Received this link via e-mail. This is a must see.
Judge Andrew Napolitano gives a speech from the heart about freedom and from where our rights come. The Judge explains the hard core truth about the Constitution and why we must fight to regain and retain our freedoms. Courtesy of www.CampaignForLiberty.com. Edited by FreeTheNation.com
Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, Tom Woods, Andrew Napolitano and Daniel Hannan are the new Freedom Fighters.
Cookies
Notice: This website may or may not use or set cookies used by Google Ad-sense or other third party companies. If you do not wish to have cookies downloaded to your computer, please disable cookie use in your browser. Thank You.
.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Latest Idiot in Congress Surfaces
Just finished watching a televised interview with Senator Tom Carper, D-DE.
The topic was the Republican's disapproval of the additional spending to extend unemployment benefits, and if unemployment benefits were extended by the Democrats then the Republicans wanted it paid for upfront from the left over Stimulus money, as opposed to creating yet additional debt for this debt burdened Country.
Senator Carper position clearly showed that reasoning is not one of his strong points. Carper, a Democrat from Deleware (shame on you Deleware for voting this butt clown into office), reasoned that if we didn't pay ahead of time for the Bush Tax Cuts, then we should not have to pay ahead of time for extended unemployment benefits. WHAT?!?! Here's an idea Mr. Potatohead, let's not compare Bowling Balls and Watermelons.
Carper further stated that is was totally unfair to deny additional unemployment benefits. Unfair? I'll tell you what is unfair. Unfair is burdening Americans with additional taxes from the Health Care Bill. Unfair is morgaging our children and grandchildren's future with unending National Debt. Unfair is growing Federal Governmental powers outside the scope and intent of the Constitution.
Rather than treat the symptoms of unemployment by throwing benefits at the job less why don't you implement the tried and true method of reducing taxes and unfair regulations on small business which would stimulate job growth? How about reducing the captial gains tax rate to stimulate investments in businesses? Let's start with making permament the Bush Tax cuts which will certainly expire soon in the Democrat controlled Congress and Obama Adminstration.
The topic was the Republican's disapproval of the additional spending to extend unemployment benefits, and if unemployment benefits were extended by the Democrats then the Republicans wanted it paid for upfront from the left over Stimulus money, as opposed to creating yet additional debt for this debt burdened Country.
Senator Carper position clearly showed that reasoning is not one of his strong points. Carper, a Democrat from Deleware (shame on you Deleware for voting this butt clown into office), reasoned that if we didn't pay ahead of time for the Bush Tax Cuts, then we should not have to pay ahead of time for extended unemployment benefits. WHAT?!?! Here's an idea Mr. Potatohead, let's not compare Bowling Balls and Watermelons.
Carper further stated that is was totally unfair to deny additional unemployment benefits. Unfair? I'll tell you what is unfair. Unfair is burdening Americans with additional taxes from the Health Care Bill. Unfair is morgaging our children and grandchildren's future with unending National Debt. Unfair is growing Federal Governmental powers outside the scope and intent of the Constitution.
Rather than treat the symptoms of unemployment by throwing benefits at the job less why don't you implement the tried and true method of reducing taxes and unfair regulations on small business which would stimulate job growth? How about reducing the captial gains tax rate to stimulate investments in businesses? Let's start with making permament the Bush Tax cuts which will certainly expire soon in the Democrat controlled Congress and Obama Adminstration.
Watch for Obama - U.N. Worldwide Gun Control Talks
A buddy of mine sent me this to remind me on a Oct 2009 article talking about U.N. World Wide Arms Control Talks scheduled in 2010:
U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on 14 October 2009 saying it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."
"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous."
"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement. However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."
"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.
“The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.”
“A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.”
Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.
The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws.
Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.
The Founders intended that the Second Amendment to guarantee the rest of the Bills of Rights.
U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on 14 October 2009 saying it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."
"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous."
"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement. However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."
"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.
“The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.”
“A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.”
Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.
The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws.
Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.
The Founders intended that the Second Amendment to guarantee the rest of the Bills of Rights.
Labels:
Obama Gun Control,
second amendment,
UN Gun Control
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)