OF COURSE I LIKE THE PICK, BUT WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE A UN THESE DAYS?
President-elect Trump has tapped South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley to be the post of United States ambassador to the United Nations. Haley has accepted the nomination. The South Carolina governor said in a statement that she was “honored” for the chance to serve the country as U.N. ambassador. Haley is the daughter of immigrants, from India is serving her second term in the South Carolina statehouse and is seen as a rising star in the Republican Party. She is the first female named to the Trump Cabinet. Haley will remain as the South Carolina’s governor until the Senate acts on her appointment.
President-elect Trump has offered South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley the post of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and she has accepted, Mr. Trump’s transition team announced Wednesday morning.
“Governor Haley has a proven track record of bringing people together regardless of background or party affiliation to move critical policies forward for the betterment of her state and our country,” the president-elect said in a statement. “She is also a proven dealmaker, and we look to be making plenty of deals. She will be a great leader representing us on the world stage.”
The South Carolina governor, in her own statement, said she was “honored” for the chance to serve the country as U.N. ambassador.
Haley said she was moved to accept the nomination for two reasons: “The first is a sense of duty. When the President believes you have a major contribution to make to the welfare of our nation, and to our nation’s standing in the world, that is a calling that is important to heed. The second is a satisfaction with all that we have achieved in our state in the last six years and the knowledge that we are on a very strong footing,” she wrote.
- Some are saying he plans Executive Orders to implement UN Climate Change Rules
Daily Commentary – Thursday, April 2, 2015 Download
Daily Commentary – Thursday, November 13, 2014 – According to the United Nations, U.S. States Pot Legalization Not in line with International Law
- Yury Fedotov, executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime said he didn’t see how the laws can be compatible with existing conventions
Daily Commentary – Thursday, November 13, 2014 Download
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.
Obama’s Shot Across Syria’s Bow, Limited Military Operation … But What is the Point of Military Action … Does He Realize he is Siding with Al-Qaeda and Now Great Britain, France, German and Arab League Say Not So Fast
President Barack Obama calls for a shot across the bow and a limited military operation in a strike again Syria for their use of chemical weapons. Obama has called for a “Decisive but limited” military action. WHAT? Does this chicken hawk have any idea what he is talking about? So he wants to strike Syria, but does not want regime change. Does Obama realize that helping the rebels actually means that the United States is aiding Al-Qaeda? Yes, the very folks that killed nearly 3000 individuals on 9-11 in NYC, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. President says Syria’s use of chemical weapons affects US interests. How, exactly? One might say that an attack on Syria by the US, especially standing alone, would have a greater consequence on US interests.
Obama claimed he had support from foreign countries in the strike against Syria, not so fast. Great Britain calls for restraint and a political solution through the UN. And upon further evaluation, France changes its tone and seeks a political solution the ultimate goal for Syria. Germany not on board either.
Barack Obama, the community agitator has backed himself into a corner. This is why you do not draw a line in the sand that you are not willing to back up. Don’t play a game of chicken with people who do not care and do not respect you. Speaking of playing a game of chicken, Russia sending warships to the Mediterranean.
President Barack Obama promised Wednesday that any U.S. military strike at Syria would be a “shot across the bow” that avoids seeing America pulled into “any kind of open-ended conflict.”
Speaking in a wide-ranging interview with PBS Newshour, Obama insisted he has not made a decision on how best to respond to the alleged massacre of civilians by forces loyal to Syrian strongman Bashar Assad using chemical weapons.
But “if, in fact, we can take limited, tailored approaches, not getting drawn into a long conflict — not a repetition of, you know, Iraq, which I know a lot of people are worried about — but if we are saying in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow saying, stop doing this, that can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term,” the president said.
That would send the Assad regime “a pretty strong signal, that in fact, it better not do it again.”
Obama, making his first public remarks on the crisis since a CNN interview that aired Friday, rejected claims that rebels fighting to topple Assad were behind the Aug. 21 attack.
“We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out. And if that’s so, then there need to be international consequences,” he said.
“I have no interest in any kind of open-ended conflict in Syria, but we do have to make sure that when countries break international norms on weapons like chemical weapons that could threaten us, that they are held accountable,” he said.
The US and UK on Thursday appeared to have backed down from an immediate punitive military strike against Syria, even as embattled President Bashar al-Assad vowed that his country would emerge “victorious” in any confrontation with America and its allies.
A strike by western forces had appeared imminent but US allies were increasingly reluctant to act before hearing the results of a UN probe into the alleged poisonous gas attacks in the war-torn country on August 21.
President Barack Obama has said he had not yet decided whether to attack Syria in response to alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, but a strike still appeared likely as the US stopped seeking a UN mandate.
This is why the United States was out of their collective minds for reelecting a community agitator, a Campaigner in Chief, a misleader as President.