Obama’s board helped fund handgun-ban efforts
posted at 6:07 pm on April 19, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Lately, the political world has buzzed about Barack Obama’s tenure with the Woods Foundation, where he worked with domestic terrorist William Ayers and which issued a $75,000 grant to Yasser Arafat toady Rashid Khalidi. However, Politico has found another paid foundation gig which may raise even more questions about Obama’s positions and honesty. While working as a director at the Joyce Foundation, the organization funneled almost $3 million in grants to political groups opposing gun rights:
Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns.
But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.
The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.”
Obama’s eight years on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which paid him more than $70,000 in directors fees, do not in any way conflict with his campaign-trail support for the rights of gun owners, Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Obama’s presidential campaign, asserted in a statement issued to Politico this week.
Seven of the grants were awarded when Obama served on the board. Where did the money go?
- $2.5 million went to the Violence Policy Center, which has campaigned for a national ban on all handguns.
- $20,000 paid to publish Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns
- $10,000 went to another gun-banning group, Handgun-Free America
Does anyone else see a pattern? If Obama doesn’t want to ban handguns, he certainly chose the wrong foundation to help run. Once again, his track record speaks in opposition to his blandishments towards the benighted and embittered gun owners that he wants to rescue through bigger federal government.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
Me too, but I not allowed to say in public for what.
leanright on April 20, 2008 at 7:38 AM
“My Friends”
Legions on April 20, 2008 at 7:42 AM
For a person supposedly serving as an instructor in Constitutional law, Obama certainly has a faulty understanding of the document.
The Bill of Rights enumerate the rights of American citizens, rights that limit the role of government.
onlineanalyst on April 20, 2008 at 7:52 AM
I suppose it would matter if Obama was personally voting to approve these grants, which approved meeting minutes should address. But we know he likely voted “present” anyway.
Nobody knows anything about this guy. It is amazing he has even approached the Democratic nomination.
Caustic Conservative on April 20, 2008 at 8:07 AM
This guy has so many different stories, even HE cant get his act straight. HEH OP CHAOS
Rick554 on April 20, 2008 at 8:10 AM
Gun control laws really won’t effect the politicans who make these laws and the judges they will elect to uphold them..They give a cock and bull story to their local judge about their personnel safty and walk out the door with a permit not only to own but to carry a handgun. Its just like the drug testing laws they enacted so long ago. And not one of them, or all of the 100’s of thousands of brothers, sisters, uncles, cousins, second cousins, friends, friends of a friend, to infinity, that they have gotten gov. jobs for, will never ever have to take a drug test while working for any one of our gov agencies, state-fed-of local cities. With a $35.an hour gov. job (min.pay) you can purchase a lot of drugs. Who else is keeping the drug cartel in business up here ??? its our own gov. workers. All with powerful gov. work place rules to protect their jobs (no work involved), and then most if not all back that up with a powerful union, and you now get the lazyiest p.o.s. walking planet earth.
Legions on April 20, 2008 at 8:16 AM
“A smoking gun?”
No, another trivial wedge issue that bitter idiots cling to instead of the real issues at hand. Much like what the “elitist” senator was talking about at that fundraiser in San Fransinsco.
Watchman on April 20, 2008 at 8:40 AM
The flood gates are opening on Mr. Obama. When will modern politicians learn; the information age places them at a disadvantage in relation to previous generations. Talking out both side of your mouth gets videoed, just as scratching your chin with your middle finger when talking about Mrs. Clinton’s debating skills; so childish since no previous video or reports indicate that this is his most popular finger for that effort.
The veneer is rubbing off ever faster and what we see is not an agent of change, but a young, intelligent, gifted speaker who is revealed to be a politician practicing the old fashioned misdirection oratory of those in the past. He has about as much in common with the ordinary, self-motivated, middle class American like me as does Senator Kennedy.
amr on April 20, 2008 at 8:55 AM
“A smoking gun?”
No, another trivial wedge issue that bitter idiots cling to instead of the real issues at hand. Much like what the “elitist” senator was talking about at that fundraiser in San Fransinsco.
Watchman on April 20, 2008 at 8:40 AM
Speaking of bitter… Look into the mirror Watchman
For a person supposedly serving as an instructor in Constitutional law, Obama certainly has a faulty understanding of the document.
The Bill of Rights enumerate the rights of American citizens, rights that limit the role of government.
onlineanalyst on April 20, 2008 at 7:52 AM
Well stated… Kind of represents a “real issue” to millions of us now doesn’t it Watchman.
Keemo on April 20, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Sunday morning fluff from the BBC..
Indonesia Loves Barry
Limerick on April 20, 2008 at 9:25 AM
More on “real issues” and Obama…
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/SalenaZito/2008/04/20/elite_democrats_historically_lose
Keemo on April 20, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Barry O is SO reminiscent of Kerry. The Dhimmies are trying to take a leftist radical and package him as a moderate. The trouble is, in the information age we know what you said way back when and we can quote you.
Is McCain headed for over 400 electoral votes?
Mojave Mark on April 20, 2008 at 9:37 AM
That may be so, but will he take our guns away?
OldEnglish on April 20, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Obama’s dancing around the gun issue because he knows it could lose him the election. Conservatives don’t win many debates as decisively as they win against gun control.
A “trivial wedge issue”? Second Amendment rights are a trivial wedge issue?
Get real.
petefrt on April 20, 2008 at 9:49 AM
This represents yet another hole in the empty suit theory. The is no way one can honestly argue Obama is an empty suit. That suit is NOT empty.
Now, the discussion can move on the question: “What, exactly, is Obama’s suit full of?”
- it is malleable and oozes to fit any shape mold,
- it looks good and “presents itself well”
- it is able to leap tall buildings in a single bound
- it looks like something of with structure and substance
but;
- it stands up under scrutiny with all the fortitude of cotton candy
- has an oily, slick consistency of Venezuelan crude
Perhaps the left has finally done some real work and invented a new substance… some kind of Evil Flubber? Nah! More like just a new flavor of cotton candy dressed up in a popular color with shiny sparkles included : Slick Sparklessia. Just ignore that sulfur aftertaste. It is the leftover from disappearing all those handguns.
Unquiet on April 20, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Nonfactor,
If you think President OBama will NOT have legions of minions “trying” to take our guns away…you are not only an idiot, but also an Assclown.
SwabJockey on April 20, 2008 at 10:50 AM
All the liberals talk about is how us bitter people focus on non-issues such as the 2nd amendment.
If preserving the individual rights of the American people and keeping the Bill of Rights in tact is a non-issue then you need to take a few minutes, stop watching Keith Olbermann and read a good history book.
If We the People do not fight tooth and nail against politicians such as Obama to keep them from discarding the Constitution at every turn, all these other “issues” such as the war, the economy, healthcare will mean nothing, absolutely nothing, because we will not longer be governed we will be RULED.
americaslaststand on April 20, 2008 at 11:28 AM
If you go to a site such as http://www.thefiringline.com and search for “Zumbo” you can get a good summary of what happened.
In a nutshell (so to speak), Zumbo ranted about people who use AR15 weapons to hunt with. He ignored completely that the differences between a Ruger Mini-14 and many AR15’s and clones are cosmetic. They fire the same round with equivalent lethality, both are semi-automatic, and hunting regulations determine the number of rounds you can have in a magazine-usually five. Also, the primary rounds used by “assault weapons” are effective on game, particularly the AR15 .223 Remington. Noone makes a bolt gun using the AK 47 7.62×39, but it is effective for deer. Otherwise, there are bolt guns for .223 and .308 Winchester (7.62mm NATO, in the Springfield M1A, FN FAL, various other “evil” guns) and many cartriges quite a bit more lethal. The .308 is one of the most widely used game cartriges, effective on basically any game on this continent, if marginal for really big things.
IIRC, he went further to question why the weapons exist in private hands entirely. This ignores the long distance competition world where both AR15 and M1A are used in big numbers for target shooting.
He got dumped on heavily in blogs and letters to the magazine, lost his job (which I thought was CS but not my call) wrote several apologia and went hunting with Ted Nugent using a borrowed AR15. He did not claim sleep-deprivation but a lack of study for his erroneous conclusions. He is a hunter, not a target guy or self-defense advocate (not sure if he owns a handgun) and fell into a very narrow thought process which was invalid. He really didn’t think or do legitimate homework beofre he shot his mouth off, IMO.
And he and I can agree that a tricked out AR15 is quite ugly compared to a nice .223 Winchester or Remington bolt gun. But there is no inherent difference that makes one better or worse for hunting, no reason to ban the AR15. So are we a free country or not, is what it boils down to. Zumbo peed on AR15’s because they don’t look as nice as a bolt gun, which is HIS preference. Sort of a “BHO in SF” moment. His thoughtless comments didn’t sell any better.
I beleive he is working freelance and actually was close to retirement. He has a good body of work which should not be ignored for one stupid article, FWIW.
Harry Schell on April 20, 2008 at 11:42 AM
This months issue of the NRA magazine has an editorial by Wayne LaPierre titled “Obama’s Slippery Oratory”.
It details then state senator Obama’s legislative stand on self defense and firearms.
To understand Barack Obama on the Second Amendment, you have to know about the clash of character between the then-Chicago state senator and an ordinary citizen who exercised his right to armed self-defense in violation of a local gun ban.
That citizen was a 52-year-old resident of Wilmette, Illinois, who, on Dec. 28, 2003, woke to find that, during the night, his home had been invaded by a career criminal; a thief who stole household items, keys and the homeowner’s car.
The victim, Hale DeMar, described his fear in a letter to the Chicago Sun- Times: “For me, the seconds until I found my children still safely tucked in their beds were horrifying . . . The police were called and in routine fashion they came, took the report and with little concern left, …. Not 24 hours after the first burglary, the thief returned. Using DeMar’s house keys, the man entered the home, this time setting off the alarm system, automatically notifying the security company. Given the previous night’s lackluster response by police, DeMar was prepared, armed with a handgun–legally purchased years before and kept in a safe. But under Wilmette’s gun ban, that firearm in the home was illegal…. Not 24 hours after the first burglary, the thief returned. Using DeMar’s house keys, the man entered the home…DeMar confronted the criminal, and believing his children were in danger, shot the burglar, who then fled the home.
Cook County prosecutors ultimately declared DeMar’s use of a firearm to be justified. But Wilmette village officials pressed nonetheless to prosecute him for illegal possession of his handgun–a charge punishable by a huge fine and jail time. A town official was quoted in Reason magazine saying, “We need to set the example that we’re trying to protect our citizens.” And he said, DeMar–by possessing a legally purchased handgun–“is endangering innocent civilians.” The outcry of the Illinois public was heard all the way to the state capitol.
As a result, the Illinois House and Senate passed legislation in May 2004 to protect citizens who use handguns in self-defense in their homes or businesses despite local handgun bans.
The House accepted the DeMar selfdefense bill by a vote of 86-25 and the Senate moved the legislation on a 38-20 vote.
And here lies the seminal moment for state Senator Barack Obama. When Obama turned thumbs down on the bill, he voted against the most basic element of the Second Amendment– the right of defense of self and family– the reason that millions of Americans own firearms.
When the governor vetoed the bill, Obama once again voted against a citizen’s right to self-defense. Despite his vote, the veto override passed the Senate and the House by overwhelming majorities, thereby enacting this bill into law.
Now, fast forward to today’s slippery oratory of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama just three years from being an unknown state senator–now morphed by the media into a spellbinding u.s. senator seeking to be president of the United States.
Using words like “protecting sportsmen,” Obama is now saying that he believes in the Second Amendment … but with almost universal exceptions, all of which he lists under the heading of “common sense gun safety laws.” “Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? Like endorsing the D.C. gun ban, which outlaws armed self-defense in the home–now being challenged before the u.s. Supreme Court. Obama, who as president would be in the position to nominate justices to that high court, has declared that the d.c. ban doesn’t violate the Second Amendment.
“Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? In a “1998 National Political Awareness Test,” he pledged to support a “Ban [on] the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons”–meaning most handguns and many rifles and shotguns that you and I own.
“Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? Like demanding that the federal government preempt the 40 hard-won state laws creating Right-to-Carry.
Here’s how the Chicago Tribune put it: “Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carried weapons except for law enforcement is needed.” “Common sense gun safety” and the Second Amendment? Like the draconian proposals funded to the tune of $18,000,000 by the rabidly anti-gun Joyce Foundation while Obama was an activist member of its board of directors.
Obama’s alleged support of the Second Amendment is utterly cynical and false. Barack Obama is not for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; he`s out to destroy it.
Beto Ochoa on April 20, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Smoking gun indeed!
Obama’s campaign is beginning to implode; to wit the truthers will declare “It was an inside job!”
With a little luck we’ll be treated to freeze frame images from the campaign trail that prove his campaign could not have collapsed because of the candidate but rather it was (gasp) sabotaged!
moxie_neanderthal on April 20, 2008 at 12:45 PM
By Barry’s own logic, his Secret Service contingent should go unarmed, too.
Can’t have handguns around endangering people.
profitsbeard on April 20, 2008 at 1:13 PM
I’ve always known that Obama was anti-2A. How can you belive in an individual right to bear arms and still believe the DC ban is Constitutional? However, the Joyce Foundation is the most rabid group (even more than Bloomberg) seeking to deprive us our fundemental right to bear arms in defense of self and family, and in defense against tyranny. Folks, this matter is one of basic (and monumental) importance: As justice Storey said, the Second Amendment is the palladium of all rights. Without the Second, you can kiss the First goodbye, of for that matter all other rights go away as well. Obambi MUST be defeated!
second digit on April 20, 2008 at 3:49 PM
+1, here.
You have only the rights you can defend.
“Only the man behind the rifle has free will.” W. H. Auden
Harry Schell on April 20, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Thanks for the information.
FloatingRock on April 20, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Who’s really the idiot here, pal?
You obviously didn’t read the post and the links therein. You obviously don’t have contact with reality and would cut off your nose to spite your face.
You can ra-ra-sis-boom-ba for the Obamassiah all you want to. But if you think he won’t try to take them away, you’re truly a bigger fool than your comment leads one to believe you are.
SilverStar830 on April 20, 2008 at 8:58 PM
Headline photo: “The sheriff is neaaaaaaaaaaaaaar.”
adamsmith on April 21, 2008 at 8:21 AM
Does ANYONE, whether you support him or not, seriously believe he is not completely against firearm ownership?
Cmon now! Everyone knows hillary is a socialist. Everyone knows Obama is completely against the 2nd amendment.
tx2654 on April 21, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]