Secretary of State John Kerry Expected to Sign a UN Arms Trade Treaty Opposed by the Senate and NRA … Treaty Requires Nations to “Establish & Maintain a National Control System,” Including a “National Control List”
Barack Obama’s end run around the US Constitution and the Second Amendment … Secretary of State to sign United Nations Arms treaty that would circumvent Constitution.
Another Obamaination … As reported at The Hill, Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to sign a UN treaty that is strongly opposed by the US Senate and the NRA. A State Department official said the treaty would “reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes,” while protecting gun rights. However, not so fast. If it sounds too good to be true, it most likely is. Just like every idea that stats out with good intentions, there is always a catch. There is a reason why Republicans, the Senate and the NRA are opposed to this end around of the Second Amendment. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) says, “This treaty is already dead in the water in the Senate, and they know it.” Thankfully, these types of treaties require Senate ratification by elected officials of “We the People” rather than Obama giving away Our rights to the United Nations.
Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to sign an arms trade treaty opposed by the Senate and the gun lobby as early as Wednesday, and Republicans aren’t happy about it.
Kerry’s plan to sign the treaty on the margins of the UN General Assembly in New York this week has sparked immediate criticism from GOP opponents.
“This treaty is already dead in the water in the Senate, and they know it,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services. “The Administration is wasting precious time trying to sign away our laws to the global community and unelected U.N. bureaucrats.”
A majority of Senate oppose the treaty because it covers small arms, making ratification impossible in the short term.
When is an arms treaty, not an arms treaty … when it is a front to bypass the US Constitution of course. So what is really is in this treaty that pro-Second Amendment folks are extremely worried about? As reported at the WSJ, ‘Obama’s United Nations Backdoor to Gun Control’.
But the new treaty also demands domestic regulation of “small arms and light weapons.” The treaty’s Article 5 requires nations to “establish and maintain a national control system,” including a “national control list.” Article 10 requires signatories “to regulate brokering” of conventional arms. The treaty offers no guarantee for individual rights, but instead only declares it is “mindful” of the “legitimate trade and lawful ownership” of arms for”recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities.” Not a word about the right to possess guns for a broader individual right of self-defense.
Gun-control advocates will use these provisions to argue that the U.S. must enact measures such as a national gun registry, licenses for guns and ammunition sales, universal background checks, and even a ban of certain weapons. The treaty thus provides the Obama administration with an end-run around Congress to reach these gun-control holy grails. As the Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald cases recently declared, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right “to keep and bear Arms” such as handguns and rifles. Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce remains broad, but the court’s decisions in other cases—even last year’s challenge to the Affordable Care Act—remind us that those powers are limited.
So what part about the Second Amendment and the following of US laws doesn’t Starbucks quite get?
Starbucks Corp, the overpriced coffee chain is asking their US customers who have “open carry” or “conceal carry” permits to leave their guns at home. Starbucks claim that they did not want to get involved in the open carry gun debate, yet they just did. Does Starbucks serve waffles? When a company sides with one side of the debate and restricts the other, that is the definition of taking a side. Just curious, how would you know whether I have carrying or not carrying a concealed weapon while ordering a Pumpkin Spice Latte? The Starbucks’ request does not apply to authorized law enforcement personnel.
A note to Starbucks, none of the mass shootings, especially the one in Newtown, CT was done by an individual who legally could carry a fire arm.Those who believe in the Second Amendment can always chose not to frequent Starbucks following this decision. I guess not spending money I over-priced coffee will allow for the purchase of more ammunition.
Coffee chain Starbucks Corp has asked U.S. customers to leave their guns at home after being dragged into an increasingly fractious debate over U.S. gun rights in the wake of multiple mass shootings.
While many U.S. restaurant chains and retailers do not allow firearms on their properties, Starbucks’ policy had been to default to local gun laws, including “open carry” regulations in many U.S. states that allow people to bring guns into stores.
In August, this led gun-rights advocates to hold a national “Starbucks Appreciation Day” to thank the firm for its stance, pulling the company deeper into the fierce political fight.
Locations for Starbucks Appreciation Day events included Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 children and six adults were shot dead in an elementary school in December. Starbucks closed that shop before the event was scheduled to begin.
Chief Executive Howard Schultz said in an open letter to customers late Tuesday that Starbucks Appreciation Day events “disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of ‘open carry.’ To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores.”
I wonder how many Starbucks employees would be thankful if some one legally carrying a gun actually saved them during a commission of a crime? All Starbucks just accomplished was making themselves a gun-free zone and susceptible to future crime by those who do not follow the law.
Daily Commentary – Wednesday, September 18, 2013 – Get Ready for a New Round of Gun Control Arguments
- After this mass shooting in the Washington Naval Yard, there will be another round of arguments for and against gun control and mental health care
Daily Commentary – Wednesday, September 18, 2013 Download
Pledge of Allegiance Goes on Trial in Massachusetts … Atheist Couple Looks to strike the Words “Under God”
When is this nonsense going to stop on the part of Atheists?
An Atheist couple filed, anonymously on behalf of their three children, with the state Supreme Court Judicial Court to strike the words “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. Wow, these heroes filed it anonymously. What’s the matter, can’t stand behind your beliefs? The fact that they did this on behalf of their 3 children., really? They did this on behalf of themselves, using this children as human shields. When is this BS going to end? What will be next, striking “endowed by Our Creator” and “God” from the Declaration of Independence?
Below is Red Skelton’s brilliant rendition of the Pledge of Allegiance. Skelton says at the 3:52 mark. “… and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance, Under God. Wouldn’t it be a pity if some one said that was a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too?” It would appear that Red Skelton was a sage.
The state Supreme Judicial Court will begin hearing arguments this week in an atheist Acton couple’s quest to strike the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance their children say in the Acton-Boxboro Regional School District.
The couple’s suit, filed anonymously on behalf of their three children, goes to the SJC tomorrow, with a pair of Washington, D.C., activist organizations ?taking part in the proceedings.
“We feel confident that our arguments are the right ones, and we’re certainly hopeful that they’re persuasive to the justices,” said Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is arguing on behalf of the school district. “We represent some kids that are actually in the Acton-Boxboro School District that would like to keep saying the pledge.”
A note to Atheists, the US Constitution provides a Freedom of Religion, not a Freedom from religion.
Liberal Dennis Kucinich Says Barack Obama Risks Impeachment If He Acts Against Syria Without Congressional Approval
At least there is some consistency on the LEFT to the Imperial Presidents actions.
Former Ohio Congressman and self-avowed Lib Dennis Kucinich warned that President Barack Obama faces impeachment if he takes military action against Syria without congressional approval because as there was no no “imminent or actual threat” to America. Kucinich also takes issue with how Obama phrased his statement earlier today; however, I am not sure how this is an epiphany to anyone that Obama cares little about the US Constitution and following it.
On Hannity Friday night, guest host Tucker Carlson had Kucinich on the show to discuss the following tweet, which links to a Washington Post article about how the administration is insisting that President Obama “has both the authority and determination to make his own decision on a military strike against Syria.”
Not so, says Kucinich, and the president risks impeachment if he does. “There is no imminent or actual threat to the United States of America. If there was, then people expect the president to defend us. But in this case the president is going on his own,” Kucinich explains.
“It’s not ‘I the President,’ it’s ‘We the People of the United States,’ Kucinich says after quoting the president saying earlier on Friday: “I meant what I said, I have not made a final decision.” Kucinich points to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says only Congress has the power to take America to war. “That’s a fundamental principle and if the president throws that away, disregards that I think there will be consequences for him,” he said.
As The British Aren’t Coming … Nearly 80% of Americans Want Congressional Approval Before Obama Attacks Syria
Welcome to Obama’s War: The Imperial President Barack Obama could care less what “We the People” think or the US Constitution and the separations of power.
As stated in a NBC News poll, nearly 80% of Americans want Barack Obama to get Congressional approval before the United States military attacks Syria. Let alone 50% of Americans want no military intervention what so ever if Syrian President Bashar Assad attacked his people with chemical weapons. Just yesterday, the British Parliament voted down their countries participation in any such attack. So the questions remains, will Obama ask Congress for approval to attack Syria? If he does, what happens if the Congress says No?
So does this mean the the US is going to attack a Middle East country on its own with no mission? Oh that will go over well on the Arab street. But how is Obama treating this any different than Obamacare, ram it through at all cost. This president has no idea how to create any consensus, they just assumed it. Right now, Obama has a ‘Coalition of None’.
Nearly 80 percent of Americans believe President Barack Obama should receive congressional approval before using force in Syria, but the nation is divided over the scope of any potential strike, a new NBC News poll shows.
The nation loses a key ally in its consensus building efforts, as Britain’s parliament votes against supporting any U.S. strikes in Syria. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports.
Fifty percent of Americans believe the United States should not intervene in the wake of suspected chemical weapons attacks by Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to the poll. But the public is more supportive of military action when it’s limited to launching cruise missiles from U.S. naval ships – 50 percent favor that kind of intervention, while 44 percent oppose it.
Still, a whopping 79 percent of respondents – including nearly seven-in-10 Democrats and 90 percent of Republicans – say the president should be required to receive congressional approval before taking any action.
From The Weekly Standard … No Regime Change—and Maybe No Strike At All.
Hmm, I wonder if Obama is going golfing this weekend?
HAS THE IRS NO SHAME?
As if the IRS did not have enough scandals to worry about, they now have a new one. The IRS is now targeting our nation’s veterans and the American Legion. What is wrong with this organization? It is obvious that the IRS is not a bunch of rogue agents, but a “rouge” government agency that does as it pleases without concern. It is time that we put and end to the IRS and develop a flat tax. Seriously, what is the difference these days between the IRS and the mob or terrorist? They operate on the premise of fear and intimidation and feel they answer to now one. Take a good look what tyranny looks like.
If the president wants to get angry about something, how about getting mad about the IRS leaping on the American Legion, requiring individual Legion posts to provide proof of their members’ eligibility, virtually accusing the veterans organization of being a cover for and sanctioning tax fraud?
As the Daily Caller has learned, this targeting of the American Legion is happening under a 13-part section of Part 4, Chapter 76 of the Internal Revenue Manual pertaining to “veterans’ organizations.” The section falls under “Exempt Organizations Examination Guidelines,” which was the jurisdiction of Exempt Organizations head Lerner.
“The American Legion has recently learned of the so-called IRS ‘audit manual’ and is concerned that portions of it attempt to amend statutes passed by Congress and approved by the president,” American Legion legal counsel Philip Onderdonk Jr. told The Daily Caller.
“The IRS now requires American Legion posts to maintain dates of service and character of service records for all members. …The penalty for not having the required proof of eligibility is, apparently, $1,000 per day,” the American Legion stated.
As if targeting conservative and Tea Party groups was not bad enough to ensure that Barack Obama would be reelected in 2012, lets go after the vets too. UNREAL.
Oh My … Michelle Malkin Destroys Gun-Grabbing Liberal Democratic Political Strategist Richard Fowler on Hannity … Teen Thrill Kill Thugs Had Guns Illegally
Why we love Michelle Malkin … And why the LEFT do not want any part of this murder case, it does not fit their narrative agenda in any way.
OUCH, Michelle Malkin handed Richard Fowler, Democratic political strategist, on FOX News’ Hannity last night. This lib actually thinks that more gun laws would have prevented the killing of Chris Lane. The gun in the possession of the three “thrill kill” teens was gained illegally as they were all under the age of 18. So what laws could have been enacted except for the confiscation of all guns. And even with that, the criminals, thugs and gang-bangers are still going to find a way to get the guns. It is never about the crime or the murder with the LEFT, its about gun control and gun grabbing.
Would the assault weapons ban have prevented this murder? Obviously not. When one is bored and just wants to kill some one, I hardly believe they are worried about laws, any laws.
What the LIB twist in the wind as the LEFT could not get gun violence any more wrong … is it any wonder why they never want to discuss the Killing Fields of Chicago.
Barack Obama Asks Supreme Court To Allow Warrantless Cellphone Searches … The Hell with the 4th Amendment
Isn’t this special, Barack Obama asks the US Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches. So much for the US Constitution and the 4th Amendment under this imperial president. Jammie Wearing Fool asks, remember when they said if we voted for Mitt Romney our freedom and liberties would be further eroded? It appears that they were correct in an convoluted Saul Alinsky kind of way.
From the WAPO:
If the police arrest you, do they need a warrant to rifle through your cellphone? Courts have been split on the question. Last week the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to resolve the issue and rule that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless cellphone searches.
In 2007, the police arrested a Massachusetts man who appeared to be selling crack cocaine from his car. The cops seized his cellphone and noticed that it was receiving calls from “My House.” They opened the phone to determine the number for “My House.” That led them to the man’s home, where the police found drugs, cash and guns.
The defendant was convicted, but on appeal he argued that accessing the information on his cellphone without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Earlier this year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the man’s argument, ruling that the police should have gotten a warrant before accessing any information on the man’s phone.
The Obama Administration disagrees. In a petition filed earlier this month asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, the government argues that the First Circuit’s ruling conflicts with the rulings of several other appeals courts, as well as with earlier Supreme Court cases. Those earlier cases have given the police broad discretion to search possessions on the person of an arrested suspect, including notebooks, calendars and pagers. The government contends that a cellphone is no different than any other object a suspect might be carrying.
As Weasel Zippers opines, He’s just lucky his name isn’t George W. Bush.
- After an argument over speeding when he gets out of his car waving a gun around