Monthly Archives: October 2008
The National Socialist Secret Government Of U.S. Exposed itself with the passage of the Economic Stabilization Act Of 2008 or what is called the “bailout bill”. This was one of the most horrible pieces of legislation to ever pass. It stole tax payer money to bail out Wall Street. Below is the final roll call vote for the House and Senate of the bailout bill. The Library Of Congress website does not have the accurate roll call. Do you think this is a coincidence right before the election on Nov. 4, 2008? If your congressman or senator voted for this bill he or she is a national socialist working for special interests not the American people. Cantontruth urges you to vote out the people who voted yes passing the bailout bill. Most likely the Senators and Congressman who passed the Bill are Trilateral Commission members or Council On Foreign Relation members. A little research to find out is all that is needed. But this I can assure you the Democrats and Republicans are not now, nor have they ever worked for the American people.
House Of Representatives:
H R 1424 YEA-AND-NAY 3-Oct-2008 1:22 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Concur in Senate Amendments
BILL TITLE: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
Johnson, E. B.
Lungren, Daniel E.
Sánchez, Linda T.
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress – 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
|Question: On Passage of the Bill (H. R. 1424 As Amended )|
|Vote Number:||213||Vote Date:||October 1, 2008, 09:22 PM|
|Required For Majority:||3/5||Vote Result:||Bill Passed|
|Measure Number:||H.R. 1424 (A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes. )|
|Measure Title:||A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.|
|Vote Summary||By Senator Name||By Vote Position||By Home State|
|Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Nay
|Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
|Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
|Vote Summary||By Senator Name||By Vote Position||By Home State|
|Not Voting – 1|
|Vote Summary||By Senator Name||By Vote Position||By Home State|
|Alabama:||Sessions (R-AL), Nay||Shelby (R-AL), Nay|
|Alaska:||Murkowski (R-AK), Yea||Stevens (R-AK), Yea|
|Arizona:||Kyl (R-AZ), Yea||McCain (R-AZ), Yea|
|Arkansas:||Lincoln (D-AR), Yea||Pryor (D-AR), Yea|
|California:||Boxer (D-CA), Yea||Feinstein (D-CA), Yea|
|Colorado:||Allard (R-CO), Nay||Salazar (D-CO), Yea|
|Connecticut:||Dodd (D-CT), Yea||Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea|
|Delaware:||Biden (D-DE), Yea||Carper (D-DE), Yea|
|Florida:||Martinez (R-FL), Yea||Nelson (D-FL), Nay|
|Georgia:||Chambliss (R-GA), Yea||Isakson (R-GA), Yea|
|Hawaii:||Akaka (D-HI), Yea||Inouye (D-HI), Yea|
|Idaho:||Craig (R-ID), Yea||Crapo (R-ID), Nay|
|Illinois:||Durbin (D-IL), Yea||Obama (D-IL), Yea|
|Indiana:||Bayh (D-IN), Yea||Lugar (R-IN), Yea|
|Iowa:||Grassley (R-IA), Yea||Harkin (D-IA), Yea|
|Kansas:||Brownback (R-KS), Nay||Roberts (R-KS), Nay|
|Kentucky:||Bunning (R-KY), Nay||McConnell (R-KY), Yea|
|Louisiana:||Landrieu (D-LA), Nay||Vitter (R-LA), Nay|
|Maine:||Collins (R-ME), Yea||Snowe (R-ME), Yea|
|Maryland:||Cardin (D-MD), Yea||Mikulski (D-MD), Yea|
|Massachusetts:||Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting||Kerry (D-MA), Yea|
|Michigan:||Levin (D-MI), Yea||Stabenow (D-MI), Nay|
|Minnesota:||Coleman (R-MN), Yea||Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea|
|Mississippi:||Cochran (R-MS), Nay||Wicker (R-MS), Nay|
|Missouri:||Bond (R-MO), Yea||McCaskill (D-MO), Yea|
|Montana:||Baucus (D-MT), Yea||Tester (D-MT), Nay|
|Nebraska:||Hagel (R-NE), Yea||Nelson (D-NE), Yea|
|Nevada:||Ensign (R-NV), Yea||Reid (D-NV), Yea|
|New Hampshire:||Gregg (R-NH), Yea||Sununu (R-NH), Yea|
|New Jersey:||Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea||Menendez (D-NJ), Yea|
|New Mexico:||Bingaman (D-NM), Yea||Domenici (R-NM), Yea|
|New York:||Clinton (D-NY), Yea||Schumer (D-NY), Yea|
|North Carolina:||Burr (R-NC), Yea||Dole (R-NC), Nay|
|North Dakota:||Conrad (D-ND), Yea||Dorgan (D-ND), Nay|
|Ohio:||Brown (D-OH), Yea||Voinovich (R-OH), Yea|
|Oklahoma:||Coburn (R-OK), Yea||Inhofe (R-OK), Nay|
|Oregon:||Smith (R-OR), Yea||Wyden (D-OR), Nay|
|Pennsylvania:||Casey (D-PA), Yea||Specter (R-PA), Yea|
|Rhode Island:||Reed (D-RI), Yea||Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea|
|South Carolina:||DeMint (R-SC), Nay||Graham (R-SC), Yea|
|South Dakota:||Johnson (D-SD), Nay||Thune (R-SD), Yea|
|Tennessee:||Alexander (R-TN), Yea||Corker (R-TN), Yea|
|Texas:||Cornyn (R-TX), Yea||Hutchison (R-TX), Yea|
|Utah:||Bennett (R-UT), Yea||Hatch (R-UT), Yea|
|Vermont:||Leahy (D-VT), Yea||Sanders (I-VT), Nay|
|Virginia:||Warner (R-VA), Yea||Webb (D-VA), Yea|
|Washington:||Cantwell (D-WA), Nay||Murray (D-WA), Yea|
|West Virginia:||Byrd (D-WV), Yea||Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea|
|Wisconsin:||Feingold (D-WI), Nay||Kohl (D-WI), Yea|
|Wyoming:||Barrasso (R-WY), Nay||Enzi (R-WY), Nay|
Its a strange coincidence that the date for NY Yankee pitcher Cory Lidle’s fatal plane crash happened on 10-11-06. Reverse this date and flip the six to a nine and you come up with 9-11-01. Also the fact that the plane crashed into a building raises this coincidence to a new level. This was so odd to me I had to write a blog about it. Its very hard to believe this was a coincidence only. Below is the article from NY Times on 10-11-06 to prove the date it happened.
Yankee Dies in Plane Crash, Official Says
Chuck Baldwin on Bailout Bureaucracy:
Chuck Baldwin For President 2008:
For The News-Sentinel
“Obamamania” having swept the nation through the anointing of Barack Obama by the liberal media and the money from likeminded socialists, it is, indeed, possible Obama will be our next president. Obama’s election will bring about an assault on many of our cherished American rights and freedoms.
I predict one of the first things we see will be the most draconian gun control bill introduced by Sen. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that will be supported by Obama. I predict this bill will make the unconstitutional gun ban enacted in 1994 and dubbed the “Clinton gun ban” look mild.
Obama’s record on the Second Amendment is as follows: 1. He has supported a complete ban on handguns; 2. He voted to ban most rifle ammunition; 3. He refused to sign a brief supporting an individual right in the “Heller” case; 4. He supported the lawsuits that were designed to destroy the firearm industry; 5. He opposes the right to carry for self-defense; 6. He supports gun registration (which in Germany before WWII was used to disarm the Jews and used in Australia to disarm its citizens); 7. He served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, a rabidly anti-Second Amendment organization; 8. He voted to allow prosecution of citizens for using firearms for self-defense in their own homes.
These are just a few of the problematic facts relating to Obama’s stand on the Second Amendment. He takes these positions despite the fact that wherever concealed- carry laws have been adopted, there has been a reduction in crime. You can also look forward to an international gun ban treaty, being funded by self-anointed messiah George Soros and put together by Rebecca Peters, who was behind the gun confiscation in Australia, to be presented eventually to the Senate for ratification.
Sadly, Obama’s position on the Second Amendment wasn’t even addressed in the debates. The reason for this is that when all of the facts are known, it’s a losing cause for the liberals.
You can also look for the liberals in Congress to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine will be an attempt to stifle conservative views by forcing the stations that air talk radio to provide equal airtime to the liberal viewpoints, which are everywhere every day except for talk radio.
The liberals for years have had control of the mainstream media. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The L.A. Times, USA Today, etc., have spewed forth liberal propaganda for years. The problem for them now is that there is talk radio and the Internet. They can’t stand the fact that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, Glen Beck and others have a venue to air their opinions. They are upset that many of their pet programs went down in defeat because they were exposed for what they were. How many times has the switchboard in Washington, D.C., been shut down with such a large volume of callers forcing a change in direction?
The Internet provided the platform to expose Dan Rather using a forged document in an attempt to influence an election.
Liberals attempted to compete in the market with conservative talk radio with their “Air America.” George Soros also kicked in several million dollars to get it off the ground. It failed because no one was listening. They could not get advertising as a result.
And let us not forget Obama’s plan for economic redistribution. Taking Americans’ hard-earned money and giving it to someone else. That is the only way he can give tax cuts to 95 percent of Americans.
Our Constitution will be under assault as it never has been before. James Madison, chief architect of the Constitution and our fourth president, said the following: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
Be concerned. Be very concerned.
October 17, 2008
Less than a week after the Washington Post reported that the Department of Defense will pay private contractors $300 million over the next three years to “produce news stories, entertainment programs and public service advertisements for the Iraqi media in an effort to ‘engage and inspire’ the local population to support U.S. objectives and the Iraqi government,” Virginia Sen. Jim Webb wrote a strongly worded letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. “I have serious reservations about the need for this expenditure in today’s political and economic environment,” he wrote. “Consequently, I am asking that you put these contracts on hold until the Armed Services Committee and the next administration can review the entire issue of U.S. propaganda efforts inside Iraq.”
Such a review, if it were to happen, would be a formidable undertaking, one that would have to start with the declaration of the “War on Terror” itself. It’s a project the Bush administration has always approached as a PR campaign as much as a military one. Who can forget former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card’s explanation for the need to introduce the Iraq War to Americans in September: “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.” And remember the short-lived attempt by administration officials to re-brand the “War on Terror” by renaming it the “Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism”? (Reports at the time were that administration officials worried that the original phrase “may have outlived its usefulness,” due to its sole focus on military might.)
Regardless of what you call it, the so-called “War on Terror” has cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in propaganda costs alone. As with so much of modern war-making, most of this work is carried out by private military contractors. With the word “Halliburton” now shorthand for waste, fraud and abuse for many Americans, taxpayers’ tolerance for war profiteering has reached new lows — especially when private military companies operating with no oversight undermine the very “hearts and minds” that mission propaganda is supposedly meant to advance.
Selling the War to Americans
Perhaps one of the Bush administration’s most egregious PR undertakings in the war on Iraq was revealed this spring, when the New York Times blew the lid off the Pentagon’s military analyst program, in which more than 75 retired military officials were recruited to spout pro-war rhetoric on major networks in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. These “message force multipliers,” as they were branded, were provided with thousands of talking points by the Department of Defense starting in 2002. In one memo, dated Dec. 9, 2002 and titled “Department of Defense Themes and Talking Points on Iraq,” a quote from Paul Wolfowitz — “We cannot allow one of the world’s most murderous dictators to provide terrorists a sanctuary in Iraq” — was followed with a bullet point: “Saddam Hussein: A Global Threat.”
The investigative piece by the Times said the project “continues to this day,” seeking to “exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.”
“Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.” It would be hard to overstate the implications of such a program, particularly for a country that claims to be a beacon of democracy.
Although the Pentagon was said to have suspended its PR briefings of retired military officials shortly after the Times story broke, since claiming that its inspector general is conducting an investigation, in reality there has been precious little fallout. However, in one promising move, earlier this month, the Federal Communications Commission sent five letters of inquiry to TV military analysts in an apparent probing of the program. According to one report, “at issue is that some of them were also linked to Pentagon contracts, raising the issue of conflict of interest. In its letter signed by the chief of the investigations and hearings division enforcement bureau, the FCC suggests that TV stations and networks may have violated two sections of the Communications Act of 1934 by not identifying the ties to the Pentagon that their military analysts had.” Diane Farsetta at PR Watch, who has written extensively on the Pentagon’s pundits, particularly their work on behalf of defense contractors, says, “the good news is that that’s (a first) step toward conducting an investigation.”
Profiting off the “War of Ideas”
Beyond the Pentagon’s pundit “scandal,” the fact that propaganda contracts continue to be awarded to the very companies that have previously been implicated in ethical breaches for disseminating unattributed U.S. propaganda abroad is reason enough to renew alarm. More than the dollar amount, what is outrageous to Farsetta about the most recent propaganda contract is that it is “blatantly illegal.” “If you look at this most recent contract,” she explains, “one of the ’strategic audiences’ is U.S. audiences.” According to federal law going back to World War II, she says “no taxpayer money can go to propagandize U.S. audiences.”
The Washington Post story describes the contract as the latest in a series of cutting-edge PR initiatives undertaken since 2003 that represent a revolution in what it calls “the military’s role in the war of ideas.” “Iraq, where hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on such contracts, has been the proving ground for the transformation.”
“The tools they’re using, the means, the robustness of this activity has just skyrocketed since 2003. In the past, a lot of this stuff was just some guy’s dreams,’” said a senior U.S. military official, one of several who discussed the sensitive defense program on the condition of anonymity.
The Pentagon still sometimes feels it is playing catch-up in a propaganda market dominated by al Qaeda, whose media operations include sophisticated Web sites and professionally produced videos and audios featuring Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants. “We’re being out-communicated by a guy in a cave,” Secretary Robert M. Gates often remarks.
The new contract was awarded to four companies, most of whom Farsetta refers to as “the usual suspects,” including Lincoln Group, the Pennsylvania Avenue company that in 2005 was found to have planted articles written by U.S. military officials in Iraqi newspapers without attribution. (Although the group was cleared of any illegalities, even then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recognized the potential breach, remarking, “Gee, that’s not what we ought to be doing.”
Selling the War to Iraqis
The main target audience for the $300 million contract is Iraqis. But, different from earlier propaganda efforts, the content is not simply meant to convince them of the noble intentions of their American occupiers. “Originally, the major focus was all about the U.S.,” says Farsetta. “The message then was, ‘Hey, you’re free now,’ but over time it has shifted to more ‘make sure you support your own government, your own police.’”
Indeed, the Washington Post quoted an unnamed official who described one component of the program:
“There’s a video piece produced by a contractor showing a family being attacked by a group of bad guys, and their daughter being taken off. The message is: You’ve got to stand up against the enemy.” The professionally produced vignette, he said, “is offered for airing on various (television) stations in Iraq. They don’t know that the originator of the content is the U.S. government. If they did, they would never run anything.
“If you asked most Iraqis,” he said, “they would say, ‘It came from the government, our own government.’”
A pretty blunt admission, to be sure, and one that lays bare the dubious ethical nature of the program (not to mention the extent that the military recognizes Iraqis’ antipathy for the U.S. government). But it’s not the first time the U.S. government has sought to play hand puppet with Iraqi media. Last spring, the NSA obtained and made public a document, along with a PowerPoint presentation, that revealed the Pentagon’s plans in the run-up to the war to create a “Rapid Reaction Media Team.” Jim Lobe, D.C. bureau chief of InterPress Services, covered the revelation in May 2007; as he wrote, the proposal was for a “six-month, $51 million budget for the RRMT operation, apparently the first phase in a one- to two-year ’strategic information campaign’”:
Among other items, the budget called for the hiring of two U.S. ”media consultants” who were to be paid $140,000 each for six months’ work. A further $800,000 were to be paid for six Iraqi “media consultants” over the same period.
Both the paper and the slide presentation were prepared by two Pentagon offices — Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, which, among other things, specialize in psychological warfare, and the Office of Special Plans under then undersecretary of defense for policy, Douglas Feith — in mid-January, 2003, two months before the invasion, according to NSA analyst Joyce Battle.
”The RRMT concept focuses on USG-UK pre- and post-hostilities efforts to develop programming, train talent, and rapidly deploy a team of U.S./UK media experts with a team of ‘hand selected’ Iraqi media experts to communicate immediately with the Iraqi public opinion upon liberation of Iraq,” according to the paper.
The ”hand-picked” Iraqi experts, according to the paper, would provide planning and program guidance for the U.S. experts and help ‘’select and train the Iraqi broadcasters and publishers (’the face’) for the USG/coalition sponsored information effort.” USG is an abbreviation for U.S. government.
In a rather extraordinary quote, the document boasted, ”It will be as if, after another day of deadly agit-prop, the North Korean people turned off their TVs at night, and turned them on in the morning to find the rich fare of South Korean TV spread before them as their very own.”
In the United States, few lawmakers have had a chance to scrutinize this latest deployment of public funds for propaganda. (Like so many other contracts awarded to private defense corporations, this one was awarded with no Congressional approval.) But Webb’s letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggests that it could become an issue.
At a time when this country is facing such a grave economic crisis, and at a time when the government of Iraq now shows at least a $79 billion surplus from recent oil revenues, in my view it makes little sense for the U.S. Department of Defense to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to propagandize the Iraqi people. There is now an elected government in Iraq, which is recognized to have the power and authority to negotiate a long-term security agreement with the government of the United States. Clearly that government is capable, both politically and financially, of communicating with its own people in the manner now contemplated by these DOD contracts — and without being accused by adversaries of being a foreign government that is fulminating internal conditions through propaganda.
Laudable as his efforts to reign in contractors may be — much of Webb’s letter was devoted to military contractors more generally, and Blackwater specifically — his letter made no mention of the myriad ethical questions raised by the propaganda contract. To name a few, says Farsetta, “the fact that the media produced is overwhelmingly not attributed to the U.S. government;” “the fact that one of the ’strategic audiences’ listed in the contract is ‘U.S. audiences,’ in apparent violation of U.S. law;” and “the difficulties in holding private contractors operating in war zones accountable to any standard (ethical, performance or otherwise).”
Webb, who first learned about this contract as did most Americans, from the Washington Post, has called for a thorough review of the Pentagon’s “strategic communications” initiatives, including Congressional hearings.” Were this to happen, says Farsetta, “I would love for those hearings to include representatives from foreign governments and civil society groups where the U.S. has major propaganda operations, including Iraq and Afghanistan. The heads of firms like the Lincoln Group, L-3 and Rendon should also testify, under oath.”
But, she says, “What really bothers me is that Webb’s using the “we’ve given Iraq so much and now it’s time for them to step up” argument. That argument never fails to amaze and anger me. We bombed them in 1991, then for more than a decade placed them under such devastating sanctions that hundreds of thousands of children died, then bombed them more ferociously over a longer period of time. Yet some politicians have the gall to complain that the Iraqis aren’t doing enough now? That’s not to mention that the argument assumes that Iraqi leaders have the same priorities as U.S. officials. Personally, I say we need to get our propaganda and troops out of Iraq and pay them reparations.”
Americans have cut back on buying cars, furniture and clothes in a tough economy, but there’s one consumer item that’s still enjoying healthy sales: guns. Purchases of firearms and ammunition have risen 8 to 10 percent this year, according to state and federal data.
Several variables drive sales, but many dealers, buyers and experts attribute the increase in part to concerns about the economy and fears that if Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois wins the presidency, he will join with fellow Democrats in Congress to enact new gun controls. Obama has said that he believes in an individual right to bear arms but that he also supports “common-sense safety measures.”
“Even though [Obama] has a lot going for him, he’s not very pro-gun,” said Paul Pluff, a spokesman for Massachusetts-based Smith & Wesson, which has reported higher sales. Gun enthusiasts are “going to go out and get [firearms] while they still can.”