Daniel Pouzzner, editor of the Architecture of Modern Political Power, has reassembled Obama’s Change.gov Agenda (in its entirety) from the Google page cache. 

You can view an identical mirror of the agenda as it was posted on November 7th at Mega.nu. 

Post, re-post, and post it again, friends! (I think if you link directly to http://www.mega.nu/ampp/obama_agenda/agenda.html it will help get it into the Google index faster.) 

To allow the Obama camp to pretend their words never existed is unacceptable.

I just got a notice from new_iconoclast on LJ that the page detailing Obama’s gun control agenda (as well as all his other policy plans) has been scrubbed. He said:

As of 1930 CST on Sat 08 Nov 08, that page is “not available right now” on change.gov. Thanks for the quote.

Sure enough, I headed back to change.gov, and the new agenda page reads - in full:

The Agenda

President-Elect Obama and Vice President-Elect Biden have developed innovative approaches to challenge the status quo in Washington and to bring about the kind of change America needs.

The Obama Administration has a comprehensive and detailed agenda to carry out its policies. The principal priorities of the Obama Administration include: a plan to revive the economy, to fix our health care, education, and social security systems, to define a clear path to energy independence, to end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan, and to work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, among many other domestic and foreign policy objectives.

Too late, Barry. We already know.

Comrades,

In case this wasn’t already obvious (i.e. you were living under a rock): PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA IS A BIG GODDAMN PROBLEM.

From change.gov, which outlines Obama’s transition plans (hat tip to Uncle):

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

You know, I don’t think everyone who voted for Obama wants this stuff. I mean hell - I know a guy who voted for Obama because he thinks Barry Jesus is the solution to our economic woes, and he went and bought himself a complete Stag today because he realizes he’s about to lose the ability to. (Don’t worry, I already told him he’s seven different kinds of stupid.) But, point being: I don’t think these people understand that yes, they honest-to-Pete just voluntarily voted to trade our liberties for WARM FUZZY HOPE.

Hey, at least you really can’t accuse me of unfoundedly predicting impending doom at this point, considering the arrogant bastard is openly flaunting his intention to wage war on my rights.

Fine. If Obama wants to see our rifles on a battlefield, we’ll give him a battlefield. Μολὼν λαβέ.

*waits for the Brownshirts Black-Baggers Truth Squads to come haul her away*

Remember when I posted this entry the other day?

I wound up doing a little digging into Australian firearms laws. I found the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and learned that, while Aussies by no means have a legally-recognized right to keep and bear arms, gun ownership is possible. It looks like the “application” process is about as fun as trying to get a gun permit in D.C. if your name is Dick Heller, but… it’s possible.

So, I sent a message to the woman who had posted about being unable to own guns in Australia. Her original post seemed receptive to firearms - after all, she’d said she couldn’t have them, not that she wouldn’t. I offered a link to the SSAA and told her that, while I’m American and not well versed in what the legal process there is, I’d be happy to share general firearms knowledge or answer any questions I can.

I didn’t hear anything back for a week.

This morning, I logged into my email and saw a reply from her. It read, in part:

My response is very delayed but I just wanted to say thankyou so much for sending me that link.. so it turns out we can legally own a firearm. We’ve always been told that it’s not legal unless you require a firearm for work (but I now suspect that they do this to keep firearms in the hands of few).

I will probably have a few questions to ask in the coming weeks once we get the application form all sorted out… so thankyou for the offer because I will be taking you up on it!

Consider my day made.

I was just checking out a forum that is populated primarily by crunchy parents, mostly women. Depending on which sub-forum you’re in, they range from raving Obama liberals to preparedness homesteaders. Anyway, I was perusing the financial forum (which seems to lean toward the conservative prepared types), and came across a thread about buying gold. The author was asking whether it’s better to save money by buying in 1-ounce increments, or spend extra to get 1/10 ounce coins that would be more spendable in times of need.

Someone replied:

“In an economic depression, you are better off having goods to trade (food, clothing, gas/oil, etc), and weapons to protect your cache of goods. If people are starving, it won’t matter how much gold you have on hand - people can’t eat gold.”

Then the original author replied, and here’s part of what she said:

“thanks for the heads-up guys!! good point about stockpiling other goods! we’re not allowed to bear arms in australia… “

As the title says: Count your blessings… and keep your powder dry.

Speaking of incorporation:

CHICAGO - Pro-gun groups filed a federal lawsuit Thursday challenging a long-standing Chicago handgun ban only hours after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a similar ban in the District of Columbia. - LINK

Oooooh Maaayor Daaaaley… YOUR TURN! Kisses!

Does the narrow margin of victory (5-4, in case you’ve been hiding under a rock) in the Heller decision change your outlook on this November’s presidential election? 

In other words, are those of you previously uninterested in participating in a hold-your-nose vote for McCain reconsidering, in the interest of hopefully preserving or increasing the “pro-gun” majority on the court? 

Frankly, I have a feeling Kennedy’s vote was such a “barely” that I don’t know how well an incorporation case will go over in front of the current court. And if, God forbid, one of “our” justices were to retire or kick off, we’d definitely need another pro-gun nominee just to avoid getting spanked. If one of “their” justices were to retire or kick off (oh, boo hoo, won’t that be a tragedy), a pro-gun nominee could mean a solid fifth vote if Kennedy swings the other way, or even a sixth vote if he sticks around. (This is, of course, assuming Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are all willing to go all the way with this issue.)

This is not me endorsing McCain. But, it definitely has me thinking more about strategy. How about you?

Best part so far: 

In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that nocommentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque. 

I actually LOL’ed.

I’m loving the footnotes. Things like:

And JUSTICE STEVENS is dead wrong to think that the right to petition is “primarily collective in nature.”

I’m kind of expecting to see one that says:

Dear Stevens,
Die in a fire.
No love,
Scalia

“Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.”

WOW, WAY TO GO TO BAT, HOMESLICE.

Back to reading…