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.
Earlier this year, Mitt Romney nearly landed in a politically perilous controversy when the Huffington Post reported that in 1999 the GOP presidential candidate had been part of an investment group that invested $75 million in Stericycle, a medical-waste disposal firm that has been attacked by anti-abortion groups for disposing aborted fetuses collected from family planning clinics. Coming during the heat of the GOP primaries, as Romney tried to sell South Carolina Republicans on his pro-life bona fides, the revelation had the potential to damage the candidate’s reputation among values voters already suspicious of his shifting position on abortion.
But Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney founded, tamped down the controversy. The company said Romney left the firm in February 1999 to run the troubled 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and likely had nothing to with the deal. The matter never became a campaign issue. But documents filed by Bain and Stericycle with the Securities and Exchange Commission—and obtained by Mother Jones—list Romney as an active participant in the investment. And this deal helped Stericycle, a company with a poor safety record, grow, while yielding tens of millions of dollars in profits for Romney and his partners. The documents—one of which was signed by Romney—also contradict the official account of Romney’s exit from Bain.
This will not help Romney one bit. I could sit here and yowl on about how much Romney likes money, more than Babies. But, honestly, I do not know that to be true and I just cannot and will not liable a man who I know nothing about. I did that sort of thing with Bush, when I was on the left, and you know what? I looked like an idiot for it. So, I am not playing the left’s game for them. I just believe that Christians would like to know about this, which is why I am publishing it.
This is your last chance. If you blow this, I’m out and you need to be destroyed.
What is it? Repeal ObamaCare on Day 1. Don’t worry about replace, don’t worry about anything else. We will do everything we have to drag your sorry asses over the line this fall, including electing Mitt Fucking Romney.
In return this is what you will do:
Instead of adjourning for pictures and tea and cake to celebrate getting your pathetic asses elected to 2 or 6 years on the government teet, you will immediately pass a one line bill that says, “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and whatever statute number has to be included) is hereby repealed.”
That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Since Congress meets before Inauguration Day, Obama will still be President. Simply hold the legislation at the desk so the 10 day pocket veto clock doesn’t start. If other parliamentary BS is needed, just do it.
Then as soon as Mitt takes the oath of office, before his speech no one will care or remember, walk the bill up to him at the podium to sign.
If this does not happen, the GOP must be destroyed and a new party built to replace it. We’ve tried the carrot approach (votes, money, volunteers) to change your behavior. Now it’s time to show you the stick.
No more, “oh the other guys are worse” scare tactics. That might be true but it doesn’t mean you are any good.
This is your one job, do it or join the Whig Party in the dustbin of history.
I have to say that I do agree with all of the above. This is what happens when Conservatives and Republican settle for what they can get, instead of what they want to elect. I will say this, as the resident skeptical libertarian of the Blogosphere; if you all think that Mittens is going to rip out Obamacare, you are going to be in for a huge let down. Moderates always settle and compromise, they never take a stand, ever.
As I wrote earlier; from now until election day, is going to be very interesting.
There it is, folks. A naked admission that the purpose of making it more difficult to vote is to tilt elections toward the Republican Party. The people most affected by Voter ID laws are the ones most likely to vote Democratic; it’s a simple equation.
That’s the end game for all of these bogus “vote fraud” allegations: if they can whip up enough fear over non-existent vote fraud, they’ll be able to pass laws restricting who can vote.
And the fewer people who vote, the better for the Republican Party.
You sure were not bitching about that, when that was working for President George W. Bush —- were you Chuckles?
Yes, I have read your archives; in fact, I have read everything from 2004 and 2000 and I fail to find anything of the sort about George W. Bush; of whom you supported.
But now that there is a black Democrat in the White House, according to you —- the Republican Party is now the corrupt party of voter suppression. 🙄
You sanctimonious twit, you are such a hypocrite that it is spewing from your ears and you know it.
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.
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.
If I ever had the chance to meet this young man, I would thank him for his bravery. This man gets it, and he sees that the Democratic Party is totally broken. I saw it in 2007 and decided that I just could not support them any longer. This was way before the huge economic melt down of 2008. After that, the deal was sealed for me. Never again would I vote for that party.
So, my hats off to this man for seeing that too:
And the question of party label in what remains a two team enterprise? That, too, is no light decision on my part: cutting ties with an Alabama Democratic Party that has weakened and lost faith with more and more Alabamians every year is one thing; leaving a national party that has been the home for my political values for two decades is quite another. My personal library is still full of books on John and Robert Kennedy, and I have rarely talked about politics without trying to capture the noble things they stood for. I have also not forgotten that in my early thirties, the Democratic Party managed to engineer the last run of robust growth and expanded social mobility that we have enjoyed; and when the party was doing that work, it felt inclusive, vibrant, and open-minded.
But parties change. As I told a reporter last week, this is not Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party (and he knows that even if he can’t say it). If you have read this blog, and taken the time to look for a theme in the thousands of words (or free opposition research) contained in it, you see the imperfect musings of a voter who describes growth as a deeper problem than exaggerated inequality; who wants to radically reform the way we educate our children; who despises identity politics and the practice of speaking for groups and not one national interest; who knows that our current course on entitlements will eventually break our solvency and cause us to break promises to our most vulnerable—that is, if we don’t start the hard work of fixing it.
I have to agree with the man; he is right. The Democratic Party used Barack Obama to get elected, because they had no one else. They threw off Clinton, because they chose identity politics over experience. You see, I remember 2000 and 2004. In 2000, the Democratic Party used a elitist out of touch buffoon, who could not get elected Mayor of a City; much less a President. Al Gore might have been from the south, but he lacked Bill Clinton’s likeability. In 2004, The Democratic Party ran a out of touch, elitist, limousine Liberal who, again, was seen by most as stiff and not of the people. Which he really is not, John Kerry is an incredibly wealthy man.
So, in 2008, the Democratic Party basically had Clinton, Edwards, Biden and yes, Obama. There were people in the Democratic Party, who did not want the Clintons back in the White House at all. So, the party rallied behind Obama for a number of reasons. Yes, race was one of the bigger reasons. Also too, I tend to believe that there were people, who Clinton “did dirty” back during his term in office and they wanted revenge; and revenge they got.
It was with the election of President Barack Obama that the Democratic Party went from being a party of the “New Left” to being a party of the “Neo-Left.” That was the whole changing of the guard within the Party. Saul Alinsky’s dream was finally realized. This is the change that Artur Davis is referring to and it is one that is only going to drive more and more people away from the Democratic Party and I do not mean just white people. Minorities, including blacks, are going to wake up and see that they being played like fiddles in that party. The quicker the better, if you ask me.
All what I wrote above, Reagan knew, long ago — he saw the changes that were happening behind the scenes and promptly changed his political stance. Mainly because he saw what was coming down the pike. Reagan saw that the Communists were changing tactics and embracing “social justice” as opposed to party loyalty. So, he left and embraced his Midwestern upbringing. The truth is Reagan did not change; The Democratic Party changed and they have since gotten totally worse.
Again, Kudos to Mr. Davis and I hope he comes to embrace what he knows to be right.
My friends, this below is the most likely the best article ever written about true Conservatism and the Republican establishment. It is really worth the click through and the read.
It should come as no surprise that the Republican National Committee has been “covertly” supporting Mitt Romney throughout the primaries, as POLITICO recently “revealed.” It was the worst-kept secret in Washington
The RNC has always been the center of Republican insiderism — what the insiders call pragmatism. Consider, back when Roger Stone was at the Young Republicans, in 1975, he hung up a portrait of Ronald and Nancy Reagan in his office. Within hours, the order came down from the chairman’s suite: Take the picture down. At once.
(****)
Many conservatives have, in fact, decided that their beliefs have become permanently inconsistent with Republicanism. This may be more apparent in 2012 than ever before. No offense to Romney, but he is the perfect nominee for the Republican Party in 2012 because he — like the GOP — has adopted a variety of positions over the years in order to acquire power. The Etch A Sketch comment was stunningly accurate.
The “lesser of two evils” argument is now settling over the landscape. Perhaps. The “conservatives have no place else to go” storyline is being pushed. Maybe.
On the other hand, some conservatives now view this election as a clear Hobson’s Choice or possibly a Morton’s Fork. One choice is bad or nothing; the other between two bad options.
Conservatives should be clear-eyed, though. The job of the Republican Party is to deceive conservatives into handing over their support. This does not mean that conservatives can’t arrive at the conclusion that this choice is between the lesser of two evils.
In this writers opinion, the Republican Party has not been a real Conservative party since around the time that Senator Berry Goldwater decided that the lobbyists were a bit too much and decided to not run for another term. Since that time, anyone who dared run as a true conservative, like Pat Buchanan; has been cast as an extremist, a racist, an anti-Semite and so on. Only reason Ron Paul lasted as long as he did, is because he was the only person in that part of Texas that actually could get elected. Besides that, Ron Paul’s supporters in his district know him well and have voted for him for years. That is because his district is filled with true Conservative Christians.The reason why Ron Paul never got elected is because the Neoconservatives or the Rockefeller Republicans have controlled the Republican for many years.
Either way, the article is great and it tells the truth about the Republican Party. Sad thing is, the Republican Party will never change; this is why Sarah Palin was quickly kneecapped. She was running against the Republican establishment in Alaska and when you that, you pay the price; same goes for Paul, Buchanan, and many others. I will not be voting for Obama, that is for sure. But, I will not be voted for a RHINO like Mitt Romney. He is very much a Republican establishment candidate — or as I like to call him, George W. Bush — with really nice hair. 😛
Needless to say, I am voting libertarian; because I am not about to be blamed for either of these piss poor excuses for Presidential Candidates, least of all the one who claims to be a Conservative.
First off, let me say this; I do not believe that the Tea Party movement itself was racist at all. In fact, it never was a centralized movement. In most movements, like the Tea Party movement; there will be people who do things that do not represent the movement as a whole.
A quick search of Google Images brings up quite a few racist signs and images:
and this is not racist Michelle? (even though it is misspelled...)And this is not racist?
Here is the one that really bothered me, and this dude ended up in jail for this too:
A "Death to Obama" sign... But, that's not racist, so says Michelle Malkin
Nope, No racism here! Only thing missing here is the N-word and that makes okay, according to Michelle Malkin
This image was used on signs and passed around in e-mails, by Tea Party supporters. (I know, I used to see it on facebook and in e-mails I would get from other Tea Party supporters. That until I told the idiots to quit sending me racist crap like that….)
But this is not racist according to Michelle Malkin (Willful blindness much Michelle?)
Again, let me be clear; I am not calling the entire Tea Party movement racist as a whole, that is collectivism and this blogger is not a collectivist. In other words, I do not dismiss the movement in it’s entirety, as racist; but I will say that there were people who were carrying racist signs, not to mention doing stuff like this:
This is Chris Broughton, and yes, he is black, and he is a Ron Paul fan and yes, he was carry an assault rifle at a Obama event. My question is why? I think I know the reason and I think you do too. But, the Tea Party is just peaceful people... Most of them anyhow...
My point to this posting is this; The OWS crowd are a violent group and yes it does include anarchists, who do try and blow up bridges. However, the Tea Party is not without its own individual nuts and looney tunes, who did bring a tarnish to the good name of the Party. Not to mention all of the infighting that went on with various groups.
However, my more intellectual point is this; to what end was all of this even done? I mean, the Republican Party did not change one wit. Oh sure, there were a few Senators who were elected as result of the grassroots surge. However, the Republican Party’s coronation of a Mormon George W. Bush is telling; and let me tell you something, if you think for one second that Mitt Romney is going to rip out Obamacare, you are crazy. Oh sure, he will remove the mandate and anything else that seems to infringe on basic American rights. However, I do not believe that he will remove the entire package.
Which makes me have to really wonder aloud, what exactly did the Tea Party accomplish; outside of the rhetorical flourishes? Absolutely nothing. Government is still there and it is still imposing upon our basic human rights. All of those borderline racist signs, all of the verbal clashes, all of the excitement were for naught.
This was not to hurt Michelle Malkin herself; but it was to point out the Republican/Conservative/Fox News/Sean Hannity right’s willful blindness to the racism of the Tea Party — which was, and is still there very much so, to this very day.
One reason I think this discussion is so important is because the manipulation of the term “terrorism” this way permits and bolsters (even if unintentionally) an extremely ugly, destructive, and toxic worldview, one which the Editor-in-Chief of Commentary Magazine, John Podhoretz, vividly expressed last night on Twitter when discussing the firing of Keith Olbermann by Current TV:
That’s about as overtly racist a statement from a media figure with a platform as you’ll see (and the it’s-just-a-joke excuse is obviously irrelevant: just imagine analogous “jokes” about how disfavored journalists would be punished at The Jerusalem Post, or Black Entertainment Television, etc.). To Podhoretz, Al Jazeera is filled with Arabs and Muslims, which means: The Terrorists (for many years after 9/11, that was virtually official U.S. governmentpolicy). Podhoretz is the same person who wrote a New York Post column in 2006 lamenting that in the early stages of the Iraq War, “we didn’t kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything,” suggesting that the big U.S. mistake in the war was allowing “the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35.” Remember, though: it’s those Muslims who are The Terrorists (when influential American “terrorism experts” start talking about the John Podhoretzes of the world as terrorism advocates, and about “Shock and Awe“, the assault on Fallujah and the bombing of Gaza as terrorism, and about Ronald Reagan as a “state sponsor of terrorism” for his funding of El Salvadoran death squads and Nicaraguan contras, and about the parties responsible for the assassination of Iranian civilian scientists as international terrorists, then I’ll start to take the honorific more seriously).
I have no doubt that most respected “terrorism experts” would find Podhoretz’s comment about Al Jazeera repugnant. But the mentality on display here — and it’s quite pervasive (which is why this is one of the few remaining forms of overt bigotry that provokes no real sanction) — finds nourishment in the constant discussion of Terrorism, the Supreme Evil, as: acts of violence by Muslims directed at us (but not violence by our own government or those of its allies directed at Muslims).
The above is exactly why the libertarian crowd hates the Zionist crowd with a passion. This is why I am not a huge fan of John Podhoretz and his ilk. It is because they can make statements like this, without any repercussions. If someone, who is not a Zionist made a similar statement about Israel and Jews; they would be excoriated from one end of the blogosphere to the other. Mr. Glennwald has a very good point and I think everyone on the Jewish Conservative side of the political isle, ought to take a hard look at this and take it very seriously. If the Zionists want respect, they have to learn to respect others. Because not all Arabs out there are terrorists; just like not all blacks are murders, robbers, and so forth —- not all white people are robe and hood carrying Klansman. Some black liberals might think that, but I digress. Furthermore, not all Jews are evil bankers trying to overthrow the Country. See? It goes both ways. Someone needs to tell Podhoretz to keep his damned bigotry towards Arabs to himself.
Also too; anyone who believes that Jews can be insulted like this, and can get away with it —- ought to have a nice long talk — with Rick Sanchez.
Just a thought.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
1 minute
_gac_
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
