Obama gains Foreign Support against 2nd Amendment

Comments Off on Obama gains Foreign Support against 2nd Amendment

As you read this remember that ANY TREATY  when ratified by 2/3 of the Senate does not become Supreme Law of the Land IF it violates the Constitution, as in the 2nd amendment. So remember any Treaty must still be Constitutional and CANNOT go against in even if ratified. Don’t let mainstream media brainwash into thinking any Treaty is legal, because it’s not. And also don’t believe that lie that most of the guns in Mexico are from the US, Steve and I have already proven that wrong long agoFACT: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.……They want your guns and then it’s over !!!!

Obama gains Foreign Support against 2nd Amendment


Virtually out of the inaugural gate, President Obama picked up the anti Second Amendment gauntlet and held it high on his first trip to Mexico City in April of 2009.  In a meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderón, he promised to urge the U.S. Senate to pass the international arms control agreement signed by Bill Clinton in 1997.

This agreement is titled the “Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials” better known as CIFTA. Though signed, it was thankfully never ratified by the Senate. This regional treaty, was adopted by the Organization of American States, yet the US and four other member states have not ratified it, at last accounting. Among the notable sticking points are disagreement over the lapsed U.S. assault weapons ban,  cross-border trucking between Mexico and the US, and the ever present illegal drug and illegal immigration problem.

So now, to make this all palatable to the American People, it is couched in the rhetoric of fighting the international Drug War. An attempt to rationalize under the auspices of solving drug violence in Mexico the curtailing of firearms ownership in America. Blaming Americans not only as the market for illegal drug traffic from Mexico, but as the source of illegal firearms going back into Mexico. Yet, it is a well known fact that most firearms on the Mexican streets are supplied by European and Chinese arms manufacturers with little if any coming from, or through the legal arms network in America.  However, much of the arms, munitions, helicopters, armored personnel carriers, and other “policing” paraphernalia utilized by the Mexican government is supplied by the U.S. government.

This President will pull out the stops to block legal relic firearms from importation into the U.S. through legal channels, but will not lift a finger to stop the illegal drug and illegal immigration traffic across our southern border. Perhaps the president is seeking to get these World War Two relic arms re-directed into the illegal Mexican arms market, so when giving a speech at a future treaty summit on arms control in the Americas, he can  say in condemnation, that actual U.S. made arms are being used in Mexico.

Alexander Hamilton has the last word on this. He was right on the money when he stated, “The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is that it shall not change the Constitution…”

Info Wars

Obama Administration Announces Stalinist Environmental Tactics

Comments Off on Obama Administration Announces Stalinist Environmental Tactics

If Obama follows through with this and I”m sure he will, this should be considered treason and/or an impeachable offense. First his unconstitutional czars and now using the EPA to confirm a agreement/treaty at Copenhagen which bypasses the Constitution’s demand of 2/3 ratification by the Senate.

Obama Administration Announces Stalinist Environmental Tactics

The Obama Administration plans to bypass Congress to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. According to Fox News, a top White House economic official warned Tuesday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will not wait for Congress to pass legislation on climate change.

The official said that if Congress does not take action, “the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area. And it is not going to be able to regulate in a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way.” He explained that legislation would provide compensation for small businesses hit hard by new rules, which EPA action alone could not provide.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson confirmed the threat at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on Wednesday, saying regulators would frame new rules to complement cap-and-trade legislation pending in Congress. During her speech, she also bragged about the Obama Administration’s new environmental policies. The New York Times quoted her saying, “In less than 11 months … we have done more to promote clean energy and prevent climate change than happened in the last eight years.” She highlighted the EPA’s recent declaration that six greenhouse gases are a menace to public health and welfare, a move allowing the agency to tighten emissions restrictions on automobiles and industries.

The EPA’s sudden increased power gives credence to Jackson’s claims that the agency will be able to keep promises made at Copenhagen with or without Congressional approval.

House and Senate Republicans disagree and are planning a GOP delegation to Copenhagen to refute the Obama administration’s totalitarian boasts. Fox News reports that Senators Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and John Barrasso of Wyoming will join U.S. Representatives Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, Joe Barton of Texas, and Darrell Issa of California at the conference next week. They plan a press conference to remind Copenhagen delegates that the United States cannot make any binding emissions agreements without Congressional approval. They also plan to give voice to skeptical views of global warming during official meetings of the conference.

Already this week the U.S. negotiator at Copenhagen has denied developing nations’ calls for climate-change reparations. Delegates from poor countries claim America owes a debt for supposed damage to their ecosystems, public health, and economies from greenhouse gas emissions. The New York Times reports that Todd Stern, the U.S. special envoy for climate change, scoffed at the idea during a press conference this week. “I actually completely reject the notion of a debt or reparations or anything of the like,” he said. “For most of the 200 years since the Industrial Revolution, people were blissfully ignorant of the fact that emissions caused a greenhouse effect. It’s a relatively recent phenomenon.” Stern did, however, express plans to enact measures to cut emissions and to grant foreign aid to developing countries.


Obama Putting U.S. sovereignty on swap block?


U.S. sovereignty on swap block?

Obama negotiating for seat for U.S. on U.N. commission

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The Obama administration is preparing to swap U.S. sovereignty for a higher level of U.S. presence at the United Nations, a plan that has alarmed officials working to protect the rights of Americans, specifically the parental rights that traditionally have been recognized across the nation’s history.

Michael Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College, said, “The move is little more than another attempt at political correctness by an administration frantic for acceptance by the international community.”

Farris also is a dedicated leader behind the effort to change the U.S. Constitution through the amendment process to restore and protect parental rights.

WND reported just days ago his warning that parental rights in the U.S. already are being diminished.

“The erosion is upon us,” he said then.

Eighty years ago, the amendment website notes, “the Supreme Court declared that ‘the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.'”

However, according to Farris, a survey last year of state and federal appellate court rulings found “the vast majority of the court decisions refused to acknowledge traditional parental rights are fundamental rights.”

Now Farris is alerting to the plan in the Obama White House to try to secure a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, an intergovernmental body of 47 member states.

However, it has no legal authority and only offers opinions.

Treaties Do Not Supersede
the Constitution


“This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.   <click here

The report from Farris said to secure its seat, the Obama camp has submitted a series of “Commitments and Pledges” declaring its loyalty and “deep commitment” to the U.N.

Farris is familiar with the U.N. and its operations, having proposed the Parental Rights Amendment to prevent the loss of U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. through its treaties, such as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which could be used to prevent parents from spanking their own children or directing their religious training.

This (Obama) administration is all about photo ops,” said Farris, “and is apparently willing to trade away U.S. sovereignty for a seat on a council which has no legal authority.”

In the April 27 “Commitments” document released by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, the U.S. representative to the international body, the Obama White House pledged its support for the Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, which also makes the U.S. subservient to the international agenda.

If the two cited treaties are adopted, Farris said, they will “not only jeopardize U.S. sovereignty but hasten the end of the traditional American family.

“All U.N. treaties require strict scrutiny,” he cautioned. “The pledge, as written, expresses no such need but, rather, unilaterally commits the U.S. to meet its U.N. treaty obligations. Apparently, for this administration, membership in a U.N. Council with no authority trumps the right of Americans – not the U.N. or any other nation – to make public policy affecting Americans.”

Farris says the Parental Rights Amendment, which would embed in the Constitution a description of parental rights as fundamental, would offer help for families.

“Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served,” the draft states. “No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.”

Farris said the amendment proposal, which already has about 80 co-sponsors in Congress, is moving “faster then we thought we would.” .

The website notes if approved, the Convention on the Rights of the Child would supersede “the laws of all 50 states on children and parents.”

According to the Parental Rights website, the CRC dictates the following:

  • Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
  • A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
  • Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
  • The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.
  • A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
  • According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
  • Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
  • Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
  • Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
  • Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

Good parents also no longer would be entitled to the legal presumption that they act in the best interests of their children, giving way to governmental decisions that would trump anything a parent would seek for his or her child, regardless of the topic, the analysis said.

Worldnet Daily.com

Secrecy From the Obama Administration

Comments Off on Secrecy From the Obama Administration

What about all that transparency in government?

The Obama administration is looking more and more like the Bush administration to me. The more things change, the more they stay the same. COPYRIGHT TREATY CLASSIFIED AS “NATIONAL SECURITY” ?

4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Copyright treaty is classified for ‘national security’.

Last September, the Bush administration defended the unusual secrecy over an anti-counterfeiting treaty being negotiated by the U.S. government, which some liberal groups worry could criminalize some peer-to-peer file sharing that infringes copyrights.

Now President Obama’s White House has tightened the cloak of government secrecy still further, saying in a letter this week that a discussion draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and related materials are “classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958.”

The 1995 Executive Order 12958 allows material to be classified only if disclosure would do “damage to the national security and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.”

Jamie Love, director of the nonprofit group Knowledge Ecology International, filed the Freedom of Information Act request that resulted in this week’s denial from the White House. The denial letter (PDF) was sent to Love on Tuesday by Carmen Suro-Bredie, chief FOIA officer in the White House’s Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Love had written in his original request on January 31–submitted soon after Obama’s inauguration–that the documents “are being widely circulated to corporate lobbyists in Europe, Japan, and the U.S. There is no reason for them to be secret from the American public.”

The White House appears to be continuing the secretive policy of the Bush administration, which wrote to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (PDF) on January 16 that out of 806 pages related to the treaty, all but 10 were “classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958.”

In one of his first acts as president, Obama signed a memo saying FOIA “should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure.”

Love’s group believes that the U.S. and Japan want the treaty to say that willful trademark and copyright infringement on a commercial scale must be subject to criminal sanctions, including infringement that has “no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain.”

A June 2008 memo (PDF) from the International Chamber of Commerce, signed by pro-copyright groups, says: “intellectual property theft is no less a crime than physical property theft. An effective ACTA should therefore establish clear and transparent standards for the calculation and imposition of effective criminal penalties for IP theft that…apply to both online and off-line IP transactions.” Similarly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has called for “criminal penalties for IP crimes, including online infringements.”

Last fall, two senators–Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter (R-Penn.)–known for their support of stringent intellectual property laws, expressed concern that the ACTA could be too far-reaching.

Read at news.CNET.com