Category: World News

Video: U.N Gun Treaty a risk for U.S. Gun Owners, Says NRA

First the Video from the NRA:

Fox News Reports:


UNITED NATIONS – A treaty being hammered out this month at the United Nations — with Iran playing a key role — could expose the records of America’s gun owners to foreign governments — and, critics warn, eventually put the Second Amendment on global trial.

International talks in New York are going on throughout July on the final wording of the so-called Arms Trade Treaty, which supporters such as Amnesty International USA say would rein in unregulated weapons that kill an estimated 1,500 people daily around the world. But critics, including the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, warn the treaty would mark a major step toward the eventual erosion of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment gun-ownership rights.

Americans “just don’t want the UN to be acting as a global nanny with a global permission slip stating whether they can own a gun or not,” LaPierre said. “It cheapens our rights as American citizens, and weakens our sovereignty,” he warned in an exclusive interview with FoxNews.com from the halls of the UN negotiating chambers.

Right now the NRA is fighting to keep American gun owners off of this treaty. If you can, please, help them. I cannot, as I am unemployed and really not making any kind of money; so it is up to you. Click here to help.

Our Second Amendment rights are given to us by God, not by Governments. We must fight to protect them. Join the fight today.

Disclaimer: I am posting this of my own accord. I am not being compensated by the Nation Rifle Association or any of it’s members for posting this blog entry. I am posting it, because I am genuinely worried about our second amendment rights.

Video: Obama, who can he be?

youtube placeholder image

(Via)

Obamacare to stand says SCOUTS

Well, this was not what I was hoping to wake up to hearing on my 40’th birthday.

The Memeoradum round up is here.

The link round up is here: (H/T to Drudge)

Now for what I think: I believe this to be the biggest set back in American freedom since the McCarthy hearings and the red scare of the 1950’s. I guess I should not surprised, the this out of control federal behemoth that we call Government has always valued the idea of a tax on the American people.   I will comment on one thing that I read over at the Weekly Standard, that I linked to above:

It is understandable why President Obama has no interest in framing this election as a referendum on Obamacare. His party already suffered perhaps its worst defeat since the 19th century thanks to his centerpiece legislation. With the Supreme Court’s ruling now behind him, he will have even less incentive to remind voters about Obamacare going forward. As far as he’s concerned, the less the American people think about it, the better.

This means, of course, that the more they think about it, the better it will be for Mitt Romney.  It also means (of course) that Romney should encourage them to think about it, reminding them at every turn that this election isn’t merely — or even principally — about the economy; that it’s about something bigger; that we need to repeal Obamacare and replace it with real reform.  And he should convey to them what real reform would look like, thereby bringing into the fold those independents who don’t want to go back to the pre-Obamacare status quo.  He should start playing to win people’s votes, instead of merely trying not to lose them.

Yes, the fate of Obamacare will be the most important outcome of this election.  On some level, the American people know this.  There’s a reason why Romney gets standing ovations simply for mentioning repeal.

The question is whether either candidate will convey that he knows what this election is really about.  Obama can’t say it’s about Obamacare — even though that’s what he considers it to be about — because he’ll lose if he does.  Romney so far hasn’t said it’s about Obamacare — perhaps because that’s not what he considers it to be about — even though he’ll likely win if he does. 

Regardless, the Court has cleared the field. The stakes are historic. The citizenry will decide.

Yes, and you can bet that Barack Obama will have a army of lawyers to make sure that he remains President too. In fact, that is just what the Boston Globe is reporting:

OLYMPIA, Wash.—President Barack Obama’s campaign has recruited a legion of lawyers to be on standby for this year’s election as legal disputes surrounding the voting process escalate.

Thousands of attorneys and support staffers have agreed to aid in the effort, providing a mass of legal support that appears to be unrivaled by Republicans or precedent. Obama’s campaign says it is particularly concerned about the implementation of new voter ID laws across the country, the possibility of anti-fraud activists challenging legitimate voters and the handling of voter registrations in the most competitive states.

Republicans are building their own legal teams for the election. They say they’re focused on preventing fraud — making sure people don’t vote unless they’re eligible — rather than turning away qualified voters.

Since the disputed 2000 presidential election, both parties have increasingly concentrated on building legal teams — including high-priced lawyers who are well-known in political circles — for the Election Day run-up. The Bush-Gore election demonstrated to both sides the importance of every vote and the fact that the rules for voting and counting might actually determine the outcome. The Florida count in 2000 was decided by just 537 votes and ultimately landed in the Supreme Court.

This year in that state alone, Obama and his Democratic allies are poised to have thousands of lawyers ready for the election and hope to have more than the 5,800 attorneys available four years ago. That figure was nearly twice the 3,200 lawyers the Democrats had at their disposal in 2004.

Romney has been organizing his own legal help for the election. Campaign attorney Ben Ginsberg did not provide numbers but said the campaign has been gratified by the “overwhelming number of attorneys who have volunteered to assist.”

“We will have enough lawyers to handle all situations that arise,” he said.

The GOP doesn’t necessarily need to have a numerical counterweight to Obama’s attorneys; the 2000 election showed that experienced, connected lawyers on either side can be effective in court.

Believe me when I tell you; President Barack Obama and the left have been emboldened by this decision and they will stop at nothing to remain in power. Furthermore, the President knows that if he is to protect Obamacare and everything else he and Congress have worked for; they will have to win the election. So, if you all think that Obama and Co. are just going to let White America, which, by proxy will be represented by Mitt Romney —- roll over them and defeat them, you are crazy. They are now going to be emboldened to, in figurative sense — of course — fight to the death to protect everything that they have worked for in the last 3 years.

Putting it in “Southwest Detroit ghetto” terms: things just got very real. The Republicans must know, the kiddie stuff just ended, and now the real fight is now underway. From today, till election day is going to be a bare knuckle brawl. I just hope that the right; bloggers, writers, news people and the politicos know what they are in for. I also hope they know how to fight it, without getting overly stupid and letting their words and actions get them into trouble. This is not 1957 and if they fight like it is, they will lose and lose badly.

Needless to say, it is going to be a very interesting next couple of months.

Arizona man jailed and fined for having a church on his property

This bothers me a bit.

Via the Christian Post

Arizona preacher Michael Salman was sentenced to jail for building what the City of Phoenix claims he has been representing as a church on his home property without securing the proper permits. Salman claims the building is not a church and is simply for private Bible study gatherings.

Salman’s case, which started in 2007, reached its conclusion this week when a Phoenix court ruled that he was guilty of more than five dozen violations in constructing the building and sentenced him to 60 days in jail and three years of probation.

The preacher, whose ministry is called Harvest Christian Fellowship, claims he was exercising his religious liberty by worshiping at home on his private property, and that his gatherings were no different than when people hold Super Bowl or Christmas parties.

“You’re taking a man out of society and sticking him in jail for worshiping at his home,” he told a local news station.

This bothers me, because we are supposed to be a free Republic and not an oppressive monarchy. But yet, when a Christian man wants to put a Church building in on his own property; he is tossed in jail?

My question you, my dear readers is: Since do Governments have the right to oppress those who wish to worship God in their own manner as they choose?

Also too, allow me go be the one to ask this question: if this man were a Jew or a Muslim; would the Government be so quick to jail him? What about if he were black?

Those are answers that I would like to know. We are supposed to be an Constitutional Republic and private property right are supposed to be respected.

As much as I hate to admit it, Libby Spencer has a point

…and no I don’t mean the one on the top of her head either…. 😉 😛

As you know, I am not a big fan of the previous President. In fact, his stupidity got me to start blogging — That was in 2006 — 8 Years ago. WOW. Makes me feel old. 😯

Anyhow, reacting to the news today and Nancy Pelosi’s reaction to it, Progressive blogger Libby Spencer says:

To which one can only reply, “Why the hell didn’t you do it?

Talk is cheap. If Pelosi’s Congress had actually pursued charges against the very real criminality in the Bush White House and had Rove’s pudgy ass frogmarched down Capitol Hill, it might have made the thieves and scoundrels think twice before embarking on their next caper. And even if it didn’t stop the GOPers, it would have at least made clear Democrats were as willing to fight as hard against the GOP agenda as the left did to put them into a majority.

That they didn’t is at least partly why they’re struggling right now to recapture the enthusiasm of the base.

via The Impolitic: Contemptible Congress.

I have to give the woman credit, when she is right — she is right. The no-nothing Democrats, during Bush’s term is why there was a good deal of lackluster support of the Democrats, during the era of Bush. This is why Obama shot forward, because the Democrats knew that if they did not pick someone like Obama, that they would lose to the Republican again in another election.  This is sort of the problem that they have right now; just like during the Clinton era — their President is in trouble and the bench is empty.  Except, back then they did have Gore, and Edwards and Hillary and Kerry. Now…. they have nobody at all.

It should be a lesson to them, overreach, when it suits your own political interests is never, ever a good idea. Yes, I know the Republicans have done it too and they paid for it in elections too. Now, it is the Democrats turn. I predict that this election coming in 2012 is going to be a wake up call for the Progressive community and to the Democratic Party. They are going to have to make some tough decisions about the future of that party. Because America is not happy with them, neither is their base. The old way of doing things in that Party is not going to work anymore. They need new ideas. The Democratic Party needs to come back to center and start over. This far-leftist way of doing things as failed and failed badly.

It is time for that party to change, and quickly, before that party is relegated to the dustbin of history.

In to which I say, “Irony Much, Asshole?”

This right here is irony at its best.

Here is the best ironic quote since President Obama backtracking on closing Gitmo:

President Obama’s claim that he can refuse to deport 800,000 aliens here in the country illegally illustrates the unprecedented stretching of the Constitution and the rule of law. He is laying claim to presidential power that goes even beyond that claimed by the Bush administration, in which I served. There is a world of difference in refusing to enforce laws that violate the Constitution (Bush) and refusing to enforce laws because of disagreements over policy (Obama).

Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president has the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This provision was included to make sure that the president could not simply choose, as the British King had, to cancel legislation simply because he disagreed with it. President Obama cannot refuse to carry out a congressional statute simply because he thinks it advances the wrong policy. To do so violates the very core of his constitutional duties.

via Executive Overreach – The Corner – National Review Online.

Who wrote this rather lengthy piece on executive overreach? No other than that slant-eyed motherfucker —- John Yoo. Yes, that John Yoo. The goddamned John Yoo who told President George W. Bush that torturing terrorist suspects was just perfectly fine and should be sitting in a jail cell to this very damned day. However, because we have a Democratic Party that has no fucking balls and because the Republican Party still kind of thinks that Neoconservatism is just fucking peachy keen; this little slant-eyed puke is still living as a free man.

It is not only that I object to torture. I detest this ignorant piece of shit for another damned reason. This asshole did more to injure, discredit and bring harm to the Conservative and Republican cause than any of the Neoconservatives, hands down. It was because of this man’s actions; suddenly, everyone — including me at the time — believed that ALL Conservatives and Republican believed that torture of prisoners of war was just perfectly fine. Which I now know is horribly wrong. This man has done more to ruin the image of the political party that still believes in restraint of the fiscal, militarist and some, of the social kind. This man and his idiotic thought process is why I have never, and most like will never send the Republican Party a fucking dime and why I choose to call myself a right-libertarian.

So, in closing: John Yoo, shut the hell up, you slant-eyed fool; because nobody, least of all me — honestly gives two shits what you say, think or even feel. Please, just go back to your damned homeland of South Korea and take your goddamned borderline Communist attitudes about Constitutionality with you sir. Because quite frankly, Americans like myself, find your inane bullshit writings idiotic at best.

…..and I say all of the above, in the best Christian manner than I can muster. You’re welcome.

Signed,

A very proud Constitutionalist and right-libertarian

————————-

I mean, I hate to even write stuff like this, in this blunt of a manner. But, I am reading this guy’s crap on NRO and about into the second paragraph, my freakin’ head is about to explode! 😡

Again, the stupidity of this jack ass and the Iraq War debacle was what got my start in blogging about politics in the first place. So, this posting was a long time coming for me.

That is all…

Others: JustOneMinute, Outside the Beltway, Balloon Juice, Chicago Boyz, americanthinker.com, neo-neocon, Washington Monthly, Pundit & Pundette and The PJ Tatler

Why Scott Walker Won and the Democrats in Wisconsin lost

I was going to try avoid writing about this, but I am seeing some rather silly stuff being written about this win; So, I thought I would offer my thoughts as a former Democratic Party voter. Update: Greg Sargent over at The Washington Post hits the post a bit, but fails, as most progressives do; to see the full picture.

Putting it plain and simple, The Democrats in Wisconsin picked a fight that they could not win. — They were outspent, out-organized, and out-boxed; the Democrats had zero chance of winning this recall election at all. But yet, they still decided to fight for a recall election. They should have taken their cues from Michigan and left well enough alone. The Democrats in Michigan tried unsuccessfully to get Governor Snyder recalled here twice and both times they failed horribly. This is because residents of Michigan knew that the former Governor of Michigan was a incompetent moron who could not Govern worth a damn and they did not want a Democrat back in office again. Thus, the Democrats wisely dropped the issue and decided to try and win the 2012 election.  Wisconsin should have followed their lead, but they did not and decided to try and force their hand and failed.

Mother Jones has some good ideas as well:

1) Campaign Money is King

Walker crushed his Democratic opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, in the political money wars. The governor raised $30.5 million while Barrett pulled in $3.9 million—a nearly 8-to-1 advantage in candidate fundraising. Walker banked on in- and out-of-state donors, including heavyweight GOP contributors such as Houston homebuilder Bob Perry and Amway heir Dick Devos. Walker was able to raise so much money because of a quirk in state law that lets candidates potentially facing a recall raise unlimited funds for their defense. (The normal limit for individual donors in $10,000.) Barrett did not get to raise unlimited funds in his recall campaign—which placed him at a great disadvantage.

All that money helped Walker pound Barrett in the ad wars. An analysis by Hotline On Call found that Walker and his GOP allies outspent Barrett and his backers 3-to-1 on TV ad buys in the three months before Tuesday’s recall. The dark-money-peddling Republican Governors Association itself spent $9.4 million to keep Walker in office.

Just as the political money advantage proved crucial to labor’s win last year in repealing Ohio’s anti-union SB 5 law, campaign cash appears to have played a pivotal role in the GOP’s Wisconsin wins .

2) The Candidate

Filing nearly one million signatures to trigger a recall election, Democrats and union leaders and members had their sights trained on the governor. The recall election’s Democratic primary forced them to take their eyes off the prize. A primary fight between Barrett and former Dane County executive Kathleen Falk splintered the labor movement. The major unions endorsed Falk early on, sometimes over the opposition of their own rank-and-file. Several other unions held out until late March, when Barrett entered the race, and then endorsed the mayor. This primary drama knocked the anti-Walker effort off course for weeks, if not a month, in a race where every single day counts. It divided a unified movement into Barrett supporters and Falk supporters.

3) No New Ground

Democrats and labor unions touted their massive get-out-the-vote operation, which was supposed to tip the scales in their favor. Turn-out was way up in the elections, at 2.4 million, but the left failed to win over the types of people who elected Walker in 2010. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinelnotes, Walker’s Tuesday win is a mirror image of his 2010 victory—just with more voters. He won men and lost women; won independents and lost moderates; and won suburban and rural voters but not urban voters.

More notably, Walker won 38 percent of votes from union households—an increase of 1 percent from 2010. Remember, union members or their spouses didn’t know in 2012 that Walker planned to target them after the election with his anti-union “budget repair” bill curbing collective bargaining rights. Yet 16 months after Walker launched his attack on unions, just as many people in union households voted for him. The unions failed to rally their own ranks.

My thoughts on the Unions — One of the main reasons why the unions failed; not because of a lack of members or money. The unions failed because for the following:

  1. They over played their hand, by storming the capital building and occupying it. This made them look like total buffoons in the eyes of the people, not mention the heavy handed tactics that were on par with communist gulags.
  2. The second reason is a rather simple one; not all union members are on board with the progressive movement, just because someone has a union card, does not necessarily make him a Democrat. Some union members are free thinkers and some of them resent being culled in together with the socialist crowd.
  3. The last reason is this; some union members are just not happy with the Democratic Party and with Obama. I believe Obama fatigue played a big part in the loss in Wisconsin. I believe it will also play out in November as well.

Needless to say, Scott Walker won big and the Unions and Democrats lost big. The results of this will be far-reaching and the Democrats in Wisconsin would be wise to lay low and try to hang on in 2012. But if they do not, they should learn the lessons of the massive over-reach that took place in Wisconsin and with the Democratic Party as a whole. However, knowing Democrats like I do; they will not learn a thing from this.