Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Sandy  Froman :: Townhall.com Columnist
NRA Members Must Oppose Sotomayor
by Sandy Froman
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama’s first nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, has a narrow view of the Second Amendment that contradicts the Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.  A heated debate has started in the U.S. Senate over her opposition to the right to keep and bear arms. This issue, which has decided the fate of presidential elections, could also decide her nomination. Gun owners, and especially the members of the National Rifle Association, must aggressively oppose Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.  

On June 24, senators began speaking on the floor of the Senate expressing grave concerns over Judge Sotomayor’s Second Amendment record. Senator Jeff Sessions R-AL, the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pointed out that although her record on the issue is “fairly scant,” she has twice stated that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right.  Senator Sessions also noted that in Second Amendment and other constitutional cases, Sotomayor’s analysis of important constitutional issues has been lacking suggesting “a troubling tendency to avoid or casually dismiss difficult Constitutional issues of exceptional importance.”  Sotomayor’s view on the Second Amendment clearly reflects an extreme anti-gun philosophy, and some Democrat senators from pro-gun states are justifiably nervous.

Last year, the Supreme Court held in Heller that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individual Americans to keep and bear firearms. But that ruling was a fiercely-contested, 5-4 split decision. Justice Kennedy joined the four conservatives on the Court to make the majority, with the four liberal justices writing passionate dissents about how the Second Amendment does not apply to private citizens.

Bluntly speaking, the Second Amendment survived by a single vote. Had one justice voted differently, the Second Amendment would have been erased from the Bill of Rights forever. Today in the Supreme Court, the right to bear arms hangs by a single vote. 

The next question the Supreme Court will decide is whether the Second Amendment is a “fundamental right” that applies to cities and states, thus preventing them from restricting gun rights.  Even the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held earlier this year in Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, yet Judge Sotomayor disagrees.

When Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, it belied his flowery rhetoric about respecting our constitutional gun rights. Out of almost 200 federal appeals judges in this country, Judge Sotomayor is one of only six to weigh in (after the Heller case) to hold that the Second Amendment only limits federal actions. If your state or city chooses to ban all guns or take away the ones that you already have in your home for hunting and self-defense, Sonia Sotomayor says the Constitution can’t help you.  

This position becomes all the more radical when it’s revealed how she reached this conclusion. Only six judges have denied gun rights against the states. Of these, three did so in a recent Seventh Circuit case, NRA v. Chicago, writing a detailed opinion that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the states because they thought an old 1800s Supreme Court case tied their hands on the issue, and they commended the case up to the Supreme Court after long and scholarly consideration. Judge Sotomayor and two of her liberal colleagues, however, wrote only a single paragraph on the whole issue when deciding their own New York case, Maloney v. Cuomo. In one paragraph, she said the Second Amendment gives people no rights at all when it comes to state or city laws. She gave no explanation, and made no call for Supreme Court action.

Then we find that this has been a consistent belief for Sotomayor. In a case before her in 2004, she and her colleagues concluded that there is no fundamental right in the Second Amendment but provided no substantive analysis to justify this conclusion. Throughout her career, Judge Sotomayor’s record is one of consistent opposition to the private ownership of firearms.

America has almost 90 million gun owners who value their rights. And of these, no one does more to protect the Second Amendment than the four million members of the National Rifle Association.

I served as an officer of the NRA for nine years, including a two-year term as president. I saw NRA members turn the tide on Election Day 2000 to defeat Al Gore. We fought again to help defeat John Kerry in 2004. We can do the same with Sonia Sotomayor, if we call our U.S. Senators and tell them to vote against this anti-gun judge. No fewer than fourteen Democrat senators have solid records on the Second Amendment, and we must urge them to oppose this nominee.

Next year, the Supreme Court is likely to take up NRA v. Chicago, which will decide whether the Second Amendment applies to states and cities like it does the federal government. This case is as important as Heller, and will massively impact gun rights forever.

We already know where Judge Sotomayor stands. It’s time to tell the Senate, “Vote No! on Sonia Sotomayor.”

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Sandy Froman is the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association of America, only the second woman and the first Jewish American to hold that office in the 136-year history of the NRA. The views expressed are her own and not that of any organization.

Be the first to read Sandy Froman's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

We also must oppose
HR 45 which is another gun control bill. It will even make private sales illegal. It will also bring back the Clinton assault ban.

Second Amendment
The American people will enforce the Right to Keep and Bear Arms;politicians,news media,and judges can go pound gun powder.When it comes to guns,there are more than enough guns for every man,woman,and child.The toothpaste is out of the tube and it's not going back in.The contempt for politicians that violate constitutional rights and courts that look the other way is at a fever pitch and Americans'tolerance for such nonsense is paper-thin.

Want an EASY $10,000?
Come on all you Obama lovers! Step up to the plate. Surely ONE of you, somewhere on this planet can prove that Obama is who he says he is .... because he can't ... or won't ... hmmmm I wonder why ...

NEWS Flash ....

WASHINGTON – WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah is offering a $10,000 reward to anyone who can prove he or she was present at the birth of Barack Obama – and he's asking Americans to donate to the cause in hopes of raising the bounty to an irresistible amount.

Go here and make an easy $10,000 ...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId= 101892

WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

USPatriot56

Sotomayor and the Second Amendment
Sotomayor wrote a paper that states that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States; in fact, none of them do if the second does not.

Let's have some fun. I never liked the First Amendment. I propose that we ban all news except Fox News by state law. That pesky old First Amendment only applies to the Federal government. Same goes for establishment of religion. I officially declare the religion of Arizona to be ... hmmm... CATHOLICISM! That's the majority religion in our state. Furthermore, we will all pay church taxes to support this official church. As a special dispensation, people are permitted to attend their own unofficial unestablished churches, as long as they pay their church tax. If not, why not? This actually was the situation in several States well into the nineteenth century. If her constitutional reasoning is correct on the Second Amendment, then it must be correct on the First. Ave Maria, y'all.

Joel-De Oppresso Liber
Lead to the Head!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!
They don't get it. If they think we will ever give up this GOD GIVEN RIGHT to self preservation then they had better be concerned about their own preservation. Go ahead libers. Bite of some more you can't chew and swallow. This issue I don't think the teabagger in chief has the cojones to take on. But I wish to God he would.

"Paper Thin Tolerance"
Eric writes: “... contempt for politicians that violate constitutional rights and courts that look the other way is at a fever pitch and Americans tolerance for such nonsense is paper-thin....”
============ =============== ==============
Re: with the appointment of Judge Sotomayor, which despite our best efforts, I fear is likely; this paper thin tolerance will explode should her swing vote destroy what’s left of the 2nd Amd. This is one reason why millions of Americans like myself are now acquiring serious military hardware and stock pilling ammo.

Note to Sandy Froman:
Great to hear from our former NRA President. Thank you for all you’ve done to fight for our Constitutional rights and help keep our nation free.

LOL
Conservatizers and their issues. Gays, guns, and abortions.

When you haven't heard anything about one issue for a while, it's time to bring up another.

The NRA is a joke and only extremists carry guns. I hope she bans assualt weapons too. You people are crazy.

USpatriot
Why does his birth certificate say Honolulu if he wasn't born in the USA.


DIMWIT!!!!!
He has NEVER produced a standard birth certificate. Only a "record of live birth" which is NOT the same thing. Another similarity between O'Vomit and God. NEITHER has a birth certificate.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

Wrat Wrangler
Yes but God does not think he is Obama!

Hawaii State Law allows it
Tyler writes:
USpatriot
Why does his birth certificate say Honolulu if he wasn't born in the USA.
======================
His sister Maya who was born in Jakarta Indonesia also has one just like it due to this law of the State of Hawaii.

Hawaiian state law allows children born outside Hawaii get valid Hawaiian birth certificates (S. 338-17.8)

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

Not infringed
Means I do not care what Sotomayor thinks.

She has absolutely no authority over God Given Rights.

She has no authority over the US Constitution.

In fact she is under it, not vice versa.

Marxists always get everything backwards

Lefties like Tyler
Afraid of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, that is the ultimate lunacy. We have an abundance of laws that make crimes committed with firearms carry much stiffer penalties.

The odd thing you sissy lefties never want to talk about is that everywhere guns are outlawed (Australia most recently), gun crimes go through the roof.

When you hear someone breaking in your house and you call the cops, would you like them to bring their guns with them? Same thing with firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens.

Remember Doctors accidentally kill 4000 times more people per year than accidental shootings, should we ban Doctors? Of course not both Doctors and firearms save lives.

Tyler
Conservatives and their issues-- personal freedom, economic freedom, and religious freedom-- what radicals!

Writing and calling;
I will be writing my two senators, from Ill-noise. Guess what my odds are. Still I'll write. This is a good well writen eye-opener.

Tyler
How many of your friends are guilty of breaking and entering? That's the only true reason that I can think of that would make you against C&C permits. Oh, you might say that too many people are killed by guns, but that's just lib speak. Yup, that's the only true reason --worried about your friends.

Just Two Questions, Tyler
Would you support the concept of an armed struggle by the people of Iran against the government forces of theocratic dictatorship run by Ayatollah Khamenei?

Do you believe that a people have the right to use violence to overthrow an unjust ruler?

eastlake joe
"How many of your friends are guilty of breaking and entering? That's the only true reason that I can think of that would make you against C&C permits." Good point. When I worked in a max security prison, the people who were the most against private gun ownership were burglars. To critics who ask me sneeringly if I've ever needed one to defend myself, the answer is twice-- so far. None or one would suffice. I have a fire extinguisher and six alarms, yet I have never had a fire.

Also, I wonder of Tyler knows how many people with C&C permits have ever committed a crime using a gun? Virtually zero is the correct answer. And none before the permit was issued.

Robert
I have been trying for years to find the statistics on how many crimes and non-defense type deaths are done with legally owned guns by the owner. I can't find it. they group them in with the murderers and burglars. That makes it look like there are many when there are practically none! That's why half of these mental midgets are afraid of gun ownership!

Joe
Here is a good site to track the information you are seeking.

quote:

What We Do

We seek and find current news stories recounting true events of lawful, decent citizens using firearms to defend themselves, their loved ones, others and property -- and channel it back to this central location to assure maximum exposure of these events in a timely and efficient manner.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/OpSD/Default.asp?

eastlake joe
No, they don't keep such statistics. I've kept my own running tally by carefully reading all reported gun crimes in my state. I've never found but one that involved a C&C holder. Very few involve legally owned guns. Around 75% involve people who have already been convicted of a felony (not even considering felonies other shooters may not have been caught or convicted for).

The only one I ever found involved someone who shot a dog which attacked him and knocked him down. Then the owner, who was mentally ill, attacked the man, who shot him in self-defense. He was convicted of manslaughter, which I consider ridiculous. The case is under appeal.

Such A Shame
It is absurd for millions of gun owners, with hundreds of millions of guns and thousands of tons of ammunition, to fear having to turn in those weapons because one or two liberal intellectuals use their expensive degrees to engage in linguistic trickery and distort the clear meaning of our constitution, written by men of wisom and courage who mean us to be armed.

If this happens, then we deserve to be made slaves. How shameful it would be for long lines of so called men to meekly hand over their guns, knowing that they will be tyrannized afterword.

Fear is an emotion for slaves.

Robert
I hope you never get fired from a job because your boss thinks you are getting too old. Because if you do, the good old SCOTUS just made it harder for you to take your boss to court.

And I also hope that you never get wrongly convicted of a crime, because, depending on the state you live in, you may not be able to get a DNA test to prove you are innocent.

To me, these all also issues of personal and economic freedom. The conservatives on the Court seem to be denying those freedoms and legislating a little too much from the bench.

badgerboy
I've heard various accusations against the current court about legislating from the bench, but I never heard the same people complaining about the former court for doing the same thing from a liberal standpoint. I suspect that the examples you give are not exactly what they seem to be to you. I've investigated other claims of denial of freedom against the conservative jurists, and have always found them wanting.

badgerboy
Just a thought? What does your post have to do with the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms?

Talent scout & Robert
Robert thanks for the info.
Talent Scout, I need stats on crimes and non-defense killings. I've already seen the stats on legal shootings. But thanks for the try.

an appropriate quote;
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by
forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals
to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
---------- Jeff Snyder


Tyler
Do you have a lisp too?

An Ignorant Jewish Women (sic)
Jay/Jesus,
Your post was sic(k) in more ways than one. It seems to have been so far off track that no one has found a way to respond in almost 3 hours!

All I can say is that your rant was such a typical liberal move in that you stoop to attacking the messager because you can not refute the message that it really shouldn't be responded to at all, just flagged for removal which I have done.

Go to my blog
by clicking on my name.

There, you'll see my current essay: "Sotomayor, Liberal Thought, and Judicial Activism"

In it, I outline why Sotomayor's unqualified to be confirmed to SCOTUS. Feel free to copy and paste it into an email or letter to your Senators, or members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I emailed it to each member of the Judiciary Committee last weekend, and suddenly this week we have Sessions bucking her confirmation, using almost the exact same language I used in that essay.

You can use this link: http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm

to contact the members of the committee by email.

I urge all who support gun rights to make those contacts.

This is a great
analysis of one of the several reasons why this nominee is not qualified to sit on SCOTUS. If only it were as difficult for criminals to obtain guns as it is for law abiding citizens. The 2nd amendment is one of the simplist sections of the Bill of Rights. I've never understood how anyone could allow ANY legislation controlling the right to keep and bear arms. ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", seems clear to me. If the Founders meant for the states to be allowed to regulate arms, they would have said so in so many words.

Chill Papa G.
Libs can't HANDLE the idea that the former president of the NRA is a Jewish grandmother and a university professor from San Francisco. To them that's heresy.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

Remember Shoney's!!!!!
ABC ran a "story" claiming to "prove" that legal guns can't prevent crime. They re-enacted some famous shooting(s) and inserted gun owners who all (not surprisingly) got shot dead and the outcome was not altered.

This is an article of faith and not fact. In Killeen,TX a lunatic drove his car through a plate glass window, entered Luby's and executed numerous patrons including the parents of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp who is now a Congresswoman from TX.

Dr. Gratia had a .357 in her car but TX didn't have CCW laws then. She was classed as expert with that gun and could have saved at least some of the lives lost. Her story became a rallying cry and the useless Ma Richards was blown out of office because Dubya SIGNED the CCW law she did her best to block.

Same year a month later at Shoney's Restaurant in Anniston AL, three thugs herded the guests and staff into a walk-in fridge. The moved the cars behind the bldg. and turned off the signs.

They MEANT to execute the witnesses. One patron with a 1911 Colt was hidden. He emerged, killed one outright. Mortally wounded a second and wounded the third. THAT case got NO press outside Alabama and the American Rifleman.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

Wrat:
I agree with you. Suzanna could have saved her parents. When cops at a nearby restaurant came in (after nearly twenty people had been killed) the murderer shot himself. She wouldn't even have had to have shot him herself - just shot to let him know she was armed. Although I am also certain she could have killed him.

Many of us in Texas are good shots. But the MSM doesn't want any one to know that having a gun can save lives. One shooting at a college (think Tennessee but I can't remember for sure) had three people shot when students "subdued" the shooter according to the MSM. What the media refused to tell people was that they did it by having their own guns. When they showed up with their guns and gave the shooter the choice of dropping his gun or dying, he gave up instantly.

As another NRA member, I can only urge ALL gun owners to join. It doesn't cost that much considering they fight for your rights and it does help insure you keep not only your 2nd Amendment right but all the rest too.

Jay:
You are right. Many Jewish people are intelligent and thoughtful thinkers. Unfortunately, you can't tell the difference between things like that because you are ignorant of Constitutional law, common law, and written law. Further, you are mentally handicapped. So how could you expect to know what is intelligent and what isn't? You should check yourself into a hospital so they can care for you. And you should also get rid of your gun before you harm yourself. Everyone insists that the mentally handicapped shouldn't own one and I agree.

Robert:
Since TX has more CCLs than most in the U.S., I have checked here for CCLs getting into trouble too. ONE man went to a bar with a CCL and gun - which is against the law here - got drunk and wounded a man. There are a few - very few! - cases of someone going into a place where even CCLs can't carry and getting a ticket for it. Other than that, nothing. On the other hand, I've seen several cases where someone with a CCL was able to stop a crime and/or save lives by having the gun with him. Just recently in a carjacking attempt, the carjacker decided to shoot the car owner after he had given up his car. When the car owner (who had a CCL and a gun) realized the car jacker was not going to just take the car, he pulled his own gun and stopped the jacker.

Sotomayor and right to bear arms
This week we saw Iranis trying to fight back against oppression, however, because the do not have access to arms, their protests are being suppressed by Basij thugs and Republican guards. Imagine a time to come when Martial Law is imposed because "domestic" terrorists, ie, Christians, anti-abortioniusts, veterans,etc, are on the list to subjucate. Would there be more caution exercised if the domesticated hounds knew the citizenry could fight back? Think hard, your future and your kids rely on a "well regulated " citizenry...

sandra:
One of the things about this list of "domestic" terrorists that really distrubs me is that everyone who isn't a Democrat is on the list. Does this mean that the Democrats have the right/obligation to arrest as a terrorist anyone who runs against them for office? I am beginning to believe that they believe it does. Therefore they aren't worried about anyone protesting anything they do now since they intend to use this to insure they cannot be voted out of office ever again. And they intend to insure that only Democrats will ever be in control in the future.

I just hope that I'm wrong!!

Jay:
Please tell me what being Jewish has to do with this article or the 2nd Amendment? Other than your simple minded view of how you think Jewish people "should" be. Group/identity politics at it's finest. Thanks for the display.

See, dimwit, not all Jewish folks are mush minded Obamatons, like you. There are even some who believe in 2nd Amendment rights. Here's MORE stuff to burst your simple minded bubble:

http://www.jpfo.org/

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage & keep the invader & the plunderer in awe, & preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them."...Thomas Paine


Sotomayor, like Obama, has to go
“Throughout her career,” Froman writes, “Judge Sotomayor’s record is one of consistent opposition to the private ownership of firearms.”

Well, I say it’s that, plus a record of consistent failure and refusal to furnish explanations of her opinions and rulings, as Froman also points out.

Judging from what I read here and other places, Sotomayor is most certainly cunning and shrewd, like a serpent, but seemingly not very intelligent. Even worse, she is overbearingly arrogant. What is the idea of making these sweeping and unconstitutional statements and then neglecting to explain?

I don’t give a fig what are Sotomayor’s personal opinions on anything. I do care about the rule of law and the authority and principles of the U.S. Constitution, which authority Sotomayor denies and which principles she violates.

The more I hear and read about this woman the more disgusted I become, and the more convinced I am that she is all wrong for the Court, wrong for the Constitution and wrong for these United States of America. In all of this she is just like Obama.

We have to get rid of her. And Obama must go too.

Wrat:
Thanks for the calming words. Idiots still get to me no matter how mellow I try to be.

Kerry
NRA Life
SASS 71937
WR 469

Blah Blah Blah
Unless you are wiling to get up from in front of your computer and join with others in on going protest such as the Tea Party people and the patriot movements that are springing up around the country and call your Senators and Representatives on a regular basis all other conversation is worthless. We are a slip and a slide away from being completely enslaved by the leftist elite in a Socialist swamp than most can imagine. If we can not un-elect all those who are the enemy of The Constitution on this next go in 2010, it is my opinion that we are finished. That means defeating Nancy "The Nazi" Pelosi,Barney Frank, Schumer Reid and so on. A tall order. The only way you do this is to be very very very active and similarly loud, but thoughtful and clean about your language. In other words we are not going to cut it if we are wild eyed foul mouthed, red necks. With few exceptions the Democrats do not honor or defend the Constitution and feel it is a dead letter.

David S.
You say "In all of this she (Sotomayor) is just like Obama. We have to get rid of her. And Obama must go too."

Would you suggest we have an election for President in 2012? Or does "Obama must go" mean something should be done before the next scheduled election?

What do you suggest we should do if he runs in 2012 and wins re-election by a majority of American citizens?

Robert
My post had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It isn't really a topic that I care very much about. But I always hear righties talking about how liberals want to legislate from the bench and are judicial activists. It seems to me that Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito are doing a lot of legislating from the bench and no one here ever seems to mention it.

So if your post really is true and you care about personal freedom, then tell me why the government should be able to prevent a person from adequately defending themselves in court by denying them a DNA test, especially if they are willing to pay for it themselves?

In case you haven't noticed, Roberts consistently rules on the side of corporations and the state over the rights of individuals. Tell me how that fits with what you believe.

Bruce
You said,

"Would you suggest we have an election for President in 2012? Or does "Obama must go" mean something should be done before the next scheduled election?

What do you suggest we should do if he runs in 2012 and wins re-election by a majority of American citizens?"

Impeachment would be nice. A trial for treason would be even better.

Were you hoping that somebody would say something that might get them in trouble with the Secret Service, or at least something that would embarrass those who oppose the Messiah? Sorry to disappoint, but we are the ones who obey the law.

The meaning of 'Obama must go'
Bruce from Illinois asks me:
"Would you suggest we have an election for President in 2012? Or does "Obama must go" mean something should be done before the next scheduled election?"

-- Whether I "suggest" a presidential election in 2012 or not is irrelevant. Barring some innovation by the Obama emirate and the Pelosi-Reid mafia, we are going to have one.

If the dimwits responsible for the Obama calamity have acquired a minimum of sense by then, we can be rid of him at that time. If we can be rid of him sooner, of course, so much the better.

Then again, the question of just who we can get to replace Obama when the time comes seems to loom rather large, doesn't it?

Bruce asks:
"What do you suggest we should do if he runs in 2012 and wins re-election by a majority of American citizens?"

-- In that case, I "suggest" we continue suffering.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.