As though he felt he couldn’t miss an opportunity for more disgraceful behavior, Barack Obama devoted part of his State of the Union Address to castigating the Supreme Court for its recent decision protecting political speech.  In the light of the radical anti-gun stands he took while in the Illinois Senate, I was surprised that he didn’t include in his disgusting rant the recent Heller decision which established gun ownership as an individual right.  Some information I came upon recently in an article by  David Hardy made that even more surprising.  The Heller decision, it turns out, quashed an effective anti-gun program which Obama had put in motion during his days as a Chicago community organizer.

From 1994 to 2002, Obama served as a Director of the Joyce Foundation, a billion dollar tax-exempt organization which spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun groups.  In 1999 Obama and the other Joyce Directors hatched a long range plan which they believed would produce the ultimate return on their investments – the disarmament of Americans on the grounds that the Second Amendment restricted the right to keep and bear arms to well organized militias.

They focussed on the relative scarcity of court decisions on the issue of gun control.  When judges can’t rely on past decisions, they frequently turn to law review articles which are taken to be impartial and typically involve very careful and thorough cite checking.  If they could control the content of law review articles, the Board reasoned, they could influence judicial decisions.  Given that the authors of law review articles are not paid for their efforts and the editors are frequently law students who are paid very little, the foundation’s money, used properly, might buy the control they sought.  Obama, you’ll recall, had some familiarity with university law reviews from his days at Harvard.

In 1999, the Joyce board granted the Chicago-Kent Law Review the sum of $84,000 – a whopping sum that carried some control with it.  The Foundation recommended a faculty member of another law school to serve as editor.  Though that was a departure from the norm, Chicao-Kent agreed to it.  The result was that the Review promptly published an issue in which every article attacked the individual rights view of the Second Amendment.

The editor given control of the Chicago-Kent Law Review was a man aptly named Carl Bogus who was also a former director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign) and a member of the advisory board of the Joyce funded Violence Center.  Bogus found a way to make sure that all the articles he published were hostile to the individual right view.  He offered authors $5,000 for articles which took the “proper view”, and he got plenty of takers.  The word got out, and at least one noted law professor volunteered to write, without any payment made to him,  in defense of the individual right.  His offer was rebuffed.  The Joyce Foundation had bought control of the Chicago-Kent Review.  Joyce next bought up an issue of the Fordham Law Review – another respected source of legal scholarship.

The plan was working.  One court, in a ruling that there was no individual right to bear arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times.  Then came a bump in the road, a Texas Federal Appeals Court ruled that the Second Amendment was an individual right.  The Joyce Foundation Directors, however, didn’t give up.

Just before Obama’s departure from the Joyce board in 2002, they provided Ohio State University $400,000 to establish the Second Amendment Research Center headed up by Saul Cornell, an anti-individual-right historian.  The admitted purpose of the Center was to influence a future Supreme Court case which, they predicted, was likely to occur within three to five years. The Ohio State center not only generated additional articles denying the individual right to bear arms it provided a way to disguise the Joyce Foundation – a money laundry.  Joyce provided OSU with $125,000 to buy an issue of The Stanford Law and Policy Review.  The Stanford people were unaware of of the Joyce involvement, and viewed OSU and the helpful Professor Cornell who would organize the issue, as their benefactors.  The result was more of anti-individual right reviews from another respected source.

Their continuing investment in buying “scholarship”  in order to destroy one of our fundamental freedoms almost succeeded.  The Supreme Court upheld the individual right in the Heller case by a 5 to 4 decision.  Obama’s ten year campaign lost by one vote.  He must have been beside himself.   Ironically, the arguments before the Court in Heller,  which may have influenced the thinking of some of the dissenters, contained material funded by the Joyce Foundation including one article which seriously mislead its readers regarding critical historical documents.

As you may recall, Obama stated, after the Heller decision was announced, that he had “always held the Second Amendment to be an individual right.”   Of course that was a bald-faced lie.  He’s come a long way on lies and he’s not ready to quit.  Some say that since the Scott Brown swearing-in, Obama is showing signs of a willingness to “move to the center”.  Don’t you believe it.  He’s still out to shred that Constitution which stands in the way of his remaking of America into a socialist state.

We’ve been told repeatedly by the mainstream media that this is an important moment in American history because, for the first time, a black man has been elected President of the United States.  They miss the point.   What makes this time not only important but perilous are the political aspirations of our newly elected President.  His skin color is  insignificant .  It served only as a means to his election.  Though he took an oath to preserve and protect our nation and its Constitution, his openly stated aim is to “remake America”.  His intent is to create a Socialist state and he is now in a position to do that, since his party has control of both the House and the Senate.

Barack Husein Obama, armed with  brown skin, ran a phenomenally successful campaign by combining the catechism of Saul Alinsky with the reach of the internet, the amorality of “Chicago politics”,  the rhetorical power of Jeremiah Wright, the wealth of George Soros, and the ruthlessness of Acorn.   And, as he has reminded those who have questioned his actions, he won. He views his victory as a mandate for remaking this country despite the fact that almost half of those who voted, voted for his opponent.   Freedom must step aside and make way for his “Change”.

Where did his “mandate” come from?  Blacks voted for him simply because he was black.  That was, apparently, as reasonable as finding O.J. innocent.  Ignorant youth, indoctrinated by the socialists who run our schools, voted for him because they’d learned that our country had done horrible things under Republicans and because he was “cool”.  He shoots hoops.  White adults, who didn’t bother to know what he stood for,  demonstrated their social maturity by voting for a black man.   Elites who were embarrassed by that “cowboy”, George Bush voted for him because he seemed to be like them.   The really horrible campaign run by that old guy, John McCain, did have its impact on the outcome, but It is fair to say that rather than casting their votes against McCain, people, in numbers great enough to insure his victory, voted for Obama because it made them feel good about themselves.  It is also fair to say that, generally, they didn’t know what they were getting us into.  

 What, then, can we do to minimize the damage to our country and our way of life?   Until the Congressional elections of 2010, short of a revolution, there is only a  little we can do as citizens.  Our fate, in the near term, is largely in the hands of others – our government, foreign governments, terrorists, and God.  We can cling to hope in our own ways and stay on the backs of everyone in Washington letting them know what we want from them.

We can hope that Obama will continue to behave like a fascist dictator, motivating by fear rather than hope, and that he will continue to break the promises he made to the hard left nutcases who are one of his core constituencies.  He was to close Gitmo immediately.  Now, that may take awhile.  He was to offer economic stimuli only if they were, “…temporary, timely, and targetted.”  The stimulus bill he just rammed through may be temporary, but it is clear to all who see what it contains that it is neither timely nor targetted at either improving the housing situation or creating any significant number of jobs.  It is full of rewards for those, like Acorn for example, who put him in office by hook or by crook.  He promised not to sign any piece of legislation until it had been available on the internet for at least five days for all to see and react to.  That’s just not happening.  He was to support our military and to make use of it in “better ways”.  Is dropping charges against the bomber of the USS Cole a better way?   The lobbyists and the Washington old guard were not to be part of his administration.  So he filled his Cabinet with Clinton leftovers, lobbyists, and tax cheats.   Breaking campaign promises isn’t an impeachable offense, but we can hope that if Obama continues to break enough of them, Democrat Senators and Congressmen will be pressured by their constitutients to the extent that they fear losing the next election more than they fear not voting with Obama.

The current Supreme Court is the last vestige of any balance of power in our government system.  We can hope that there are no opportunities to stack it further to the left.

As Obama publicly displays his lack of effective leadership in both domestic and foreign affairs, we can hope that terrorists and rogue foreign governments aren’t sufficiently emboldened that they launch another strike on our mainland.  We probably should add prayer to hope on this one.

We can work to seek out and support candidates to hold every Republican seat and  win every Democrat  Congressional seat up for re-election in 2010, and  pressure the incumbent Republicans to stick to their principles and hold their ground or suffer for not doing so. 

It’s not the time to give up.  Get your Washington mailing lists in order, keep abreast of what Obama is up to every day, and, just to be on the safe side, buy gold and ammunition.  God Bless America.

To pick up some information while washing Sunday breakfast dishes I turned on the little kitchen TV which was tuned to the Chicago public television network.  The program in progress was a documentary focussing on housing foreclosures with particular attention to Shelby County Tennessee, the county in which Memphis is located.  In response to the high level of foreclosures there, a federal lawsuit has been filed by the county against a number of major banks.  The banks are charged with “reverse RedLining”.  The assertion is that the banks engaged in the predatory practice of targetting prospective buyers who clearly lacked the means to afford home ownership and deceived them into accepting sub-prime mortgages.  The assertion is that the banks, which made their profits up front by packaging and selling off the risks of these bad loans, were motivated by simple greed and were guilty of exploitation of the borrowers.   Although the format of the piece involved numerous interviews, not once did the interviewer raise a question about the impact of the Community Redevelopment Act or the pressure on banks from Acorn operatives like the young Barack Obama.  The story line was apalling in its logic:

1-”Redlining” exploited blacks by refusing to grant loans to buyers in black neighborhoods.

2-”Reverse Redlining” exploited blacks by granting loans to the same buyers.

The truth we’re all aware of was completely absent from this piece.  Banks unwilling to make loans to buyers unable to afford houses were pressured by the Federal government and community action groups.  When they yielded to the pressure and made a number of bad loans, they soon were forced to accept the losses involved in foreclosing on properties, many of which had lost value through lack of upkeep.  Their attempts to limit their exposure to loss by selling off high risk mortgage paper to Fannie and Freddie – the theoretical government support for the pressure exerted to make such bad loans – results in being taken to court for “exploitation”

Lies upon lies!   And the guys spending billions of taxpayer dollars to “solve the problem” have been successful in hiding their responsibility for causing the problems in the first place.  God Help Us!

Freedomlover’s blog › Create New Post — WordPress.