Great catch by Cam Edwards, who finds something, er, odd in two statements by the Obama campaign. Here’s the first article, published by Reason.

Responding to criticism that Obama has since changed his position on gun control, his campaign declares that “Obama has been consistent.”

However, here’s an article published by USA Today:

Obama also said he no longer supported broad licensing and registering of firearms, as he did when he was in the Illinois Senate.

So, which one is it? The first quotes his campaign as saying he’s “been consistent”, then the second says Obama claims he no longer supports a licensing/registering element.

Cam also writes:

By the way, another question for Senator Obama on the 2nd. He says he supports the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans to “hunt, fish, protect their families.” Can someone explain to me then how he can also support the D.C. Gun Ban, which prohibits the possession of a functional firearm in the home for self-defense?

Look, clearly if Obama comes out and says the D.C. Gun Ban is unconstitutional, then that would almost bring up questions about Obama’s support for Chicago’s gun ban (in place since 1983). If he feels that ban is unconstitutional, why didn’t he ever work to get it overturned?

But if he holds with the statement that he believes in the individual right to keep and bear arms, but the D.C. Gun Ban somehow passes constitutional muster, I think it’s fair to ask (as Jacob Sullum suggested when I interviewed him today) Senator Obama to name an example of a gun control law that he thinks does or would violate the 2nd Amendment. As it stands, Obama’s turning an “individual right” into something the goverment can violate at will.

A while back Glenn Reynolds predicted Obama’s positions will get more scrutiny over time. The question is whether or not the media will bring this scrutiny forward.

We already knew that, of course, but in this scenario the AP can act as an “authentic voice” on the smears.

No, John McCain is not proposing a 100-year war in Iraq. ….

THE SPIN:

Obama: “We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years.”

Clinton: “I’ve also been a leader in trying to prevent President Bush from getting us committed to staying in Iraq regardless, for as long as Senator McCain and others have said it might be — 50 to 100 years.”

THE FACTS:

The Democrats leave out a vital caveat.

When McCain was asked about Bush’s theory that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for 50 years, the senator said: “Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”

A troop presence that does not involve Americans being harmed is, by definition, not a war.

Anyone with a high school education understands this, as we’ve had troops in nations such as Germany for 60+ years. Are we at war with Germany? Even the Associated Press understands this.

Via Hot Air.

Seems like the Associated Press just doesn’t like criticism. I’d assume the use of some of the AP’s images falls under Section 107 of Title 17 of the United States Code (AKA Fair Use), considering the usage was for the purpose of commentary.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections § 106 and § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

It also falls under criticism. Any lawyers willing to help him out?

Courtesy of House Democrats, Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and his state-run oil company may be receiving a tax break.

House Republicans criticized energy legislation passed late Wednesday, saying that it would raise taxes on the oil industry but give tax breaks to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and the state-run oil company CITGO.

“Middle-class families and small businesses are feeling the squeeze from rising costs for gasoline, food, and other costs of living,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a statement. “Unfortunately, the Democrats’ ‘no energy’ bill will only make matters worse by raising taxes and setting the table for even higher prices at the pump.”

The House passed the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 on a vote of 236 to 182. Senate Democratic leaders have indicated they would fast-track the bill to try to avoid a Republican filibuster…”It actually carves out tax breaks for Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez – courtesy of American taxpayers,” said Boehner. “This is unacceptable, and the Democratic leadership is irresponsible for bringing the bill to the House floor.”

“I am disappointed that the Majority voted down a Republican proposal to eliminate the tax relief for Hugo Chavez and give it to those who need it most: middle-class American families,” he said. “The largest tax increase in American history is on the horizon, and House Republicans are committed to stopping it.”

If you’re as confused as I am, The Foundry provides more details.

We know liberals in Congress are sympathetic to Hugo Chavez leftist agenda, but cutting him a tax break is a little over the line. Yesterday, the House passed an energy bill that raised taxes on American oil and gas companies. Notice the emphasis on ‘American.’ What should surprise everyone is that Citgo, Chavez’ personal ATM that operates in the U.S., is still getting a 6 percent tax break for domestic manufacturing that Exxon, Chevron, BP, Conoco-Phillips and Shell will all loose. How is this possible?

The House figures that since Petroleos de Venezuela, doesn’t actually produce any oil and gas in the U.S, they just refine and distribute it, they shouldn’t have to face the punitive taxation that the House wants to inflict on U.S. oil producers. So just at a time when oil is reaching over $100 a barrel liberals want to decrease domestic production and give Chavez a financial leg up on his U.S. competitors. All this so the House can pat itself on the back for “doing something” about global warming.

Therein lies the economic genius of House Democrats. Our economy is faltering? Let’s give a foreign dictator’s company a leg-up on our own companies! What could possibly go wrong?

Michelle links to this article by CQ, which provides even more details.

Citgo, which refines oil and markets and transports gasoline in the United States, is owned by a subsidiary of the government-owned Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., or PDVSA. Because Citgo does not drill for oil and gas domestically or abroad, it does not fall under the bill’s definition of companies that will lose a major tax break.

The five big companies targeted by the bill — Chevron, BP, ExxonMobil, Shell and ConocoPhillips — all produce and refine oil and sell gasoline in the United States, and therefore under the bill would lose the domestic manufacturing deduction they received as part of a corporate tax law in 2004 (PL 108-357).

GOP lawmakers Wednesday argued that such a policy runs counter to the Democrats’ goals for the bill — to reduce dependence on foreign oil and increase national security — by providing a tax break to a company owned by a country whose head of state just weeks ago threatened to stop oil sales to the United States.

“This bill raises taxes for U.S. oil and gas production . . . while giving more American dollars to a dictator that has threatened to take away U.S. energy supplies,” said Republican Phil English of Pennsylvania.

Good Lord.

On a Moonbat scale of 1 to 10, Galloway appears somewhere around 12.

Speaking on BBC1’s Question Time on Thursday evening, Mr Galloway said: “Prince Harry was saying on TV that he was engaging the enemy.

“I don’t know about you, but I have no enemies in Afghanistan.”

Challenged by host David Dimbleby over whether the Taliban were the enemy, he replied: “The Taliban are not the enemy for me.”

Attacking the media blackout, Mr Galloway said: “I pay for the BBC and I don’t like the idea that the British media should be part of the war effort.”

He has no enemies in Afghanistan? Really? Perhaps he should go live there, then. You see, the Taliban was even an enemy for local Muslims, so I’m thinking the British infidel won’t go over too well with the terror group. Let’s see how many times he spurts off his mouth with his half-assed opinions, before the Taliban decides his head no longer belongs on his body.

Via Hot Air.

Er, this was…unexpected.

My visit left me even more deeply convinced that we not only have a moral obligation to help displaced Iraqi families, but also a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis.

Today’s humanitarian crisis in Iraq — and the potential consequences for our national security — are great. Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won’t explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?

What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. In fact, we should step up our financial and material assistance…

As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.

O……..k. On the list of “Celebrities Expected to Support a Continued Presence in Iraq”, Jolie was somewhere around 1,544,293. Good for her, though.

Via Hot Air.

Gov. Bobby Jindal has two goals as governor: 1) Chew bubble gum, 2) Kick special interest ass. And folks, he’s all out of bubble gum.

BATON ROUGE, La. — Downstairs, legislators gnashed their teeth, while upstairs at the Capitol here this week, the new governor claimed victory against the old customs down below.

Six weeks into the term of Gov. Bobby Jindal, an extensive package of ethics bills was approved here this week, signaling a shift in the political culture of a state proud of its brazen style. Mr. Jindal, the earnest son of Indian immigrants, quickly declared open season on the cozy fusion of interests and social habits that have prevailed among lobbyists, state legislators and state agencies here for decades. Mostly, he got what he wanted.

Gov. Jindal has already been successful in forcing the Louisiana legislature to begin reforming itself, and is doing so with public opinion solidly behind him.

When the legislative session ended Tuesday, lawmakers had passed bills aimed at making their finances less opaque, barring their lucrative contracts with the state — some have been known to do good business with them — and cutting down on perks like free tickets to sporting events. The bills, which advocates say will put Louisiana in the top tier of states with tough ethics rules, now await Mr. Jindal’s signature, which should come early next week…

The new requirements will force all state legislators, as well as most other elected and appointed officials around the state, to disclose all sources of income, real estate holdings and debts over $10,000. (Judges are exempted.) Lawmakers and executive branch officials will no longer be able to get contracts for state-financed or disaster-related work. Lobbyists will also have to disclose their sources of income and will be limited to spending no more than $50 per elected official, per meal; splitting the tab, say among other lobbyists or legislators, will also be prohibited.

The new income disclosure requirements for legislators are comparable to those of Washington State, ranked first in the country by the Center for Public Integrity

Say we lose in November, and we need to begin look for a candidate for 2012. How does Gov. Jindal sound? If he keeps this up, he’s certainly a candidate who can run on cleaning up Washington.

While it may be interesting to discover that Prince Harry, third in line for the British throne, has taken it upon himself to serve in Afghanistan, the revelation’s potential consequences weren’t worth the unveiling.

A moratorium on the news had been willingly placed on mediums, who understand that the Prince is, in fact, a moving target. Just the fact that he’s a soldier alone places him in extreme peril, and the fact he’s British royalty only increases that danger.

So why did Matt Drudge feel it necessary to break that silence, placing Harry in potentially more danger? Michelle Malkin put it excellently.

There should be a compelling public interest rationale for ignoring the personal and national security risks of breaking the media embargo.

In this case, the only rationale was the compelling need to splash PRINCE HARRY’S NAME IN WORLD WAR IV FONT on a slow-news day.

Correct. Bad judgment, Matt. Bad judgment.

The question is, of course, whether or not he actually believes his own rhetoric.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared on Thursday that Iran was the world’s “number one” power, as he launched a bitter new assault on domestic critics he accused of siding with the enemy.

“Everybody has understood that Iran is the number one power in the world,” Ahmadinejad said in a speech to families who lost loved ones in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

“Today the name of Iran means a firm punch in the teeth of the powerful and it puts them in their place,” he added in the address broadcast live on state television.

Actually, many hear the name “Iran” and think “place the U.S. could be making a parking lot in the next few years”. But we’ll leave him to his own delusions.

His rhetoric has even incurred the wrath of a powerful Iranian Islamic cleric.

“Does foreign policy mean expressing coarse slogans and grandstanding?” Hassan Rowhani, a former top nuclear negotiator who still holds influential posts, asked in a speech to a foreign policy conference in Tehran. 

“Does foreign policy mean expressing coarse slogans and grandstanding?” Hassan Rowhani, a former top nuclear negotiator who still holds influential posts, asked in a speech to a foreign policy conference in Tehran.

According to the report, Rowhani said Iran “needs to find an accommodating way to decrease the threats and assure the interests of the country.”

“If the international community thinks that a country wants to play troublemaker and eliminate others, it will not let the country do this and will confront it.”

Always good to hear common sense coming out of Iran.

Ed Morrissey to this CTV article, reporting on the Obama campaign’s communications with Canadian officials on NAFTA. It seems he’s telling them not to take his anti-NAFTA rhetoric so seriously.

Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton have been critical of the long-standing North American Free Trade Agreement over the course of the Democratic primaries, saying that the deal has cost U.S. workers’ jobs.

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama’s campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

The Clinton campaign denies having done something similar, but the Obama campaign won’t deny the report.

Ed writes:

If true, this would show Obama as the worst kind of demagogue. It would mean he’s telling people what they want to hear while rejecting it himself, or alternately that he has begun his diplomatic relations with Canada by lying to them. Either way if true, it paints a disturbing picture of the kind of politician Obama really is.

In case the Democrats don’t realize it, Canada is our most important trading partner — and they rely on NAFTA heavily. Canada is the number one importer for oil, followed by our other NAFTA partner Mexico. If we junk NAFTA, it will create a fairly large diplomatic rift and ripples throughout our economy. Instead of making us more popular in the world, the Democrats will start making us less popular on our own continent and alienate our closest friend, as well as damage all three economies.

As Ed notes, Canada is our most important trading partner. It’s plausible that the Obama campaign knows this, as well as what Ed says in the last sentence, and that’s why it’s telling Canada not to take its rhetoric too seriously. Problem is, American supporters of the messiah are taking him very seriously, and he’d be betraying whatever trust they have in him.