Despite fears on the right that Obama would trample the Second Amendment and take people’s guns, his presidency has so far been marked by a string of pro-gun victories and a reinvigorated gun advocacy movement — the result of a Democratic leadership that has proven unwilling to take on powerful firearm interests.

“It’s been very clear that there’s a solid pro-gun, pro-NRA majority on the floor of Congress, and you can’t do anything against it,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), a gun control advocate who has received an “F” grade from the National Rifle Association, told TWI. “And that’s the entire Republican Party and a fraction of the Democratic Party, which is a majority.”

The proliferation of pro-gun measures under President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress reflects the party’s learned reticence on the issue. Democrats remain haunted by memories of 1994, when gun control advocacy by President Bill Clinton led the pro-gun lobby to wage fierce campaigns that ousted several lawmakers aligned with the cause.

“Democrats learned a substantial lesson in 1994, and no anti-gun measures are ever going to come forth in this Congress,” said Don Kates, a lawyer and criminal law expert at the Pacific Research Institute.

The NRA, the leading gun rights group and one of Washington’s most formidable lobbies, has forcefully staked out its territory in Congress. Last month, Democrats, fearing an NRA backlash on a campaign finance measure, carved out what was widely considered a special exemption for the group. Subsequently, the NRA dropped its opposition, and the measure passed the House.

“Some people are so terrified of the NRA vote score that they’ll vote for anything the NRA says to vote for and against anything they say to vote against,” Nadler said. “It’s unfortunate in the extreme.”

In the last 20 years, the NRA and other pro-gun groups have outspent gun-control advocates by over 20-to-1 on lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Some gun control advocates expected more from this president. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama threw his weight behind various regulatory measures. He backed a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and voted to limit handgun purchases to one a month per person.

But Obama notably distanced himself from the cause during the 2008 election, proclaiming his commitment to the gun rights. “I believe in the Second Amendment,” he said. “I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away.”

One year into his presidency, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence gave Obama an “F” across the board on gun control issues. The Chicago Tribune joked the following month that “[o]n the list of issues for which Obama is willing to put himself on the line, gun control ranks somewhere below free trade with Uzbekistan.”

As a result, gun rights advocates remain about as unimpeded in their cause today as during the Bush administration.

“The political climate hasn’t changed a lot,” said Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “If you look back at when Republicans had control of government before 2006, you pretty much saw the same picture.”

“We were hoping for Obama to take a more forceful position in terms of gun violence prevention,” Everitt added, positing that Democrats have backed away due to pressure from the NRA, conservatives in the party, the disproportionate number of single-issue gun voters and the force of industry behind the gun rights cause.

“Gun rights organizations like the NRA saw President Obama’s history as being one of anti-gun owners’ rights,” said Bob Cottrol, a constitutional lawyer and gun law expert at George Washington University, “though that hasn’t been the case so far in his presidency.” But that perception, he said, led to an early and ongoing backlash among passionate gun owners that has furthered the pro-gun cause under Obama.

Kates put it more succinctly: “Historically, Democrats being in power has been a godsend for the finances of pro-gun groups.”

But according to David Kopel, a Second Amendment expert at New York University and gun rights advocate, Obama is subtly doing more to stem the gun movement than Bush. Kopel points out that Bush’s Supreme Court appointees, Samuel Alito and John Roberts, have been more pro-gun than Obama’s appointee Sonia Sotomayor, who voted on the losing side of the recent 5-4 McDonnell v. Chicago case, which limited the types of gun control regulations cities and states can adopt.

“Sotomayor said she considered [the 2008] Heller [ruling] to be settled law, that she knew how important the individual right to arms was, and then less than a year later she turned around and joined an opinion that said Heller should be overturned,” Kopel said.

But the replacements of two left-leaning justices with two other left-leaning justices — Sotomayor and, if confirmed, Elena Kagan — represents more of a status-quo perpetuation than a victory for gun control advocates.

Obama’s reluctance to take up gun control as president, after aligning himself with it for most of his career, signals an increasingly toxic national political climate for the cause and reflects the Democratic Party’s shift.

“I’d say President Obama has been politically astute in not following the Bill Clinton policy of trying to make gun control a top-three national issue,” Kopel said.

Added Kates of the Pacific Research Institute: “Generally speaking, gun control advocates have other ambitions, other objectives, and for now they’re willing to drop their anti-gun concerns in exchange for not being defeated in other matters.”

But Nugent tells Whispers he stands ready to battle the antigunners in Washington. “Clearly, the NRA is the ultimate ‘we the people,’ family, grass-roots organization for what is clearly Job 1 for free men everywhere: to guarantee our God-given right to keep and bear arms and defend ourselves,” he tells our Suzi Parker. “To be so honored to participate in any way, as an NRA board member or the ultimate honor of serving as president, would surely be a duty I would put my heart and soul into. I am genuinely moved that it is even being discussed. I am ready, willing, and able to serve if the good NRA members call upon me.”

His campaign may be made more difficult by his tendency to say outrageous things. Even for the NRA, having a president who goes around saying things like, “Obama, he’s a piece of shit. I told him to suck on my machine gun” and “Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch” would likely be a problem. You can watch him say those things on video here.

“(The inverted flag is) an international signal for distress and we feel our country is in distress because the n—– got in,” said Hampel’s employee Rod Nyland, of Traverse City.

The employee later called the reporter back to apologize. A spokesman for the store, salesman Jack Fellows, spoke for management, telling the Record-Eagle that Nyland’s comments were not authorized or endorsed by the shop, Hampel’s Key and Lockshop, located just off downtown:

But Fellows said Nyland had it right about their display of the flag as a distress warning for the country, he said.

“It’s basically a display of alarm. The winning presidential candidate was not our choice and has the worst anti-gun record in Congress, let alone the Senate,” Fellows said. “We feel we are facing a national crisis. Fine rhetoric is one thing, but the gentleman has no executive record whatsoever. He’s not fit to be president of the country.”

Fellows went on to tell the Record-Eagle that many gun owners are distressed about Barack Obama’s stance on the Second Amendment, which establishes the right to bear arms.

Certainly it’s sad to see people against the Obama-Biden ticket purely because of race. It’s no secret that prejudice is still a part of American society. But if gun owners are getting their information about Obama from the National Rifle Association (NRA), it’s hardly surprising that hunters would be “up in arms” about an Obama presidency.

The laughably (or, tragically) hyperbolic propaganda campaign put together by the NRA this year, which includes an anti-Obama Web site and TV ad campaign, paints Obama, a onetime constitutional law professor, as someone who would attack the Second Amendment and be “the most anti-gun president in American history.” The NRA’s campaign pushed hard the idea that the Illinois senator wanted to ban deer hunting ammunition and take rifles and shotguns off the shelves.

The claims in the NRA ads are disputed by nonpartisan watchdog FactCheck.org, which described the TV ad above as one that “distorts Obama’s position on gun control beyond recognition.” Obama’s platform, which states, “Barack Obama … will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns,” is found here.

Is the Obama administration going to advocate for the repealing of this or any of the other amendments to the Constitution? No.

But if you trust the NRA — as most conservatives do — and took its ads and its Web site at face value, or you really believed some hype from your favorite political pundit that Obama was going to get rid of your favorite inalienable right, then you’re probably pretty distressed right now, too.

Complement this false propaganda from the NRA with messaging from the McCain-Palin campaign, a host of conservative 527s and right-wing pundits that say Obama associates with terrorists, hates America and is a socialist, and it’s no wonder that many Americans who self-identify as being patriotic feel that Tuesday night’s results will advent the downfall of the Constitution, apple pie, mom and the American way.

There’s no law in this country that says you have to be excited about an Obama presidency. Many have their reasons, based on actual facts, to not be, and enjoy the right to express that unhappiness.

But there’s also no doubt that the NRA, numerous conservative 527s and the McCain campaign itself have entrenched some of the country’s more traditional, more rural citizens against our new president with the irresponsible use of lies, half-truths and smears back when the election was still in doubt.

It’s this kind of divisiveness, left over in the wake of a brutal campaign season, that fails to serve our country in a time when it most needs to unify.

Dissent is healthy to democracy. But neo-McCarthyism, as this country already painfully learned once, is a cynical tool that can be used only with utter recklessness by one party in an attempt to corner the market on patriotism.

As with the fall of Sen. Joe McCarthy, let’s hope the victory for the Democrats, who are in fact not patently unpatriotic because they oppose Republicans, is a repudiation, a rejection of this tactic by Republicans and anyone else, forever and ever, Amen … as the country song goes.

Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, is threatening the group Health Care for American Now with legal action over a TV ad that he claims distorts his position on insurance coverage.

Walberg’s attorneys sent a letter to the ACORN-affiliated organization that accuses them of defamation for running an allegedly false advertisement:

The television advertisement you are running against Congressman Tim Walberg is false and purposefully damaging to his reputation. Your organization’s advertisement contains the following statement, which is false: “Republican Congressman Tim Walberg sponsored legislation that would let insurance companies make the rules. They could even deny coverage for preexisting conditions like cancer.”

First, under the legislation cited in your advertisement, H.R. 4460, insurance companies would not make the rules. According to the Congressional Research Service and National Center for Policy Analysis, the insurance policies would be regulated by and subject to state and federal laws …

Here is the ad under dispute:

A Gongwer news service article on Tuesday quoted a spokesperson for Mark Schauer, who is challenging Walberg in the November election, defending the accuracy of the ad:

Zack Pohl, spokesperson for challenger Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek, said the bill Mr. Walberg supported could have the effect of allowing insurance companies to reject people with pre-existing conditions if a state allowed that.

“While we are not responsible for the claims being made by outside groups, the fact of the matter is that Walberg supports legislation that allows consumers to purchase health care coverage across state lines, which would encourage insurance companies to set up shop in states with the least restrictive laws. This would essentially allow the insurance companies to set the rules and discriminate against patients with pre-existing conditions,” Mr. Pohl said in a statement. “Walberg has said that ‘everyone can walk into an emergency room and receive basic health care,’ and frankly the people of Michigan deserve better.”

As the Michigan Messenger reported last week, the Obama campaign has threatened similar legal action against TV stations that agree to air an ad produced by the NRA that the campaign insists is inaccurate. Regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of either of these ads, legal experts have said that such threats tend to fail, as the ads are widely considered protected speech under the First Amendment.

On his 72nd birthday – which also happens to be the third anniversary of Hurricane Katrina – John McCain has announced his choice for running mate, a first-term Governor of Alaska, and former small town mayor, Sarah Palin.

A woman who has been able to rise in the political arena as fast as Sarah Palin will no doubt have incredible appeal to some women in Michigan, and nationwide. Successful career woman with a marriage, children, a son in the military about to deploy to Iraq, and attractive to boot, could be an enticement to women voters.Her staunch anti-choice views will certainly ensure John McCain keeps his conservative voter base, but will those views be a turn-off for true women’s rights advocates? What ideals would they sacrifice to help elect a woman into the White House as Vice President? Being a lifetime NRA member with ties to big oil, and unfriendly to many environmental issues — such as opposition to polar bears being listed as endangered, in favor of aerial hunting of wolves, and pro-offshore oil drilling — are often hot buttons for men and women alike. If having a woman in the White House — any woman — is the primary objective, Palin could be a deciding factor. However, disenfranchised Hillary Clinton supporters could be insulted and put-off by the choice of the hockey-mom, as Hillary was supported not for her gender alone, but for her intelligence and experience.

Palin will also certainly keep the Obama-Biden camp on their toes as they discuss how they will deal with her inexperience, and other issues without coming across as sexist. This will also be a chore for the media as well. And as much as I look forward to the coming Palin-Biden debates, Biden, too, will have to avoid anything that could be construed as sexist or ‘talking down’ to Palin. This could be a huge sticking point for undecided women voters, if not in check.

Worth noting is the distraction that Sarah Palin has created in the media in the hours since that private jet was spotted in Ohio. Up to that point, everyone was still basking in the glow of Obama’s fabulous speech last night at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. We were all focused on the feeling of unity, the historical ramifications, and the hope for change. The McCain camp has successfully forced all that emotion to a veritable halt, as we scratch our heads and say, “Sarah who?” and try to figure out why her.

In my own estimation the choice of Palin is an act of desperation in a moment of panic as the Republican camp sat around watching the excitement that swept Denver last night. Nothing else makes sense as I ponder why, after making experience the issue in his campaign, would he appoint a former small town mayor, and first-term Governor with virtually no experience on every front, and every issue?

If that’s not enough to make you wonder, she doesn’t even know what the function of the vice president is (video at the link):

“But as for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell ya, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me, what is it exactly that the VP does every day?”

[Source: Sarah Palin, 8/1/08, CNBC, "Kudlow and Company"]