirms the right of the people to establish and keep the army. It does not establish that the people are the ones keeping guns at their homes.

This interpretation will come to pass soon enough.

Your reading makes the 2nd amendment redundant. Clearly they would not include a redundant statement in the bill of rights. And the DISCIPLINE, means that the congress can DISCIPLINE the militia.

THEREFORE, it must infer an individual right.

Besides, CRIMINALS get guns anyways. The places with the WORST crime have the STRICTEST gun laws. Obviously to no avail. Gun laws prevent the law-abiding citizens from defending themselves from criminals who don't obey the law anyways.

But fine, go ahead and lead us down the path of the police state... while your at it you might as well kiss your 1st, 5th and all the other amendments bye bye because they clearly hold no legal sway anymore.

The Anti-Gun Brady Campaign recently released a press statement on the dreaded Assault Weapons... Lets see... the press statement, i believe, said that in the time since the assault weapons ban has lapsed (4 years) about 175ish people have been killed and 183 injured by "assault weapons"

Now that converts into 358 total injuries/casualties divide that by 4... 90 injuries/fatalities a year or about 44 deaths per year... Now for comparisons sake, about 50 people die from lightning each year and like 45 die from insects each year. So... Wow.... the odds of getting killed by an "assault weapon" are LOWER than dying to lightning or insects.

Edited by Teh Ricer Civic!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Your reading makes the 2nd amendment redundant. Clearly they would not include a redundant statement in the bill of rights. And the DISCIPLINE, means that the congress can DISCIPLINE the militia.

THEREFORE, it must infer an individual right.

Besides, CRIMINALS get guns anyways. The places with the WORST crime have the STRICTEST gun laws. Obviously to no avail. Gun laws prevent the law-abiding citizens from defending themselves from criminals who don't obey the law anyways.

But fine, go ahead and lead us down the path of the police state... while your at it you might as well kiss your 1st, 5th and all the other amendments bye bye because they clearly hold no legal sway anymore.

Discipline means: orderly or prescribed conduct or pattern of behavior - therfore regulation. This redundancy claim is a stretch at best. Republicans have led us down the path to a police state by passing laws like the Patriot Act, Domestic Spying, and appointing judges that don't repect our rights to privacy.

I doubt there is a Democrat alive that wants to ban all guns. We just need to control and regulate them. We need federal licensing. We need a national registry Like they do for sex offenders. You should be able to know who has guns and how many so you can keep your kids out of their houses. They should have to license guns like they do cars and pay a registration fee annually. There are so many things that can be done.

Edited by SoCalCTS
Link to post
Share on other sites
Discipline means: orderly or prescribed conduct or pattern of behavior - therfore regulation. This redundancy claim is a stretch at best. Republicans have led us down the path to a police state by passing laws like the Patriot Act, Domestic Spying, and appointing judges that don't repect our rights to privacy.

I doubt there is a Democrat alive that wants to ban all guns. We just need to control and regulate them. We need federal licensing. We need a national registry Like they do for sex offenders. You should be able to know who has guns and how many so you can keep your kids out of their houses. They should have to license guns like they do cars and pay a registration fee annually. There are so many things that can be done.

or you could educate everyone of the use of guns. The Swiss seem to do it quite well. Similar with the alcohol argument.

And yes i agree, under bush our other rights have severely taking a beating. However i don't feel that one right is better or worse than another right.

Under your ideas rifles like....

ar15.jpg

Have no reasonable purpose, that particular rifle looks like it might be in compliance with the silly CA Assault Weapon laws. Despite the fact that they COULD be used for hunting, or just self defense at home or even just for fun plinking away at the range.

And considering that the great state of California already registers ALL HANDGUNS and given the level of HANDGUN CRIME. I am going to go on a limb and say that it doesn't work so hot... other than the cops like to harass us law abiding citizens because they can see that we own handguns.

By your reasoning, everyone should have to register any bats they buy. mmm Bricks need to be registered. what else... belts can choke people... need to be registered. Ohhh..... lawnmowers... Ah yes... lawnmowers are very dangerous, they need to be registered.... weed wackers... KNIVES.

Edited by Teh Ricer Civic!
Link to post
Share on other sites
or you could educate everyone of the use of guns. The Swiss seem to do it quite well. Similar with the alcohol argument.

And yes i agree, under bush our other rights have severely taking a beating. However i don't feel that one right is better or worse than another right.

Under your ideas rifles like....

ar15.jpg

Have no reasonable purpose, that particular rifle looks like it might be in compliance with the silly CA Assault Weapon laws. Despite the fact that they COULD be used for hunting, or just self defense at home or even just for fun plinking away at the range.

And considering that the great state of California already registers ALL HANDGUNS and given the level of HANDGUN CRIME. I am going to go on a limb and say that it doesn't work so hot... other than the cops like to harass us law abiding citizens because they can see that we own handguns.

By your reasoning, everyone should have to register any bats they buy. mmm Bricks need to be registered. what else... belts can choke people... need to be registered. Ohhh..... lawnmowers... Ah yes... lawnmowers are very dangerous, they need to be registered.... weed wackers... KNIVES.

And if they wanted to do any of those silly things they could because they arent in the constitution and neither is the supposed right to own unregulated weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And if they wanted to do any of those silly things they could because they arent in the constitution and neither is the supposed right to own unregulated weapons.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Congratulations, you just made the case for the government to do whatever it wants unchecked simply because it makes no mention of it in the constitution.

The government is free to kill all dogs on the 2nd Sunday every 3 years because it does not say that in the constitution (well i guess technically they could... but that doesnt mean they should).

Plus i find your reference to unregulated weapons a bit of a misnomer. Do you know all the regulations about the length of the barrel on rifles, shotguns? The regulations around owning and possessing a fully automatic machine gun. Here in California the regulations concerning the number of rounds that can be carried in the magazine? The restrictions on how a magazine can be dropped... and if that is considered an assault rifle because of it? California also has a "safe handguns list" which means that only handguns on that list may be purchased... because they are safe. Of course Law enforcement can buy any damn handgun they want because they are exempt. So its good enough for the law enforcement, but NOT for you.

Edited by Teh Ricer Civic!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Congratulations, you just made the case for the government to do whatever it wants unchecked simply because it makes no mention of it in the constitution.

The government is free to kill all dogs on the 2nd Sunday every 3 years because it does not say that in the constitution (well i guess technically they could... but that doesnt mean they should).

Plus i find your reference to unregulated weapons a bit of a misnomer. Do you know all the regulations about the length of the barrel on rifles, shotguns? The regulations around owning and possessing a fully automatic machine gun. Here in California the regulations concerning the number of rounds that can be carried in the magazine? The restrictions on how a magazine can be dropped... and if that is considered an assault rifle because of it? California also has a "safe handguns list" which means that only handguns on that list may be purchased... because they are safe. Of course Law enforcement can buy any damn handgun they want because they are exempt. So its good enough for the law enforcement, but NOT for you.

I think you just made that argument because your conservative minds work that way. Who can we kill? What animals can we hurt? How can we deport foreigners? How can we screw gay people out of their rights?

Passing a law about food safety, gun safety or environmental protection IS not the same as creating an arbitrary law like baseball bat registration or dog murder or other twisted ideas that have crossed your mind.

So you make the case that the government does not have the right to ban assisted suicide or medicinal marijuana.

Edited by SoCalCTS
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you just made that argument because your conservative minds work that way. Who can we kill? What animals can we hurt? How can we deport foreigners? How can we screw gay people out of their rights?

Passing a law about food safety, gun safety or environmental protection IS not the same as creating an arbitrary law like baseball bat registration or dog murder or other twisted ideas that have crossed your mind.

And you make your arguments because your liberal mind works that way. No self respecting gun owner wants to kill any person. Animals are... oh... animals and have been hunted for food since the dawn of man. We do not want to deport foreigners, we want to ENFORCE OUR LAWS PERTAINING TO IMMIGRATION. If you come legally then there is no problem, Welcome to America! And While most conservatives would want to "screw gay people of their rights" i personally do not because i don't see how that is the governments issue... It is discriminatory to give preferential tax treatment to "married" individuals as it is.

And i do think it is the same thing. A gun by itself is not harmful, nor is a baseball bat. A gun can be used in sports (target shooting), so can a bat. A gun can be used as home defense, so can a bat. Whats the difference? people are more afraid of guns, so they must go.

Which brings up the comical line from some movie when 2 guys steal an old ladies car, as they pull out the old lady draws a pistol and shoots at them, the next line from the car jacker is "See this is why i always vote FOR gun control"

And yes i would make the argument that the government should not ban marijuana, however assisted suicide is still killing someone willfully.

I should make the note that i am a conservative libertarian, not a far right conservative, It would be hypocritical of me to deny homosexuals of their rights if i expect my right to keep and bear arms to be upheld.

Edited by Teh Ricer Civic!
Link to post
Share on other sites
And you make your arguments because your liberal mind works that way. No self respecting gun owner wants to kill any person. Animals are... oh... animals and have been hunted for food since the dawn of man. We do not want to deport foreigners, we want to ENFORCE OUR LAWS PERTAINING TO IMMIGRATION. If you come legally then there is no problem, Welcome to America! And While most conservatives would want to "screw gay people of their rights" i personally do not because i don't see how that is the governments issue... It is discriminatory to give preferential tax treatment to "married" individuals as it is.

And i do think it is the same thing. A gun by itself is not harmful, nor is a baseball bat. A gun can be used in sports (target shooting), so can a bat. A gun can be used as home defense, so can a bat. Whats the difference? people are more afraid of guns, so they must go.

Which brings up the comical line from some movie when 2 guys steal an old ladies car, as they pull out the old lady draws a pistol and shoots at them, the next line from the car jacker is "See this is why i always vote FOR gun control"

And yes i would make the argument that the government should not ban marijuana, however assisted suicide is still killing someone willfully.

I should make the note that i am a conservative libertarian, not a far right conservative, It would be hypocritical of me to deny homosexuals of their rights if i expect my right to keep and bear arms to be upheld.

agree to disagree. Libertarians are ok in my book. I suppose you guys have suffered as much as the liberals have during the last 8 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
agree to disagree. Libertarians are ok in my book. I suppose you guys have suffered as much as the liberals have during the last 8 years.

Heh, you realize that the vast majority of libertarians are pro-2nd amendment right? Of course they are also against government telling you what to do. Against the government trying to run the economy. Against the government TAKING YOUR RIGHTS FROM YOU.

Libertarians can be described as Socially Liberal (Liberal in the old sense of the word that includes the right to bear arms) Although there is a split in the party over gay marriage/abortion.

Libertarians can also be described as Fiscally conservative (some to the point of pure unregulated markets)

They are a relatively misunderstood party, but i feel that a great many of Americans would identify more with Libertarians than any other party if they actually knew who they were and were not afraid to go with a third party.

That being said, i know an awful lot of libertarians who are registered republicans. ESPECIALLY young folks. The future of the republican party may be libertarianism, unless the far right continue to hold sway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What the F am I going to do in the booth on the 4th ??

Write in Robert Lutz, or Ed Welburn, or Harley Earl.... Virgil Exner....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Teh Ricer CVCC:

Have no reasonable purpose, that particular rifle looks like it might be in compliance with the silly CA Assault Weapon laws. Despite the fact that they COULD be used for hunting, or just self defense at home or even just for fun plinking away at the range.

And considering that the great state of California already registers ALL HANDGUNS and given the level of HANDGUN CRIME. I am going to go on a limb and say that it doesn't work so hot... other than the cops like to harass us law abiding citizens because they can see that we own handguns.

By your reasoning, everyone should have to register any bats they buy. mmm Bricks need to be registered. what else... belts can choke people... need to be registered. Ohhh..... lawnmowers... Ah yes... lawnmowers are very dangerous, they need to be registered.... weed wackers... KNIVES.

Dude, I could NOT agree with you more.

The idea of gun registration and its supposed "good to society" is the single most

biggest croc of Bull&#036;h&#33; in the history of Liberalism. I've been saying since H.S.

that we will see an age when knives will have to be registered.

And if they wanted to do any of those silly things they could because they arent in the constitution and neither is the supposed right to own unregulated weapons.

Can you explain to me PLEASE which exact "Assault Musket"

was banned in the constitution, 2nd amendment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...