Senate Dems Block Funding Of WH Tours, Parks

Comments Off on Senate Dems Block Funding Of WH Tours, Parks

Just shows what kind of people we’re dealing with in DC.

By Stephen Dinan and Seth McLaughlin | March 20, 2013

Senators voted Wednesday to make the first significant changes to the budget sequesters, shifting money to keep slaughterhouse inspectors on the job full time but refusing to rearrange money to reopen the White House for public tours.

The votes came as the Senate debated and passed a bill to fund the government through the rest of the fiscal year — sending it back to the House for final expected approval later this week and averting a government shutdown…

The bill funds basic operations through Sept. 30. It does not undo the level of sequester cuts, but it did begin to rewrite a few priorities, including restoring the military’s tuition assistance programs and restoring the money for food inspections.

[The] Senators added the inspection money back in by unanimous vote.

This could get interesting, since Obama has repeatedly threatened to veto any changes to the sequester. (See below.) He wants maximum pain and hardship.

Senators nibbled away what they considered the worst parts of the sequester, but they declined to undo President Obama’s decision to cancel White House tours — a move he made earlier this month as one of the casualties of the budget sequesters, setting off a chorus of complaints from Congress and the public.

Because, like Obama, the Senate Democrats want to punish the country for even thinking about reducing spending.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, offered an amendment to restore the White House tours, proposing to cut $8 million from spending on national heritage areas in the National Park Service budget. Mr. Obama himself had proposed the heritage area cuts last year.

Mr. Coburn said the money could be used both to restore White House tours and to help open up parts of Western national parks such as Yellowstone, which could have to delay springtime openings because sequesters have cut money to plow snow off the roads.

But senators, led mostly by Democrats, rejected that plan, arguing that Mr. Coburn was staging a show vote and that canceling the heritage area money would hurt economic development in their home states…

The Senate defeated Mr. Coburn’s amendment on a 54-45 vote, with nearly every Republican voting to reopen the White House and with almost all Democrats voting to back Mr. Obama’s decision

Notice that the Senate Democrats won’t even go along with a proposal that Obama had previously backed. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Anyway, as we have previously noted, Obama has solemnly vowed to veto any changes to the sequester cuts.

From CBS News, back on November 21, 2011:

Obama pledges to veto effort to undo automatic spending cuts

By Kevin Hechtkopf | November 21, 2011

President Obama is promising to veto any effort to undo the automatic spending cuts that are set to take effect now that the congressional supercommittee has announced its failure to strike a deal to cut $1.2 trillion from the deficit over the next 10 years.

“Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No,” Mr. Obama said from the White House briefing room Monday evening. “I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending.”

“There will be no easy off ramps on this one.,” he added…

So it will be interesting to see if he will be forced to quietly back down. If so, we will never hear anything about him going back on his pledge from our media guardians.

Read Article

Advertisements

UN Arms Trade Treaty, Day Two: Focus Is Transfer, Registry of Firearms

Comments Off on UN Arms Trade Treaty, Day Two: Focus Is Transfer, Registry of Firearms

As you read this…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. (It must also be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate)

Treaties: WHEN are they part of “the supreme Law of the Land”?

On the second day of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference, the delegations of several European nations seemed determined to prohibit the government of any nation from violating any regulations imposed as a part of the ATT.

Switzerland took the lead on this effort to revise Article 3 of the proposed gun control agreement. The Swiss delegation was joined by several cosponsors in attempting to re-write the current version of Article 3 so as to more rigorously regulate the transfer of weapons that could be used for attacks on civilians.

As readers will understand, such vague terms as “weapons that could be used for attacks on civilians” could easily be interpreted to include nearly every variety of firearm whose ownership is protected by the Second Amendment.

When confronted about this potential infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, U.S. officials at the conference are quick to point out that Secretary of State John Kerry has committed to refusing to ratify any agreement that constricts the sphere of the Second Amendment’s protection of gun rights.

As the negotiations on the revision of Article 3 wound down, the Canadian delegation was arguing for the status quo, insisting that the current version of the provision is likely as comprehensive as possible to still garner ratification by a majority of member states.

As the negotiations and presentations proceed, it becomes evident that many of the articles being drafted (or revised) contain provisions that would require the governments of member nations to track the transfer of weapons and ammunition within their sovereign borders.

One crucial step to implementing such tracking is the creation of a registry of gun owners. Without such a registry, it would be impossible to monitor weapon transfers effectively because governments can’t track weapons exchanges and transfers unless they know who has them to begin with.

Americans need to be aware that the trajectory toward the mandatory compilation of a gun owner registry is in the works here at the United Nations.

One can imagine the scenario if such an article makes it into the final version of the treaty, which is scheduled to be presented for ratification next Thursday.

Secretary Kerry and his fellow bureaucrats would insist that they tried valiantly to oppose the domestic tracking of gun transfers, but in the end, they decided to vote in favor of protecting the safety of citizens and preventing any further violence using guns, such as that witnessed in Newtown, Connecticut.

There is precedent for incremental disarmament that begins with a gun owner registry that in turn was deemed a reasonable reaction to an armed massacre of innocents.

In the United Kingdom, for example, in 1997 the government passed the Firearms Act in the wake of the murder of 16 students and a teacher at an elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland, the year before.

The perpetrator of the Dunblane massacre used two Browning Hi-Power 9 mm pistols and two Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolvers. As a result, the ban began with the creation of a mandatory registry of all pistol owners. Finally, the Firearms Act of 1997 imposed a nearly absolute ban on the private ownership of handguns in the United Kingdom.

The previously compiled ownership registry was used by the Police Firearms Licensing Office to track down all those who had not complied with the mandatory surrender of handguns.

Once identified, all those gun owners who had previously refused to hand over their handguns were threatened with arrest for violation of the Firearms Act.

Americans familiar with this recent episode in British history could foresee a similar track being followed by our own federal agents.

First, there would be a registry imposed under the pretext of following international law as set out in the Arms Trade Treaty. On this point, is there any doubt that proponents of the registration of gun owners would feign frustration with the need for such a registry, but would nonetheless point to the so-called Supremacy Clause of Article VI as constitutional justification for the taking of names?

Finally, all Americans rebellious enough not to voluntarily drop off their handguns at the local police precinct (or Homeland Security Fusion Center) would receive notices in the mail informing them that they had broken the law, and that they would be granted a 30-day grace period to fall into line or face fines, imprisonment, or both.

Advocates of the Second Amendment should be aware that there are ample lessons in very recent history wherein high-profile mass murders were used as a pretext for the creation of a gun owner registry, which was in turn followed by confiscation. All, it should also be remembered, in the name of national security and the safety of all men, women, and children.

The disarmament of Britons is the latest, but it is not the only example of violence leading to registry, leading to seizure of privately owned weapons.

As The New American reported recently, riots and murders that tormented Germany following the end of World War I were used by government officials to justify the banning of “military type weapons.” Year by year, the list of proscribed firearms grew, and the methods of enforcement grew more severe. The disarmament progressed until civilians were completely robbed of all rights of gun ownership, leaving them powerless to resist the rise of the Third Reich.

There are many Americans who refuse to believe that disarmament is the goal of those who are pushing for stricter and stricter gun laws. They assume that decreasing liberty is a fair price to pay for increasing safety.

This is naïve. History reveals that failure to monitor and oppose every movement — even small, seemingly insignificant, incremental ones — toward gun owner registry will result in outright confiscation. And history’s ultimate and final lesson is that a disarmed society is a slave society, one powerless to oppose the brutal forced march toward tyranny.

The New American

VA to Veterans: If You’re Late Paying Bills, We Will Prohibit You From Ever Owning a Firearm

Comments Off on VA to Veterans: If You’re Late Paying Bills, We Will Prohibit You From Ever Owning a Firearm

OF course there’s a lawsuit coming and they will win this one.

Since I wrote the article titled “Disarming America’s Heroes” I have been inundated with emails and phone calls from veterans and the families of veterans. The horror stories I am hearing are proof that the VA and the Obama administration have launched an all out assault on the Constitutional rights of our nation’s wounded warriors and other veterans.

Veterans are being declared incompetent not because they have a serious mental illness that makes them a danger to themselves or others, but because they have a physical disability resulting from their service in the armed forces or because they simply let their spouses pay the family bills.

If veterans have minor issues with PTSD, have expressed that they are depressed sometimes, or even in the case of Vietnam veterans admit that they are getting older and sometimes forget to pay their bills on time, the bureaucrats at the VA will seek to declare them incompetent. (I am a 65 year old veteran and often forget where I put my car keys, does that make me incompetent to handle my own financial affairs and even worse mean that I can’t own a firearm?) According to the VA it apparently does.

All of this has resulted in America’s heroes being declared incompetent by a process that blatantly violates their rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Then, for reasons that have not been explained these same veterans are also being denied their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Many of the veterans I have heard from were initially both scared because of what was happening to them, and hurt because it is their own government that is causing this fear. After all, when they joined the military they signed a blank check to their country to defend it and its Constitution even if it cost them their lives. Yet, now their own government is turning on them and taking from them the very Constitutional rights they fought to preserve.

However, now something else is happening; the fear and betrayal that these veterans felt is turning to anger. Their training and instincts as warriors is coming forth and they are once again prepared to fight for their rights and the rights of other Americans. I think that the Obama administration has picked a fight with the wrong dog. Veterans are fighting back.

As Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (www.usjf.net) I am committed to helping these veterans and protecting their Constitutional rights. We are putting together a top notch legal team that is already exploring several potential avenues including administrative procedures and a class action lawsuit.

It will be a huge undertaking since we have veterans who have just received the letter telling them that the VA is considering declaring them incompetent, veterans who have already been declared incompetent and lost their Second Amendment Rights, and even veterans who have gotten the incompetence ruling reversed, but are still blacklisted when it comes to buying firearms. There will be no charge to any veterans or their families that we represent. We will raise the money to finance our efforts from private sources.

There are those detractors who claim that the letter from the VA is not real even though several reporters have contacted me and said they have talked to representatives of the VA and it is confirmed that it is sending out these letters. The VA apparently downplays this by saying it is not a big deal. I suggest that to the veterans who are losing their rights it is a very big deal and we intend to join them in the fight.

If you are a veteran or have a friend or family member who is a veteran and has received one of these letters or already been declared incompetent, please contact me and the USJF. We intend to come out swinging. Our veterans deserve nothing less.

— Michael Connelly, Constitutional Attorney and United States Army Veteran

Red Flag News

Governor Haslam Opposes Bills to Block Medicaid Expansion in Tn

Comments Off on Governor Haslam Opposes Bills to Block Medicaid Expansion in Tn

Well here we go folks….after President  Obama wined and dined our governor and braged on him, the governor is ready to open State Exchanges for Obamacare in Tn., despite the fact that it will violate Tn State law written in 2011, The Tennessee Health Freedom Act.

If you haven’t called him to tell him NO OBAMACARE EXCHANGE, you must do so before he makes his final decision !!!

Governor Bill Haslam
(615) 741-2001
bill.haslam@tn.gov

 

Posted: Mar 19, 2013 7:19 AM CDT Updated: Mar 19, 2013 7:19 AM CDT

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) – Governor Bill Haslam’s administration has served written notice that it opposes a freshman Republican lawmaker’s bill to block Medicaid expansion under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

Leslie Hafner, the governor’s legislative director, wrote in a Monday letter to Rep. Jeremy Durham of Franklin that the administration opposes the bill on philosophical grounds.

Haslam spokesman David Smith said the governor has sent a similar letter to Democratic sponsors of a bill encouraging the state to participate in an expansion of Medicaid.

The governor has said he plans to make a recommendation to Legislature about whether to pursue an expansion by the end of the month.

The U.S. Supreme Court has left a decision on Medicaid expansion up to the states, though the federal government will pick up most of the cost.

News Channel 5