Dave Kopel of TownHall.com, reveals some interesting statistics about certain gun owners supporting Hillary Clinton’s “pro-gun” position.

Senator Clinton no more deserves gun-owner votes than Lord Voldemort deserves the Muggle vote. In the Senate, she has voted in favoring of abusive lawsuits against law-abiding gun manufacturers, for banning cosmetically incorrect guns which are falsely labeled “assault weapons,” and for allowing federal funds to be used to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens after a natural disaster—as was done following Hurricane Katrina.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Aren’t political campaigns sooooooooooooooooooooooo much fun? Here’s the deal! Obama is a Marxist who has no use for guns anywhere in this society as near as we have been able to determine. Clinton is a socialist who has no use for guns anywhere in this society as we have all come to learn. But that doesn’t stop her from epitomizing the pot calling the kettle black…..ooops, no racial epithet intended.

Check out the photo of the front and back side of a mailer that Clinton and her campaign sent out in Indiana in an attempt to attack Obama on his anti-gun position and how he changes his position in order to get a vote. She accuses Obama of telling people “he was for the 2nd Amendment in order to get their votes.” That’s laughable coming from the master chameleon, the one who learned from hubby Bill, or maybe the other way around, how to morph into something you’re not just for a vote.

Back to the photo. Ben Smith at Politico.com says the gun, as it is presented in the photo, doesn’t exist. What’s worse, it is a European import and the image was reversed for some reason when printed onto the flier.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The following Op-Ed appeared in the Bangor Daily News yesterday, May 1, 2008. It is written by Nathaniel Richie, who is a junior majoring in mechanical engineering at the University of Maine.

One year after Virginia Tech, the recent shootings at Northern Illinois University serve as a reminder that no meaningful progress has been made to increase safety on college campuses. To date, the “solutions” presented by school officials have been nothing but a rehash of the same failed policies that were in place before the shootings.

Police training and presence has been presented as the best way to protect students in the event of a school shooting. While certainly an important measure, there are problems with this line of reasoning. The first is that public safety response time is measured in minutes, not seconds. The critical time between a 911 dispatcher receiving a call for help and the arrival of law enforcement is time during which shooters have free rein. Police response times were five and eight minutes at NIU and Virginia Tech respectively. Both shootings ended before police were able to respond. <<<Read the rest>>>

Posted by Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Here’s another gun case headed for the U.S. Supreme Court sometime this fall. Here’s the shortened version of how it got to this point.

In 1994, Randy Edwards Hayes of Marion County, West Virginia pleaded guilty to a West Virginia law charging him with misdemeanor battery against his ex-wife.

In 1996, it became federal law that if convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor, you can no longer possess a firearm.

In 2004, police found a rifle in Hayes’ home and charged him with illegal possession of a firearm after a domestic violence conviction.

Hayes lawyers argue that it is unconstitutional to apply a new law to an old conviction and they say there is a difference between Hayes’ plead to a state misdemeanor battery charge and a federal domestic violence charge.

Any ruling in the case is bound to have interesting consequences in the treatment of gun laws and how new laws affect past crimes.

I’ll try to follow this interesting case.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne is proposing a change to current gun bans in our national parks. The existing restrictions require that guns be unloaded, locked up and not easily accessible when in a national park. Kempthorne’s proposal would allow concealed carry for anyone licensed as such and the rules of gun possession would follow the rules of the state which the national park is in. This proposal follows along the path after a letter, signed by 51 U.S. Senators, was sent to Sec. Kempthorne asking him to amend the laws restricting gun possession in national parks.

The Associated Press is reporting that Kempthorne thinks the proposal would keep visitors safe.

“The safety and protection of park and refuge visitors remains a top priority for the Department of the Interior,”………………..”while continuing to maintain important provisions to ensure visitor safety and resource protection,”

Just what exactly does this mean? This comment, not supported by any other clarifier, doesn’t tell us if Kempthorne’s concern for safety is that of the armed visitor, the unarmed visitor who is now going to be in some kind of ill-perceived danger or both. Part of the lie that is always pushed by the left wing gun haters is that when you arm a lawful citizen the rest of society is now in some kind of danger that didn’t exist before.

Bill Wade, chairman of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, says it exactly so in this comment.

“This proposed regulation increases the risk to visitors, employees and wildlife rather than reducing it,”

I am somewhat disturbed from Kempthorne’s statement because I see that he too is alluding, at least to some degree, that by proposing this “compromise” he is also ensuring that unarmed visitors and park resources will remain safe. If that is what he is implying, I find his statement disturbing and uninformed.

The antis, which include Sen. Feinstein of California, are trying to convince other lawmakers that this proposal would be too confusing and that the permit holder wouldn’t know what laws apply depending on what state they are in. She also says law enforcement will get confused. Really?

“This change makes no sense. It would create an incoherent, ineffective and inconsistent patchwork of policies,”………”So which state law would apply at Death Valley National Park?” she said. “This sort of inconsistency would be an open invitation to poachers, would be almost impossible to enforce and would seriously place public safety at risk.”

Death Valley National Park encompasses parts of California and Nevada. Let’s get this straight. Under current laws, a concealed carry license holder is responsible to know which states are reciprocal in honoring a permit. The license holder is also responsible to know the laws that govern gun ownership in whatever state he is in. None of that will change. Feinstein and others are attempting to deliberately confuse the issue probably because they don’t understand the existing laws.

She is also suggesting that law enforcement agents in California and Nevada, or any other state for that matter, aren’t smart enough to know, understand and enforce their own gun laws. If that is true, we have some pretty inept cops out there. I don’t buy into their spin.

It is also laughable that Feinstein suggests that by allowing a lawful citizen in possession of a valid concealed carry permit into a national park it “would be an open invitation to poachers”. Be real! That is the most illogical statement anyone could make that is not supported by any kind of data. It’s plain ridiculous.

And as all gun haters do, they lie to the public using scare tactics to say that allowing lawful carry places the rest of the public in danger. This simply is not true and there is no data to support that claim. There is however data from studies that indicate it may make it safer for the general public and ample studies that show it has no affect one way or the other.

What gets lost often in these debates is the right of an individual to protect themselves. The AP states that Bill Wade and other critics of the proposal say they have data to show that national parks are one of the safest places to be. They even go so far as to say the chances are greater that you would be struck by lightening than be violently attacked in a national park. And by their reasoning therefore, you as an American citizen no longer have a constitutional right? Just because data show parks to be safe is that reason to strip me of my rights?

Should we turn this around and use the same logic and reasoning on other rights. What are the odds that you or anyone you know are going to become the victim of someone’s cruel use of their right to freedom of speech? I’ve lived for nearly 56 years and have only been searched by police one time. With those odds why do I even need a right to free speech or the protection from illegal searches and seizures? I must live in a safe place where people are only sweet talking.

This is just more utter nonsense from the left.

Let it be known that I am not in agreement with Kempthorne’s proposal but it is a move in the right direction. As long as we can move toward the full restoration of our constitutional rights, I will support that with the hopes that some day we will return to a land of the free and home of the brave once shared and supported by all Americans.

With this new proposal the public has 60 days to offer comments. Click this link for instructions on how to do that.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Obama continues his effort to convince voters that he believes that the Second Amendment gives an individual the right to keep and bear arms but when he further explains in detail what that means, it becomes clear he doesn’t believe an individual or anyone for that matter, has a right to arm themselves.

In an interview with the Chicago Sun Times last week Obama was answering questions more specifically directed at the rising gun violence in Chicago. This is what he had to say about the pending case before the U.S. Supreme Court - Washington, D.C. versus Heller.

My view continues to be that the constitution, I believe, does provide a right to bear arms; but that local communities, and state governments, as well as the federal government, have a right to common-sense regulations and firearm ownership [rules.] The truth is, obviously, the ban here in Chicago, the ban in D.C. is not keeping the guns out of our cities, and so I’m interested in just figuring out what works and I’m confident we can come up with laws that work and that pass constitutional muster and don’t infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners whether it’s in Downstate Illinois or rural Montana.

Obama says what most intelligent people have known for a long time - that the gun bans don’t do anything to stop crime. All it does do is prohibit people from their God-given and constitutional right to self protection. He once again talks about “common sense” restrictions on guns. A common tactic of the left when debating “reasonable” gun control, is to cite their idea of reasonable controls over the First Amendment - always the “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” scenario. What they refuse to understand is that it is a far cry from comparable reasonableness in not allowing someone to protect themselves through gun ownership and somebody yelling fire in a crowded theater. One could argue that a reasonable or common sense restriction on gun ownership might be a weapon of mass destruction.

But Obama goes on to further explain a question about why as a state legislator he voted against giving people known to have been threatened, a right to own a gun.

I felt that [the first one] was a precedent for conceal-and-carry laws. There has not been any evidence that allowing people to carry a concealed weapon is going to make anybody safer. [The second one] is relevant to the D.C. handgun issue. I wanted to preserve the right of local communities to enforce local ordinances and this would have overturned municipalities being able to enforce their own ordinances. We can argue about whether the ordinances work or not. But I wanted to make sure that local communities were recognized as having a right to regulate firearms.

We have to question Obama’s actual knowledge of “evidence” concerning gun ownership. He says there is no evidence that allowing people to carry concealed makes anybody safer. Common sense would tell us that that is bogus and why do politicians get to decide which parts of the U.S. Constitution they want to allow us to experience?

Mike Adams at TownHall.com in his article this morning states that there is in fact 15 studies that suggest that concealed carry reduces homicide rates. Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington.

Next, I calmly let him know that 60% of the refereed studies indicate that CCW laws reduce homicide rates while 40% show they have no effect. And none provide evidence that they actually increase homicide rates. I owe the professor an apology because I actually misquoted the number of studies indicating CCW laws reduce homicide rates. The number is actually 15, not nine as I had claimed. Thus, he was right to predict I would present a biased argument. But it was biased in his favor.

Obama says that he wants to make sure that local communities can toss aside their state’s constitution and that of the U.S. Constitution, well, at least the Second Amendment because he doesn’t like it, and let the communities like D.C. and Chicago prevent people from being able to protect themselves. They are effectually saying that it is alright to allow lawful, innocent residents in those communities get killed as long as we can stop the crooks from killing themselves.

Do you suppose that Obama would uphold that same kind of reasoning when applied to the First Amendment or any other Amendment for that matter?

One of the first signs of insanity is to repeat an action over and over without ever trying to change anything. The actions of the far left, Obama and Clinton being a part of that, is to continually repeat the action of disarming lawful citizens while denying the fact that it does any good. This is insane.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” Those were the words spoken by democratic presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama just prior to the Pennsylvania primary.

These words bothered me quite a bit, at least enough that I responded to Mr. Obama’s comments and so I went out in search of some of America’s so-called “bitter” people - those clinging to their guns and religion. Over the weekend, I was fortunate enough to locate an all-American family reunion, a family that probably Obama was envisioning when he made his elitist remarks.

This is a photograph of the men leaders of the Hatstat family. They asked that I not reveal their exact location out of fear that the not so bitter people will try and come take their land and their rights away from them.

The elder leader of the Hatstat family is Jedediah Hatstat. He’s a bit difficult to see. He is the one on the left in the front of the group, kneeling in prayer. Obviously a bitter, bitter man who has clung to religion and prayer for many years.

Second eldest is Samuel Hatstat, also not highly visible but he is the one in the middle with a very firm grip on his hunting rifle. No explanation is needed for that I guess.

I would surmise that because the Hatstats live away from the center of politics and well, where the “informed” are, they really didn’t seem all that bitter to me. As a matter of fact they were quite happy, especially on this day being it was a family celebration and all. (notice a couple of moonshine jugs being passed around while the dogs played at their feet.

These are great people with a lot of love and respect for all Americans. Jedediah says he prays several times a day that God would protect them from the “city people” who seem determined to destroy their life and snatch away their freedoms.

Third man from the right is Jeremiah Hatstat, the self-proclaimed flower child of the family, having once visited Berkley, California. I asked him what he thought of Barack Obama and the message he was sending to the American people and his response was a bit surprising.

“Who’s Barack Obama?”

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Just one week ago I took issue with Barack Obama’s comments he made in a closed-door fund raising event in San Francisco when he called many Americans bitter and that they clung to their guns and religion for those reasons. For many this has become another in a list of questions about Obama and his character that they deem important in this campaign for the democratic nominee.

Reuters, in their politics section of their website, has a section in which they go out and find global bloggers writing about important issues in this campaign. Shortly after my article was published here at the Black Bear Blog, Reuters linked to me and published my article on their news website.

It’s great to see the word getting out and that I somehow am contributing to that!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

James Spiers delivers Pizza Hut pizza in DesMoines, Iowa. Spiers is a legally licensed concealed weapons carrier. While making a delivery, he was attacked by an armed gunman in what appears to be a set up job. He used his gun to defend himself and was able to fend off the attacker, who later was arrested after seeking medical assistance.

Spiers was fired from Pizza Hut for violating the rules about carrying a gun.

But Vonnie Walbert, vice president of human resources at Pizza Hut’s corporate offices in Dallas, said earlier this month that employees are not allowed to carry guns “because we believe that that is the safest for everybody.”

Read more.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

In Wednesday night’s democratic debate between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, discussion turned briefly to Second Amendment issues. Yesterday I highlighted the comments made by both candidates about gun control. During the debate, Obama stated that he has never favored a ban on hand guns.

Two weeks ago, I showed you that a questionnaire that Obama filled out prior to his run for the Illinois State Senate, he answered yes to the question of whether he favored legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.”

According to the New York Sun, someone else is to blame for answering yes.

The candidate questionnaire was filed with a nonprofit group, Independent Voters of Illinois–Independent Precinct Organization, during Mr. Obama’s first run for the state Senate. It asked candidates if they “support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns.” Mr. Obama’s typed response was “Yes.” His campaign later said a staffer filled out the form and unintentionally misrepresented Mr. Obama’s position.

When confronted during the debate about that questionnaire, Obama denied that he supports a hand gun ban and that he didn’t fill out the questionnaire. But is any of this true?

“I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns,” Mr. Obama said when confronted with the questionnaire at the debate. He also denied that his handwriting was on the document, even though a copy of the form posted by Politico.com suggests otherwise.

According to Politico.com, Obama was interviewed about his answers on that questionnaire by the group who created it. The following day, Obama submitted an amended version of the questionnaire. Politico.com posted a pdf copy of the amended version, which they believe shows Obama’s hand-written notes on it. That version still has “yes” after the questions about banning hand guns.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The Associated Press released some quotes from last night’s democratic presidential candidate debate. Among those quotes are those about Second Amendment and gun control.

OBAMA: “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, and, you know, 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. And I think that it is going to be important for us to reconcile what are two realities in this country. There’s the reality of gun ownership and the tradition of gun ownership that’s passed on from generation to generation. You know, when you listen to people who have hunted, and they talk about the fact that they went hunting with their fathers or their mothers, then that is something that is deeply important to them and, culturally, they care about deeply. But you also have the reality of what’s happening here in Philadelphia and what’s happening in Chicago.”

CLINTON: “I believe that we can balance what I think is the right equation. I respect the Second Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns. But I also believe that most lawful gun owners, whom I have spoken with for many years across our country, also want to be sure that we keep those guns out of the wrong hands. And as president, I will work to try to bridge this divide, which I think has been polarizing and, frankly, doesn’t reflect the common sense of the American people. So we will strike the right balance to protect the constitutional right but to give people the feeling and the reality that they will be protected from guns in the wrong hands.”

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Still denying it is a front for gun control, the American Hunters and Shooters Association showed its true colors one more time by publicly endorsing Barack Obama, a democratic presidential candidate who has shown voters how much his dislikes guns and the people who own them. The AHSA’s website boasts the only pro gun action Obama has taken is claiming he opposes the confiscation of weapons during natural disasters like hurricane Katrina.

And in Pennsylvania, he says, gun owners who follow key Washington legislation aimed at limiting ownership are moving in Obama’s direction because of his support of past legislation to prohibit the use of federal money to confiscate weapons during a disaster like Hurricane Katrina.

Notice it doesn’t say he opposes the gun confiscation. It says only that he opposes using federal money to confiscate those guns.

For AHSA to come out in support of Obama, who has repeatedly stated he is against handguns, that he’s against concealed carry, that he would like to get rid of all manufacturers of handguns, shows how much they are not representing hunters and those involved in shooting sport. Obama just last week, insulted millions of Americans by stating that they were bitter and clung to their guns and religion, and antipathy toward anyone not like them, possessing anti-immigration and anti-free trade sentiment.

For AHSA to claim they support Obama because he supports gun rights is the biggest lie told so far during this campaign - even bigger than Hillary’s sniper fire in Bosnia lie.

Give me a break!!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Perhaps it’s in anticipation that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in the District of Columbia vs. Heller case that gun ownership is an individual right and so there is a rush across the country to try to enact stricter gun laws before that happens. This seems to be happening all across the country, from big cities to small towns and in some cases candidates for political office don’t give Americans much promise for a secure future.

District of Columbia vs. Heller resulted when a security guard (Heller) decided to challenge the District of Columbia’s total ban on handguns and virtual ban on all guns, as being unconstitutional. Heller won that case in a federal District Court, which was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which accepted the case and heard oral arguments this past March 18, 2008.

The Supreme Court needs to rule quickly, they need to be very decisive in their ruling and it should be quite specific. The specificity is where I’m afraid any decision will come up short. From my position that ruling needs to be in favor of an individual’s right to own guns. They should dispense with “reasonable controls”, which most experts feel the Court will say should be carried out. They need to provide some definition of what is reasonable, even though it is believed that the courts will hammer that out.

Reasonable is not what some are doing across this land that is taking away our God-given right to defend ourselves and our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Only days after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Heller, a tiny town in Western Maine, confiscated a town employee’s legally held handgun and then proceeded to create new laws banning any kind of weapons on town property going against that state’s constitution.

In the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, now nicknamed “Killadelphia”, where the mayor, Michael Nutter and some members of the city council, have been trying to pass gun control laws, with not a lot of success. The state of Pennsylvania is the ruling authority on gun control laws but that doesn’t seem to mean much of anything to the mayor.

In a recent press release from the Second Amendment Foundation, SAF says Nutter is nuts and he and his council are “acting like vigilantes” and setting up their own “fiefdom”.

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and the City Council have defied state statute by enacting several anti-gun measures, essentially “acting like urban vigilantes under color of law,” the Second Amendment Foundation said today.
“How can Mayor Nutter and the council expect anyone else, especially criminals, to obey the law if they don’t live up to the same standard,” SAF founder Alan Gottlieb wondered. “Just because the mayor doesn’t like the fact that the state legislature retains sole authority over gun laws does not give him or the city council any right to essentially set up their own fiefdom. What kind of example does that set? What does it accomplish?”

A regular reader of the Black Bear Blog sent me an email yesterday about the actions of those in his home state of Pennsylvania. Needless to say, he seemed quite distraught.

Tom, This is why I’m seriously considering moving out of PA all together. The nuts are taking over, and now they have a head Nutter. I suggested to you before that Philadelphia was anti gun to the extreme. So we tried to engage the community in pro gun dialog and this is the response!!

Also today. Michelle Malkin is carrying a story about how New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, Nanny Bloomberg as Malkin calls him, along with Mayor Menino of Boston and other mayoral nannies, have strong-armed Wal-Mart into taking away more of our civil liberties, while placing better tracking on the sales of their guns, among other restrictions.

…..calls for turning a more watchful eye on firearm sales, including videotaping sales of guns and conducting criminal background checks on store clerks who handle guns.

It also calls for keeping a record each time the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives links a gun bought at Wal-Mart to a crime. If a person who buys a gun linked to a crime were to return to a Wal-Mart to buy another gun, the purchase would be flagged. It would then be up to the store whether to permit the purchase.

When fully put into effect, the agreement would also prohibit the sale of a gun to someone whose background check comes back with inconclusive results. In many states, people are permitted to buy firearms even if a background check comes back with inconclusive results.

And as usual, this agreement with Wal-Mart will have no affect on gun crimes within the city of Philadelphia, New York or anywhere else in the state.

Of the “top ten” most commonly traced firearms in crimes (according to that same government report), seven are cheaply-made, small-caliber handguns, two are ubiquitous 9mm service pistols common among police, civilian shooters, and criminals, and just one is a long-arm of any kind.

Wal-Mart does not sell handguns and statistically rifles and shotguns are used in only 8% of gun murders and you can be sure they weren’t bought at Wal-Mart.

Without a strong ruling by the Supreme Court, one has to wonder about the future of gun rights in this country. McCain says he supports the Second Amendment but so do Clinton and Obama. McCain’s record on gun rights has been far superior to that of Clinton and Obama but his propensity to cave into the left, his pride in being a “maverick”, doesn’t leave me real confident that he wouldn’t start giving away our rights in order to achieve other goals.

Clinton is very much anti-gun, believing, as do most gun control types, that attacking the rights of lawful citizens somehow has an affect on crime. We know she is a strong supporter of a ban on so-called assault weapons, which has more definitions than I think any other term known to mankind.

We are now beginning to learn more and more about Barack Obama’s real position on guns. He hates them and anyone who owns them, according to remarks he has made of late. He has spoken publicly that he wants to get rid of concealed carry as well as shut down the manufacture and sale of handguns.

I said from the onset about D.C. vs. Heller that this case could loom as the biggest factor in the upcoming presidential campaign and have the biggest impact on our society since Roe v. Wade. I can only hope that the Supreme Court will see the need to do more than simply rule that the Second Amendment is an individual or collective right.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Washington, D.C. vs. Heller gun ban case, I placed a poll on the Black Bear Blog to see how readers felt about what if any changes we could expect from this hearing. Of course a decision isn’t expected until perhaps as early as June, only speculation from the so-called experts have made its presence throughout the media.

Here’s the results of the poll:

With oral arguments of D.C. v Heller behind us, how do you feel about gun rights in America?

* They will mainly go unchanged.: 21% (30)
* There will be a slight reduction of gun restrictions.: 30% (43)
* There will be a significant reduction in gun restrictions: 28% (40)
* There will be a slight increase in gun laws.: 9% (13)
* There will be a significant increase in gun laws.: 8% (11)
* I don’t think gun rights are important.: 4% (5)

Total Votes : 142

I can only surmise that from the results of this survey, Black Bear Blog readers must feel that the Supreme Court will, at the very least, keep things the same with any ruling they may make. 21% of readers believe there will be no changes to America’s gun laws.

The majority of readers (30%) thought there would be slight reductions in gun laws and 28% said there would be significant reductions.

16 readers thought gun laws would get stricter or they didn’t think gun rights are important.

I may opt to run this poll again after the Supreme Court makes a ruling and see how readers view things then.

Thanks for taking the time to participate in our polls and make sure to check out the latest poll just to the right.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I suppose in Barack Obama’s eyes, I too fit his stereotypical bitter rural American who clings to my guns and religion and possess “antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” Then again to him, maybe I am a typical white man bred to be bitter because I live in rural America and my government hasn’t taken care of me.

It has become clear that Barack Obama is a typical politician whose glowing halo is getting dimmer with each passing “I’ll admit I didn’t chose my words correctly” excuse. He promised Americans he was different. He boasted he was going to pull us all together, mend fences, make America respected in the world again.

Part of Obama’s problem is he thinks we’re all dumb - at least those who aren’t following him like sheep gone astray. He thinks us bitter country folk can’t see through his facade of fakery.

He is elitist. This morning on the Today show, Matt Lauer was interviewing James Carville, self-proclaimed best friend of Bill Clinton. Lauer asked Carville about comments being made that Obama was an elitist and Carville responded that he didn’t really know what that meant.

Let me help. An elitist is someone who readily scoffs at the heritage of others different than themselves. An elitist profiles others into categories seemingly inferior because they are different or misunderstood. Elitist is appearing before a group of wealthy people in a closed-door reception/fund raiser and describing people in Pennsylvania and the West as being bitter with nothing left to cling to except their guns and religion while having antipathy toward people not like them or having anti-immigration and anti-trade sentiment.

Elitist is then going before the public the next day in an attempt to explain why he said what he did and tell the world that now we are all bitter because the truth was told. *Note* - The press reports it that he said he erred in not choosing his words more carefully. Why is it they miss such blatant snobbery from Obama when he admits he believes in what he said?

Elitist is also telling the same crowd that “bitter” is a word used in the Bible. Maybe that’s one word used a lot in his pastor’s, Jeremiah Wright’s, bible. There are a lot of words written in the Bible. Some of them far worse than “bitter”. Now, have our politician found that they can say anything they want and justify it because it’s written in the Bible?

Obama is alienating himself, along with his party, with anyone who doesn’t think and believe as he does. He has come to realize that the group of Americans he just insulted will not vote for him anyway and evidently, because he admits he told the truth, doesn’t care much about these people. He certainly doesn’t understand them and instead of taking some of his own cheap advice, he mocks them, ridicules and places them on a tier far below his uppity, angry attitude. This is a man who understands?

Little by little the real Barack Obama is being discovered. We now know what most of us suspected from the beginning, that he is very much an anti-gun candidate. He has come right out and said that he does not believe in concealed carry, that guns should be used only for hunting purposes and that he supports the current Washington, D.C. gun ban.

Perhaps what Obama is mistaking for bitterness because of lost jobs is that Americans that are not like him, are fed up with people like him. Obama wants to continue to strip away our rights and we are tired of that. We are tired of liars. We are tired of out of touch politicians, of which Obama is no different than any other. We are tired of losing our country and constitution that our ancestors, friends and family have fought and died for. We are tired that history isn’t being taught in our schools anymore. We are tired of political correctness. We are tired that our sovereignty no longer has value. We are tired of big government. We are tired of increased regulation. We are tired of being taxed out of existence. We are tired that politicians, just like him, don’t have the slightest clue what a dollar bill is.

I’m willing to stake my reputation on the fact that the Pennsylvanians, Westerners and all other Americans Obama looks down his nose at, aren’t bitter that they lost their jobs 25 years ago. These people are hard working and intelligent. What makes them the true Americans that they are is because when they get in trouble, they don’t look to the government of come bail them out. They take after themselves. They are what made America great. People like Obama don’t like that in Americans. When we don’t suck off the teet of the government, he loses his control, his power and his job security.

These Americans he so dislikes don’t have anti-immigration sentiment. They are filled with anti-illegal immigration sentiment because people like Obama want to give anyone asking, citizenship to this country without making requirements to insure our security and maintain our sovereignty.

This man, I’m afraid, is an angry, out of touch elitist who called his own grandmother a typical white woman that was bred to fear a black person walking down the street. I don’t think these Pennsylvanians, our friends in the West or any other American who chooses to own guns and go to church, would even entertain the thought that their grandmothers were typical in anyway and the suggestion that someone has had fear bred into them makes me wonder what really is in this man’s heart.

I think that it is a shame that because I love my country, grew up in rural America, I choose to own guns and I choose to make God and religion an important part of my life, that somehow I am bitter and these are the only things left of value in my life. I resent that and will pray to God that I will not be bitter toward a man that is misguided and thinks he’s better than me or my family.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!