Obama and the Attempt to Destroy the Second Amendment

Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
69
Likes
10
Location
Sunny So. Cal
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
More Obama fun, this is really the only reason I don't like Obama, because he is flat lying about his connection to the anti-gun movement and his disdain for guns. Oh and his involvement in suing banks so they would award more sub-prime mortgages. Okay, I just don't like him.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-attempt-to-destroy-the-second-amendment/

Talk about a smoking gun...
October 6, 2008 - by David T. Hardy

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama must demonstrate executive experience, but he remains strangely silent about his eight years (1994-2002) as a director of the Joyce Foundation, a billion dollar tax-exempt organization. He has one obvious reason: during his time as director, Joyce Foundation spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun organizations.

There is another, less known, reason.

During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.

The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.

Joyce’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.

In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.

In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an “outsider” serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.

Bogus solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment, offering authors $5,000 each. But word leaked out, and Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston University volunteered to write in defense of the individual right to arms. Bogus refused to allow him to write for the review, later explaining that “sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium.” Prof. James Lindgren, a former Chicago-Kent faculty member, remembers that when Barnett sought an explanation he “was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time.” Joyce had bought a veto power over the review’s content.

Joyce Foundation apparently believed it held this power over the entire university. Glenn Reynolds later recalled that when he and two other professors were scheduled to discuss the Second Amendment on campus, Joyce’s staffers “objected strenuously” to their being allowed to speak, protesting that Joyce Foundation was being cheated by an “‘agenda of balance’ that was inconsistent with the Symposium’s purpose.” Joyce next bought up an issue of Fordham Law Review.

The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times. Then, in 2001, a federal Court of Appeals in Texas determined that the Second Amendment was an individual right.

The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) responded by expanding its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the “Second Amendment Research Center” as a thinktank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation. The grant was awarded at the board’s December 2002 meeting, Obama’s last function as a Joyce director. In reporting the grant, the OSU magazine Making History made clear that the purpose was to influence a future Supreme Court case:

“The effort is timely: a series of test cases - based on a new wave of scholarship, a recent decision by a federal Court of Appeals in Texas, and a revised Justice Department policy-are working their way through the courts. The litigants challenge the courts’ traditional reading of the Second Amendment as a protection of the states’ right to organize militia, asserting that the Amendment confers a much broader right for individuals to own guns. The United States Supreme Court is likely to resolve the debate within the next three to five years.”

(45:17-18; online link; slow).

The Center proceeded to generate articles denying the individual right to arms. The OSU connection also gave Joyce an academic money laundry. When it decided to buy an issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review, it had a cover. Joyce handed OSU $125,000 for that purpose; all the law review editors knew was that OSU’s Foundation granted them that breathtaking sum, and a helpful Prof. Cornell volunteered to organize the issue. (The review was later sufficiently embarassed to publish an open letter on the affair).

The Joyce directorate’s plan almost succeeded. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenters were persuaded in part by Joyce-funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents.

Having lost that fight, Obama now claims he always held the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, and that he “respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.” But as a Joyce director, Obama was involved in a wealthy foundation’s attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court, buy legal scholarship, and obliterate the individual right to arms.

Voters who value the Constitution should ask whether someone who was party to that plan should be nominating future Supreme Court justices.

David T. Hardy has practiced law since 1975. He has five books and thirteen law review articles in print, and blogs at Of Arms and the Law. He's also the producer of the documentary In Search of the Second Amendment.
 
McCain isn't much better alone...but Palin... She's an A+ rating. She'll knock sense into McCain until she's President.
 
Thats the reason to vote McCain, in my opinion voting anybody but McCain is silly. Lets face it nobody else is gonna make it but either Osama or McCain, and its better to have McCain than Osama
 
I don't think it is silly.

McCain lost me in the last debate, right at the beginning. Why should my tax dollars be used to buy up bad mortgages?

Socialism is on the rise. I won't support it with a vote for either candidate. I am voting for Barr.
 
I don't think it is silly.

McCain lost me in the last debate, right at the beginning. Why should my tax dollars be used to buy up bad mortgages?

Socialism is on the rise. I won't support it with a vote for either candidate. I am voting for Barr.

Right. McCain is clearly just a "less liberal" candidate, and not by much. He's not a conservative by any stretch. McCain has done nothing for gun owners. He also advocates for illegal alien amnesty. McCain's a RINO. Just like Romney and Giuliani.

I'm voting for either Barr or writing in Paul. I've pretty much eliminated Baldwin.
 
Then get used to socialism, obama style.

It's already here. Do you read the news? You have no 4A or 5A protections as a result of the USA PATRIOT Act. The bailout bomb as socialized the American banking system. They've nationalized Fannie, Freddie, AIG, IndyMac, etc. They'll be more too.

We're living in socialism now. Let's stop pretending that this is a free country. Pretty soon these message boards will be curtailed.
 
I've made the decision to abstain from voting in this "election" altogether. I can sleep better if I know that I voted for neither of these a**h***s nor wasted my vote giving the edge to obama by voting third party.
 
I don't think it is silly.

McCain lost me in the last debate, right at the beginning. Why should my tax dollars be used to buy up bad mortgages?

Socialism is on the rise. I won't support it with a vote for either candidate. I am voting for Barr.

Right. McCain is clearly just a "less liberal" candidate, and not by much. He's not a conservative by any stretch. McCain has done nothing for gun owners. He also advocates for illegal alien amnesty. McCain's a RINO. Just like Romney and Giuliani.

I'm voting for either Barr or writing in Paul. I've pretty much eliminated Baldwin.

I hope both of you enjoy voting for Osama bin Biden then!!!!

Cause that is exactly what you will be doing!!! Don't you remember Perot?????slick willy??? AWB????
 
It's this mindset that keeps us going with the "lesser of two evils" choices.

Exactly. Throw out the Democrats and the Republicans. There's a lot of neo-con apologists that lurk on this board. Just because they have an "R" at the end of their name doesn't mean they deserve my vote.


I hope both of you enjoy voting for Osama bin Biden then!!!!

Cause that is exactly what you will be doing!!! Don't you remember Perot?????slick willy??? AWB????

I'm not voting for Obama, if that's what you mean. He's the least likely candidate to receive my vote. I'm pretty much sold on either Barr or Paul as a write-in. I refuse to compromise on voting. Compromise is what got is into this pig trough.
 
I quess

Why are we here at this forum if not to discuss the better of two evil's. I quess if you want to call it the "better of two evils" But we are gun owners right ??? The only choice as far as I am concerned is Palin McCain. At least I know Palin is pro gun and pre hunting. Period, end of story.. There are no other choices I see, other than the one in four that we have. I am not in love with any of them to be honest, but this the clearest choice for now. It may not be a completely free country anymore, as this nation has been brought to its knees buy our greed and waste, but still is a lot more free than others. I enjoy my right to bear arms for as long as I can. I will vote for the repub's this time around, until a better choice comes along. We the people are to blame for not selecting those to represent us, to represent us. We can change that by having those who truley wish to represent us, do just that. [thinking]
 
Compare Obama's and McCain's actions and positions supporting RKBA. See who you agree with more -


“I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry” - Sen. Barack Obama
--- Mendell, David, "From Promise to Power" (2007), p. 251.

“I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.” - Sen. Barack Obama
--- Pittsburg Tribune-Review (April 2, 2008).



NRA-ILA: On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama!

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3991

The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where apparent nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.

FACT: Barack Obama supports requiring law-abiding gun owners to register their firearms.

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama wants to eliminate your Right to Carry.

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.

FACT: Barack Obama supports “one-gun-a-month” sales restrictions.

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.



Here's what McCain's official campaign website says:

John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway.

Gun Manufacturer Liability
John McCain opposes backdoor attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights by holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties using a firearm, and has voted to protect gun manufacturers from such inappropriate liability aimed at bankrupting the entire gun industry.

Assault Weapons
John McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans. Most recently he opposed an amendment to extend a ban on 19 specific firearms, and others with similar characteristics.

Importation of High Capacity Magazines
John McCain opposes bans on the importation of certain types of ammunition magazines and has voted against such limitations.

Gun Locks
John McCain believes that every firearms owner has a responsibility to learn how to safely use and store the firearm they have chosen, whether for target shooting, hunting, or personal protection. He has supported legislation requiring gun manufacturers to include gun safety devices such as trigger locks in product packaging.

Banning Ammunition
John McCain believes that banning ammunition is just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights. He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were "armor-piercing."

DC Personal Protection
As part of John McCain's defense of Second Amendment rights, he cosponsored legislation to lift a ban on the law abiding citizens of the District of Columbia from exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms.


Criminal Background Checks
John McCain supports instant criminal background checks to help prohibit criminals from buying firearms and has voted to ensure they are conducted thoroughly, efficiently, and without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.

Background Checks at Gun Shows
At a time when some were trying to shut down gun shows in the name of fighting crime, John McCain tried to preserve gun shows by standardizing sales procedures. Federal law requires licensed firearm sellers at gun shows to do an instant criminal background check on purchasers while private firearm sellers at gun shows do not have to conduct such a check. John McCain introduced legislation that would require an instant criminal background check for all sales at gun shows and believes that such checks must be conducted quickly to ensure that unnecessary delays do not effectively block transactions.

The Firearm Purchase Waiting Period
John McCain has opposed "waiting periods" for law abiding citizen's purchase of firearms.

The confiscation of firearms after an emergency
John McCain opposes the confiscation of firearms from private citizens, particularly during times of crisis or emergency. He voted in favor of an amendment sponsored by Senator David Vitter prohibiting such confiscation.

Stiffer Penalties for Criminals who use a Firearm in the Commission of a Crime
John McCain believes in strict, mandatory penalties for criminals who use a firearm in the commission of a crime or illegally possess a firearm. Enforcing the current laws on the books is the best way to deter crime.
__________________
 
Last edited:
Why are we here at this forum if not to discuss the better of two evil's. I quess if you want to call it the "better of two evils" But we are gun owners right ??? The only choice as far as I am concerned is Palin McCain. At least I know Palin is pro gun and pre hunting. Period, end of story.. There are no other choices I see, other than the one in four that we have. I am not in love with any of them to be honest, but this the clearest choice for now. It may not be a completely free country anymore, as this nation has been brought to its knees buy our greed and waste, but still is a lot more free than others. I enjoy my right to bear arms for as long as I can. I will vote for the repub's this time around, until a better choice comes along. We the people are to blame for not selecting those to represent us, to represent us. We can change that by having those who truley wish to represent us, do just that. [thinking]

I like her political positions on life, firearms and limited government, but I've met more intelligent wet mops in my time than Mrs. Palin.
 
[rolleyes] And unsupported scurrilous ad homium attacks against someone you supposed agree with help in what way????

Unsupported? Have you seen the woman speak? C'mon. Who are we fooling here?

Yes - Her political dispositions match well with mine. No - I think she's not qualified nor intelligent enough to hold the second-highest executive office.
 
Unsupported? Have you seen the woman speak? C'mon. Who are we fooling here?

Yes - Her political dispositions match well with mine. No - I think she's not qualified nor intelligent enough to hold the second-highest executive office.
I have seen her speak and I most definitely disagree with your assessment (which by the way you have yet to substantiate with any specific facts).

What really frosts me is that this is the same frickin' big-lie (as in repeat it so many time till it becomes "truth") that the moonbats and media have been throwing at George Bush for 8 years.
 
She can't name one magazine or newspaper that she reads? [thinking]

Bush ain't the brightest bulb either. And he's done more to hurt the Republican party's recruiting efforts than any Democrat that comes to mind.
 
She can't name one magazine or newspaper that she reads? [thinking]
That's a false interpretation of her response to a loaded and hostile question. She declined to name a specific magazine or newspaper she reads to stay informed. What I heard was someone who did not want to single any one of them out.

Furthermore she was smart enough to figure out the nasty undertone of the question and call Katie Couric on it. Katie's response was just to ask the question again [rolleyes] Yea right, that's intelligent.

Finally, SO WHAT? How is one's intelligence in any way related to the newspapers or magazine that one reads, or even if one does.

What I saw in the Couric-Palin interviews were two people who were so far apart in perspective that they both had trouble communicating to one another. Couric's questions were absolutely inane at times, to the point that Palin seemed to have a hard time understanding them enough to answer well, and then she kept repeating them. Palin also did not seem very good at the prepared throwaway lines politicians use when they don't understand or choose not to answer certain questions. IMNSHO that's a good thing, but if one wants their politicians suave and polished, speaking soothing words with sonorous gravitas then it's not so good.
Bush ain't the brightest bulb either.
He's smarter than Kerry. [rolleyes]
And he's done more to hurt the Republican party's recruiting efforts than any Democrat that comes to mind.
True, but that has to do with the fact that he turned out to be more centrist on more matters than many Republicans wanted (ex. finance and economy), and far more conservative on some of the Democrat hot-button issues (ex. social and defense). In doing that he's pissed off a lot of people in both parties. That doesn't make him stupid or unintelligent, just unpopular; unless one considers popularity a measure of intelligence.

One of the thing that galls me about the media and many Democrats is the attitude that if you disagree with them then you are stupid. That's elitism at it's worst. Smart people can and do come to different conclusions on issues. IMNSHO descending into ad homium attacks about the intelligence of others speaks more to the intelligence of the attacker than the attackee.

Mike, I'm not sure the value of taking this conversation much further. You and I do appear to agree on some key things; that government does need to be smaller and more conservative, how much so is clearly different; that there needs to be change, but how to accomplish that in the current political season is also clearly different; and, that Obama and his kind of "change" would be the worst of the choices. You are clearly a libertarian, and I'm not. Let's each agree to vote for our respective candidates, as is our right, and leave it at that.

p.s. And the next NES shoot that we're both at you're welcome to try anything I got.
 
Last edited:
I think that the people that are suggesting that the only voting choice for conservative voters is McCain/Palin need to take a look around.

Take a look at the last 35 years worth of government policy in this country. It seems to me when I look at it that both parties actually have the same goal. They are both looking to accumulate power. Sure, they use different scented perfume from one another to mask the smell of what they are doing. Neither scent changes what the pig really smells like.

I can no longer support candidates that will work for expansionism in government. I can't keep others from doing it, but I refuse. The time has indeed come for change, and that's a change back to our roots. McCain is just as bad as Obama. Soon, as long as our country continues down this path and voters do nothing about it , you just might get a constitutional amendment that gives you the right to wipe your rear after you defocate....so long as you use the allocated amount of paper and fold it in the government approved fold. There will be a youtube video to help with the wiping pattern.

Enough. I won't do it any more.
 
Take a look at the last 35 years worth of government policy in this country. It seems to me when I look at it that both parties actually have the same goal. They are both looking to accumulate power. Sure, they use different scented perfume from one another to mask the smell of what they are doing. Neither scent changes what the pig really smells like.

Well, last time around we had a choice between two Yale Skull-and-Bonesmen. Both wealthy elites. Bot globalists. Both C/D students in college.

Now we have McCain, who once toyed with the idea of being John Kerry's running mate, and Obama ... created and supported by the Marxist intelligensia that has worked diligently to infiltrate the mainstream institutions for decades.

That seems to make your case.

Sarah Palin, however, is another story. I agree to an extent with earlier posts critical of her ability to project positively in the "gotcha" environment of presidential politics. But I trust her instincts. She may have just been thrust onto the national stage a few years to soon.

I'm curious to see where her future lies post-Obama. If things go bad, and they will, she'd possibly do well as the leader of a secessionist movement, or the figurehead for the leaderless resistance which must now be considered seriously if freedom is to survive.

But that's just the beer talking.

And I'm almost out of beer.

And THAT, sir, is a crisis!
 
I think that the people that are suggesting that the only voting choice for conservative voters is McCain/Palin need to take a look around.

Take a look at the last 35 years worth of government policy in this country. It seems to me when I look at it that both parties actually have the same goal. They are both looking to accumulate power. Sure, they use different scented perfume from one another to mask the smell of what they are doing. Neither scent changes what the pig really smells like.

I can no longer support candidates that will work for expansionism in government. I can't keep others from doing it, but I refuse. The time has indeed come for change, and that's a change back to our roots. McCain is just as bad as Obama. Soon, as long as our country continues down this path and voters do nothing about it , you just might get a constitutional amendment that gives you the right to wipe your rear after you defocate....so long as you use the allocated amount of paper and fold it in the government approved fold. There will be a youtube video to help with the wiping pattern.

Enough. I won't do it any more.
+1000 Many voters in both major parties are sick of holding their noses when they enter the voting booth. When I think of the likes of Bush and McCain I think of the old saying : I didn't leave my party, my party left me. The thought of Bush, McCain, and Kennedy all pushing for amnesty for illegals provides a lasting image of what all three are really made of. [rolleyes]
 
I've made the decision to abstain from voting in this "election" altogether. I can sleep better if I know that I voted for neither of these a**h***s nor wasted my vote giving the edge to obama by voting third party.

Why? Many honorable Men and Women have fought for your right to vote. Even if that communist, piece of $hit, A$$Hole gets in, I DO NOT want him to have the popular vote so that he can run amok with his Socialist agenda. [angry]
 
That's a false interpretation of her response to a loaded and hostile question. She declined to name a specific magazine or newspaper she reads to stay informed. What I heard was someone who did not want to single any one of them out.

Furthermore she was smart enough to figure out the nasty undertone of the question and call Katie Couric on it. Katie's response was just to ask the question again [rolleyes] Yea right, that's intelligent.

Finally, SO WHAT? How is one's intelligence in any way related to the newspapers or magazine that one reads, or even if one does.

I agree that she appeared to be victimized by the whole "gotcha" interview style. I'm not sure if she contributed in anyway due to a lack of experience or intelligence, or both. Perhaps it's a little too refreshing and none of us are acclimated to the more common style that national (and even state) candidates use to dismiss or dodge questions from moderators or interviewers. [thinking]

Palin hasn't won me over. Again, I am fundamentally aligned with her on a good number of issues. However, I'm not sure if she's fully qualified or commanding of the cognitive capacity to lead the second highest office of the Executive Branch, especially in the era of "activist VPs."

He's smarter than Kerry. [rolleyes]

No complaint here.

True, but that has to do with the fact that he turned out to be more centrist on more matters than many Republicans wanted (ex. finance and economy), and far more conservative on some of the Democrat hot-button issues (ex. social and defense). In doing that he's pissed off a lot of people in both parties. That doesn't make him stupid or unintelligent, just unpopular; unless one considers popularity a measure of intelligence.

But he's done little to safeguard our individual liberties than any other president in history. His foreign policies have been a Band-Aid where sutures are probably required. His domestic policies are similarly crappy. This administration is probably going down as the worst in history. Sure you could probably throw in Nixon, but I think Bush II has him beat. He's surely not popular with an approval rating that's just a few degrees north of the Congressional approval average. I think it just so happens to correlate with intelligence, in this instance.

Mike, I'm not sure the value of taking this conversation much further. You and I do appear to agree on some key things; that government does need to be smaller and more conservative, how much so is clearly different; that there needs to be change, but how to accomplish that in the current political season is also clearly different; and, that Obama and his kind of "change" would be the worst of the choices. You are clearly a libertarian, and I'm not. Let's each agree to vote for our respective candidates, as is our right, and leave it at that.

p.s. And the next NES shoot that we're both at you're welcome to try anything I got.

You've got me figured out, I'm a libertarian. I'm big on small government. FWIW, I'm pulling for McCain over Obama. I don't think it's going to happen, especially with McCain losing a lot of ground in key states, states that Bush won handily in 2004 over Kerry. This is Bush's legacy - He's adversely impacted the Republican goal of electing McCain in 2008. And I'm sure Bush will be referenced again in the 2012 election cycle no matter who's in the White House. It's time that Republicans united against Bush, unite under the motto of smaller, more efficient government, and a revised foreign policy that stops this endless and expensive policing of the world. I think we saw some of that during the bailout floor debates in the House and Senate.

Thanks for the offer for the shoot! I guess it's never too early to look for a summer EDC piece! [smile]
 
Back
Top Bottom