Haslam questions Obama’s gun control proposals in Tennessee

1 Comment

UPDATE: Since I posted this article, the Commerical Appeal has pulled it in lieu of anther article, so the link won’t take you to this article anymore. But it was there. I did get a video of him saying some of this I uploaded to YouTube.

You’ve got to be kidding…this is our Governor in Tennessee. Somebody educate this man, please, we passed the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, the Tennessee Healthcare Freedom Act (nullifying Obamacare) and now he questions a nullification law on unConstitutional executive orders? Somebody wake me up, I must be dreaming this. Calgon take me away.

Gov. Bill Haslam questions whether President Barack Obama’s gun control measures are outside the president’s constitutional authority.

“It concerned me a little bit. A whole lot of what he proposed was more unilateral action than congressional approval. … “I am an executive. I am always thinking the executive branch should be able to have a lot of power. I do think on these issues having the legislative branch fully engaged in part of that discussion is critical,” Haslam said this morning after a visit to Cornerstone Elementary in Frayser.

“We all have to say, we have an issue around violence in this country. I think no matter where you are on the spectrum, we need to admit that. So the question is, what do we do? Is it about restricting access to assault weapons? Is it about mental health issues? Is it about better background checks? We need to have that conversation and we’re reviewing all that,” Haslam said.

“This is not a simple issue, if it was, we would have solved it a while back. It is complex both practically in terms of, OK, if you do a background check on somebody, are you going to background check their whole family? In the Sandy Hook instance, it was a mother who had purchased those weapons legally and then the son took the mother’s weapons. It’s more complex practically and politically in terms of what will work than a lot of us would like it to be,” the governor said.

However, Haslam questions the authority any state would have in limiting enforcement of a new federal gun ban. (I just can’t believe this and now we have…Texas, Missouri Join Other States Looking To Block Gun Bans It’s called Nullification Governor Haslam)

“I’m not an attorney, but I am not certain we have the power to do that as a state,” Haslam said. “… We do have the ability, obviously, to try to affect legislation on the national level. Our ability to tell the federal agents, no, and we are going to arrest you if you do that again, I’m not an attorney, but I wonder about our limits there.”

Rep. Joe Carr, R-Murfreesboro, Wednesday proposed legislation that would allow local law enforcement to charge federal agents with misdemeanors if they tried to enforce a federal gun ban in Tennessee.

Commercial Appeal

Advertisements

Permanent Campaign: Obama to Use Re-Election Machine to Target NRA

1 Comment

The Obama administration puzzled many observers by leaving its campaign infrastructure largely in place in the aftermath of President Obama’s re-election win. Now we know why. According to Stephanie Cutter, President Obama’s former deputy campaign manager on Ed Schultz’s MSNBC program:

President Obama’s network across this country, grassroots individuals, who organize, volunteered with their time to get the president reelected are much more powerful than the NRA lobby. And I think that you can expect to see that network activated, very soon. And for good reason.

Cutter’s words should frighten Americans accustomed to the usual ins-and-outs of politics. Unlike prior presidents, who leveraged their campaign into power, then got down to the business of governing, Obama is running a permanent campaign intended to destroy his political opposition completely.

This has been his agenda for years – only now, the administration is pursuing full-scale opposition openly from within the White House. In the past, the President relied on his allies in the 501(c)3 charitable world to do his dirty work.

Last year, for example, President Obama set his lackeys at Media Matters and Color of Change on the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which was then pushing voter ID laws. After George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin, Obama quickly inserted himself into the proceedings, declaring that Trayvon looked like his fictional son. In doing so, he lent air to the mainstream media narrative that Zimmerman had shot Martin in cold blood, and used Florida’s so-called “stand your ground” law as cover – and ALEC had pushed for “stand your ground.” In reality, nobody at the Sanford Police Department ever cited “stand your ground” as the rationale for Zimmerman’s release, and Zimmerman never said “stand your ground.” This was all an attempt to gin up public indignation at “stand your ground” laws, and by extension, ALEC. The Obama-generated assault on ALEC ended with ALEC disassociating from its more controversial political positions, as organizations like Coca-Cola, seeking to avoid scrutiny, cut ties.

That wasn’t the first time Obama had used his allies outside the administration to attempt to destroy political opposition. After Rush Limbaugh called media moth Sandra Fluke a “slut,” Obama jumped in to call her with his condolences – though he was nowhere to be found when the media was labeling Gov. Sarah Palin a “c***” (actually, Obama’s super PAC took $1 million from Bill Maher, the cretin who said that). Obama then helped push a Media Matters-led boycott on Rush’s advertisers.

Now it’s the NRA. The NRA was always the target of the Sandy Hook-exploiting media. The NRA receives no public funding, and writes no laws. Yet the media immediately suggested that the NRA abandon its positions and those of its members or face public wrath. No such suggestion was ever made with regard to the ACLU’s defense of ultra-violent video games. That’s because the NRA is a serious opponent to the left’s public sway. And so it must be destroyed.

But Obama’s in his second term, so he sees no need to hide behind Media Matters any longer. Now he’ll just use that vast infrastructure he’s built to go after all of his enemies, the NRA included. This president has no interest in achieving policy solutions. He’s interested in blowing up those who oppose him. The campaign never ends for President Obama.

Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the book “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013).

Breitbart

Obama’s proposals wouldn’t have prevented Sandy Hook

1 Comment

Lawmakers and gun advocates are sounding off on President Obama’s 23 executive actions involving gun violence, as well as the dozen or so actions that he has called on Congress to approve.

Obama is taking 23 separate actions on his own, using his presidential powers, but says it is up to Congress to “make a real and lasting difference” by imposing new gun restrictions. His proposals, introduced Wednesday in the nation’s capital, include universal background checks and bans on military-style assault rifles. But he acknowledged he faces a tough fight to get those measures approved on Capitol Hill.

Indeed he might. Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) appeared Wednesday afternoon on Tony Perkins’ Washington Watch on American Family Radio. The senator has issues with the approach being taken by the president.

“My concern still is whether or not he is going to usurp this authority and do it on his own,” said Paul. “We set up a country with checks and balances [because] we didn’t like the king to have all the balance of power — so we separated the power. In fact, one of the people we based this on was the writings of Montesquieu. He said it was very important to do this, or else you will have tyranny.”

Obama, said the Kentucky Republican, “has shown a tendency to go around Congress when he can’t get his way — and that worries me.”

And that is why Senator Paul plans to take some legislative action. “We’ll be introducing some legislation to try to rein in his authority to do things by executive order. That’ll be coming by the next week or so,” he stated. “We’ll also be looking very carefully at these executive orders to see if any of them go afoul of the Second Amendment.”

Appearing on the Fox News Channel this morning, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) called the president’s actions “misguided.”

“Here’s my point: the impetus for all of this is the shooting in Connecticut, right? That’s what led to this — and yet nothing he’s proposing would have prevented Connecticut,” said Rubio.

“… It appears to me[that] this is stuff they’ve always wanted to do, and now this [tragedy] has created the political climate to pursue it — and it’s not going to solve the problem,” . Washington, DC, had some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and when they passed them violence skyrocketed.”

Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) agrees with Rubio, saying “very few of his recommendations have anything to do with happened” in Connecticut.

“Guns require a finger to pull the trigger,” Perry says in a press release. “The sad young man who did that in Newtown was clearly haunted by demons and no gun law could have saved the children in Sandy Hook Elementary from his terror.”

He adds: “… The piling on by the political left, and their cohorts in the media, to use the massacre of little children to advance a pre-existing political agenda that would not have saved those children, disgusts me, personally. The Second Amendment to the Constitution is a basic right of free people and cannot be nor will it be abridged by the executive power of this or any other president.”

What’s the best step for preventing another tragedy
like the Sandy Hook shooting?   VOTE

Story continues

The Governor of Tennessee Must Obey Tennessee Law: No State Insurance Exchange!

Comments Off on The Governor of Tennessee Must Obey Tennessee Law: No State Insurance Exchange!

According to an article posted by Lesley Swann of the Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center, the federal obamacare Act doesn’t actually require The People to submit to obamacare.1

Accordingly, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius is demanding that The States set up State Insurance Exchanges, by means of which The States will force The People into obamacare.

While 20 States have already given notice that they will not implement obamacare by setting up the State Exchanges; Tennessee’s RINO Governor, Bill Haslam, is “undecided” as to whether he will force Tennesseans to submit to obamacare.

But Haslam has no lawful authority to force The People of Tennessee into State Exchanges. If he does it anyway, he will commit the following five (5) violations of Tennessee Law:

1. The Tennessee Health Freedom Act

The Tennessee Legislature enacted in 2011 the Tennessee Health Freedom Act, codified at Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 56-7-1016. 2

Under this Act, no public official, employee, or agent of Tennessee may force The People of Tennessee to purchase health insurance or impose any penalty for not purchasing such insurance.

So if Haslam attempts to force The People of Tennessee to participate in a State Insurance Exchange, he will violate the Tennessee Health Freedom Act.

2. The State Legislature makes the Laws – not the Governor

The Constitution of the State of Tennessee says at Article II:

“Section 1: The powers of the government shall be divided into three distinct departments: legislative, executive, and judicial.

Section 2: No person or persons belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except in the cases herein directed or permitted. [boldface mine]

Section 3: The legislative authority of this state shall be vested in a General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives….”

If Haslam attempts to force Tennesseans into a State Insurance Exchange, he will violate the Separation of Powers Principle enshrined at Art. II, Sections 1 – 3.

Continue reading

UN Gun Grab on Pace for March Signing of UN Small Arms Treaty

2 Comments

Folks the UN is behind all the gun control, national registry and gun confiscation stuff here in America. Obama is just taking orders from them. Folks a Treaty CAN NOT override the 2nd amendment. Do not forget: The federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties.  It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution...Treaties: WHEN are they part of “the supreme Law of the Land”?  by Publius Huldah, a retired Constitutional Lawyer in Middle Tn. , a friend of mine I might add, whose article you can find all over the web.

UN Gun Grab on Pace for March In just two months the globalists of the UN will gather in New York City to put the final touches on plans to impose strict regulations worldwide on the right of the individual to buy, sell, trade, or own guns and ammunition.

On March 18, 2013 in New York City the next round of negotiations is scheduled to begin, with one aim in mind: eradicate private gun ownership.

On Christmas Eve, 2012, the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution to renew negotiations on the global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

The measure was approved by a vote of 133-0, with 17 countries abstaining.

As reported by Reuters, the foreign ministers of Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, Kenya, and the United Kingdom — the countries that drafted the resolution — released a joint statement praising the passage of the resolution to move ahead on the global gun ban.

“This was a clear sign that the vast majority of U.N. member states support a strong, balanced and effective treaty, which would set the highest possible common global standards for the international transfer of conventional arms,” the foreign ministers said in their statement.

As The New American has reported, when the treaty was being deliberated in July, the United States was the only obstacle preventing the global arms control regulations from being imposed on the world.

Miraculously, however, all the points of the agreement Secretary of State Hillary Clinton found so distasteful in the summer were made so much more palatable after President Obama’s reelection, and every single attack on the right to bear arms remains in the version of the treaty approved on November 7.

Within hours of his securing his reelection, President Obama placed a late night call to the U.S. United Nations delegation ordering them to vote in favor of a passage of L.11.

A story in The Hill reports, however, that “The U.S. mission to the U.N. denied that the timing of the election had anything to do with the treaty’s talks being delayed.”

Regardless of the questionable timing of the Obama administration’s green light to the globalists’ gun grab, the U.S. government was now placing its full weight behind convening a “Final United Nations Conference” for the proposal of a treaty imposing worldwide gun control regulations.

In July, 51 senators sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary Clinton encouraging them “not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure — if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference — that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense.”

The failure to pass an acceptable version of the treaty in July is in the president’s rearview mirror, however, as Reuters reports that “adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty” could be imminent.

Reuters quotes Brian Wood of Amnesty International:

After today’s resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we’re only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights.

The definition of an “abuse” of “human rights” will be left up to a coterie of internationalist bureaucrats who will be neither accountable to nor elected by citizens of the United States.

With good reason, then, gun rights advocates oppose approval of this treaty.

After all, it does seem more than a little incongruous that a nation that places such a high value on gun ownership that it enshrined it in its Bill of Rights participates in an organization that opposes gun ownership so staunchly that it has an Office for Disarmament Affairs. An office, by the way, that the U.S. Deputy Director, Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Steven Costner, proudly announced would be moving from Geneva to New York City.

Lest anyone believe the U.S. delegation official’s promise to Reuters that “we will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms,” consider the fact that a report issued after the conclusion of the last Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference in July listed the goal of the agreement to be UN control of the “manufacture, control, trafficking, circulation, brokering and trade, as well as tracing, finance, collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons.”

That is a very comprehensive attack on “all aspects” of gun trade and ownership. Notably, the phrase “in all aspects” occurs 38 times in the draft of the ATT. The United Nations will control the purchase of guns and ammo, the possession of guns and ammo, and any guns and ammo not willingly surrendered to the UN will be tracked, seized, and destroyed.

A question that must be considered is what the UN will consider “adequate laws.” Will the globalists at the UN consider the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms without infringement to be a sufficient control on gun ownership?

A more urgent and pertinent question is whether in the United States any laws will be passed at all.

As was witnessed on Wednesday, President Obama is prepared to accelerate the disarmament himself, if he can’t convince Congress to go along.

A story in Politico demonstrates President Obama’s infamous “We Can’t Wait” mantra in action.

Continue reading

 

Republican Irrelevancy?

Comments Off on Republican Irrelevancy?

 

I agree that the Republican party could send itself to irrelevancy, but it isn’t because it’s out of the mainstream, but because it’s trying to become mainstream. The party needs to figure out how to educate voters to true conservatism, patriotism, and the constitution rather than move away. The reason that voters are so disenchanted with them is that they’ve become the Democrat Party minor.

 

House Republican Inertia Leads to Irrelevancy

By Chris Stirewalt

| FoxNews.com

 

“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!”—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle?”

Patrick Henry addressing the Virginia House of Burgesses, March 23, 1775.

House Republicans are huddling in Williamsburg, Va. trying to figure out what to do about their current crisis.

It’s a fitting place for them to be meeting since they are facing the same threat that the legislators in the capital of the Colony of Virginia once faced: Irrelevancy.

Back in the 1760s, the Virginia House of Burgesses would occasionally raise a ruckus over the Stamp Act or the shipping of criminal defendants to England. Patrick Henry would deliver a blistering oration and much wig powder would be lost in vigorous stomping and shouting.

And then the governor would dissolve the body and everyone would mount their horses for the long ride home.

These days for House members, its Town Cars to Reagan National instead of mares down a dusty path, but the effect is pretty similar. When all the shouting is done and tyranny has been thoroughly denounced yet again, the modern-day lawmakers go home with little to show for their excitations.

We all know how it worked out for the boys in breeches back in Williamsburg. Public frustrations grew and grew until the only reason most people bothered getting elected to the colonial legislature was to decry the body’s worthlessness and to talk of treason.

The difference now is that the irrelevancy of the House is self-imposed. As much as he might wish he could, President Obama cannot dissolve the House. Lawmakers can meet, vote and debate anytime they wish. They are even protected from arrest while the House is in session.

The current irrelevancy springs from legislative paralysis brought on by distrust and fear.

When House Republicans stormed back into power after the 2010 Midterm elections, they were all the time passing things. Repeal that. Cut this. Lower those taxes. Censure that Obama factotum.

Even though Republicans retained a stout majority in 2012, the comfortable victory by Obama has left the once effervescent House flatter than a day-old ginger ale.

Part of this is the understanding after two years that the immovable object that is Harry Reid’s Senate will not anytime soon be repealing, cutting, lowering or censuring anyone or anything. It is also in part an expression of grief that the American electorate chose to re-hire Obama, whom House Republicans see as a tyrant on par with George III.

This sad, dire attitude helped lead to the first major defeat for the House Republicans when Obama, with the help of anxious Senate Republicans, routed the House on the question of tax rates. Unable to pass anything on taxes during the Lame Duck session, House Republicans were eventually steamrolled and left to watch the first tax rate increase in nearly a generation go into place, with most House Republicans pouting on the sidelines.

And because it was Speaker John Boehner who let the steamroller roll, there is an open question of whether House Republicans will be able to do much of anything at all. The modern-day Patrick Henrys are stomping and shouting and others are plotting coups against their leaders.

Meanwhile, all the stomping and shouting and coup plotting has left the leaders afraid of letting the rank and file start lobbing up legislation again. The results might look radical or, if Team Boehner tried to suggest a more publicly palatable option, it might result in yet another embarrassment like the failure of Boehner’s “Plan B” tax proposal.

For all these reasons, House Republicans have become what Obama once falsely accused them of being: obstructionist. The Republicans in the previous Congress were activists, passing all kinds of things and promulgating all kinds of big ideas. The House GOP this time around so far seems only to be able to say “no.”

With the toughest tests to face the sophomore majority still ahead – the debt limit, the automatic cuts from the 2011 debt battle and Obama’s crusade for a partial gun ban – it is a poor time to be unable to pass legislation. Without legislation, Republicans look irrelevant and lack bargaining power in negotiations.

The medicine men of the conservative movement have all kinds of advice on what to say, how to say it, who should be saying it and when it should be said. Fine, fine. But without legislation, members of Congress are no more relevant than any other partisan pundit.

Rather than “messaging,” Republicans in Williamsburg should be focused on what they might be able to pass on the big issues. Even if it’s not going anywhere, the measures represent a starting point for conservatives in the battles over big ideas.

If they prefer mental health reform to gun bans, then pass mental health reform. If they prefer to not raise the debt limit without corresponding cuts, offer the cuts. If they prefer revenue-neutral tax reform, make us an offer.

And on guns and debt, House Republicans had better do it quickly because Obama is on the march and not slowing down.

If their paralysis persists, however, House Republicans might as well saddle up for the long ride home because they would be every bit as irrelevant as their colonial forebearers.

 

 

Poll: New gun laws won’t stop violence

Comments Off on Poll: New gun laws won’t stop violence

This from Politico of all places.  As you read this remember this poll is from  CNN & Time which aren’t conservative in their views.

Americans don’t think a new wave of gun laws will prevent future mass shootings, according to a poll released Wednesday.

Only 39 percent of Americans think the new laws would stop gun violence, according to the poll from CNN and TIME, compared to 61 percent who think it will continue. In December 1993, as then-President Bill Clinton was preparing a crime bill with gun control elements, 49 percent thought new laws would stop violence.

The poll also found 55 percent of Americans favored stricter gun laws, including 56 percent who support an assault weapon ban  and 56 percent who think existing gun laws make it too easy to buy a gun. Forty percent think the law makes it just difficult enough.But the poll also shows significant support for positions advocated by the National Rifle Association. Forty-eight percent said they generally agree with the NRA, and 42 percent said they generally disagree. Fifty-four percent also favored a proposal, backed by the NRA, to put armed guards in every school in the country. Forty-seven percent said armed guards would do more than gun laws to reduce violence in schools. Forty percent said the opposite.

Older Entries