How interesting? No! How damn sickening it is that the U.S Department of Justice changed their website. Gone are the colorful red, white and blue patriotic U.S. flag decorations on the page, to be replaced by stark black and white. And at the top of the page is an interesting quote: "The common law is the will of mankind, issuing from the life of the people."
Catchy, huh? Just one tiny little (too small to be relevant but still obvious point)..... the quote is from C. Wilfred Jenks, who in the 1930's was a leading proponent of the "international law" movement, which had as its goal to impose a global common law and which backed 'global workers' rights.'
Combined with the Hillary Clinton's State Department's move to bring Arizona before the U.N. Human Rights Commission outlines this Adminstrations social justice - one world government mentality.
Call it Marxism, call it Progressivism, call it Socialism, call it Obamaism - under any of those names it definitely makes the DOJ look corrupt in their sleek, new black website with Marxist accessories to match.
I know the screen print of the DOJ website is hard to read, go here to see it for yourself: http://www.justice.gov/
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.
.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Obama forbids Sale of Antique Rifles
Obama Administration Reverses Course, Forbids Sale of 850,000 South Korean Rifles classified as Antiques
By Maxim Lott, Published September 01, 2010, | FoxNews.com
The South Korean government, in an effort to raise money for its military, wants to sell nearly a million antique M1 rifles that were used by U.S. soldiers in the Korean War to gun collectors in America.
The Obama administration approved the sale of the American-made rifles last year. But it reversed course and banned the sale in March – a decision that went largely unnoticed at the time but that is now sparking opposition from gun rights advocates.
A State Department spokesman said the administration's decision was based on concerns that the guns could fall into the wrong hands. You mean Republicans?
"The transfer of such a large number of weapons -- 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines -- could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes," the spokesman told FoxNews.com.
"We are working closely with our Korean allies and the U.S. Army in exploring alternative options to dispose of these firearms." Who is we?
Gun control advocates praised the Obama administration for taking security seriously.
"Guns that can take high-capacity magazines are a threat to public safety," said Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Even though they are old, these guns could deliver a great amount of firepower. So I think the Obama administration's concerns are well-taken." Yep, that sounds like what guns do, Einstein.
But gun rights advocates point out that possessing M1 rifles is legal in the United States -- M1s are semi-automatics, not machine guns, meaning the trigger has to be pulled every time a shot is fired -- and anyone who would buy a gun from South Korea would have to go through the standard background check. Oops, so there must be another reason.
"Any guns that retail in the United States, of course, including these, can only be sold to someone who passes the National Instant Check System," said David Kopel, research director at the conservative Independence Institute. "There is no greater risk from these particular guns than there is from any other guns sold in the United States."
M1 rifles can hold high-capacity ammunition clips that allow dozens of rounds to be fired before re-loading, but Chris Cox, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, noted that is true about any gun in which an ammunition magazine can be inserted -- including most semi-automatics.
"Anything that accepts an external magazine could accept a larger capacity magazine," Cox said.
"But the average number of rounds fired in the commission of a crime is somewhere between 1 and 2 … this issue just shows how little the administration understands about guns."
He called the administration's decision "a de facto gun ban, courtesy of Hillary Clinton's State Department."
Asked why the M1s pose a threat, the State Department spokesman referred questions to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. ATF representatives said they would look into the question Monday afternoon, but on Wednesday they referred questions to the Justice Department. DOJ spokesman Dean Boyd referred questions back to the State Department. Oh I get it the old Government two step
According to the ATF Guidebook on Firearms Importation, it would normally be legal to import the M1s because they are more than 50 years old, meaning they qualify as "curios or relics." But because the guns were given to South Korea by the U.S. government, they fall under a special category that requires permission from the State Department before any sale.
Kopel said that he hopes the State Department spokesman's statement that it is working to "dispose" of the guns does not mean they want to melt them down. Sure it doesn´t!
"It seems to have this implication of destruction, which would be tremendously wasteful," he said. "These are guns that should be in the hands of American citizens for marksmanship and safety training."
Asked whether melting the guns down would be a good option, Henigan said: "Why let them into the country in the first place? If there is a legally sufficient way to keep them out, we think it's perfectly reasonable to do so." Past administrations have also grappled with the issue of large-scale gun imports.
The Clinton administration blocked sales of M1s and other antiquated military weapons from the Philippines, Turkey and Pakistan. It also ended the practice of reselling used guns owned by federal agencies, ordering that they be melted down instead.
In contrast, 200,000 M1 rifles from South Korea were allowed to be sold in the U.S. under the Reagan administration in 1987. A decision like that would be better for everyone, Cox said.
"M1s are used for target practice. For history buffs, they're highly collectible. We're going to continue to make sure that this backdoor effort that infringes not only on lawful commerce but on the Second Amendment is rectified."
Henigan disagrees.
"They clearly were used as military guns, and the fact that they likely can take high-capacity magazines makes them a special safety concern," he said.
The White House referred questions on the issue to the Pentagon, which referred questions to the U.S. Embassy in South Korea, which deferred back to the State Department. Idiots! Does anybody remember that there would not be a South Korea if they had not been armed?
By Maxim Lott, Published September 01, 2010, | FoxNews.com
The South Korean government, in an effort to raise money for its military, wants to sell nearly a million antique M1 rifles that were used by U.S. soldiers in the Korean War to gun collectors in America.
The Obama administration approved the sale of the American-made rifles last year. But it reversed course and banned the sale in March – a decision that went largely unnoticed at the time but that is now sparking opposition from gun rights advocates.
A State Department spokesman said the administration's decision was based on concerns that the guns could fall into the wrong hands. You mean Republicans?
"The transfer of such a large number of weapons -- 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines -- could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes," the spokesman told FoxNews.com.
"We are working closely with our Korean allies and the U.S. Army in exploring alternative options to dispose of these firearms." Who is we?
Gun control advocates praised the Obama administration for taking security seriously.
"Guns that can take high-capacity magazines are a threat to public safety," said Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Even though they are old, these guns could deliver a great amount of firepower. So I think the Obama administration's concerns are well-taken." Yep, that sounds like what guns do, Einstein.
But gun rights advocates point out that possessing M1 rifles is legal in the United States -- M1s are semi-automatics, not machine guns, meaning the trigger has to be pulled every time a shot is fired -- and anyone who would buy a gun from South Korea would have to go through the standard background check. Oops, so there must be another reason.
"Any guns that retail in the United States, of course, including these, can only be sold to someone who passes the National Instant Check System," said David Kopel, research director at the conservative Independence Institute. "There is no greater risk from these particular guns than there is from any other guns sold in the United States."
M1 rifles can hold high-capacity ammunition clips that allow dozens of rounds to be fired before re-loading, but Chris Cox, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, noted that is true about any gun in which an ammunition magazine can be inserted -- including most semi-automatics.
"Anything that accepts an external magazine could accept a larger capacity magazine," Cox said.
"But the average number of rounds fired in the commission of a crime is somewhere between 1 and 2 … this issue just shows how little the administration understands about guns."
He called the administration's decision "a de facto gun ban, courtesy of Hillary Clinton's State Department."
Asked why the M1s pose a threat, the State Department spokesman referred questions to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. ATF representatives said they would look into the question Monday afternoon, but on Wednesday they referred questions to the Justice Department. DOJ spokesman Dean Boyd referred questions back to the State Department. Oh I get it the old Government two step
According to the ATF Guidebook on Firearms Importation, it would normally be legal to import the M1s because they are more than 50 years old, meaning they qualify as "curios or relics." But because the guns were given to South Korea by the U.S. government, they fall under a special category that requires permission from the State Department before any sale.
Kopel said that he hopes the State Department spokesman's statement that it is working to "dispose" of the guns does not mean they want to melt them down. Sure it doesn´t!
"It seems to have this implication of destruction, which would be tremendously wasteful," he said. "These are guns that should be in the hands of American citizens for marksmanship and safety training."
Asked whether melting the guns down would be a good option, Henigan said: "Why let them into the country in the first place? If there is a legally sufficient way to keep them out, we think it's perfectly reasonable to do so." Past administrations have also grappled with the issue of large-scale gun imports.
The Clinton administration blocked sales of M1s and other antiquated military weapons from the Philippines, Turkey and Pakistan. It also ended the practice of reselling used guns owned by federal agencies, ordering that they be melted down instead.
In contrast, 200,000 M1 rifles from South Korea were allowed to be sold in the U.S. under the Reagan administration in 1987. A decision like that would be better for everyone, Cox said.
"M1s are used for target practice. For history buffs, they're highly collectible. We're going to continue to make sure that this backdoor effort that infringes not only on lawful commerce but on the Second Amendment is rectified."
Henigan disagrees.
"They clearly were used as military guns, and the fact that they likely can take high-capacity magazines makes them a special safety concern," he said.
The White House referred questions on the issue to the Pentagon, which referred questions to the U.S. Embassy in South Korea, which deferred back to the State Department. Idiots! Does anybody remember that there would not be a South Korea if they had not been armed?
Labels:
Anti-Gun Hillary Clinton,
Anti-Gun Obama,
Carpetbaggers,
Obama
Arizona versus the United States AND the United Nations
Brought to you by Jeff Mazzella, President, Center for Individual Freedom
Barack Obama just invited the United Nations to join his ongoing fight against Arizona and dozens of other states attempting to enforce the immigration laws that he refuses to enforce.
Unfortunately, you read that right. On August 20, the United States, for the first time ever, submitted a 29-page "Universal Periodic Review" (UPR) to the UN Human Rights Council, which outlines a laundry list of human rights abuses allegedly committed by the United States.
Contained within that laundry list of so-called abuses is a direct condemnation of S.B. 1070, legislation enacted by the state of Arizona (and supported by an overwhelming majority of the American people), which seeks to do the job that the federal government has refused to do... secure the border.
Specifically, the Obama Administration wrote in the report: "A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."
The submission of this UPR is the first step in a United Nations review process which will culminate with the issuance of a plan of action, approximately 90 days from now, from a panel of UN bureaucrats
from France, Japan and Cameroon.
At that point, the United States would be expected to "voluntarily" comply with the panel's recommendations, but as the UN Human Rights Council states on its website: "The Human Rights Council will decide on the measures it would need to take in case of persistent non-cooperation by a State..."
In short, Barack Obama has upped the ante. Not content with simply filing a frivolous federal suit against the people of Arizona, Obama has transformed his amnesty feud with the American people into an international human rights cause and effectively placed the people of Arizona (and other states that are considering similar border security bills) under the jurisdiction of a gang of America-hating
United Nations bureaucrats.
Is This UPR A Direct Affront To American Sovereignty? Of course it is.
In fact, when it comes to the sovereignty of the United States, and specifically the desire of the American people to secure our borders, the United Nations has already made its views clear.
In May, a United Nations panel of six so-called "human rights experts" from the United States, Mexico, Kenya, Pakistan and Costa Rica issued a report addressing S.B. 1070 which read, in part: "A disturbing pattern of legislative activity hostile to ethnic minorities and immigrants has been established with the adoption of an immigration law that may allow for police action targeting individuals on the basis of their perceived ethnic origin."
And the UPR itself was actually produced by a literal rogues gallery of the extreme left. According to Doug Hagmann with Canada Free Press: "The report is the product of about a dozen conferences held across the U.S. between January and April 2010. The participants of these conferences featured such luminaries as Stephen Rickard and Wendy Patten from George Soros' Open Society Institute; Devon Chaffee, Human Rights First; Andrea Prasow, Human Rights Watch...among others."
Hagmann adds: "SB 1070 has... now been moved to an international venue and potential international oversight by the United Nations. The stakes for our national sovereignty have been just raised by the submission of this document, which is the first step of 'voluntary compliance' to the provisions of the United Nations' Human Rights Council."
So why is Obama appealing to the United Nations? Internet blogger Ben Johnson perhaps put what is happening before our very eyes in its proper context: "When the Left cannot win at the ballot box... it overrules the people in the courts. Now that Obama is not sure he can prevail in the courts, he has overruled the American people by hauling Arizona and the two-thirds of Americans who support its law before the United Nations."
Barack Obama just invited the United Nations to join his ongoing fight against Arizona and dozens of other states attempting to enforce the immigration laws that he refuses to enforce.
Unfortunately, you read that right. On August 20, the United States, for the first time ever, submitted a 29-page "Universal Periodic Review" (UPR) to the UN Human Rights Council, which outlines a laundry list of human rights abuses allegedly committed by the United States.
Contained within that laundry list of so-called abuses is a direct condemnation of S.B. 1070, legislation enacted by the state of Arizona (and supported by an overwhelming majority of the American people), which seeks to do the job that the federal government has refused to do... secure the border.
Specifically, the Obama Administration wrote in the report: "A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."
The submission of this UPR is the first step in a United Nations review process which will culminate with the issuance of a plan of action, approximately 90 days from now, from a panel of UN bureaucrats
from France, Japan and Cameroon.
At that point, the United States would be expected to "voluntarily" comply with the panel's recommendations, but as the UN Human Rights Council states on its website: "The Human Rights Council will decide on the measures it would need to take in case of persistent non-cooperation by a State..."
In short, Barack Obama has upped the ante. Not content with simply filing a frivolous federal suit against the people of Arizona, Obama has transformed his amnesty feud with the American people into an international human rights cause and effectively placed the people of Arizona (and other states that are considering similar border security bills) under the jurisdiction of a gang of America-hating
United Nations bureaucrats.
Is This UPR A Direct Affront To American Sovereignty? Of course it is.
In fact, when it comes to the sovereignty of the United States, and specifically the desire of the American people to secure our borders, the United Nations has already made its views clear.
In May, a United Nations panel of six so-called "human rights experts" from the United States, Mexico, Kenya, Pakistan and Costa Rica issued a report addressing S.B. 1070 which read, in part: "A disturbing pattern of legislative activity hostile to ethnic minorities and immigrants has been established with the adoption of an immigration law that may allow for police action targeting individuals on the basis of their perceived ethnic origin."
And the UPR itself was actually produced by a literal rogues gallery of the extreme left. According to Doug Hagmann with Canada Free Press: "The report is the product of about a dozen conferences held across the U.S. between January and April 2010. The participants of these conferences featured such luminaries as Stephen Rickard and Wendy Patten from George Soros' Open Society Institute; Devon Chaffee, Human Rights First; Andrea Prasow, Human Rights Watch...among others."
Hagmann adds: "SB 1070 has... now been moved to an international venue and potential international oversight by the United Nations. The stakes for our national sovereignty have been just raised by the submission of this document, which is the first step of 'voluntary compliance' to the provisions of the United Nations' Human Rights Council."
So why is Obama appealing to the United Nations? Internet blogger Ben Johnson perhaps put what is happening before our very eyes in its proper context: "When the Left cannot win at the ballot box... it overrules the people in the courts. Now that Obama is not sure he can prevail in the courts, he has overruled the American people by hauling Arizona and the two-thirds of Americans who support its law before the United Nations."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)