Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

NRA Delivers New Ad in Spanish

Updated 5:34 p.m.
By Ed O'Keefe
The latest TV ad from the National Rifle Association yokes immigration fears to the gun rights debate by raising the specter of crime by illegals before noting that Barack Obama voted against a 2004 Illinois bill to provide additional legal protections to individuals defending themselves with firearms against home-invading criminals.

The ad will air in both English and Spanish on broadcast and cable stations in Colorado, New Mexico and Texas through Election Day.

"Families should be able to defend themselves against rapists, drug dealers and other criminals illegally crossing our borders," says Andy Vaquera, who is described in the spot as a retired Texas police officer and NRA member. "But Barack Obama didn't think we should be allowed to use a firearm for self-defense. He even voted to allow the prosecution of people who used firearms to defend their families in their own homes."

Vaquera repeats the same script virtually word-for-word in the Spanish commercial. This is the first Spanish ad for the gun rights group this cycle, though the NRA has aired messages in Spanish before.

In the ad, Vaquera references a 2004 Illinois General Assembly bill that extended legal protections to gun owners who used their firearms in self-defense within their own home. The bill, which made no reference to immigration or the legal status of those involved, passed in spite of Obama's opposition.

"We're looking at his vote record," says NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam, noting that the Obama campaign and other gun groups frequently cite statements the senator has made in speeches or debates to defend his gun record. "He has had a solid record of voting against gun rights and hunting rights. What matters to us is your record, not your rhetoric."

The NRA's anti-Obama Web site, GunBanObama.com, cites eight votes the senator has cast over the course of his tenure as a state and U.S. senator.

These latest commercials are part of an NRA ad campaign on radio, broadcast and cable that will likely cost eight figures by Election Day.

Even though the ad makes visual and verbal references to illegal immigrants, the NRA has no stated position on immigration, said Arulanandam.

By Web Politics Editor  |  October 1, 2008; 11:40 AM ET
Categories:  Channel 08  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A Sarcastic and Combative McCain Greets Iowa Editors
Next: McCain Stresses Bipartisanship

Comments

WHY IS AN 'URBAN COMBAT' ARMY UNIT DEPLOYING IS THE U.S.?
Thank you for bringing this up. I just heard about it over the weekend at Salon, and Greenwald said it would not be found in the WaPo or other mainstream media. An Army brigade was to be deployed here in the U.S. October 1 for 12 months and this is to be a permanent mission.
Read here for more details.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/24/army/index.html

"...the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities."

For more than 100 years -- since the end of the Civil War -- deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act...

The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist "incident," if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of "public order," or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations.

It only took a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president's ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened these restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the U.S. without the express permission of Congress. But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from "Insurrection Act" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act." The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only "to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." The new law expands the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" -- and such "condition" is not defined or limited. . . .

The story of how Section 1076 became law vivifies how expanding government power is almost always the correct answer in Washington. Some people have claimed the provision was slipped into the bill in the middle of the night. In reality, the administration clearly signaled its intent and almost no one in the media or Congress tried to stop it . . .

Here is one sentence from Bush's signing statement of January 2008: "The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."

We know how fast and loose he is with the Constitution and have no reason to trust him, and I would not want to give this much power to any one man. Bush has already gathered far too much power to the executive branch and now this.

"...the deployment is a very dangerous precedent, quite possibly illegal, and a radical abandonment of an important democratic safeguard. As always with first steps of this sort, the danger lies in how the power can be abused in the future."

I have written our senators, representative and the ACLU and have had no response from anyone.

Posted by: tortoise17 | October 1, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

The NRA might as well spend all their money on this election. For if Obama wins, they'll quickly go the way of all guns.

Posted by: info42 | October 1, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

WHY IS AN 'URBAN COMBAT' ARMY UNIT DEPLOYING IS THE U.S.?

What about the Posse Comitatus Act? Why is a U.S. Army unit skilled in Iraqi urban combat deploying in the U.S. on Oct. 1st, the first ever domestic deployment of an active army unit stateside?

Why has the mainstream media failed to explore this deployment, and the status of the Posse Comitatus Act?

Army Times says this unit will be assigned to assist in quelling domestic disturbances, using "non-lethal weapons." Are these radiation-emitting, silent "directed energy weapons"? Is this the vanguard of a coming police state?

See: http://members.nowpublic.com/scrivener -- "Zap! Have You Been Targeted by a Directed Energy Weapon?"


Will this issue of using the Army as a domestic police force come up in the VP debate, or in next week's second presidential debate?

And how about THIS question re: the bailout?

HOW CAN THEY COME UP WITH A 'SOLUTION'
WHEN THEY DON'T YET KNOW THE CAUSE?

TARGETING OF AMERICANS BY GOV'T AGENCIES
A ROOT CAUSE OF WALL STREET MELTDOWN?

Once again, Congress is being asked to rush through emergency legislation -- to cede effective control of the economy to the government.

Officials continue to blame lax lending policies on the part of the mortgage industry for spawning this crisis.

But were lenders ORDERED to offer "easy credit" to people "targeted" by government agencies?

Is government "targeting" of American citizens a root cause of the mortgage meltdown that spawned the broader financial crisis?

Consider this:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/targeting-u-s-citizens-govt-agencies-root-cause-wall-street-financial-crisis OR
members.nowpublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 1, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

For this as a prime example of racism in the RNC/GOP Lie Machine...

Bush-worshiping Minnesota congresswoman who's now an ANWR drilling zealot, sends a racist message in code via the religious-right site OneNewsNow, while pretending to talk about energy:

An urban America -- the Democrats' vision?

...Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota) says it has not escaped Democrats what the cost of gasoline and loss of jobs are doing to the country.

"This is their agenda," Bachmann states bluntly. "I know it is hard to believe, it's hard to fathom -- but this is 'mission accomplished' for them," she asserts. "They want Americans to take transit and move to the inner cities. They want Americans to move to the urban core, live in tenements, take light rail to their government jobs. That's their vision for America." ...

In a sense, the Republicans made a pact with the devil. They sold their political soul to the hatred of the government devil, in return for dominance in American politics.

The Republicans demonized government and the liberals.

And no one clearly denounces the Republican Party for being virtual anarchists -- always promising tax cuts and to hell with government functioning. Actually, there is a method to the madness of the Republicans.

They claim that government is bad and so taxes have to be cut, then government functioning does indeed become bad in many areas because of the lack of funding, and then the Republican use the damage (that they caused) as evidence that government is no good.

It because a destructive cycle with the government getting worse and the public becoming more and more cynical.

The conservative emphasis on hatred of government is very attuned with racism. Racism encourages hatred and hatred of government, especially a pro-Civil Rights government, is very compatible with racism.

The forces of Republican, Southern, and born-again Christian racism and moralism reinforces each other in a blend of very nasty, vindictive rhetoric.

Southern racists have always insisted that they were more religious than any other segment of the population.

And Southern religion, largely being racist, has an exaggerated sense of moralism.

Vernon Johns always used to marvel that the most "religious" part of the country was also the worst violator of Civil Rights.

This attitudinal mixture of racist moralism, so typical of the South and now so typical of the Republicans, was practiced by the Republicans in spades and to excess to paralyze the presidency of the Democratic president, William Jefferson Clinton.

The Republicans were able to paralyze the Democrats by their constant misuse of legislative committees and hearings. Somehow the Republicans have been able to substitute their racist moralism for any balanced sense of decency and fair play.

Somehow they have decided that anyone in political life that they don't like and who has committed adultery is deserving of being replaced in political office or paralyzed in their exercise of political office.

It has been a long time since the American political culture has experienced such vindictive and hateful rhetoric.

The moralists, who are supposed to be more moral than the rest of us, feel that it is justified to describe Obama as an "elitist" just another word for "uppity"

We became used to "hate" radio, with Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter,...Now its Hate TV..

Angry white men with a Republican bent now shout their anger and racist moralisms and accusations at the top of their lungs.

On cable TV, almost the entire Fox News network is a very conservative, I would even say racist, network.

A great tragedy is that the liberals have not spoken up for themselves.

They have not defended Democratic values and beliefs, but rather have either remained silent...

McCarthy was going around pretending he was more moral, more loyal, to the United States and that others were "beyond the pale" and had to be stopped, or at least punished. No one spoke up against McCarthyism until McCarthy went too far and took on the United States Army.

One reason for the Democrats silence and weakness against the moral terrorism of the Republicans is that the Democrats have themselves unleashed moralism by their insistence that everyone use "politically correct" speech.

Liberals can go so far to the left in some areas that they come to resemble their opponents.

The puritanism in the "politically correct" movement is one with the moralism of the racists.

...too bad
...This is why ALL americans need to finally see that the republicans must go...

Posted by: AlexP1 | October 1, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company