DHS Secretary Blasts GOP Rep For Peddling Bachmann’s Anti-Muslim Conspiracy Theories


A word of warning….. Obama and Clinton can go a round about way to force the Small Arms Treaty into effect “de facto”

Comments Off on A word of warning….. Obama and Clinton can go a round about way to force the Small Arms Treaty into effect “de facto”

Found this on Facebook……if Obama tries this it could be a big mistake on his part. Most Americans are not going to let the 2nd amendment be banned under any reason, especially the UN. Of course Obama already has a track record of bypassing the Constitution, whether it’s legal or not.
by Julia Sieben on Thursday, July 19, 2012 at 1:04pm ·

A word of warning….. Obama and Clinton can go a round about way to force the Small Arms Treaty into effect “de facto”, without going through Senate approval, this has been done in the past 2 times by previous Presidents.

A treaty is a formal agreement with another nation. The Constitution gives the president the power to make treaties “provided two-thirds of the senators present concur [agree].” When the president signs a treaty, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee studies it before submitting it to the entire Senate for a vote. Presidents starting with George Washington (1732799; served 17897) have involved the Senate in the process of negotiating treaties. This way a treaty has a greater likelihood of being approved by the Senate.


The Senate usually approves treaties signed by the president. One of the most famous exceptions was the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I (19148). The Treaty of Versailles created the League of Nations, an international organization that was the forerunner of the United Nations. President Woodrow Wilson (1856924; served 19131) negotiated this important treaty without Senate involvement, and the Senate refused to approve it.

The House plays no role in the process of negotiating and approving treaties. If a treaty program requires federal money, however, the House can determine whether the program gets money through its role in passing appropriations bills.

The Constitution does not say who has the power to cancel treaties. (But is does say who can ratify them and it isn’t the President!)  According to Louis Fisher in The Politics of Shared Power, treaties have been cancelled by congressional laws, Senate resolutions, new treaties, and presidential action. The Supreme Court has not resolved the issue. Generally speaking, the Supreme Court prefers to have Congress and the president work together to determine who has the power to cancel

In addition to treaties, presidents often sign executive agreements with the heads of other nations. Executive agreements are not officially treaties, so they do not require the consent of the Senate. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has ruled that executive agreements are part of the supreme law of the land, just like treaties.

Presidents typically use treaties for the most important issues and executive agreements for less important issues. Sometimes, however, presidents use an executive agreement for an important issue. Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman (1884972; served 19453), for example, used executive agreements at meetings in Yalta and Potsdam to end World War II (19395). Using an executive agreement instead of a treaty is significant, because the Senate can require a president to change a treaty before the Senate will approve it


ATF Boss Threatens Whistleblowers

Comments Off on ATF Boss Threatens Whistleblowers

On July 9, 2012, ATF Acting Director Todd Jones told potential whistleblowers they will face “consequences” if they don’t “respect the chain of command” and ask permission to release information damaging to the agency.

“Choices and consequences means simply that if you make poor choices, that if you don’t abide by the rules, that if you don’t respect the chain of command, if you don’t find the appropriate way to raise your concerns to your leadership, there will be consequences, because we cannot tolerate — we cannot tolerate — an undisciplined organization,” he said.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa., and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., sent a letter Wednesday to Jones declaring the message “could be interpreted as a threat” and asked him to clarify.

“Your ominous message — which could be interpreted as a threat — is likely to have a major chilling effect on ATF employees exercising their rights to contact Congress,” they wrote.

“What it appears to be is a not-so-veiled threat telling (ATF employees) not to do what they did to expose Fast and Furious,” Issa said. “He’s basically saying ‘no, keep it in the chain’.”

The ATF insists the video (above) was taken out of context.

“It was directed at employees who violate the rules. It was not directed at those with protected disclosure,” said ATF spokeswoman Ginger Colbrun.

USDA partnering with Mexico to boost food stamp participation

Comments Off on USDA partnering with Mexico to boost food stamp participation

The Mexican government has been working with the United States Department of Agriculture to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.

USDA has an agreement with Mexico to promote American food assistance programs, including food stamps, among Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals and migrant communities in America.

“USDA and the government of Mexico have entered into a partnership to help educate eligible Mexican nationals living in the United States about available nutrition assistance,” the USDA explains in a brief paragraph on their “Reaching Low-Income Hispanics With Nutrition Assistance” web page. “Mexico will help disseminate this information through its embassy and network of approximately 50 consular offices.”

The partnership — which was signed by former USDA Secretary Ann M. Veneman and Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs Luis Ernesto Derbez Bautista in 2004 — sees to it that the Mexican Embassy and Mexican consulates in America provide USDA nutrition assistance program information to Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals working in America and migrant communities in America. The information is specifically focused on eligibility criteria and access.

The goal, for USDA, is to get rid of what they see as enrollment obstacles and increase access among potentially eligible populations by working with arms of the Mexican government in America. Benefits are not guaranteed or provided under the program — the purpose is outreach and education.

Some of the materials the USDA encourages the Mexican government to use to educate and promote the benefit programs are available free online for order and download. A partial list of materials include English and Spanish brochures titled “Five Easy Steps To Snap Benefits,” “How To Get Food Help — A Consumer’s Guide to FNCS Programs,” “Ending Hunger Improving Nutrition Combating Obesity,” and posters with slogans like “Food Stamps Make America Stronger.”

When asked for details and to elaborate on the program, USDA stressed it was established in 2004 and not meant for illegal immigrants.

“The partnership with the Mexican embassy was established in 2004,” a USDA spokesman wrote The Daily Caller in an email. “USDA does not perform outreach to immigrants that are undocumented, and therefore not eligible for SNAP.”

Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, who has been pushing for reform of SNAP, sent a letterto Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack on Wednesday demanding more answers and documents pertaining to the partnership.

Tennessee county loses battle over newly built mosque

Comments Off on Tennessee county loses battle over newly built mosque

This is what happens when you let a Federal Judge rule over a State Judge in internal matters in the State. Thomas Jefferson said in reference to Judical Review in a letter to William C. Jarvis in 1820:

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so……”

A federal judge has ruled that Muslims in a Tennessee congregation have a right to occupy their newly built mosque, overruling a county judge’s order that was keeping them out.

The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro sued Rutherford County on Wednesday and U.S. District Judge Todd Campbell granted the mosque an emergency order to let worshippers into the building before the holy month of Ramadan starts at sundown Thursday. Federal prosecutors also filed a similar lawsuit.

But a county building codes inspector announced Thursday the mosque would not be ready for occupancy for at least two weeks, reported Tennessean.com.

Septic facilities need to be installed, and approval needs to be obtained from the state Department of Environment and Conservation, the fire marshal, and other entities, said Rutherford County Building Codes Director David Jones after he inspected the Islamic Center on Thursday morning. There’s also exterior work that needs to be done before the building is ready for its final inspection, he said.

The future of the mosque had been in question since May, when a local judge overturned the county’s approval of the mosque construction. This month, he ordered the county not to issue an occupancy permit for the 12,000-square-foot building.

In past years, community members have gathered for Eid-al-Fitr — the breaking of the fast for Ramadan — in the parking lot of the rented worship space that they outgrew, the Tennessean.com reported.

The contentious fight over the mosque stems from a 2010 lawsuit filed by a group of residents who made repeated claims that Islam was not a real religion and that local Muslims intended to overthrow the U.S. Constitution in favor of Islamic religious law.

Those claims were dismissed, but opponents won with a ruling that overturned the approval to build the mosque on the grounds that county didn’t give adequate public notice of the meeting.

Continue reading