It’s time to wake up and see what the United Nations and gun ban groups are trying to do to subvert the US Constitution. A must see for anyone who values his/her 2nd Amendment rights!
Under the blanket of a blinding blizzard, negotiators in Copenhagen charge ahead with efforts to forge an international agreement that will stem the tide of what they now call “Climate Change.” (Formerly known as Global Warming.) The winter storm wasn’t all these Global Warming alarmists were ignoring as they donned coats, hats, scarves and gloves to demand action that they believe will lower temperatures.
Protesters, “green” organizations, and worst of all, delegates representing member states of the UN continued to ignore the words of leading scientists that have led some to call “Climate Change” the “worst scientific scandal of our generation.”
It’s understandable the nutcase treehuggers who hold no real job didn’t notice that the whole idea of man-made climate change is a fabricated hoax. They spend their entire lives protesting at some conference for some left wing cause or another. The “green” organizations know the science is junk. They’ve always known it. They use it to convince citizens of the world that cow farts, SUVs, and even our own breathing are turning the Earth into a boiling cauldron, not because of some burning desire to save the world, but to extort money from those who swallow their left-wing line and those who don’t.
The extortion from sympathizers, believers, and followers comes in the form of donations to the left-wing organizations that support the professional protesters who pass through this life throwing rocks, breaking windows, and turning over cars in the street. Those who don’t run for their lives when the radical left nut jobs play Chicken Little with issues like Global Warming…uh…I mean Climate Change…don’t voluntarily hand over their hard earned cash to the liberal loons so the extortion takes a little more effort where they’re concerned. These involuntary victims of the leftist liberals are stripped of their worldly possessions for the good of the cause by taxation and/or government imposed mandates.
Those taxes and mandates were exactly what the shivering ambassadors from 193 countries sought to agree on at Copenhagen. But negotiators seemed stymied, unable to reach an agreement as rich countries (those who would be required to pay said taxes) didn’t seem to want to part with as much of their wealth as poorer countries (those who would benefit from yet another liberal scheme to redistribute wealth) planned to take. Then, US President Barack Obama arrived in the winter wonderland anomaly.
Believers and extortionists can now claim Obama’s powers of persuasion, though no longer capable of hypnotizing a majority of Americans, worked wonders on the chilly conference representatives’ ability to compromise. With a flurry of last minute arm twisting, which included the President breaking protocol by bursting into a meeting of Chinese, Brazilian, Indian and South African leaders to demand they not negotiate in secret (funny how he doesn’t hold Democratic Senators to that standard on health care), the President forged an agreement between the US and those four countries that permitted him yet another opportunity to describe his accomplishment with his favorite adjective.
If Global Warming/Climate Change/[whatever the next name for the nonexistent threat propagated by the left] is real, the results of his “unprecedented” accomplishment must have been instantaneous, because the President had to leave Denmark before the agreement could be considered by the full conference in order to beat another blinding snowstorm descending on Washington, DC.
One can only imagine what weather conditions would have befallen the US capitol if Obama had failed in his quest to get something on paper before he left Copenhagen. Air conditioning systems would likely be running full blast in the capitol city, creating an “unprecedented” December demand on coal-fired power plants to cool the sultry confines inside the beltway. Imagine the “unprecedented” levels of CO2 that would have been emitted by DC denizens’ efforts to combat what would almost certainly have been an “unprecedented” heat wave this weekend. So be sure to email the White House and thank the President as you’re shoveling the snow from your driveway this weekend.
Global Warming/Climate Change/[whatever the radical left wants to call it this week] is nowhere to be found this weekend, thanks to the “unprecedented” pretentiousness of our President!
Of course, it’s more likely the leaked CRU emails we’ve read about really did point to a cover up by the scientific community to help guarantee a continually growing flow of research dollars help them manufacture more junk science and there was no more truth to Global Warming than to Al Gore’s claim that he invented the internet.
By Charles Krauthammer at Townhall.com
“President Obama, I support the Americans’ outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing.” — French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sept. 24
WASHINGTON — When France chides you for appeasement, you know you’re scraping bottom. Just how low we’ve sunk was demonstrated by the Obama administration’s satisfaction when Russia’s president said of Iran, after meeting President Obama at the U.N., that “sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable.”
You see? The Obama magic. Engagement works. Russia is on board. Except that, as The Washington Post inconveniently pointed out, President Dmitry Medvedev said the same thing a week earlier, and the real power in Russia, Vladimir Putin, had changed not at all in his opposition to additional sanctions. And just to make things clear, when Iran then brazenly test-fired offensive missiles, Russia reacted by declaring that this newest provocation did not warrant the imposition of tougher sanctions.
Do the tally. In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic by unilaterally abrogating a missile-defense security arrangement that Russia had demanded be abrogated, we get from Russia … what? An oblique hint, of possible support, for unspecified sanctions, grudgingly offered and of dubious authority — and, in any case, leading nowhere because the Chinese have remained resolute against any Security Council sanctions.
Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran’s nuclear program — whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.
by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann at Townhall.com
While all eyes were on the rantings of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the United Nations, the United States — under President Obama — was surrendering its economic sovereignty at the G-20 summit.
The result of this conclave, which France’s president Nicolas Sarkozy hailed as “revolutionary,” was that all the nations agreed to coordinate their economic policies and programs and to submit them to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for comment and approval. While the G-20 nations and the IMF are, for now, only going to use “moral suasion” on those nations found not to be in compliance, talk of sanctions looms on the horizon.
While the specific policies to which the U.S. committed itself (reducing the deficit and strengthening regulatory oversight of financial institutions) are laudable in themselves, the process and the precedent are frightening.
We are to subject our most basic national economic policies to the review of a group of nations that includes autocratic Russia, China and Saudi Arabia. Even though our gross domestic product is three times bigger than the second-largest economy (Japan) and equal to that of 13 of the G-20 nations combined, we are to sit politely by with our one vote and submit to the global consensus. Europe has five votes (Britain, France, Germany, Italy and the EU), while we have but one.
by Michael Barone at Townhall.com
“It is my deeply held belief,” Barack Obama told the United Nations General Assembly, that “in the year 2009 — more than at any point in human history — the interests of nations and peoples are shared.”
That is, of course, the year Obama became president, and he wasn’t shy about referring in his second paragraph to “the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world,” though he assured us they “are not about me.”
Before Obama’s speech, I wrote that he seems “stuck in a time warp in which the United States is the bad guy.” Not any more, he seemed to say in his U.N. speech. He has ordered the closing of Guantanamo. He has prohibited the use of torture. He is “responsibly ending” the war in Iraq (no triumphalist talk of victory). He is promising substantial reductions in U.S. nuclear weapons. He has invested $80 billion in clean energy. The U.S. has joined the United Nations’ Human Rights Council.
All of which is a way of saying that nasty George W. Bush is no longer around with all his self-righteous swagger, and that with (as Obama did not fail to note) the first African-American installed in the White House, America is now on the same page with the rest of the world.
Much of the speech seemed to be an exercise in what Sigmund Freud called “projection,” assuming that others think the way you do. Obama spoke as if the mullahs of Iran, the Kim Jong Il clan of North Korea, Vladimir Putin and his gang of oligarchs, and the rulers of China had the same gripes against the Bush administration as Obama and the liberal Democrats in Congress. Hey, if we just close Gitmo, they’ll realize that we’re all in sympathy now.
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration said Friday it is prepared to confront ships believed to be carrying contraband materials to North Korea but will not try to forcibly board them, in accordance with new U.N. sanctions.
The resolution the Obama administration finally wrangled out of the UN Security Council calls for “U.N. members to inspect all N. Korean cargo if there is information that provides reasonable grounds to believe the cargo carries nuclear or missile-related items” and “U.N. members to inspect vessels, with the consent of the flag state, on the high seas, if there is information that provides reasonable grounds to believe the cargo carries nuclear or missile-related items,” according to Breitbart.com.
The Newsmax article goes on to quote Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to say the US, in cases of ships refusing inspection, will attempt to convince the nation whose flag the ship flies to divert it to an appropriate port to be inspected. If that can’t be accomplished the US still won’t use force, but will “shine a spotlight on it.”
In other words, the administration will tell the public what it suspects the ship to be carrying, who its owner is, and “other things.” That’s it. Obama plans to tattle on those who don’t comply–those who supply the Communist rogue nation of North Korea with the means to destroy the world. The most powerful Navy in the world will have its hands tied as it watches ships carrying forbidden cargo into N. Korean ports.
However, Rice calls on other nations to “uphold their obligations to inspect in their territorial waters.” So, the administration that blames America for all the wrong in the world is calling other nations to do what it refuses to do. What leadership! Those nations shouldn’t expect any extra help from the US either. Rice admits we won’t be deploying additional ships to the region to enforce the UN mandate.
She readily admits that she expects N. Korea to challenge the sanctions, but says the administration is “very pleased” with the UN resolution. Words. Nothing more. An unenforceable resolution is nothing more than written rhetoric. A dog with all bark, no bite.
Yet she expects Iran to “take a message from how the U.N. responded to North Korea’s actions.” Believe me they will. Hardline President Ahmadinejad was dubiously re-elected yesterday, and I’m sure he gets the message loud and clear. If Iran continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, Obama will tell on him. No substantive action will follow. Ships loaded with the means to manufacture those weapons will be asked, “may we please board your ship?”, refuse, and sail safely into Iranian ports so Ahmadinejad can pursue his dream of annihilating Israel.
The Obama administration calls resolution 1874 “very firm and very meaningful.” I call it virtually useless if we don’t enforce it and continue to allow N. Korea to manufacture nuclear weapons.
You remember the President’s new approach to dealing with our enemies. Let’s listen to them, talk to them, embrace them, apologize to them.
He said countries will be more apt to cooperate with the United States on tough issues, even if only on the margins. Resistance based on anti-American conceptions of the past will fall away.
Evidently N. Korea sees things a little differently.
Last month they fired a long range missile in spite of Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s threat of “consequences.” Yesterday, the communist country defied Obama and the international community by detonating a nuclear device. The leader of the free world says this action poses “a grave threat” to the world community. And today the defiant Kim Jong-Il fired off more short-range missiles to dispel Obama’s naive vision of a world in which all nations smoke a peace pipe and sing songs of unity and cooperation.
But what would give the N. Korean tyrant pause? Why would he feel the least bit hesitant about challenging the most powerful nation in the world?
The threat of “consequences” for last month’s missile test proved hollow when they manifested themselves in the form of a Security Council resolution condemning the launch. A mere slap on the wrist. UN spokeswoman Michele Montas claimed the condemnation “sends a unified message of the international community on the recent launch,” but that message really amounts to nothing more than hot air–no more punishing than a mild rebuke.
One would expect far more punitive “consequences” to follow the North’s most recent escalation of the crisis, but that wasn’t to be. Today’s aggression by N. Korea drew a response almost identical to last month’s–another resolution condemning the action and demanding the rogue nation honor the previous Security Council resolutions which call on it to drop its pursuit of nuclear weapons and vehicles to launch them.
Didn’t someone once say stupidity is repeating the same process again and again, but expecting different results, or something along those lines? By that definition, stupidity is regularly exhibited in the “consequences” dealt by the Security Council.
The ineffectiveness of such “consequences” was evidenced again in today’s UN reaction to the latest escalation. The UN Security Council is no more than a dog who’s all bark and no bite. Of course a large vicious dog’s bark can be an effective means of intimidation, but the more this scenario–vacuous cries of outrage not followed with punitive consequences–is repeated, the more the Security Council begins to resemble a toy poodle or a pomeranian than a German shepherd or a doberman.
Yet Obama and his followers remain convinced that his is the path to follow. This would be understandable if there was evidence his “Kumbaya” approach was working in other parts of the world, but it’s not.
Today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was forced to admit the Taliban has the momentum in Afghanistan. Despite Obama’s “surge” of 21,000 additional US troops, the Taliban is gaining ground, controlling more and more territory once considered secure, inflicting heavy casualties on US troops. The administration refuses to consider the possibility that the President’s “mea culpa” foreign policy is making the enemy stronger, but this appears to in fact be the case.
The “Blame America” policies of the current administration embolden our enemies, motivating them to step up their attacks as they sense an impending collapse of our will to maintain our commitment to continue the fight. In Stanley Karnow’s 1990 interview with Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, commander of Communist forces in the Vietnam War, the general emphasized the importance of “political” strategies in winning the war. Though many dispute the internet claims that Giap’s memoirs claimed the North would have surrendered but for the anti-war movement in the US, a quote from Karnow’s article makes clear that it was a factor that provided motivation to continue the fight in the face of overwhelming losses.
“And we wanted to project the war into the homes of America’s families, because we knew that most of them had nothing against us. In short, we sought a decisive victory that would persuade America to renounce the war.”–Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap
From page 6 of “Giap Remembers” by Stanley Karnow.
Can you imagine how much more invigorated the North Vietnamese forces would have been had Johnson or Nixon been repeatedly on the air saying “It’s America’s fault!”? Obama’s habit of spewing apologies for everything America ever did, claiming blame for virtually all that is wrong in the world on his country’s behalf is providing the same motivation for our enemies today.
An old African proverb says, “Only a fool tests the depth of the water with both feet.” Obama has placed all our chips on the table, betting he can halt the hatred in our enemies’ hearts by blaming America for their dilemna. Thus far, the evidence is overwhelming that his approach yields miserable failure at every turn.
But still he persists.
Update 5/26/2009—North Korea Restarts Nuclear Plant
And so it continues.
We knew it was coming! Though he lied and stated he supported the 2nd Amendment on the campaign trail, there was no doubt in our minds all along on his true stance on our right to bear arms.
Oh, but he’s not seeking legislation to undermine the 2nd Amendment. He wants to take away our rights of self protection through the UN! That’s right, an international treaty is the vehicle he plans to help him strip away our 2nd Amendment rights!
In February of last year, Obama-the-campaigner lied to help him win the election.
“I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it’s subject to commonsense regulation” like background checks, he said during a news conference.
On his recent trip to Mexico, the long-time gun control enthusiast President lamented to Mexican President Felipe Calderon that it just wasn’t possible to push stronger gun control legislation through Congress at this time. His administration has even worked hard to pin the blame for Mexico’s drug gang violence on American gun owners.
Recent court rulings affirming the individual right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment made his quest to gut the Bill of Rights even more difficult, creating even more stumbling blocks in the path to stripping law-abiding Americans of their rights. But the Obamessiah doesn’t plan to let such Constitutional guarantees and the system of checks and balances deny him his prize–a far more vulnerable America, vulnerable to government and criminals it can’t control! Hell no. If he can’t get through the Constitutional obstacle course set up by our founders for very good reasons, he’ll go around it!
Gun rights groups warned us as the President staffed his Cabinet with a who’s who list of lifelong gun-banners, but a naive public and naive politicians continued to believe the President’s lies on the campaign trail. Now their prophetic cries must be heard!
If the Senate ratifies this treaty, signed by President Clinton in 1997, we can look forward to an international gun registry, open to foreign governments which will have the power to extradite American gun owners who they charge with violating the treaty.
Here’s the list of demands on signatories of the treaty at a national level. You’ll notice many are vague enough to be wide open to interpretation by an administration hostile to the 2nd Amendment. I’ve emphasized phrases that are especially worrisome to those of us who value freedom and the right of self protection.
To put in place, where they do not exist, adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the production of small arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction and over the export, import, transit or retransfer of such weapons, in order to prevent illegal manufacture of and illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, or their diversion to unauthorized recipients.
To adopt and implement, in the States that have not already done so, the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offences under their domestic law the illegal manufacture, possession, stockpiling and trade of small arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction, in order to ensure that those engaged in such activities can be prosecuted under appropriate national penal codes.
To establish, or designate as appropriate, national coordination agencies or bodies and institutional infrastructure responsible for policy guidance, research and monitoring of efforts to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects. This should include aspects of the illicit manufacture, control, trafficking, circulation, brokering and trade, as well as tracing, finance, collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons.
To establish or designate, as appropriate, a national point of contact to act as liaison between States on matters relating to the implementation of the Programme of Action.
To ensure that henceforth licensed manufacturers apply an appropriate and reliable marking on each small arm and light weapon as an integral part of the production process. This marking should be unique and should identify the country of manufacture and also provide information that enables the national authorities of that country to identify the manufacturer and serial number so that the authorities concerned can identify and trace each weapon.
To adopt where they do not exist and enforce, all the necessary measures to prevent the manufacture, stockpiling, transfer and possession of any unmarked or inadequately marked small arms and light weapons.
To ensure that comprehensive and accurate records are kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light weapons under their jurisdiction. These records should be organized and maintained in such a way as to ensure that accurate information can be promptly retrieved and collated by competent national authorities.
To ensure responsibility for all small arms and light weapons held and issued by the State and effective measures for tracing such weapons.
To assess applications for export authorizations according to strict national regulations and procedures that cover all small arms and light weapons and are consistent with the existing responsibilities of States under relevant international law, taking into account in particular the risk of diversion of these weapons into the illegal trade. Likewise, to establish or maintain an effective national system of export and import licensing or authorization, as well as measures on international transit, for the transfer of all small arms and light weapons, with a view to combating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.
To put in place and implement adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to ensure the effective control over the export and transit of small arms and light weapons, including the use of authenticated end-user certificates and effective legal and enforcement measures.
To make every effort, in accordance with national laws and practices, without prejudice to the right of States to re-export small arms and light weapons that they have previously imported, to notify the original exporting State in accordance with their bilateral agreements before the retransfer of those weapons.
To develop adequate national legislation or administrative procedures regulating the activities of those who engage in small arms and light weapons brokering. This legislation or procedures should include measures such as registration of brokers, licensing or authorization of brokering transactions as well as the appropriate penalties for all illicit brokering activities performed within the State’s jurisdiction and control.
To take appropriate measures, including all legal or administrative means, against any activity that violates a United Nations Security Council arms embargo in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
To ensure that all confiscated, seized or collected small arms and light weapons are destroyed, subject to any legal constraints associated with the preparation of criminal prosecutions, unless another form of disposition or use has been officially authorized and provided that such weapons have been duly marked and registered.
To ensure, subject to the respective constitutional and legal systems of States, that the armed forces, police or any other body authorized to hold small arms and light weapons establish adequate and detailed standards and procedures relating to the management and security of their stocks of these weapons. These standards and procedures should, inter alia, relate to: appropriate locations for stockpiles; physical security measures; control of access to stocks; inventory management and accounting control; staff training; security, accounting and control of small arms and light weapons held or transported by operational units or authorized personnel; and procedures and sanctions in the event of thefts or loss.
To regularly review, as appropriate, subject to the respective constitutional and legal systems of States, the stocks of small arms and light weapons held by armed forces, police and other authorized bodies and to ensure that such stocks declared by competent national authorities to be surplus to requirements are clearly identified, that programmes for the responsible disposal, preferably through destruction, of such stocks are established and implemented and that such stocks are adequately safeguarded until disposal.
To destroy surplus small arms and light weapons designated for destruction, taking into account, inter alia, the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on methods of destruction of small arms, light weapons, ammunition and explosives (S/2000/1092) of 15 November 2000.
To develop and implement, including in conflict and post-conflict situations, public awareness and confidence-building programmes on the problems and consequences of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, including, where appropriate, the public destruction of surplus weapons and the voluntary surrender of small arms and light weapons, if possible, in cooperation with civil society and non-governmental organizations, with a view to eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.
To develop and implement, where possible, effective disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes, including the effective collection, control, storage and destruction of small arms and light weapons, particularly in post-conflict situations, unless another form of disposition or use has been duly authorized and such weapons have been marked and the alternate form of disposition or use has been recorded, and to include, where applicable, specific provisions for these programmes in peace agreements.
To address the special needs of children affected by armed conflict, in particular the reunification with their family, their reintegration into civil society, and their appropriate rehabilitation.
To make public national laws, regulations and procedures that impact on the prevention, combating and eradicating of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects and to submit, on a voluntary basis, to relevant regional and international organizations and in accordance with their national practices, information on, inter alia, (a) small arms and light weapons confiscated or destroyed within their jurisdiction; and (b) other relevant information such as illicit trade routes and techniques of acquisition that can contribute to the eradication of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects.
The United States already has laws against the “illicit” trade of small arms, but the intentionally vague language leaves broad room for interpretation of these laws’ adequacy under the terms of the treaty. The call for the public destruction of seized and surplus firearms along with advertising campaigns to “inform” the public of the consequences of the “illicit” arms trade will become nothing more than propagada for gun ban groups, intended to mold generations of recruits for those who oppose the individual right to bear arms. The registration and tracking schemes have time and again failed to pass constitutional legislative and judicial hurdles, but the treaty subverts our Constitution and authorizes international authorities to ensure our Bill of Rights is shredded.
The fact is the President has never supported the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms. His voting record is all the evidence one needs to recognize he lied when he stated otherwise. Now, since he can’t achieve the disarmament of the American people through the Constitutional power granted his office, he seeks to subvert our country’s laws and hand us over to be controlled by the international body.
Mr. President, I believe you may have just awakened a sleeping tiger far more powerful than you imagine.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”–Thomas Jefferson
You can view the entire transcript here on IsraelPolitik.org, but here are some highlights:
Eight years. For eight years the citizens of southern Israel have suffered the trauma of almost daily missile attacks from Gaza. For eight years more than 8,000 rockets and mortar shells have targeted Israeli towns and villages. For eight years the residents of these towns have had a bare 15 seconds to hurry, with their children and their elderly, to find cover before rockets and missiles land on their houses and schools.
Many in this hall have condemned Hamas’ terrorist attacks, and we welcome this statement of basic principle. But the families at home in the city of Sderot, and children at school in Kibbutz Netiv Ha’asara will not be protected by these condemnations. In the face of such terrorism we have no choice. We have to defend ourselves – not from the Palestinian people, but from the terrorists who have taken them hostage. Not to gain territory or power, but to demonstrate that our restraint was not weakness and to give our citizens the basic right of a normal life.
Hamas shows a similar disdain for the lives of Palestinians. It has adopted the terrorists’ tactic – the coward’s tactic – of using civilians as shields while its leaders themselves flee from combat with Israel’s soldiers and make pathetic demonstrations of bravado from their bunkers. It hides its missiles and terrorist bases in homes and hospitals and mosques, and, as we saw earlier today, deliberately launches attacks from in and around schools and United Nations’ facilities – with tragic results.
Since the start of the fighting, Israel facilitated the entry into Gaza of over 540 trucks, delivering over 10,000 tons of humanitarian assistance. In fact, just a few days ago Israel was asked by the World Food Program to halt supplies of food shipments since their warehouses were full.
As Hamas spokesman Fathi Hamad was proud to announce on Al Aqsa TV: Palestinians have created a human shield of women, children the elderly and the jihad fighters as if to say to the Zionist enemy: “We desire death as you desire life.”
We, the people of Israel, listened to the international community when you told us to withdraw from Gaza and promised that this would give us the credibility to respond forcefully should Gaza turn into a launching pad for terrorism. We listened when you promised us that acting with restraint during the period of calm would give us the credibility to fight back should the rocket attacks resume. Now is your time to make good on those promises.