Skip to main content

Hi folks!

You may have seen Ken Vogel's Politico articledescribing Obama's involvement with the Joyce Foundation where he was on the board from 1994 to 2002.  This came up on a lucid MyDD Diary discussion tonight (no, just kidding, it was a Finger-gate Rantfest), and I wrote the following commentary that I felt needed to be posted here.

Partly because I did some actual research and math that folks might find useful, but mostly because it is just yet another farcicle issue that's fun to lampoon, the Lampoon Tent opens below...

OH NO! A Dem on the Board of a Fund that supports other groups that support talking about ways to control handguns!!!!!!!

Next thing I'll hear is that there's a Republican who supports groups that support discussing limiting Abortion!

Oh the Horror of it!

Mission Statement

The Joyce Foundation supports efforts to protect the natural environment of the Great Lakes, to reduce poverty and violence in the region, and to ensure that its people have access to good schools, decent jobs, and a diverse and thriving culture. We are especially interested in improving public policies, because public systems such as education and welfare directly affect the lives of so many people, and because public policies help shape private sector decisions about jobs, the environment, and the health of our communities. To ensure that public policies truly reflect public rather than private interests, we support efforts to reform the system of financing election campaigns.  

Yep, crazy foundation for a Dem to be on the board of!

Improving Firearms Policy

The Foundation believes that better public policies can help reduce gun violence. It supports the efforts of law enforcement officials, legislators, municipal leaders, the medical and public health communities, advocacy groups, and others in pushing for measures to stop gun trafficking, keep guns out of the hands of criminals, prevent children from getting access to firearms, and other measures that offer promise of combating gun violence.

Sounds radical!

Alberding said Sugarmann's group is "the only organization that we fund that explicitly has that goal" of a national handgun ban. The foundation's cash can't be used to lobby, she pointed out. And she stressed that when Obama was on the board, the focus of the foundation's gun violence program was almost exclusively on studying the issue from a public health perspective.

Not only that, but 1.23% of the grants allocated went to folks advocating - among other things - the discussion of banning HANDGUNS!  The sheer unmitigated madness!  

Of that overwhelming number, 0.038% of the funds went to "a symposium on the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to bear arms, but rather only a state's right to arm its militia."  A symposium!  They were TALKING at that thing!  What was he thinking?!?

Seems like the most of the 1.23% of the funding went to a group ominously called the "Violence Policy Center"

...primarily for efforts to study the public health effects of gun violence.

That appears to be the purpose of a majority of the 83 gun-violence grants...

And of the wildly unDemocratic VPC's 105 listed publications, 0.009% of the funding supported the publication of one book putting forth the argument for banning handguns (whose author "disagree[s] with Obama's interpretation of the Second Amendment" - but you know that's a smokescreen), and 0.0045% of the funding went "to support a student grass-roots gun violence prevention campaign." - but, get this, the student group advocates a handgun ban!

And, Obama at one time supported a limit of buying only "one handgun a month" - which barely satisfies my personal needs, I can tell you that.

And you just know that the 81% of funding that went to groups studying the environment, education, employment, money and politics and culture is just another false front erected by the Obama campaign!

But, what's this?  A crack in Obama's un-Democratic anti-handgun stance?

"Obama supported a 2002 amendment to bar the use of federal homeland security funds to seize firearms during states of emergency", while Senator Clinton opposed barring the use of DHS funds to seize guns.

Whew!  At least one candidate is sticking to the Democratic Party's support of guns!

He may as well quit the race, this guy is a goner!  No Democrat will ever vote for him (I, myself am now voting for my cat, who just told me he's Ben Franklin's ghost)!

-thanks!

-chris

PS, did I mention that he is a black crypto-muslim antiamerican secret society communist manchurian candidate funded by the Illuminati, and actually a thousand year old tibetan monk presevered in formaldehyde and operated with strings?

Originally posted to chrisblask on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:46 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  And nobody seems to mention (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sable, soms, LogicaLizE, vet75

    that Obama supported the Vitter Amendment, preventing the government from using national emergencies as an excuse to seize our guns -- while Hillary opposed it.

    The trouble with the gun lobby is that they think people ought to be able to hunt deer with a Gatling gun or a bazooka (regardless of what it does to the venison).  Or that concealed handguns improve public safety.

    The trouble with the Hillary campaign is they don't seem to understand when overbearing government actually DOES become a threat to the freedom of its citizens, but will quite happily pretend they do and distort Obama's actual record for the sake of a few extra votes in Pennsylvania.

    •  The problem with the Dems is: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      burrow owl

      The trouble with the gun lobby is that they think people ought to be able to hunt deer with a Gatling gun or a bazooka (regardless of what it does to the venison).  Or that concealed handguns improve public safety

      This shows about 0 understanding about the 2nd, gun rights advocates, the REAL effect of viable self defence and the effectiveness of "gun control" laws.

      Perhaps you do not think that gun owners should be courted to the democratic party. There are, clearly, way more of us gun carrying people in the party than you think. And BTW...we DO make our neighborhoods and your streets safer.

      Just because one knows that six minutes is way too long to wait for the police when someone is trying to rape your wife, does not mean that we are not for progressive policies.

      The gun vote can swing the Senate.

      Think about it.

      I support Barack Obama, and I approved this message.

      by mlandman on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:20:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  In Chicago 12 bullets went into a magnificant (0+ / 0-)

    wild cougar.  If the cops were not armed this great cat might still be alive.  

    I do not understand the argument for guns.  Is life so cheap?  

    •  Life is precious (4+ / 0-)

      That's why my 100 lb daughter has a gun.  She lives alone.  Admittedly, the little town she lives in in NJ is about as violent as a church service.  But, better safe than sorry.  That's why a lot of people I know have conceal carry permits.  What's important about gun ownership is being a responsible gun owner.  Know how to shoot, know how to care for your gun.  As far as the cougar, I totally agree with you.  There are such things as tranquilzer guns and the police were totally wrong to kill it.  However, it's not guns we need to keep off the streets.  It's the people who are too stupid to use them, or criminals who don't care who they hurt.  Most gun owners are responsible and law abiding.

  •  Politico is awful. (0+ / 0-)
    The only thing worth clicking on are the cartoons in the lower right-hand section (and even then only half of them are on-target and funny)

    "The next time Hillary opens her mouth, she's going to sound like Elroy Jetson in comparison." ~ Some anonymous 'Wonkette' talk-backer.

    by OReillysNightmare on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:58:41 AM PDT

  •  What Obama Needs To Do (0+ / 0-)

    OK. So Obama has a record (overall) on guns that has the potential to hurt him in the general elections in rural areas and with gun owners.

    It is interesting to me that Hillary whose record and rhetoric is also anti gun is actually getting MORE of the gun vote. I attribute this to the fact she's not black.

    Bill Clinton came in assuring hunters and gun owners he wasn't going to take their guns and then turned around and passed several highly unpopular gun control measures that lost us congress and gave some proof to the GOP's arguments about Democrats and gun control.

    Obama has a good start by saying that he believes the second is an individual right and also by voting for the Vitter Amendment, but he danced all around the issue in the last debate.

    Obama needs to clearly define what his position really is or his position will be defined FOR him.

    I am very Anti Gun Control, but I like Obama. I can't imagine that any democratic president is going to make gun control a primary and I can't imagine congress after being booted out in 94 for it is going to pass anything.

    But people don't trust Democrats on gun control. Obama needs to make it clear he's not going to make the AWB, or National Gun Registration, or any of the other more draconian gun controls a priority and it will neutralize the issue.

    However as long as he dances around the issue and refuses to clearly define his objectives the more people will use his RECORD to define him and to vote on.

    •  Bill could pass as a good ol' boy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rapala

      Obama has a tougher time doing that.

      Additionally, being from N. IL. doesn't help.

      I support Barack Obama, and I approved this message.

      by mlandman on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:10:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He wants or wanted to eliminate C&C. (0+ / 0-)

      He needs to clarify that immediately.  

      "[G]lobalization is...increasing the efficiency of resource allocation through stronger capital markets" - Barack Obama

      by burrow owl on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:35:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We can't all agree on everything (0+ / 0-)

      and there is no perfect candidate. I love Obama. I'm a huge supporter, but I'll admit that he's bad (in my opinion) on gun control. He wants the gun control laws, and he's floundering around trying to find a response that is both honest and won't cost him votes. He can't have both, but what he can have is an honest discourse where he discusses priorities and listening to voters. What a refreshing difference it would be to hear a politician say that he disagrees with the American people, and he'll do what the people want and/or make a compromise on that issue. Because that's what his floundering around seems to be getting at, in a very bad way.

      Sorry that this comment is kind of rambling...

      Change you can Xerox. Print it. Read it. Copy it. Pass it on. Obama '08

      by dawnt on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:15:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Did you email Vogel at The Politico this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chrisblask

    information?  It's really important to get this to him, also Ben Smith.  Great info. The press, repugs, et al are going to throw it all at him, and we need to be organized to effectively defend his actions and convince the press this continuing this guilt by association character assasination isn't relevant to our daily lives. Let's discuss further.

  •  WOW (0+ / 0-)

    PS, did I mention that he is a black crypto-muslim antiamerican secret society communist manchurian candidate funded by the Illuminati, and actually a thousand year old tibetan monk presevered in formaldehyde and operated with strings?

    I never saw the strings, and he looks REAL good for his age!

    I support Barack Obama, and I approved this message.

    by mlandman on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:23:46 AM PDT

    •  Not so much. (0+ / 0-)

      It's fine for people that feel exactly the same way that the diarist does, but it doesn't provide a template for the BHO campaign, and it doesn't do much in the way of persuasion.  It just mocks people that value the second amendment.

      "[G]lobalization is...increasing the efficiency of resource allocation through stronger capital markets" - Barack Obama

      by burrow owl on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:36:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, you are reading it incorrectly (0+ / 0-)

        It mocks dems who attack dems on gun control, and it provides a perspective on Obama's involvement with the Joyce foundation on topic.

        The funding was for various think-tanks on how to address gun violence.  A tiny portion of that was folks outright advocating bans.

        I'm right-center - I have no problem with guns intrinsically.  But like Obama, I'm a pragmatist and willing to listen to thoughts on addressing the issues with them.

        -cheers

        -chris

        •  No, I read it correctly. (0+ / 0-)

          Not only that, but 1.23% of the grants allocated went to folks advocating - among other things - the discussion of banning HANDGUNS!  The sheer unmitigated madness!  

          Here you mock people that think banning handguns is terrible policy and/or unconstitutional.

          And, Obama at one time supported a limit of buying only "one handgun a month" - which barely satisfies my personal needs, I can tell you that.

          Here you mock people that think a limit on our 2nd am. right would be unconstitutional.

          "[G]lobalization is...increasing the efficiency of resource allocation through stronger capital markets" - Barack Obama

          by burrow owl on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:45:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  You know (0+ / 0-)

    I respect gun rights. I grew up in the suburbs of Ohio surrounded by gun country. I understand how people may gawk at Obama being on the board of a foundation who has a small caveat about gun safety.

    But this is what pisses me off.

    When the hell are us Dems going to grow a freakin spine?

    We have lost our spines pandering to every micro-trend interest that could garner a vote.

    We are hawkish when you want us to be, diplomatic when the time calls for it, and even a little anti-choice if the occassion calls for it.

    Obama is for gun safety. He respects the 2nd Amendment, but he also sees the crime that is prevalent in the ghettos and streets of Urban America. These are people who do not respect guns and do not take responsibility for them. Those are the people we are targeting with gun legislation.

    I think we as Dems get freaked out when people say "oh noo you are too far to the left" and we want to just throw our principles out the window to get a vote.

    Suck it up. We aren't the party of gun totting, anti-legislation extermist. People who feel that even limiting guns getting into the hands of people who have a history of violence or mental insanity will NOT vote for us in November.

    I WANT A NOMINEE WITH A SPINE. And if MyDerangedDemocrat feels that the should attack him with Republican talking points, then let them wallow in their madness/talking points.

    We are all Dems, but if we don't buck up and stand for something we will fall for anything. This is about pledged delegates and thus far  Obama is the nominee.

    Wands Huh? Barry Potter-Fighting against She Who Must Not Be Nominated Since 2007.

    by LogicaLizE on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:55:59 AM PDT

  •  Well Bill Clinton (0+ / 0-)

    And Hillary have stood up for gun control on numerous occastions. Now she's running for the center.

    Bill Clinton even got congress to go along with it. That was the congress that got booted out in 94.

    The Dems that got put back in in 06 were guys like Jim Webb, Tester. Does that tell you anything about the issue??

    I think the Dems should be standing up all right. But AGAINST any new regulations.

  •  Gun control destroys democrats (0+ / 0-)

    The Joyce Foundation claims to do research about gun laws and crime facts but they are more akin to drug companies doing research about the drugs they sell. The result of their research is always favorable to their position. This alleged "research" is often used by the Brady Campaign and other gun control groups to influence policy. The Joyce foundation may do good work in other areas, but when it comes to violence research and gun laws the outcome is always the same, that my friends is academic dishonesty.
    What is at issue is Obama’s authenticity of his views of gun ownership. The facts are that he has made contradicting statements and votes about gun ownership. His votes as a state senator and as the Jr. Senator to Washington have been decidedly for gun control. His one vote for allowing citizens to keep their guns during an emergency and rhetoric on the campaign trail does not negate his gun control voting record, organizations he supports, what he wrote in his books, and what he says in private. This is all hurting his public image of integrity as a hero of the people by being above the fray of politics. Obama successfully and artfully dodged the Wright issue by appearing authentic, now his authenticity is in question when it comes to gun rights.
    The gun issue is proving to be much harder to get away from and it is making him look like a typical politician, ducking, weaving, and very defensive. His "bitter" comment and sour grapes after the last debate only compounded the issue. At the end of the day his campaign rhetoric does not match his past, which undermines his message that he is for the politics of change and partisanship.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site