Beer in the Headlights

When will the morons running the City of Atlanta ever learn? State Rep. Tom Bearden set the trap and the gun-grabbing leftists stepped right into it.

Guns were the issue. But words and federal lawsuits became the weapons of choice Tuesday as Atlanta officials declared Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport a "gun-free zone," and gun advocates immediately retaliated by suing them.

Airport General Manager Ben DeCosta issued a memorandum declaring Hartsfield Airport as a gun free zone. (.pdf file in that link)

By stating verbally and in writing their stance on the issue, Mayor Franklin and Ben DeCosta set themselves up for failure.

"This is a matter of national significance," Mayor Shirley Franklin told reporters at a news conference. Permitting guns inside an airport, even weapons carried by permit holders, would create an unsafe environment that "would endanger millions of people," the mayor said.

Franklin vowed Tuesday to lobby Congress and federal officials to mandate that any public facility receiving federal money be declared a "gun-free zone." That would affect airports nationwide.

Franklin's comments followed a vow by city officials to arrest anyone carrying a gun at Hartsfield-Jackson. The city drew a line in the sand on the very same day a new state law easing gun restrictions in public places took effect.

Airport General Manager Ben DeCosta said the city's legal team has studied the new law and determined the airport still falls under a "public gathering" exception in the Georgia Code.

"Therefore, firearms are prohibited on airport property," he said.

Here's a memorandum from the Georgia Attorney General's office stating that a "public gathering" is the gathering and not the place:

In State v. Burns, 200 Ga. App. 16 (1991), the Court of Appeals, when faced with this very question, held that the focus should be on the "gathering" rather than on the "place." Thus, the Code Section applies when people are gathered or will gather for a particular function, but does not apply simply because a weapon is otherwise lawfully carried to a public place where people may be present.

Here's the GA Code definition of a public gathering:

For the purpose of this Code section, "public gathering" shall include, but shall not be limited to, athletic or sporting events, churches or church functions, political rallies or functions, publicly owned or operated buildings, or establishments at which alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the premises. Nothing in this Code section shall otherwise prohibit the carrying of a firearm in any other public place by a person licensed or permitted to carry such firearm by this part.

While a publicly owned or operated building does fit the description of a public gathering, certain publicly owned or operated building are now open to CCL holders to carry firearms. Here is the section of the bill that passed and went into effect as of July 1, 2008:

A person licensed or permitted to carry a firearm by this part shall be permitted to carry such firearm, subject to the limitations of this part, in all parks, historic sites, and recreational areas, including all publicly owned buildings located in such parks, historic sites, and recreational areas and in wildlife management areas, notwithstanding Code Section 12-3-10, in wildlife management areas notwithstanding Code Section 27-3-1.1 and 27-3-6, and in public transportation notwithstanding Code Sections 16-12-122 through 16-12-127; provided, however, that a person shall not carry a firearm into a place prohibited by federal law.

Federal law does not prohibit the carrying or possession of firearms in airports outside of the security checkpoints.

Done deal.

In his own words...

Marxist bigot.

Sierrahome

Anything like changiness?

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Monday he will never question others' patriotism during the race and blames his own "carelessness" for some criticism of him so far.

Maybe he's correctly interpreted one passage of the Bible - that one about those without sins castings stones or something.

Obama said he chose the topic in part because of his experience during the race, even though he has always considered his love of country a given and his inspiration for running for office.

"I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged — at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for," he said before a crowd of a few hundred people at the Truman Memorial Building here. "I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine."

Carelessness isn't attending a church preaching Marxism and bigotry for twenty years. Carelessness isn't associating with leftist domestic terrorists. Carelessness isn't having cozy ties to Tony Rezko. Carelessness isn't being married to a bitter woman who's deeply resentful of white people.

It's all about judgment. It's something he's consistently fallen short on when it comes to his personal, religious, political, and business associations. Barack Obama has a pattern of relationships that demonstrates a certain degree of contempt toward the United States.

If he's careless enough to make the decisions he's consistently made then that's enough to preclude him from making the decisions he'd have to take great care in making as president?

What it all boils down to is this: If he has to go on a "patriotism" offensive in the campaign to establish himself as patriotic, then he's left the door wide open for legitimate criticism. Why is it that Obama and his campaign feel the sudden need to tout his patriotism? Simple. It's because enough folks have enough reason to believe he's seriously lacking in that arena.

And another thing... To have Wesley Clark play the role of "bad cop" and criticize John McCain is pretty darn pathetic. I'd love for someone to ask Clark why he was relieved of his command and to see him dodge that one. The decision to fire a four star general in command of all NATO forces is a serious one. Wesley Clark is certainly not anyone to criticize another a former officer's conduct while in uniform.

The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

Well, we've always had the right - at least since the Constitution was ratified - to own firearms. The Supreme Court just affirmed that right by ruling Washington DC's gun ban as unconstitutional.

The big winners in this ruling are those that have been illegally disarmed by authoritarian state and local governments.

With a hefty dose of class and dignity

Bill Bennett and Seth Leibsohn have written an eloquent and thoughtful critique of Barack Obama. Consider it something like "Counter-Coulter" given it's lack of inflammatory and derogatory commentary.

It's well worth the read and I'll just list the bullet points and link to the column where you can read the explanations for each.

1. Barack Obama’s foreign policy is dangerous, naïve, and betrays a profound misreading of history.

2. Barack Obama’s Iraq policy will hand al-Qaeda a victory and undercut our entire position in the Middle East, while at the same time put a huge source of oil in the hands of terrorists.

3. Barack Obama has sent mixed, confusing, and inconsistent messages on his policy toward Israel.

4. In the primary campaign, Barack Obama consistently campaigned against NAFTA, but has now changed his tune, as he has with other issues.

5. Barack Obama’s judgment about personal and professional affiliations is more than troubling.

6. Obama is simply out of step with how terrorists should be handled; he would turn back the clock on how we fight terrorism, using the failed strategy of the 1990s as opposed to the post-9/11 strategy that has kept us safe.

7. Barack Obama’s economic policies would hurt the economy.

8. Barack Obama opposes drilling on and offshore to reduce gas and oil prices.

9. Barack Obama is to the left of Hillary Clinton and NARAL on the issue of life.

10. Barack Obama is actually to the left of every member of the U.S. Senate.

Flip-floppy, hypocritical and contradictory

In other words, Barack Hussein Obama is your run of the mill far-left Democrat. But at least he's clean and articulate.

The real rubes in this election won’t be the rural Midwesterners Obama slandered, the ones who cling to their guns and religon. It will be the gray-haired profs with ponytails, clinging to their cannabis and liturgy of defeat.

Austin Bay, the author of the above quote (of pure genius) could very well have included wide-eyed, young idealists in Che shirts, pretty much all of the dysfunctional rubes in Hollywood, and anyone else suffering from varying degrees of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

After twenty years as a member of Jeremiah Wright's cesspool of Marxist bigotry disguised as a church, associations with domestic terrorists and other assorted riff-raff, Barack Hussein Obama is now trying to portray himself as an average Kansan who loves Mom, apple pie, V8 engines and Old Glory.

Senator Obama's first television ad of the general election campaign is an attempt to quell the fears of some voters that Mr. Obama is unpatriotic. "America is a country of strong families and strong values. My life's been blessed by both," Mr. Obama says in the ad as faded snapshots from his youth flash on the screen. "I was raised by a single mom and my grandparents. We didn't have much money, but they taught me values straight from the Kansas heartland where they grew up. Accountability and self-reliance. Love of country ... . I'll never forget those values, and if I have the honor of taking the oath of office as president, it will be with a deep and abiding faith in the country I love."

It is to laugh. Obama's bolted for the center in record time. His campaign isn't even being subtle about it.

This advertisement isn't going to air in San Francisco, Boston, Chicago or any other hotbed of Obama supporters. He's running these ads where he'll appeal to swing voters who cling to their guns, religion and antipathy toward others not like them.

How much do you want to bet we'll see him at a NASCAR event later this year? He'll do so after he gets the proper immunizations so he doesn't catch Red State cooties. Twenty bucks says he'll utter, "Gentlemen, start your engines!"

Then again, maybe not. Can Obama risk the spectacle of being booed by 150,000 people whom he's already described as bitter? It may work to solidify his base of blacks and leftist academics, but it won't look good to those he'll need to sway in order to win.

Obama's trying to fool all of the people all of the time. It ain't gonna work. The shine's come off him.

As we move closer to the general election in November, keep an eye on the national polls. In a prediction I guarantee to be more accurate than anything ever uttered by Dick Morris, I guarantee you'll see a slow but steady shift toward John McCain. Most centrist blue collar Democrats, the real base of the party, will come to realize the unmitigated tragedy that four to eight years of an Obama administration will be for our country.

In the end, after anyone and everyone has been lied to, insulted and cast aside by Obama, he'll remain what he is now - the junior senator from Illinois. Maybe he should start working on a Powerpoint presentation he can parley into a movie, an Academy Award and even a Nobel Prize.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Anyone who supports the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama is either an abject moron or a staunch Marxist. Or both.

Here's some proof to back that claim...

As he reminded us again after losing narrowly to Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, Barack Obama likes to evoke Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech.
We must all hope that, like King's, Mr. Obama's dream is "deeply rooted in the American dream." But before giving him the keys to the White House, Americans might like to know a little more about the content of Mr. Obama's dream.

Let me propose an unlikely place to start looking: Kenya. Even in the midst of the primaries, the horrific scenes from that country since the disputed election on December 27 will not have escaped most people. In particular, the burning of a church with up to 50 men, women, and children inside, while machete-armed mobs slaughter up to 600 more people, have evoked memories of the Rwandan genocide of 1994.

Who is behind these massacres? The opposition leader, Raila Odinga, has had a good press in the West, after he accused the president, Mwai Kibaki, of rigging the election. But the victims of the recent violence have mostly been members of Mr. Kibaki's tribe, the Kikuyu, while those who have gone berserk are supporters of Mr. Odinga's Orange Democratic Movement, which is dominated by the rival Luo tribe.

Whether Mr. Odinga has ordered his men to commit murder and arson is unclear. But his own background does not exactly suggest enthusiasm for democracy and the rule of law. Mr. Odinga's father, Oginga Odinga, led the Communist opposition during the Cold War and Raila Odinga was educated in Communist East Germany.

In 1982 he was implicated in a failed coup against the then president Daniel Arap Moi. His eldest son is named after Fidel Castro and his daughter after Winnie Mandela.

Even more sinister has been Mr. Odinga's electoral pact with the National Muslim Leaders' Forum — a hardline Islamist organization that represents Kenya's Muslim minority. According to this document, dated August 29, 2007, Mr. Odinga promised the Muslim leaders that, if elected, he would establish Sharia courts, not only in the northern and coastal regions where Kenyan Muslims are concentrated, but throughout the country.

He also promised to impose Muslim dress codes on women, ban alcohol and pork, indoctrinate children, ban Christian preaching, and dismiss the Commissioner of Police "who has allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists."

In short, Mr. Odinga in effect offered to Islamize Kenya in return for Muslim votes, despite the fact that Muslims make up only 10% of the population, compared to the 80% who are Christian. Mr. Odinga himself is nominally an Anglican, yet he signed a document that refers to Islam throughout as "the one true religion" and denigrates Christians as "worshippers of the cross."

Whether it is likely, as Mr. Odinga claims, that his party won the election with such a program, only to have it stolen by Mr. Kibaki, I cannot say. Nor am I qualified to speculate about why Mr. Odinga threw in his lot with the Islamists. It should certainly concern us that one of Africa's most stable and pro-Western countries is apparently threatened with the same grim fate that has befallen other East African states, such as Sudan and Somalia.

What, you will be asking by now, what does any of this have to do with Barack Obama? Well, Mr. Obama's father came from Kenya and his son is proud to call himself a Luo. His Kenyan relations boast that, even if they cannot get a Luo into the Kenyan presidential residence, they can look forward to a Luo in the White House.

Indeed, the connection may be even closer than a tribal one. Mr. Odinga even claims that Mr. Obama is his cousin, because the senator's father was Mr. Odinga's maternal uncle. Whether or not this true, the two men are friends and political allies.

In August 2006, Mr. Obama visited Kenya and spoke in support of Mr. Odinga's candidacy at rallies in Nairobi. The Web site Atlas Shrugs has even posted a photograph of the two men side by side. More recently, Mr. Odinga says that Mr. Obama interrupted his campaigning in New Hampshire to have a telephone conversation with his African cousin about the constitutional crisis in Kenya.

What should Americans make of Mr. Obama's Kenyan connection? If he has been putting tribal or family considerations above America's national interest by supporting Mr. Odinga's anti-Western candidacy, it raises serious questions about his judgement.

I sure hope a lone reporter with a pair asks Obama whether or not he supports his ideological kin Robert Mugabe.

As in RED

Flippin' commies.

House Democrats responded to President's Bush's call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. This was at an on-camera press conference fed back live.

Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply.

It's moron leftists like them that have kept any new refineries from being built in over 30 years. During the past three decades gasoline consumption has increased while our refining capabilities have been a constant bottle neck.

Naturally these intellectually deficient Marxists offer up government control of refining as a solution. It only further tightens their grip on the lives of us members of the bourgeoisie and proletariat.

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling.

"We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market."

Does anyone dare as one of these Hugo Chavez wannabes just how lowering the price of oil fits into their planned economy? Will it be in the upcoming 5 year plan or will be be relegated to the following one?

How much gasoline will each citizen subject be rationed? Or carbon credits for that matter.

See you all on the breadlines, my comrades!