MISSION HILLS — A case of mistaken identity led to a family of five, headed on a camping trip, being frisked on the 405 Freeway and placed in handcuffs. Los Angeles Police Department officials came across the family’s white van around 5:45 a.m.
Dozens of Second Amendment rights activists holstered their handguns and slung unloaded rifles over their shoulders Monday at a gun rights rally in northern Virginia, while hundreds of like-minded but unarmed counterparts converged in the nation’s capital.
Second Amendment: guarantees the right of individuals to possess firearms. The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The American Bar Association has noted that there is more disagreement and less understanding about this right than of any other current issue regarding the Constitution.
The right to keep and bear arms, often referred as the right to bear arms or the right to have arms, is the assertion that people have a personal right to “weapon(s)” for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both. In this context, “arms” refers to a variety of weapons and armor and to “bear arms” meant to wage war.
The phrase “right to keep and bear arms” was first used in the text of Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
For almost a century following the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the intended meaning and application of the Second Amendment drew less interest than it does in modern times. The vast majority of regulation was done by states, and the first case law on weapons regulation dealt with state interpretations of the Second Amendment. The notable exception to this general rule was Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S.1 (1820), where the Supreme Court mentioned the Second Amendment in an aside, but Justice Story “misidentified” it as the “5th Amendment.”
U.S. Supreme Court
The primary U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment cases include United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), Robertson v. Baldwin (1897), United States v. Miller (1939) and District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). A key legal question is whether the Second Amendment is held to apply to state and local governments by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cruikshank and Presser predate the modern criteria by which it is determined whether a particular part of the Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments. Because Heller did not make such a determination, it remains an open question. McDonald v. Chicago, currently before the Court, addresses this question.
In the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S.393 (1856), the Supreme Court’s decision denying citizenship to former slaves and their descendants included the following relevant wording:
[I]n no part of the country except Maine did the African race, in point of fact, participate equally with the whites in the exercise of civil and political rights….More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding states regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another state. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it …. would give to persons of the Negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to … keep and carry arms wherever they went.[131]
The Second Amendment attracted serious judicial attention with the Reconstruction era case of United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S.542 (1875). In Cruikshank, the defendants were white men who had killed more than sixty blacks known as the Colfax massacre and had been charged with conspiring to prevent blacks from exercising their right to bear arms. The Court dismissed the charges, holding that the Bill of Rights restricted Congress but not private individuals. The Court concluded, “[f]or their protection in its enjoyment, the people must look to the States.”
The Court stated that “[t]he Second Amendment…has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government…”. Likewise, the Court held that there was no state action in this case, and therefore the Fourteenth Amendment was not applicable:
The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another.
Regarding the Second Amendment and the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, said in 2008:
With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the first amendment did not apply against the states and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.
Regarding the assertion in Heller that Cruikshank said the First Amendment did not apply to the states, Professor David Rabban wrote that the Cruikshank Court “never specified whether the First Amendment contains ‘fundamental rights’ protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against state action….”[136]
In Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S.252 (1886), Herman Presser headed a German-American paramilitary shooting organization and was arrested for leading a parade group of 400 men, training and drilling with military weapons with declared intention to fight, through the streets of Chicago as violation of Illinois law which prohibits the public drilling and parading in military style without a permit from the Governor.
At his trial, Presser argued that the state of Illinois had violated his Second Amendment rights. In rejecting his case the Supreme Court reaffirmed Cruikshank, holding that the Second Amendment restricts only the authority of the Congress to maintain the public security. This decision upheld the states authority to regulate the militia and that citizens had no right to create their own militias or to own weapons for semi-military purposes.
Miller v. Texas
In Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S.535 (1894), Franklin Miller was convicted and sentenced to be executed for shooting a police officer to death using an unlicensed handgun, in violation of Texas law. Mr. Miller sought to have his conviction overturned, claiming his Second Amendment rights were violated and that the Bill of Rights should be incorporated to state law. The Supreme Court ruled in line with Presser and Cruikshank that the Second Amendment did not apply to state laws such as the Texas law for which Mr. Miller has been convicted.
Robertson v. Baldwin
In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S.275 (1897), the Court stated that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, and thus were not a violation of the Second Amendment. Specifically, the Supreme Court stated:
“The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the “Bill of Rights,” were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;…”
In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S.174 (1939), the Supreme Court heard arguments from only the Solicitor General and rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act prohibiting the interstate transportation of unregistered Title II weapons:
Jack Miller and Frank Layton “did unlawfully…transport in interstate commerce from…Claremore…Oklahoma to…Siloam Springs…Arkansas a certain firearm…a double barrel…shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length…at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce…not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code, …and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order…as provided by Section 1132C…”
A demurrer had been filed, which alleged:
The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, U.S.C.A. – ‘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.
A federal district court, ruled Section 11 of the National Firearms Act of 1934 to be in violation of the Second Amendment’s restriction forbidding such infringement and so it quashed the indictment.
In a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice McReynolds, the Supreme Court reversed the District Court decisionstating that:
Considering Sonzinsky v. United States (1937), 300 U. S. 506, 300 U. S. 513, and what was ruled in sundry causes arising under the Harrison Narcotic Act — United States v. Jin Fuey Moy (1916), 241 U. S. 394, United States v. Doremus (1919), 249 U. S. 86, 249 U. S. 94; Linder v. United States (1925), 268 U. S. 5; Alston v. United States (1927), 274 U. S. 289; Nigro v. United States (1928), 276 U. S. 332 — the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.
The Court further explained:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Miller is cited by gun-rights advocates, because they claim that the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep arms that are part of “ordinary military equipment.”It has also been cited by gun control advocates because they claim that the Court did not consider the question of whether the sawed-off shotgun in the case would be an applicable weapon for personal defense, instead looking solely at the weapon’s suitability for the “common defense.” Law professor Andrew McClurg states, “The only certainty about Miller is that it failed to give either side a clear-cut victory. Most modern scholars recognize this fact.”
The Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) ruled that “[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” and “that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”
To clarify that its ruling does not invalidate a broad range of existing firearm laws, the Court said:
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
The Court held that the amendment’s prefatory clause serves to clarify the operative clause, but does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.
The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Stevens, stated that:
The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.
This dissent called the Opinion of the Court “strained and unpersuasive” and said that the right to possess a firearm exists only in relation to the militia and that the D.C. laws constitute permissible regulation.
Justice Scalia, in the Opinion of the Court, called Justice Stevens’ interpretation of the phrase “to keep and bear arms” incoherent and grotesque.
Justice Breyer, in his own dissent and speaking only for himself, stated:
I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.
[T]he adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
Justice Scalia, writing for the court, quoted Spooner from The Unconstitutionality of Slavery as saying that the right to bear arms was necessary for those who wanted to take a stand against slavery.
The majority opinion in Heller also stated that:
A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.
The dissenting justices were unpersuaded by this argument.
On September 30, 2009, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in, and so decided to review, McDonald v. Chicago. This case closely parallels NRA v. Chicago. A central issue before the Court will be whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. Oral argument took place on March 2, 2010. A ruling is expected this June.
In the first couple decades following the adoption of the Second Amendment public opposition to a standing army persisted, a widely held opinion among the minority Anti-Federalists and to a lesser extent among the majority Federalists. This opinion also extended to opposition to a professional armed police force, with the responsibility to carry out local ordinances falling to sheriffs in counties and constables and night watchmen in cities and towns. These officials were sometimes compensated, but more often served as a civic duty without payment. In these early decades with rare exceptions these full time law enforcement officers were not armed with firearms, but rather were armed only with clubs.In large emergencies a call up was issued for the posse comitatus, militia companies, or vigilantes to assume law enforcement duties and these groups were much more likely to be armed with firearms. The Uniform Militia Act of 1792 obliged every free able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 to be included in the national militia. It also required these men to provide their own arms and ammunition. In practice individual acquisition and maintenance of rifles and muskets to be held ready for militia duty proved problematic, with compliance estimates ranging between 10 and 65 percent of militiamen bringing their private arms to the militia musters. Additionally, compliance with the Uniform Militia Act of 1792 gradually fell into disfavor and disrepute. The State legislatures granted increasing numbers of exemptions to universal militia obligation, with exemptions granted to clergy, conscientious objectors, teachers, students, jurors, mariners and ferrymen. While in practice, the remainder of able bodied white men remained obligated for service, an increasing number of people simply did not or could not show up for militia duty. The penalty for failing to show up for duty was enforced only sporadically and selectively.
The first test of the militia system occurred in July 1794, when a group of disaffected Pennsylvania farmers rebelled against federal tax collectors whom they viewed as illegitimate tools of tyrannical power.Initial attempts of the four nearby states to raise a militia to be nationalized to suppress this insurrection proved inadequate. When officials resorted to drafting men, they faced resistance to a draft. The rank and file that resulted from this effort to raise a militia consisted mainly of draftees or paid substitutes and the poor of society who enlisted not out of duty but instead for the enlistment bonus payments. The officers who responded to the militia call up were of a higher quality and had responded out of a sense of civic duty and patriotism, but were generally critical of the rank and file. Most of the 13,000 rank and file lacked their own weapons and the war department had to provide nearly two-thirds of them with guns. In October, President George Washington and General Harry Lee marched on the 7,000 rebels who conceded without fighting. The aftermath of this experience using a militia for national defense led to criticism of the self-armed citizen concept to provide for arming of a universal militia system. Secretary of War Henry Knox and President John Adams in the following years lobbied the Congress to establish federal armories to hold weapons which were mostly imported and to encourage the domestic gunsmiths to increase local production. This degradation of the militia persisted, and within twenty years, the poor performance of the militia during the War of 1812 resulted in several wartime setbacks including being cited as the cause of the sacking of Washington, D.C. and the burning of the White House in 1814.
Barak On Gun Control:
Opposed bill okaying illegal gun us in home invasion
Hale DeMar, a 52-year-old Wilmette resident, was arrested and charged with misdemeanor violations for shooting, in the shoulder and leg, a burglar who broke into his home not once, but twice. Cook County prosecutors dropped all charges against DeMar.
In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to DeMar’s case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.
Governor Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill. On Nov. 9, 2004, the Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override Blagojevich’s veto. Again, Obama acted against the bill.
On Nov. 17, the Illinois House voted overwhelmingly, 85-30, to override the governor’s veto and Senate Bill 2165 became law.
Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws
Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?
A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?
A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don’t have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires–a staffer did–and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”
April 11th produced “Bittergate.” The Huffington Post website posted an explanation Obama gave at a private fundraiser in San Francisco of the challenges he faced with working-class voters in Pennsylvania and Indiana. “It’s not surprising they get bitter,” he said, referring to decades of constrained economic opportunities. “They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Clinton said the remarks were “not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans.” McCain said Obama showed “breathtaking” elitism. Obama challenged the accusations, and noted in response to the charge of elitism that he had been raised by a single mother who relied on food stamps, but conceded he could have been more diplomatic.
Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing
Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?
A: I don’t think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you’ve got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month
Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns. Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers
Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.
When I queried him about the vote, he said, “I didn’t find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done–and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms.“
It wasn’t until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities
Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?
A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we’ve had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We’ve got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. 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. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who’ve been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That’s a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don’t have it right now.
Keep guns out of inner cities–but also problem of morality
I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer’s lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there’s a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair. Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban
KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that’s good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.
OBAMA: Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions
Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:
Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005
Scott, Scott, Scott! You haven’t learned by now? If you do something this toward the Obamas, you’re in trouble. Former ‘Happy Days’ star Scott Baio tweeted that picture of Michelle Obama with the comment, “WOW He wakes up to this every morning.” The media is calling this “an unflattering photo of Michelle Obama.”
I still have my Liberal cousins “Michelle Looks Great Eye Glasses”, I put them on and looked at that photo, this is what I saw…
This is the image the Michelle Die Hearts want Michelle to look like. Cameras don’t lie, that’s the truth. Scott don’t feel bad, the media cannot accept the fact that, Michelle looks like that, It’s her in the RAW. Truth is, Barack does have to wake up every morning to that face, and it hurts.
Scott’s followers were not amused and began leaving him instructions to kill himself and calling him a racist idiot and worse. Scott tried to clear the air with another tweet saying, “I’m NOT racist for posting a pic of M.O. My WIFE’S BEST FRD IS BLACK,HELLO.”
Scott later tweeted that his following has swelled to 5000 because “people love to hate.” He leaves us with a promise that the FBI is after all death threaters and this: “For New followers: I POST A LOT OF JOKES WITH PICS. They are JUST that, a joke. NOT targeting anyone. Laughter IS the best medicine.”
Scott I don’t think you’re a racist, you just picked the wrong person to joke with.
Where did all these Rush haters get the idea that Rush said, “Do not donate to Haiti relief?” Rush said do not donate through the whitehouse.gov website. He states that HIS belief that funds that would go through the White House website would go to the Haitian government and would probably not be used for the relief of the Haitian people. He does encourage people who want to help to go through an established charity, like the Red Cross, by donating directly to them. Click here to visit the American Red Cross Web site to find out more or donate online. Those who wish to donate by phone can dial (800) Redcross or (800) 257-7575.
Those who wish to donate by mail can do so by contacting their local Red Cross chapter or by mailing a donation to the following address:
American Red Cross
P.O. Box 37243
Washington D.C. 20013
RUSH: Here’s President Obama speaking about Haiti this morning in Washington at the White House. He held a press conference. Now, I want you to remember, it took him three days to respond to the Christmas Day Fruit of Kaboom Bomber, three days. And when he came out after those three days, he was clearly irritated that he had to do it. He didn’t want to do it. He comes out here in less than 24 hours to speak about Haiti.
OBAMA: I have directed my administration to respond with a swift, coordinated, and aggressive effort to save lives. The people of Haiti will have the full support of the United States in the urgent effort to rescue those trapped beneath the rubble and to deliver the humanitarian relief, the food, water, and medicine that Haitians will need in the coming days.
RUSH: Oh, this is what he lives for. He lives for serving those in misery. Now, don’t misunderstand here, folks. I don’t have the whole press conference, but I wonder did he apologize for America before acknowledging we are the only people on earth that can possibly help ‘em out down there in any significant way? By the way, I’ve checked it out, Cuba has offered nothing. Venezuela has offered nothing. They have nothing to offer. (interruption) Venezuela is going to send 30 people? Well, they’re people who want to get out of there anyway because they’re having rolling blackouts in Venezuela, in Caracas, which is an oil-driven — it’s the most amazing thing. The vision of our future is right before our eyes in Venezuela. Socialist country, devalued the currency on purpose a couple days ago, putting people in jail if they raise prices as a result of this. We are devaluing our own currency, not as rapidly as Hugo Chavez did but we’re doing it with all of our deficit spending and borrowing. At any rate, here’s another portion of the president’s statement.
OBAMA: Despite the fact that we are experiencing tough times here at home, I would encourage those Americans who want to support the urgent humanitarian efforts to go to WhiteHouse.gov where you can learn how to contribute. We’ll be resolute in our response, and I pledge to the people of Haiti that you will have a friend and partner in the United States of America today and going forward. May God bless the people of Haiti and those working on their behalf.
RUSH: So the country that he runs around the world apologizing for, the country that he has chip on his shoulder about, he now turns to as its president and asks people who have lost their jobs because of his policies to donate to WhiteHouse.gov to the people of Haiti, and we will do it. We are the most charitable and the most generous people on the face of the earth. Each and every time a natural disaster like this happens, we step up. We are there. “Despite the fact we’re experiencing tough times here at home, I would encourage those Americans who want to support the urgent humanitarian effort –” You know, I have been to Haiti way back a long time ago when it was a cruise ship stop, Port-au-Prince. And I’ve seen pictures of Haiti. It is a devastatingly poor place and nothing has ever changed. And right across a mountain ridge in the middle you’ve got the Dominican Republic, which is like night and day. It’s like night and day. And what’s the one common factor?
That place, Haiti, has been run by dictators and communists, and how long is it going to be before we hear Obama and the left in this country say that what we really need to do is reinstate the communist Aristide to the leadership position down there to coordinate putting the country back together? The Haitian economy is entirely dependent on foreign aid. They produce nothing. Zilch, zero, nada. And it’s been that way for the longest time. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who you will next hear, was on MSNBC Live this morning, and she essentially says that Haiti and its current plight is our fault. I knew it wouldn’t take long for some Democrat to get there. The question she was asked was this: “I want to know if you can put into perspective how difficult it is when you talk about there not being much infrastructure to begin with, how challenging that makes the relief effort now?”
SCHULTZ: You should think of the most primitive environments, the most primitive living conditions that you can imagine. It is wrong, especially in a region as prosperous as this one, for us to continue to allow the desperate situation that exists in Haiti to continue, and I want to conclude by saying that in particular it’s incredibly important that the United States grant TPS, temporary protective status to the Haitians that are here because the last thing in the world that we need to have happen is for Haitians who are here to be sent back to Haiti in this desperate hour that they are struggling through, there’s no way they could support that.
RUSH: I could sit here and be really cynical. I’ll hold off on the cynicism for a couple hours, I’ll hold off on it. I’m going to hold off on it, give the show’s flow a chance to establish, ’cause it’s going to be the Media Tweak of the Day. I’ll wait ’til about 2:15 when they’re occupied with something else Obama is doing and then I’ll make my cynical comment. You know, Bill Clinton is the envoy to Haiti. I guess we’re thankful he wasn’t there. He sent his thoughts and prayers? You may not have remembered that, folks, but Obama made him the envoy. Did you not know that, Dawn? Well, that’s because he’s got experience of this kind, he’s called up the Arkansas National Guard before so he knows. He wasn’t there. We’re all very fortunate that Bill Clinton was not there in his official position as envoy. So here you have Debbie Wasserman Schultz. “It is wrong, especially in a region as prosperous as this one, to continue to allow the desperate situation that exists in Haiti to continue.” So it’s our fault, it’s our fault that Haiti is in its current state of devastation. We should take it over, we should do something, annex it, make it a state. Imperialism, yeah, make it a state, take it over.
No word from Cuba about aid. They’re not sending anything. They don’t have anything. You say Hugo is going to send 30 people and some supplies? All right, well, good for him. Now, here are some facts about Haiti. It’s one-third of the island of Hispaniola. It’s in the Caribbean located between Cuba and Puerto Rico, one of the poorest countries in the western hemisphere. Eighty percent of the residents live in poverty. It’s one of the most densely populated, least developed countries in the Western hemisphere, and of course this, according to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is our fault. Jean-Claude Duvalier declared himself president for life in 1964 and ruled as a dictator. In August of 1971 he died, and his son declared himself president for life. He used a secret police force called the Tontons Macoutes, which is bogeyman, to enforce his policies. Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the communist in December 1991, Haiti’s first free election. And in ’91 Aristide was outed in a military coup. He fled the country. The Organization of American States and United Nations led trade boycotts to try to force Aristide’s return to power.
Many Haitians tried to flee to the US. They were forced back to Haiti. Later the refugees were sent to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. In September of 1994, President Clinton, now the envoy to Haiti, sent a delegation there in hopes of avoiding a military conflict. He sent President Carter, General Powell, and Senator Sam Nunn. The peace deal does prevent an outbreak of fighting. And what happened was Colin Powell went in there and he took one of these military leaders — I forget the guy’s name. (interruption) It might be General Cedras. Yeah, I think it was. What a memory you’ve got there, H.R. General Cedras. He took General Cedras over to a window in this decrepit room and building they were in. He said, “General, you see this window? Ten minutes after we leave this building, I can have a missile fired and hit right through this window.” That’s when General Powell was still a Republican and was not making the top 100 liberal lists in British newspapers.
I did not know until I looked this up, February 24th of 2004: “Reverend Al Sharpton, US presidential candidate, states that both Aristide and the political opposition leaders approved his suggestion to travel to Haiti to broker a peace agreement, after the former US-backed peace plan was rejected by the opposition leaders.” On February 28th, four days later, “Secretary of State Colin Powell urges Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to step down, according to senior State Department officials. Aristide reaffirms his stance on his position; he will not leave until his term expires in 2006.” Aristide’s a communist. Now, I do think that part and parcel of helping out down there, it won’t be long before somebody in the Obama administration suggests that we reinstate, reinstall Aristide, because there’s sympathy with these kind of people. So we’ll keep a sharp eye on this, but I’m just fascinated here the country the president of the United States feels the need to apologize for, the country the president of the United States feels is immoral and unjust, can barely contain himself running to the cameras in less than 24 hours after this earthquake to pledge aid and to ask citizens who have lost their jobs because of his policies to donate to the relief effort.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Yes, I think in the Haiti earthquake, ladies and gentlemen — in the words of Rahm Emanuel — we have another crisis simply too good to waste. This will play right into Obama’s hands. He’s humanitarian, compassionate. They’ll use this to burnish their, shall we say, “credibility” with the black community — in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country. It’s made-to-order for them. That’s why he couldn’t wait to get out there, could not wait to get out there.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: President Obama, folks, cites in his book Dreams from My Father, page 293, the passages of Wright’s Audacity to Hope speech that most inspired him, what Reverend Wright said. This is one of the things Wright said that most inspired Obama: “In this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere, that’s the world on which hope sits.” That’s a Reverend Wright statement Obama was most inspired by, in his own book.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: We’re going to start in Raleigh, North Carolina. Justin you’re first today. Great to have you with us.
CALLER: Mega Rush Baby dittos. My question is, why did Obama in the sound bite you played earlier, when he’s talking about if you wanted to donate some money, you can go to WhiteHouse.gov –
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: — to direct you how to do so. If I want to donate money to the Red Cross, why do I need to go to the WhiteHouse.gov page and –
RUSH: Exactly. Would you trust that the money is going to go to Haiti?
CALLER: No.
RUSH: Would you trust that your name is going to end up on a mailing list for the Obama people to start asking you for campaign donations for him and other causes.
CALLER: Absolutely.
RUSH: Absolutely right.
CALLER: That’s the point.
RUSH: Besides, we’ve already donated to Haiti. It’s called the US income tax.
CALLER: Rush, my mother was going to be on a missionary trip. She was going to leave at 4:30 this morning to go to Haiti with our church.
RUSH: That’s another point, too. Churches –
CALLER: No government money, Rush.
RUSH: Exactly right. Look, there are people that do charitable work every day in Haiti. It’s not as though — like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, it’s our fault. Reverend Wright, it’s our fault, there’s no excuse for such poverty when there’s a nation as rich as we are so close. There are people that have been trying to save Haiti just as we’re trying to save Africa. You just can’t keep throwing money at it because the dictatorships there just take it all. They don’t spread it around, and even if they did they’re not creating a permanent system where people can provide for themselves. It’s a simple matter of self-reliance. Nobody takes that approach down there because this has always been a country run by dictators and incompetent ones at that.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Carol from Coupeville — hope I’m pronouncing that right — Coupeville, Washington. Is that right, Carol?
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: Is it Coupeville, Washington?
CALLER: Yes, Coupeville, Washington.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: Formally from Sacramento.
RUSH: Oh, good. Well, my adopted hometown. Were you there when I was there?
CALLER: Yes. In fact, when we signed our house papers, I looked up at a billboard across the street and it had a picture of somebody’s mouth and said: “Rush Limbaugh’s mouth, actual size.” And I’ve been a fan ever since.
RUSH: (laughing) Giant billboard, “Rush Limbaugh’s mouth, actual size.” Well, welcome to the program, Carol, great to have you here.
CALLER: Thank you.
RUSH: Is that what you wanted to say, about the billboard?
CALLER: No. I wanted to say that I thought that since President Obama said he was going to donate his money from the Nobel Peace Prize to charity, Haiti would be perfect, you know, and he’s calling for us to donate money. This would be a perfect thing for him to donate his charitable money to, which I don’t believe.
RUSH: Did he say he was going to donate the Nobel Peace Prize? What is that, a thousand, 700 dollars or some such?
CALLER: No, it’s a million.
RUSH: That’s right, it’s a million dollars. I wonder if he’s donated it all yet.
CALLER: What do you bet?
RUSH: Well, you know most presidents release their tax returns. We’ll see. We’ll see it at (interruption) what’s so funny?
CALLER: Well, I think he’s phony. When he was over in Hawaii –
RUSH: Let me tell you something. Let me tell you something, Carol. You realize he’s got this brother living in a hut –
CALLER: Yes, I know.
RUSH: — over in Kenya, and this guy makes the equivalent of 50 cents a year. If Obama would give this guy $20, I mean the percentage increase, $20 would be like giving an average person a thousand.
CALLER: I know.
RUSH: And if he hasn’t given his brother any money or any of his family any money, what makes you think he’s going to send money to Haiti?
CALLER: I never thought he was anyway. I just thought it would be good to call him on it.
RUSH: Well, I’m glad you did and I’m glad you called, Carol. Thanks very much. I had somebody go to WhiteHouse.gov to see what the donation process is. And this is all the guidance you get on donating to Haiti at the White House site. What I’m going to read to you is buried in a very long blog post about what Obama said about the earthquake. You get that first, you gotta read what Obama said, the maximum leader, you gotta read what he says and then you get to the bottom and here’s what it says. “You can also help, immediately, by donating to the Red Cross to assist the relief effort. Contribute online here, or donate $10 to be charged to your cell phone bill by texting Haiti. Find more ways to help through the Center for International Disaster Information.” So that’s all the guidance you get. Now, that’s pretty easy, text Haiti and you’re gonna get billed for ten bucks and that money ostensibly is going to go to Haiti.
Your census form will be in the mail this spring – and please take 10 minutes to fill it out. Vehicles promoting the census will crisscross the United States, and ads for the census will run in nearly every form of communication. What is the problem? “Negro,” is being used in the 2010 questionnaire, question #9. Is this a big deal? “Negro,” was used in the 2000 question # 8, 1990 question #4, questionnaire as well. It’s used all the time. The question, which asks about race, provides the following answer choice: “Black, African Am., or Negro.” Outside your sensitivity to terms, what’s the difference?
Before Tiger Woods sex scandal he was highlighted on the cover of Vanity Fair shirtless, wearing a black skullcap as he curls barbells and stares stone faced at the camera. Woods has more then a dozen women claiming to have had affairs with him. He has lost several endorsement deals and his marriage is uncertain. Has the TIGER been tamed, or will he STRIKE again?
A doll in the image of Barack Obama was found hanging from a building in the hometown of former President Jimmy Carter. The doll was hanging by a noose in front of a red, white and blue sign that says “Plains, Georgia. Home of Jimmy Carter, our 39th President.” A witness told the station that the doll had a sign with Obama’s name on it.
In my post “Obama Shoe Shine Boy” I asked the question, “America, what did you expect from Obama opposers?” If you are a reader of the blog you have read some of my comments stating that I am against acts of racism toward Obama. Hollyqueen, I did you’re your message about me defending Michelle Obama about a racist remark made by a reader in Michelle Obama’s Weight Problem. Thank you. Acts like this should be taken very serious and I pray that the SS get to the bottom of this “Hate Crime”
A Colorado state employee could be disciplined for sending an e-mail showing President Barack Obama shining the shoes of former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. How upset are Obama Kool-Aid Drinkers going to be with this ‘creative art?’ Will Google remove the image like they tried to do with Michelle and her chip reference? Will Google buy another search ad explaining why the image is circulating, *Sometimes Google search results from the Internet can include disturbing content, even from innocuous queries. We assure you that the views expressed by such sites are not in any way endorsed by Google.* Will I be judged with fear and misguided anger (again) because I posted this? The original sender of this e-mail wrote, “It appears he (Obama) has found his niche.”
The KKK gathered at Ole Miss to protest the University chancellor’s decision to remove “From Dixie with Love” from the school band’s song list. The song had drawn controversy because some fans chanted “the South will rise again” when it was played at Ole Miss football games. Question, What Would Be The Purpose Of The South To Rising AGAIN?
