Archive for the month “July, 2012”

Update on Control on guns

Between 1903 and 1911, Turkey enacts gun control laws that were designed to keep firearms out of the hands of Armenians. These laws were successful. .

Between 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians were systematically rounded up and exterminated by the Turkish government.








Armenians being marched off to the death camps.

In 1938, Germany enacts gun control laws which were targeted squarely at the Jews. Between 1939 and 1945, 13 million Jews and other undesirables were rounded up and exterminated by the German government.

Adolph Hitler’s own thoughts on gun control:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

This is how gun control worked in Nazi Germany. See who has the gun? See who is in control?















Guatemala has a long history of legislating guns out of the hands of peasants. Between 1964 and 1985, 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and exterminated by the Guatemalan government.

China establishes gun control in 1935. From 1949 to 1975, 50-60 million Chinese citizens are exterminated by the Chinese government lead by the infamous Mao Zedong.














the subsequent pictures taken after this woman was murdered by her government will keep you awake at night.

The soviet Union, under Joseph Stalin, made use of existing gun laws to ensure that his extermination of some 60 million people went smoothly.

The first Soviet gun controls were imposed during the Russian Civil War, as Czarists, Western troops, and national independence movements battled the central Red regime. Firearm registration was introduced on April 1, 1918. [13] On August 30, Fanny Kaplan supposedly wounded Lenin during an assassination attempt; the attempted assassination spurred a nationwide reign of terror. [14] In October 1918, the Council of People’s Commissars (the government) ordered the surrender of all firearms, ammunition, and sabres. [15] As has been the case in almost every nation where firearms registration has been introduced, registration proved a prelude to confiscation. Exempt from the confiscation order, however, were members of the Communist Party. [16] A 1920 decree imposed a mandatory minimum penalty of six months in prison for (non-Communist) possession of a firearm, even where there was no criminal intent. [17]

After the Red victory in the Civil War, the firearms laws were consolidated in a Criminal Code, which provided that unauthorized possession of a firearm would be punishable by hard labor. [18] A 1925 law made unauthorized possession of a firearm punishable by three months of hard labor, plus a fine of 300 rubles (equal to about four months’ wages for a highly-paid construction worker). [19]

Stalin apparently found little need to change the weapons control structure he had inherited. His only contributions were a 1935 law making illegal carrying of a knife punishable by five years in prison and a decree of that same year extending “all penalties, including death, down to twelve-year-old children.” [20]

Uganda established gun control in 1970 (Firearms act of 1970- This legislation made legal ownership of firearms more difficult than the pre-existing 1956 British colonial legislation through an expanded system of firearm registration and prohibitive licensing. It also banned a wide range of firearms. Civilian ownership of firearms, already low in Uganda, appears to have been virtually eliminated (Simkin, et al., 1994, pp.285-289). Between 1971 and 1979, 300,000 Christians are rounded up and exterminated by the government of Idi Amin.

Cambodian gun control was a legacy of French colonialism.[97] A series of Royal Ordinances, decreed by a monarchy subservient to the French, appears to have been enacted out of fear of the Communist and anti-colonial insurgencies that were taking place in the 1920s and 1930s throughout Southeast Asia, although not in Cambodia. [98] The first law, in 1920, dealt with the carrying of guns, while the last law in the series, in 1938, imposed a strict licensing system. [99] Only hunters could have guns, and they were allowed to own only a single firearm. [100] These colonial laws appear to have stayed in place after Cambodia was granted independence. The Khmer Rouge enacted no new gun control laws, for they enacted no laws at all other than a Constitution. [101]

Cambodia was a poor country, and few people could afford guns. [102] On the other hand, the chaos that accompanies any war might have given some Cambodians the opportunity to acquire firearms from corrupt or dead soldiers. There is no solid evidence about how many Cambodians, with no cultural history of firearms ownership, attempted to do so. [103]

As soon as the Khmer Rouge took power, they immediately set out to disarm the populace. One Cambodian recalls that:

Eang [a woman] watched soldiers stride onto the porches of the houses and knock on the doors and ask the people who answered if they had any weapons. “We are here now to protect you,” the soldiers said, “and no one has a need for a weapon any more.” People who said that they kept no weapons were forced to stand aside and allow the soldiers to look for themselves. . . . The round-up of weapons took nine or ten days, and once the soldiers had concluded the villagers were no longer armed, they dropped their pretense of friendliness. . . . The soldiers said everyone would have to leave the village for a while, so that the troops could search for weapons; when the search was finished, they could return. [104]

People being forced out of villages and cities were searched thoroughly, and weapons and foreign currency were confiscated. [105] To the limited extent that Cambodians owned guns through the government licensing system, the names of registered gun owners were of course available to the new government











what do all of these Cambodians have in common? they were unarmed and they were killed by their radical left wing government.

More recently, In Rwanda during the 1990s, some 800,000 unarmed Tutsis were slaughtered by the new Hutu government. It is interesting to note that most of the murders were committed with machetes. More interesting than that, however, is the fact that communist China supplied the Hutus with 581,000 machetes in 1993 BUT Even more interesting than that is that the former Secretary General of the United Nations, one Boutros Boutros-Ghali, facilitated the arms deals with the Hutus, the deal that facilitated the genocide. In 1990, then Minister of Foreign Affairs of Egypt, Boutros-Ghali, facilitated an arms deal which was to result in $26 million worth of mortar bombs, rocket launchers, grenades and ammunition being flown from Cairo to Rwanda and then used to perpetrate a genocide a few years later. China. The UN. Gun control. Genocide.

Made in China











Democide is a term revived and redefined by the political scientist R. J. Rummel as “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.”

Rummel defines democide as “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder”

His research shows, further, that the death toll from democide is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the inflictions of people working for governments than have died in battle.

Bottom line, statistically speaking, you are much more likely to be killed by your government than by a gun wielding maniac in a theater especially if you have allowed your government to disarm you. It should be obvious to you after reading this, that it has primarily been radical left wing socialist/communist governments imposing gun control and then perpetrating genocide against select members of the newly disarmed populace. It is also worth mentioning that gun registration typically precedes these events. It ought not be surprising to you that the leftists of this country are the ones pushing for gun control in the name of preventing crime despite an abundance of evidence that shows that gun control does not prevent crime. Further, it should come as no surprise that registration of long guns is increasingly being touted as a “reasonable” gun control legislation. Sales of assault rifles ending up in the hands of Mexican cartels was, in fact, to be the just cause for this incremental step towards subjugation of the free men and women of America. Luckily, their machinations were sufficiently exposed and thus foiled. They know what they’re trying to do. They do have an agenda. They do intend to disarm this country one way or another. Remain vigilant my friends. Not one step backwards. Ever forward. The life you save may be your own.

OUR Government is implementing this now slowly but it is happening! IT HAS TO STOP!

Elizabeth Warren Wants America to Be More Like Communist China


Warren thinks China’s infrastructure spending is a model for the U.S.

 | July 30, 2012


Massachusetts residents who tuned in to the Olympics opening ceremony saw a new 30-second campaign commercial from the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, Elizabeth Warren, that said America should be more like Communist China.

“We’ve got bridges and roads in need of repair and thousands of people in need of work. Why aren’t we rebuilding America?” asks Warren, a professor at Harvard Law School who served in the Obama administration. “Our competitors are putting people to work, building a future. China invests 9% of its GDP in infrastructure. America? We’re at just 2.4%. We can do better.”

Actually we are lower than 2.4%!

The ad juxtaposes robust Chinese cranes and dump trucks with decaying American bridges and idle but sympathetic-looking American workers wearing hard-hats.

Warren has been in the news lately as an inspiration for President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comment. And Mr. Obama himself has been making somewhat similar points about infrastructure on the campaign trail. On July 27, the same day Warren announced her new ad, Mr. Obama, campaigning in Virginia, said, “I think it makes sense for us to take half the savings from war and let’s use it to do some nation-building here at home. Let’s make sure that we’re rebuilding our roads and our bridges. Let’s build broadband lines into rural communities and improve our wireless networks and rebuild our ports and airports. We can put people to work right now doing the work that America needs done.”

Warren’s approach is so flawed that it’s amazing that her campaign would spend the money on putting it into a prime-time Olympics commercial that was presumably designed not to alienate people but rather to get them to vote for her. You really have to see it to believe it.

The first problem is mathematical. U.S. gross domestic product is about $15 trillion a year. Increasing infrastructure “investment” to the 9% Chinese level that Warren cites would mean an additional $1 trillion a year in government spending. That’s an immense spending increase. To put it in context, the entire federal government spent about $3.6 trillion in 2011, on revenues of about $2.3 trillion.

Where would this money come from? Not tax increases, right? Warren has already reportedly promised nearly a trillion dollar tax increase, spread over ten years, by raising the estate tax, imposing the Buffett Rule, and letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those earning $250,000 a year or more. But that money, she has said, would go toward deficit reduction. If Warren really wants to spend $1 trillion a year more on infrastructure, she’d need to eliminate all national defense spending ($705 billion) or all Social Security spending ($730 billion) and then find another more than quarter trillion dollars. Or else she’d have to go on the biggest borrowing or taxing binge in American history.

Math, though, is hardly the only problem with emulating China’s approach to infrastructure spending. History is another. America and China are at different junctures in our development. America built a lot of bridges, tunnels, and highways in the 1950s and 1960s when China was stuck under Communism. A lot of China’s spending now isn’t going to outpace America but to catch up with things that we’ve had here for decades, like potable water and a population that is mostly non-rural.

Finally, not all of China’s infrastructure spending is worth emulating. The Chinese Communist treatment of those who stand in the way of their projects makes Robert Moses, the mastermind of so many of New York’s neighborhood-destroying highways, look like Mother Teresa. For example, the group International Rivers reports that 1.2 million people were displaced to construct the Three Gorges Dam. That $40 billion project also reportedly had devastating effects on the Chinese river dolphin, river sturgeon, and paddlefish.

China is able to spend so much on infrastructure because it’s an unfree country. It lacks the rule of law that lets American community groups wage legal and political battles against big government projects. Warren may protest that when she’s talking about “infrastructure” she mainly means maintaining existing roads and bridges, not building brand new projects that flatten urban neighborhoods or destroy scenic rivers. But that’s not what’s happening in China.

One of the ironies here is that some of the lawyers opposing big proposed American infrastructure projects on environmental or eminent domain or racial discrimination grounds were trained by Warren and her colleagues at Harvard Law School and at other similar institutions like the University of Chicago, where Barack Obama taught after attending Harvard Law School. Such opposition, sometimes spurious, can succeed in delaying and raising the cost of private development projects even if the opponents ultimately do not prevail in court or in the political process. Free-market fans tend to like the eminent domain suits and dislike the ones about snail darters, and it is a distinction worth maintaining.

But if the choice is between having people like Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama in law schools training students to block these infrastructure projects, or having them in the government taxing the rest of us to pay for more of them, I’m glad to live in America rather than Communist China. Here in America, at least, the people may not get to elect the law professors, but we sure do get to vote on the president and senators.

Ira Stoll is editor of and author of Samuel Adams: A Life




Communism’s 45 goals to destroy the United States…

“My child, you must not have fear at speaking the truth. It is for the salvation of souls and the recovery of your country. America the beautiful must not fall to communism, My child. America the beautiful shall not be sold into slavery.  Cast out the money changers in your government! What manner of government is there that condones sin?  Abomination upon abomination–giving monies for the murder of children, giving monies for the murder of the elderly!  Your government, My child, has been infiltrated by men of sin.” – Our Lady of the Roses, September 13, 1975

On Jan. 10, 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Jr. of Florida read a list of 45 Communist goals into the Congressional Record. The list was derived from researcher Cleon Skousen’s book “The Naked Communist.” These principles are well worth revisiting today in order to gain insights into the thinking and strategies of much of our so-called liberal elite:

1. U.S. should accept coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. should be willing to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war. [Note: These encapsulate the Kennan Doctrine, which advocated for the “containment” of communism. Establishment figures supporting the amoral containment policy at least implicitly worked with the communists in scaring the wits out of the American people concerning atomic war. President Ronald Reagan undid the doctrine when he took an aggressive stand against the Evil Empire by backing freedom fighters from around the world that were struggling against the left-wing communist jackboot. As a result, the Soviet Union and its satellites imploded, a considerable and unexpected setback to the international communist edifice.]

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the U.S. would be a demonstration of “moral strength.” [Note: The nuclear freeze advocates supported a freeze on American nuclear development only. Rarely were Soviet nukes or those of other nations mentioned in their self-righteous tirades. The same advocates now call for reducing American military might, claiming that there is something immoral about America preserving its military pre-eminence in the world.]

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war. [Note: Today, there are calls to end the embargo on the slave island of Cuba, there were complaints about the embargo against Iraq, and the U.S., not Saddam Hussein, was blamed for the suffering of the Iraqi people. Would they have advocated for free trade with Hitler and his National Socialist regime?]

5. Extend long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination. [Note: Such aid and trade over decades contributed greatly to the left-wing communist liquidation of over 100 million people worldwide, according to the well-documented “Black Book of Communism.” This aid and trade marks a shameful chapter in American history. Without the aid and trade, the left-wing international communist behemoth would have imploded on its own rot a lot sooner and umpteen millions would have been saved from poverty, misery, starvation and death.]

7. Grant recognition of Red China and admission of Red China to the U.N. [Note: Not only did President Jimmy Carter fulfill this goal but he also betrayed America’s allies in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iran, Afghanistan, Angola and elsewhere.]

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the Germany question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the U.S. has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. [Note: There are still American intellectuals, and elected members of Congress, who dream of an eventual one world government and who view the U.N., founded by communists such as Alger Hiss, the first secretary-general, as the instrument to bring this about. World government was also the dream of Adolf Hitler and J.V. Stalin. World government was the dream of Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers.]

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party. [Note: While the idea of banning any political party runs contrary to notions of American freedom and liberty, notions that are the exact opposite of those held by the left-wing communists themselves, nevertheless these goals sought to undermine the constitutional obligation of Congress to investigate subversion. The weakening of our government’s ability to conduct such investigations led to the attack of 9/11.]

13. Do away with loyalty oaths. [Note: It is entirely proper and appropriate for our government to expect employees, paid by the American taxpayer, to take an oath of loyalty.]

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the U.S.  [Note: In his book, “Reagan’s War,” Peter Schweizer demonstrates the astonishing degree to which communists and communist sympathizers have penetrated the Democratic Party. In his book, Schweizer writes about the presidential election of 1979.]

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights. [Note: This strategy goes back to the founding of the American Civil Liberties Union by Fabian Socialists Roger Baldwin and John Dewey and Communists William Z. Foster and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn among others.]

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations that are under Communist attack. [Note:The success of these goals, from a communist perspective, is obvious. Is there any doubt this is so?]

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings,” substituting shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. ” Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV. [Note: This is the Gramscian agenda of the “long march through the institutions” spelled out explicitly: gradual takeover of the “means of communication” and then using those vehicles to debauch the culture and weaken the will of the individual to resist.]

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural and healthy.”  [Note: Today those few who still have the courage to advocate public morality are denounced and viciously attacked. Most Americans are entirely unwitting regarding the motives behind this agenda.]

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.” [Note: This has been largely accomplished through the communist infiltration of the National Council of Churches, Conservative and Reform Judaism, and the Catholic seminaries.]

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state”

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of “the big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over. [Note: Obliterating the American past, with its antecedents in principles of freedom, liberty and private ownership is a major goal of the communists then and now.]

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat. [Note: The Soviets used to send “social misfits” and those deemed politically incorrect to massive mental institutions called gulags. The Red Chinese call them lao gai. Hitler called them concentration camps.]

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose communist goals. [Note: Psychiatry remains a bulwark of the communist agenda of fostering self-criticism and docility.]

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. [Note: Done! The sovereign family is the single most powerful obstacle to authoritarian control.]

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.  [Note: Outcome-based education, values clarification or whatever they’re calling it this year.]

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a “united force” to solve economic, political or social problems. [Note: This describes the dialectical fostering of group consciousness and conflict, which furthers the interests of authoritarianism.]

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally Reservation so the U.S. cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.

IMHO  Getting close for all of these items to be implemented.

White House plays down prospect of new gun laws LIE!

MAKE NO MISTAKE Obama wants your guns it is easier to become a Dictator with an unarmed populace!

By Olivier Knox
July 27, 2012

The White House signaled Thursday that President Barack Obama would not be seeking new gun control laws in the aftermath of the mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. But press secretary Jay Carney said Obama would try to find ways to work around the “stalemate” in Congress to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.

The hands of the American folks!

During a brief photo-op with his Cabinet, Obama himself sidestepped a reporter’s question about how he would proceed without seeking new legislation.

“I’m sure we’ll have more opportunity to talk about this,” the president said.

Obama had called late Wednesday for tighter background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. He called for a “common sense” and repeated his support for the lapsed Assault Weapons Ban.

But he also acknowledged the difficult politics of the issue — especially in an election year — and asserted that he was a believer in individual gun rights.

Carney returned to the political problem on Thursday. “I think there is an issue about the stalemate in Congress,” the spokesman said at his daily briefing. “And there are things that we can do short of legislation and short of gun laws, as the President said, that can reduce violence in our society and, as he mentioned last night, in our urban centers.”

“I know he will continue to press the Department of Justice to try to enhance the enforcement of existing laws, try to further develop our background check system so that it prevents criminals and those who should not have weapons from getting them under existing law,” Carney said. “And he’ll continue to make sure that his administration is partnering with local law enforcement officials and government officials.”

Asked about reporting that suggests that the Colorado shooter violated no laws, and how even tighter background checks would prevent a similar tragedy in the future, Carney replied: “I don’t think the President ever suggested that the background check can stop every crime from occurring in America, even one as heinous as this.”

“But we do need to take a broader look at what we can do to reduce violence in America,” he said. “And it requires a multi-faceted approach that looks at this problem from a variety of angles, and that’s not just legislative and it’s not just about gun laws.”

More lies from Obama they want your guns if not why did Obama restrict one of USA battle rifles the M1 GRAND. The ones left over in South Korea? Make excellent hunting rifles!

Obama deportation proposal could cost more than $585M


Written by: Alicia A. Caldwell

FILE – In this June 15, 2012 file photo, President Barack Obama talks about granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington. The Obama administration’s new plan to grant temporary work permits to many young, illegal immigrants who otherwise could be deported may cost the government more than $585 million and require hiring hundreds of new federal employees to process more than 1 million anticipated requests, according to internal Homeland Security Department plans obtained by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s new plan to grant temporary work permits to many young, illegal immigrants who otherwise could be deported may cost more than $585 million and require hiring hundreds of new federal employees to process more than 1 million anticipated requests, according to internal documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The Homeland Security Department plans, marked “not for distribution,” describe steps that immigrants will need to take — including a $465 paperwork fee designed to offset the program’s cost — and how the government will manage it. Illegal immigrants can request permission to stay in the country under the plan by filing a document, “Request for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” and simultaneously apply for a work permit starting Aug. 15.


Under the new program, which President Barack Obama announced last month, eligible immigrants must have arrived in the U.S. before their 16th birthday, are 30 or younger, have been living here at least five years, are in school or graduated or served in the military.

They also must not have a criminal record or otherwise pose a safety threat. They can apply to stay in the country and be granted a work permit for two years, but they would not be granted citizenship. The internal government plans obtained by the AP provide the first estimates of costs, how many immigrants were expected to participate and how long it might take for them. It was not immediately clear whether or under which circumstances any immigrants would not be required to pay the $465 paperwork fee. The plans said there would be no waivers, but Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Congress last week that the government would grant waivers “in very deserving cases.” She said details were still being worked out.

“We anticipate that this will be a fee-driven process,” Napolitano said.

A spokesman for the Homeland Security Department, Peter Boogaard, said the plans obtained by the AP were “preliminary documents” and the process is still being worked out. Boogaard said processing immigrant applications under the program “will not use taxpayer dollars” because of the fees that will be collected.

Fee waivers could dramatically affect the government’s share of the cost. The plans said that, depending on how many applicants don’t pay, the government could lose between $19 million and $121 million. Republican critics pounced on that.

“By lowering the fee or waiving it altogether for illegal immigrants, those who play by the rules will face delays and large backlogs as attention is diverted to illegal immigrants,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas. “American taxpayers should not be forced to bail out illegal immigrants and President Obama’s fiscally irresponsible policies.”

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services estimated it could receive more than 1 million applications during the first year of the program, or more than 3,000 per day. It would cost between $467 million and $585 million to process applications in the first two years of the program, with revenues from fees paid by immigrants estimated at $484 million, according to the plans. That means the cost to the government could range from a gain of $16 million to a loss of more than $101 million.

The government estimated that as many as 890,000 immigrants in the first year would be immediately eligible to avoid deportation. The remaining 151,000 immigrants would likely be rejected as ineligible.

The plans estimated that the Homeland Security Department could need to hire more than 1,400 full-time employees, as well as contractors, to process the applications. Salaries were included in the agency’s estimates of total program costs.

Once immigrants submit their applications, it could take between two and 10 days for the Homeland Security Department to scan and file it. It could take up to four weeks longer to make an appointment for immigrants to submit their fingerprints and take photographs. A subsequent background check could take six more weeks, then three more months for the government to make its final decision before a work permit would be issued.

Napolitano said new information about the program should be made available by Aug. 1. She has said immigrants would generally not be detained by immigration authorities while their application is pending.


Alicia A. Caldwell can be reached on Twitter at


This is backdoor amnesty plain and simple. Can you say VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS?

Tax loophole costs billions


Posted: Apr 26, 2012 6:55 PM Updated: Jul 05, 2012 7:03 AM

By Bob Segall – bio


Millions of illegal immigrants are getting a bigger tax refund than you. Eyewitness News shows a massive tax loophole that provides billions of dollars in tax credits to undocumented workers and, in many cases, people who have never stepped foot in the United States. And you are paying for it!

Note: See all follow-up stories here.

INDIANAPOLIS – Inside his central Indiana office, a longtime tax consultant sits at his desk, shaking his head in disbelief.

“There is not a doubt in my mind there’s huge fraud taking place here,” he said, slowly flipping through the pages of a tax return.

The tax preparer does not want you to know his name for fear of reprisal, but he does want you to know about a nationwide problem with a huge price tag.

He came to 13 Investigates to blow the whistle.

“We’re talking about a multi-billion dollar fraud scheme here that’s taking place and no one is talking about it,” he said.

The scheme involves illegal immigrants — illegal immigrants who are filing tax returns.

How it works

The Internal Revenue Service says everyone who is employed in the United States – even those who are working here illegally – must report income and pay taxes. Of course, undocumented workers are not supposed to have a social security number. So for them to pay taxes, the IRS created what’s called an ITIN, an individual taxpayer identification number. A 9-digit ITIN number issued by the IRS provides both resident and nonresident aliens with a unique identification number that allows them to file tax returns.

While that may have seemed like a good idea, it’s now backfiring in a big way.

Each spring, at tax preparation offices all across the nation, many illegal immigrants are now eagerly filing tax returns to take advantage of a tax loophole, using their ITIN numbers to get huge refunds from the IRS.

The loophole is called the Additional Child Tax Credit. It’s a fully-refundable credit of up to $1000 per child, and it’s meant to help working families who have children living at home.

But 13 Investigates has found many undocumented workers are claiming the tax credit for kids who live in Mexico – lots of kids in Mexico.

“We’ve seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax forms,” the whistleblower told Eyewitness News. “The more you put on there, the more you get back.”

The whistleblower has thousands of examples, and he brought some of them to 13 Investigates. While identifying information such as names and addresses on the tax returns was redacted, it was still clear that the tax filers had received large tax refunds after claiming additional child tax credits for many dependents.

“Here’s a return right here: we’ve got a $10,3000 refund for nine nieces and nephews,” he said, pointing to the words “niece” and “nephew” listed on the tax forms nine separate times.

“We’re getting an $11,000 refund on this tax return. There’s seven nieces and nephews,” he said, pointing to another set of documents. “I can bring out stacks and stacks. It’s just so easy it’s ridiculous.”

20 kids = $30,000

WTHR spoke to several undocumented workers who confirmed it is easy.

They all agreed to talk with WTHR investigative reporter Bob Segall and a translator as long as WTHR agreed not to reveal their identity.

One of the workers, who was interviewed at his home in southern Indiana, admitted his address was used this year to file tax returns by four other undocumented workers who don’t even live there. Those four workers claimed 20 children live inside the one residence and, as a result, the IRS sent the illegal immigrants tax refunds totaling $29,608.

13 Investigates saw only one little girl who lives at that address (a small mobile home). We wondered about the 20 kids claimed as tax deductions?

“They don’t live here,” said the undocumented worker. “The other kids are in their country of origin, which is Mexico.”

He later explained none of the 20 children have ever visited the United States – let alone lived here.

So why should undocumented workers receive tax credits for children living in a foreign country, which is a violation of IRS tax rules?

“If the opportunity is there and they can give it to me, why not take advantage of it?” the worker said.

Other undocumented workers in Indiana told 13 Investigates the same thing. Their families are collecting tax refunds for children who do not live in this country. Several of the workers told WTHR they were told it was legal for them to claim the tax credit for a child who does not live in the United States.

IRS was repeatedly warned

“The magnitude of the problem has grown exponentially,” said Russell George, the United States Department of Treasury’s Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA).

And he says the IRS has known about the problem for years.

George has repeatedly warned the IRS that additional child tax credits are being abused by undocumented workers. In 2009, his office released an audit report that showed ITIN tax filers received about $1 billion in additional child tax credits. Last year, the inspector general released a new report showing the problem now costs American tax payers more than $4.2 billion.

“Keep in mind, we’re talking $4 billion per year,” he said. “It’s very troubling.”

What George finds even more troubling is the IRS has not taken action despite multiple warnings from the inspector general.

“Millions of people are seeking this tax credit who, we believe, are not entitled to it,” said the inspector general. “We have made recommendations to [IRS] as to how they could address this, and they have not taken sufficient action in our view to solve the problem.”

Other information obtained from the TIGTA audits include:

· Claims for additional child tax credits by ITIN filers have skyrocketed during the past decade, from $161 million in 2001 to $4.2 billion in tax year 2010.

· Undocumented workers filed 3.02 million tax returns in 2010. 72% of those returns (2.18 million) claimed the additional child tax credit.

· In 2010, the IRS owed undocumented workers more in claimed additional child tax credits than it collected from those workers in taxes.

Agency responds – sort of

What does the IRS have to say about all this?

The agency sent WTHR a statement, defending its policy of paying tax credits to illegal immigrants.

“The law has been clear for over a decade that eligibility for these credits does not depend on work authorization status or the type of taxpayer identification number used. Any suggestion that the IRS shouldn’t be paying out these credits under current law to ITIN holders is simply incorrect. The IRS administers the law impartially and applies it as it is written,” the statement said.

George disagrees with that position and believes the IRS should be doing more to prevent undocumented workers from getting billions in US tax dollars.

“The IRS is not doing something as simple as requesting sufficient documentation from people seeking this credit,” he said. “Once the money goes out the door, it’s nearly impossible for the IRS to get it back.”

Over the past month, WTHR has tried to ask the IRS more questions about its efforts to prevent abuse involving additional child tax credits.

Despite repeated phone calls, e-mails and a visit to IRS headquarters in Washington, the agency said none of its 100,000 employees had time to meet with 13 Investigates for an interview. An IRS spokeswoman said all staff were too busy because of the tax filing deadline in mid-April.

Apparently, the IRS doesn’t have time to respond to some tax preparers, either.

Last year, our whistleblower noticed dozens of undocumented workers had used phony documents and false income to claim tax credits. He reported all of it to the IRS.

“These were fraudulent, 100% fraudulent tax returns, but I got no response; absolutely none. We never heard a thing,” he said. “To me, it’s clear the IRS is letting this happen.”

The IRS tells WTHR it can do nothing to change the current system unless it gets permission from Congress. In other words, according to the IRS, closing the loophole would require lawmakers to pass a new law specifically excluding illegal immigrants from claiming additional child tax credits.

The big questions now: Is Congress willing to do that?

Full statement to WTHR from the Internal Revenue Service

The law has been clear for over a decade that eligibility for these credits does not depend on work authorization status or the type of taxpayer identification number used. Any suggestion that the IRS shouldn’t be paying out these credits under current law to ITIN holders is simply incorrect. The IRS administers the law impartially and applies it as it is written. If the law were changed, the IRS would change its programs accordingly. The IRS disagrees with TIGTA’s recommendation on requiring additional documentation to verify child credit claims. As TIGTA acknowledges in this report, the IRS does not currently have the legal authority to verify and disallow the Child Tax Credit and the Additional Child Tax Credit during return processing simply because of the lack of documentation. The IRS has procedures in place specifically for the evaluation of questionable credit claims early in the processing stream and prior to issuance of a refund. The IRS continues to work to refine and improve our processes.

 This is one reason we are in financial troubles because the federal government is useless in doing their job just fat lazy!

Don’t Be Fooled, The Obama Unemployment Rate Is 11%

BY:  Peter Ferrara, Contributor


US President Barack Obama speaks to the press ...

Image by AFP via @daylife

When Barack Obama entered office in January, 2009, the labor force participation rate was 65.7%, meaning nearly two-thirds of working age Americans were working or looking for work.

When the recession supposedly officially ended in June, 2009, the labor force participation rate was still 65.7%.

In the latest, much celebrated, unemployment report, the labor force participation rate had plummeted to 63.7%, the most rapid decline in U.S. history.  That means that under President Obama nearly 5 million Americans have fled the workforce in hopeless despair.

The trick is that when those 5 million are not counted as in the work force, they are not counted as unemployed either.  They may desperately need and want jobs.  They may be in poverty, as many undoubtedly are, with America suffering today more people in poverty than in the entire half century the Census Bureau has been counting poverty.  But they are not even counted in that 8.3% unemployment rate that Obama and his media cheerleaders were so tirelessly celebrating last week.

If they were counted, the unemployment rate today would be a far more realistic 11%, better reflecting the suffering in the real economy under Obamanomics.

Just last month, while the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported finding 243,000 new jobs, they also reported in the same release that an additional 1.2 million workers had dropped out of the work force altogether, giving up hope under Obama.  If labor force participation had remained the same in January, 2012 just as it was the month before in December, 2011, the unemployment rate would have risen to 8.7% in January rather than supposedly declining to 8.3% as reported.

Some additional facts highlight how misleading the reported unemployment rate, and the political rhetoric around it, can be.  One year ago, 99 million Americans were unemployed or otherwise not working, and the unemployment rate was 9.1%.  Today, while the reported unemployment rate is 8.3%, over 100 million Americans are unemployed or otherwise not working.

In January, 2009, 11.6 million Americans were unemployed, with 23% of those unemployed for more than 6 months.  By January, 2012, 12.8 million were unemployed, with 43% of those out of work more than 6 months.

At the official end of the recession in June, 2009, America was 12.6 million jobs short of full employment.  By January, 2012, we were 15.2 million jobs short, falling behind by another 244,000 in that month alone.

The time has come to begin to raise questions about the precipitous decline in the labor force assumed by BLS.  Are the career bureaucrats there partial to President Obama, and favorable towards promoting his political chances for reelection?  Or has the Obama Administration placed someone in a leadership slot over at the BLS or the unemployment statistics branch that is imposing this assumed sharp decline?  Because of the oddness of this record setting decline, coinciding with President Obama’s ascension to office, these questions bear further investigation.

But even with the steep decline in labor force participation, the BLS report for January still shows some horrific numbers more than 4 years after the start of the recession.  Besides the 12.8 million unemployed, another 8.2 million were “employed part time for economic reasons.”  The BLS explains that “These individuals were working part-time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.”

Another 2.8 million “wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months,” but “were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the four weeks preceding the survey.”

That makes nearly 24 million Americans unemployed or underemployed.  The unemployment rate in January counting them is not 11%, but 15.1% as reported by the BLS, a depression era level of unemployment.

For blacks, the unemployment rate was still 13.6%, even assuming another 350,000 African Americans dropping out of the labor force in January alone.  For Hispanics, 650,000 were assumed to drop out of the work force in January alone, but the Hispanic unemployment rate was still in double digits at 10.5%.

For teenagers, the unemployment rate was still 23.2%, even though an additional 400,000 were assumed to have dropped out of the work force in January alone.  For black teenagers, the unemployment rate was still nearly 40%.

Media and political discussions of Obama’s economic record suffer from at least two fundamental fallacies.  One is that Obama’s record is to be measured by the progress made since the trough of the recession.  Since that trough was so bad, of course the period since the trough is going to show some marked improvement.  More important is how does that improvement compare to the prior peak before the recession?  Have we caught up yet, and then continued to grow beyond that prior peak?

For example, the stock market may be said to have rebounded sharply from its bottom at the trough of the recession.  But the Dow and other market measures still have not climbed back to their peaks before the last recession, more than four years after the recession started.  Similarly, while the population has continued to grow, we are still more than 5 million jobs below the peak before the last recession.

The second fallacy is that Obama’s economic performance today is to be measured compared to performance at the trough of the recession.  Of course more than four years after the recession started, the economy is going to be doing better today than it was at the worst of the downturn.  That is why it is called a business cycle, the downs are naturally followed by ups in a free market economy.  The question is how does the recovery compare to prior recoveries from steep recessions?

For example, while Obama and his media cheerleaders crow about nearly 250,000 jobs created last month, the most in the entire Obama Presidency, in some months during the Reagan recovery over 1 million jobs were created.  In September, 1983, the rapidly recovering Reagan economy produced 1.1 million new jobs in that month alone.

Moreover, since the Great Depression, and before this last recession, recessions in America have lasted an average of 10 months, with the longest previously being 16 months.  But here we are today 50 months after the recession started, and the economy is just beginning to show some signs of life.  That goes under the category of way too little, way too late.

Obama apologists can’t say this poor performance of retrograde Keynesian doctrine was because the recession was so bad.  That is because in the American historical record the steeper the recession the stronger the recovery.  Based on this historical record, we should be nearing the end of the second year of a booming recovery by now.

Compare Obama’s recovery 2.5 years after the recession officially ended with the first 2.5 years of the Reagan recovery.  By that point, Reagan’s recovery had created 8 million new jobs, the unemployment rate had fallen by 3.6 percentage points, real wages and incomes were jumping, and poverty had reversed an upsurge started under Carter, beginning a long term decline.  In the second year of the Reagan recovery, real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.

In contrast, under Obama’s non-recovery America has suffered the longest period of unemployment this high since the Great Depression, with record numbers fleeing the work force in despair.  More than four years after the recession started, we are still over 5 million jobs below the peak before the recession. Real median family income has fallen by 10%, all the way back to 1996 levels.  More Americans are in poverty today than at any time since Census began keeping poverty records over 50 years ago.  Last year, real economic growth totaled 1.7%.

When President Obama entered office in January, 2009, the recession was already in its 13th month.  His responsibility was to manage a timely, robust recovery to get America back on track again.  What he gave us instead, with his outdated, throwback, Keynesian economics, is the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.  A recovery now, way too little, way too late, cannot go back and change that record.  For that record of American suffering and despair, the voters will now hold Obama accountable.

 Obama is Pathetic as a president never has been one.

Illegals To Get Food Stamps Via Joint U.S.D.A. – Mexico Program


posted on July 20, 2012 by Da Tagliare

 First the Federal government offers free medical and education benefits to illegal aliens, all at the cost to U.S. taxpayers.  Now, you can add food stamps to the list of free benefits they will be receiving.

In an agreement that was originally signed in 2004 between then U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman and Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs Luis Ernesto Derbez Bautista, both governments will provide education and guidance to help Mexican nationals living and working in the U.S. to receive help obtaining food stamps and other programs.

On the U.S.D.A. website, Reaching Low-Income Hispanics With Nutritional Assistance, it states three ways in which they plan in getting more aid and benefits to Hispanics living and working in the U.S.  Those three ways are: 1) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) which replaced food stamps; 2) Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC); 3) Child Nutrition Programs.

Further down in the same U.S.D.A. document it reads:

“Partnering with Mexico. USDA and the government of Mexico have entered into a partnership to help educate eligible Mexican nationals living in the United States about available nutrition assistance. Mexico will help disseminate this information through its
embassy and network of approximately 50 consular offices.”

Keep reading the U.S.D.A. document to see just how far the government is going to reach out to Hispanics.  The one thing I noticed is that it does not specify if the Mexican nationals living and working in the U.S. are legal or illegal, but you can bet your tax dollars that if the Mexican government is going to be providing this information through 50 offices to their people heading to the U.S. that a significant number of them will not be coming legally.

I also noticed that this program was first launched in 2004 under President George W. Bush.  Veneman, who signed the agreement of the U.S. is currently serving as the executive director of UNICEF, which should explain why she has such liberal views as to disregard the difference between taking care of legal citizens and providing handouts for illegal aliens.

At least one current politician is wanting more information about the U.S. – Mexican partnership.  Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has asked the current U.S.D.A. Secretary, Tom Vilsack for more documents relating to the partnership.  Sessions has been pushing to tighten the standards under which people receive aid from the SNAP program.  In speaking on the matter, Sessions stated:

“It’s a very disturbing policy, gone on for some years, and it raises very serious questions about American immigration policy as well as fiscal policy.  Let’s get back to the fundamentals. What happened with the ‘96 welfare reform was to say that if you want to come to America you come legally, you assert you’re not coming for welfare benefits but you’re coming to work or otherwise be independent. There is no logic behind an immigration policy that would encourage immigrants who can’t successfully operate within this society.”

“An immigration policy should seek to bring people to the United States who will be able to function independently without government subsidies.  We’ve got millions of people that want to come here, millions of people who would be able to perform without a subsidy, so we need to be selecting those people.”

Sessions also says that there is a problem with the way many states operate welfare type programs.  In a number of instances, they simply accept the word of the applicant that they are legally eligible to receive the aid.  Some states use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to verify legal status, but others do not.

I agree with Sen. Sessions in that the United States hands out way too much help to people coming to the U.S., especially those that come illegally.  Most people that I know who legally immigrated to the U.S. had to show proof that they had the means to support themselves or had a sponsor stating that they would assume that responsibility.  I believe the same should be true for all people immigrating and for those that can’t provide that proof, I would turn them around and send them back on their merry way.

Our country is financially bleeding to death from many different wounds.  Some of those wounds have been inflicted by giving handouts to illegal aliens.  If we want to stop the bleeding, we have to stop the problems that are causing it.  That means much tighter border security, no more handouts for non-U.S. citizens and stronger enforcement of immigration laws.  Once we stop the bleeding from these wounds, we can turn our focus to other wounds in hopes of saving the patient – the United States of America.

Read more:

This has to be stopped. I understand them wanting to come here but we should be putting the burden back on Mexico and making them pay for their people or to change the government in Mexico!

New Obama projects to boost Kenya power companies


Taxpayers to fund contractor trip to Africa

Published: 21 hours ago

author-image by Steve PeacockEmail | Archive

Steve Peacock is a freelance writer and photographer whose work has appeared in the Tampa Tribune, WND, Drug Enforcement Report, Corrections Journal and the Revered Review. He also is a teacher, storyteller, actor and poet.


Billions of U.S. and international-donor dollars in recent years have been delivered to Kenya and Tanzania to modernize their national electrical systems, but that isn’t stopping the Obama administration from tapping the U.S. Treasury for more cash to send to his friends overseas.

Indeed, WND has discovered that a presidential agency is funding new exploratory missions benefiting Kenya state-owned energy companies as well as U.S. corporate behemoths such as GE Energy and Symbion.

Among the project beneficiaries is Geothermal Development Company,or GDC, a self-described “100 percent state-owned company, formed by the government of Kenya as a special purpose vehicle to fast track the development of geothermal resources in the country.”GDC Managing Director Silas Simiyu, speaking at a United Nations University dinner outside Nairobi, pointed out in 2009 that geothermal energy “is at the core of economic strategy” of Prime Minister Raila Odinga. Accompanied by Hiroyuki Hino – Odinga’s economic adviser – Simiyu also said geothermal “is a winner for Kenya’s energy needs” and “an answer to global warming.”

Odinga, a fellow Luo tribesman to President Barack Obama’s family, is “spearheading Kenya’s green energy development,” the Financial Times of London said in last month’s special report “Africa & the Green Economy.”

The Definitional Mission for Kenya and Tanzania Electricity Sector project is one of the latest initiatives of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, an independent White House entity. The project follows WND’s recent discovery that federal spending in Kenya, particularly by the U.S. Agency for International Development, has grown so voluminous that the government needs to hire contractors simply to support endeavors carried out by other vendors.

Similarly, the Obama administration is launching a propaganda machine to mold how the media portray U.S. operations in Kenya – a plan that a WND story recently exposed. WND likewise discovered the administration’s attempted cover up of that plan following the initial investigative report.

The Kenya-Tanzania definitional mission, or DM, will help lay the groundwork for future assistance given to the electricity-generation sectors of the two nations. USTDA says the DM – for which it will pay about $63,000 for a contractor trip to Africa and a report on the findings – is a worthwhile investment, as it will generate business for U.S. companies.

One of the companies benefiting from the taxpayer-funded venture is GE Energy, which last year announced it is aiming for $60 billion in sales by 2014 and $100 billion by 2020.

Additionally, the DM simply is a prerequisite to justifying the funding of future “technical assistance or other trade capacity building activity(ies),” according to a request for proposals that USTDA recently released.

The RFP points out that Kenya Power “recently received $100 million from the World Bank to develop its national electricity grid.”

“In addition, the African Development Bank has approved over $200 million for the development of an interconnection between Kenya and Ethiopia,” the RFP says.

The development of “renewable energy solutions” is necessary, the RFP states, because “Kenya’s electricity grid is relatively small” and requires expertise to oversee “investment and build-out.” Much of this geothermal development is taking place in and around a massive shield volcano known as the Menengai Crater, located in the Great Rift Valley.

GDC in 2010 separately received a $641,000 USTDA grant for employee training and to help the company establish “evaluation criteria for potential private sector investment partners.”

GDC, Kenya Power and other government-owned companies such as KenGen and the Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. again “have expressed interest in technical assistance” from the U.S. GDC specifically requests additional U.S. funds to help it develop “power purchase agreements with independent power producers.”

USTDA says it is willing to accommodate the requests because the DM will “capitalize on these recent investments to create opportunities for U.S. companies.”

Tanzania likewise has received significant international donor aid, including a $698 million Millennium Challenge Compact grant from the U.S. in 2008. Tanzania partly used that aid to construct a power plant in Dar es Salaam as well as to deploy overhead power lines.

Symbion Power, a Washington, D.C.-based engineering and construction firm, successfully developed that project, the RFP said. The company now seeks help in order to continue its relationship with Tanzania, something it can accomplish “by developing power plants in the south of the country, and further improving the country’s national grid.”

The chairman of Symbion Power Africa is former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a central figure in the African yellowcake uranium controversy during the U.S. invasion of Iraq under President George W. Bush.

GE Energy also has expressed interest in “developing off-grid and other power solutions for Tanzania,” and therefore would benefit from USTDA assistance. According to the RFP, the definitional mission contractor will seek ways for USTDA “to support the further development of these relationships, as well as to build on our recently completed technical assistance activity with Tanzania’s electricity sector regulator.”

USTDA in June issued a separate RFP that would send contractors on a regional DM, exploring largely the same geothermal opportunities as the new DM but extending its reach from Kenya to Rwanda.

That project, too, will benefit the state-owned GDC, the RFP said.

The links between Odinga and Obama have been documented thoroughly.

Wayne Madsen, author of the recently released “The Manufacturing of a President: The CIA’s Insertion of Barack H. Obama into the White House,” told WND, “Obama clearly is favoring Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, his distant cousin who was propelled into power by Soros money into the Orange Movement.”

WND also reported recently on a tell-all book by a former associate that targets Odinga.

Former top adviser Miguna Miguna provided to WND senior staff reporter Jerome R. Corsi an 800-page manuscript of the book, which was scheduled to be published in Kenya.

Odinga was appointed prime minister in April 2008 only after he lost the December 2007 presidential election. The decision to create the extra-constitutional “co-head of state” position of prime minister for Odinga was devised by Obama, former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and then-U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The purpose was to stop the wave of tribal rioting and machete-wielding violence against members of the rival Kiduyu tribe in January and February 2008 that arose as Luo members charged their candidate was a victim of voter fraud.

The tribal violence ultimately left 1,000 dead and about a half-million homeless. Some 800 Christian churches were destroyed or burned to the ground, without a single mosque being damaged.

WND reported the existence of a strategy document developed by Obama and Odinga during Obama’s 2006 senatorial “fact-finding” trip to Kenya. It called for Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement to exploit tribal tensions should Odinga lose the 2007 presidential challenge, as a means of keeping alive his aspiration to be Kenyan head of state.

During the 2006 trip, Obama campaigned so openly for Odinga that Kenyan government spokesman Alfred Mutua went on Kenyan television on behalf of Kenyan President Kibaki to object that Obama was meddling inappropriately in Kenyan politics, as WND reported.

WND further reported documentary evidence that Obama contributed nearly $1 million to the ODM in support of Odinga’s 2007 presidential campaign. An ODM campaign accounting document that listed the contribution as coming from “Friends of Senator BO.”



by JOEL B. POLLAK 18 Jul 2012, 6:09 AM PDT

As the Obama campaign and the media continue to press Mitt Romney to release more of his tax returns, and to suggest–without a shred of evidence–that he is a “felon,” it is worth noting how much critical information Barack Obama has withheld from view–both as a candidate in 2008, and during his term in office. Here is a Breitbart News top ten list of things that Obama has refused to release (a complete list would fill volumes):
10. State senate papers. In the 2008 primary, Obama criticized Hillary Clinton for not releasing papers from her eight years time as First Lady–but failed to produce any papers from his eight years in Springfield. “They could have been thrown out,” he said.
9. Academic transcripts. His supposed academic brilliance was a major selling point, but Obama (by his own admission) was a mediocre student. His GPA at Occidental was a B-plus at best, and his entering class at Columbia was weak. Can he prove his merit?
8. Book proposal. Obama’s literary agent claimed he was “born in Kenya”–for sixteen years. His original book proposal exists–biographer David Maraniss refers to it–and seems to have embellished other key details of his life. Yet it has never been released.
7. Medical records. In 2000, and again (briefly) in 2008, GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain released thousands of pages of his medical records. Obama, who had abused drugs and continued smoking, merely provided a one-page doctor’s note.
6. Small-dollar donors. In 2008, the McCain campaign released the names of donors who had contributed less than $200, though it was not required to do so. But the Obama campaign refused, amidst accusations it had accepted illegal foreign contributions.
5. The Khalidi tape. In 2003, Obama attended a party for his good friend, the radical Palestinian academic Rashid Khalidi. The event featured incendiary anti-Israel rhetoric. The LA Times broke the story, but has refused to release the tape–and so has Obama.
4. The real White House guest list. Touting its transparency, the Obama White House released its guest logs–but kept many visits secret, and moved meetings with lobbyists off-site. It also refused to confirm the identities of visitors like Bertha Lewis of ACORN.
3. Countless FOIA requests. The Obama administration has been described as “the worst” ever in complying with Freedom of Information Act requests for documents. It has also punished whistleblowers like David Walpin, who exposed cronyism in Americorps.
2. Health reform negotiations. Candidate Obama promised that health care reform negotiations would be televised on C-SPAN. Instead, there were back-room deals woth millions with lobbyists and legislators–the details of which are only beginning to emerge.
1. Fast and Furious documents. After months of stonewalling Congress, Attorney General Eric Holder asked President Obama to use executive privilege to conceal thousands of documents related to the deadly scandal–and Obama did just that.
In addition to the above, Obama and his campaign have lied about many facts about his past–his membership in the New Party; his extensive connections with ACORN; and his continued relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, among other examples. Obama’s own memoir is filled with fabrications. And now he is lying about his opponent’s honorable record in business. He–and the media–have no shame.


                                  Freedom From War

The United States Program
for General and Complete
Disarmament in a Peaceful



Disarmament Series 5
Released September 1961

Office of Public Services

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C. – Price 15 cents


The revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences has produced a crisis in human history. In order to overcome the danger of nuclear war now confronting mankind, the United States has introduced at the Sixteenth General Assembly of the United Nations a Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.

This new program provides for the progressive reduction of the war-making capabilities of nations and the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions to settle disputes and maintain the peace. It sets forth a series of comprehensive measures which can and should be taken in order to bring about a world in which there will be freedom from war and security for all states. It is based on three principles deemed essential to the achievement of practical progress in the disarmament field:

First, there must be immediate disarmament action:

A strenuous and uninterrupted effort must be made toward the goal of general and complete disarmament; at the same time, it is important that specific measures be put into effect as soon as possible.

Second, all disarmament obligations must be subject to effective international controls:

The control organization must have the manpower, facilities, and effectiveness to assure that limitations or reductions take place as agreed. It must also be able to certify to all states that retained forces and armaments do not exceed those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process.

Third, adequate peace-keeping machinery must be established:

There is an inseparable relationship between the scaling down of national armaments on the one hand and the building up of international peace-keeping machinery and institutions on the other. Nations are unlikely to shed their means of self-protection in the absence of alternative ways to safeguard their legitimate interests. This can only be achieved through the progressive strengthening of international institutions under the United Nations and by creating a United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.


There follows a summary of the principal provisions of the United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. The full text of the program is contained in an appendix to this pamphlet.





The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.

In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts:

  • The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
  • The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
  • The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;
  • The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.


The negotiating states are called upon to develop the program into a detailed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved. To this end, they are to seek the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date. At the same time, and without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program, they are to seek agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form part of the total program.


The program sets forth a series of general principles to guide the negotiating states in their work. These make clear that:

  • As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations must be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of disputes;
  • Disarmament must proceed as rapidly as possible, until it is completed, in stages containing balanced, phased, and safeguarded measures;
  • Each measure and stage should be carried out in an agreed period of time, with transition from one stage to the next to take place as soon as all measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and verified and as soon as necessary arrangements for verification of the next stage have been made;
  • Inspection and verification must establish both that nations carry out scheduled limitations or reductions and that they do not retain armed forces and armaments in excess of those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process; and
  • Disarmament must take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state.


The program provides for progressive disarmament steps to take place in three stages and for the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions.


The first stage contains measures which would significantly reduce the capabilities of nations to wage aggressive war. Implementation of this stage would mean that:

  • The nuclear threat would be reduced:
    All states would have adhered to a treaty effectively prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons.
    The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons would be stopped and quantities of such materials from past production would be converted to non-weapons uses.
    States owning nuclear weapons would not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and would not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture.
    States not owning nuclear weapons would not manufacture them or attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states.
    A Commission of Experts would be established to report on the feasibility and means for the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles.
  • Strategic delivery vehicles would be reduced:
    Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles of specified categories and weapons designed to counter such vehicles would be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps; their production would be discontinued or limited; their testing would be limited or halted.
  • Arms and armed forces would be reduced:
    The armed forces of the United States and the Soviet Union would be limited to 2.1 million men each (with appropriate levels not exceeding that amount for other militarily significant states); levels of armaments would be correspondingly reduced and their production would be limited.
    An Experts Commission would be established to examine and report on the feasibility and means of accomplishing verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of all chemical, biological and radiological weapons.
  • Peaceful use of outer space would be promoted:
    The placing in orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons capable of producing mass destruction would be prohibited.
    States would give advance notification of space vehicle and missile launchings.
  • U.N. peace-keeping powers would be strengthened:
    Measures would be taken to develop and strengthen United Nations arrangements for arbitration, for the development of international law, and for the establishment in Stage II of a permanent U.N. Peace Force.
  • An International Disarmament Organization would be established for effective verification of the disarmament program:
    Its functions would be expanded progressively as disarmament proceeds.
    It would certify to all states that agreed reductions have taken place and that retained forces and armaments do not exceed permitted levels.
    It would determine the transition from one stage to the next.
  • States would be committed to other measures to reduce international tension and to protect against the chance of war by accident, miscalculation, or surprise attack:
    States would be committed to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter and to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country.
    A U.N. peace observation group would be available to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace.
    States would be committed to give advance notice of major military movements which might cause alarm; observation posts would be established to report on concentrations and movements of military forces.


The second stage contains a series of measures which would bring within sight a world in which there would be freedom from war. Implementation of all measures in the second stage would mean:

  • Further substantial reductions in the armed forces, armaments, and military establishments of states, including strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and countering weapons;
  • Further development of methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes under the United Nations;
  • Establishment of a permanent international peace force within the United Nations;
  • Depending on the findings of an Experts Commission, a halt in the production of chemical, bacteriological and radiological weapons and a reduction of existing stocks or their conversion to peaceful uses;
  • On the basis of the findings of an Experts Commission, a reduction of stocks of nuclear weapons;
  • The dismantling or the conversion to peaceful uses of certain military bases and facilities wherever located; and
  • The strengthening and enlargement of the International Disarmament Organization to enable it to verify the steps taken in Stage II and to determine the transition to Stage III.


During the third stage of the program, the states of the world, building on the experience and confidence gained in successfully implementing the measures of the first two stages, would take final steps toward the goal of a world in which:

  • States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force.
  • The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.
  • The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.
  • The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.




The Nations of the world,
Conscious of the crisis in human history produced by the revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences;
Determined to save present and succeeding generations from the scourge of war and the dangers and burdens of the arms race and to create conditions in which all peoples can strive freely and peacefully to fulfill their basic aspirations;
Declare their goal to be: A free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world where adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations; a world where there shall be a permanent state of general and complete disarmament under effective international control and where the resources of nations shall be devoted to man’s material, cultural, and spiritual advance;
Set forth as the objectives of a program of general and complete disarmament in a peaceful world:
(a) The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
(b) The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
(c) The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to ensure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations;
(d) The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
Call on the negotiating states:
(a) To develop the outline program set forth below into an agreed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved;
(b) To this end to seek to attain the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date;
(c) Also to seek — without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program — agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form a part of that program.
Affirm that disarmament negotiations should be guided by the following principles:
(a) Disarmament shall take place as rapidly as possible until it is completed in stages containing balanced, phased and safeguarded measures, with each measure and stage to be carried out in an agreed period of time.
(b) Compliance with all disarmament obligations shall be effectively verified from their entry into force. Verification arrangements shall be instituted progressively and in such a manner as to verify not only that agreed limitations or reductions take place but also that retained armed forces and armaments do not exceed agreed levels at any stage.
(c) Disarmament shall take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state, whether or not a party to an international agreement or treaty.
(d) As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations shall be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of differences as well as to facilitate the development of international cooperation in common tasks for the benefit of mankind.
(e) Transition from one stage of disarmament to the next shall take place as soon as all the measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and effective verification is continuing and as soon as the arrangements that have been agreed to be necessary for the next stage have been instituted.
Agree upon the following outline program for achieving general and complete disarmament:


A. To Establish an International Disarmament Organization:
(a) An International Disarmament Organization (IDO) shall be established within the framework of the United Nations upon entry into force of the agreement. Its functions shall be expanded progressively as required for the effective verification of the disarmament program.
(b) The IDO shall have: (1) a General Conference of all the parties; (2) a Commission consisting of representatives of all the major powers as permanent members and certain other states on a rotating basis; and (3) an Administrator who will administer the Organization subject to the direction of the Commission and who will have the authority, staff, and finances adequate to assure effective impartial implementation of the functions of the Organization.
(c) The IDO shall: (1) ensure compliance with the obligations undertaken by verifying the execution of measures agreed upon; (2) assist the states in developing the details of agreed further verification and disarmament measures; (3) provide for the establishment of such bodies as may be necessary for working out the details of further measures provided for in the program and for such other expert study groups as may be required to give continuous study to the problems of disarmament; (4) receive reports on the progress of disarmament and verification arrangements and determine the transition from one stage to the next.

B. To Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments:
(a) Force levels shall be limited to 2.1 million each for the U.S. and U.S.S.R. and to appropriate levels not exceeding 2.1 million each for all other militarily significant states. Reductions to the agreed levels will proceed by equitable, proportionate, and verified steps.
(b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reductions shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the states party to the agreement have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
(c) The production of agreed types of armaments shall be limited.
(d) A Chemical, Biological, Radiological (CBR) Experts Commission shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of CBR weapons stockpiles and the halting of their production.

C. To Contain and Reduce the Nuclear Threat:
(a) States that have not acceded to a treaty effectively prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons shall do so.
(b) The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons shall be stopped.
(c) Upon the cessation of production of fissionable materials for use in weapons, agreed initial quantities of fissionable materials from past production shall be transferred to non-weapons purposes.
(d) Any fissionable materials transferred between countries for peaceful uses of nuclear energy shall be subject to appropriate safeguards to be developed in agreement with the IAEA.
(e) States owning nuclear weapons shall not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and shall not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture. States not owning nuclear weapons shall not manufacture such weapons, attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states, or seek or receive information or materials necessary for their manufacture.
(f) A Nuclear Experts Commission consisting of representatives of the nuclear states shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles.

D. To Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles:
(a) Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles in specified categories and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished in each step by transfers to depots supervised by the IDO of vehicles that are in excess of levels agreed upon for each step. At specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the vehicles that have been placed under supervision of the IDO shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
(b) Production of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be discontinued or limited.
(c) Testing of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be limited or halted.

E. To Promote the Peaceful Use of Outer Space:
(a) The placing into orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons capable c,f producing mass destruction shall be prohibited.
(b) States shall give advance notification to participating states and to the IDO of launchings of space vehicles and missiles, together with the track of the vehicle.

F. To Reduce the Risks of War by Accident, Miscalculation, and Surprise Attack:
(a) States shall give advance notification to the participating states and to the IDO of major military movements and maneuvers, on a scale as may be agreed, which might give rise to misinterpretation or cause alarm and induce countermeasures. The notification shall include the geographic areas to be used and the nature, scale and time span of the event.
(b) There shall be established observation posts at such locations as major ports, railway centers, motor highways, and air bases to report on concentrations and movements of military forces.
(c) There shall also be established such additional inspection arrangements to reduce the danger of surprise attack as may be agreed.
(d) An international commission shall be established immediately within the IDO to examine and make recommendations on the possibility of further measures to reduce the risks of nuclear war by accident, miscalculation, or failure of communication.

G. To Keep the Peace:
(a) States shall reaffirm their obligations under the U.N. Charter to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force–including nuclear, conventional, or CBR–contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter.
(b) States shall agree to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country.
(c) States shall use all appropriate processes for the peaceful settlement of disputes and shall seek within the United Nations further arrangements for the peaceful settlement of international disputes and for the codification and progressive development of international law.
(d) States shall develop arrangements in Stage I for the establishment in Stage II of a U.N. Peace Force.
(e) A U.N. peace observation group shall be staffed with a standing cadre of observers who could be dispatched to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace.


A. International Disarmament Organization:
The powers and responsibilities of the IDO shall be progressively enlarged in order to give it the capabilities to verify the measures undertaken in Stage II.

B. To Further Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments:
(a) Levels of forces for the U.S., U.S.S.R., and other militarily significant states shall be further reduced by substantial amounts to agreed levels in equitable and balanced steps.
(b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be further reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage II reduction process, the parties have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
(c) There shall be further agreed restrictions on the production of armaments.
(d) Agreed military bases and facilities wherever they are located shall be dismantled or converted to peaceful uses.
(e) Depending upon the findings of the Experts Commission on CBR weapons, the production of CBR weapons shall be halted, existing stocks progressively reduced, and the resulting excess quantities destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.

C. To Further Reduce the Nuclear Threat:
Stocks of nuclear weapons shall be progressively reduced to the minimum levels which can be agreed upon as a result of the findings of the Nuclear Experts Commission; the resulting excess of fissionable material shall be transferred to peaceful purposes.

D. To Further Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles:
Further reductions in the stocks of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure outlined in Stage I.

E. To Keep the Peace:
During Stage II, states shall develop further the peace-keeping processes of the United Nations, to the end that the United Nations can effectively in Stage III deter or suppress any threat or use of force in violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations:
(a) States shall agree upon strengthening the structure, authority, and operation of the United Nations so as to assure that the United Nations will be able effectively to protect states against threats to or breaches of the peace.
(b) The U.N. Peace Force shall be established and progressively strengthened.
(c) States shall also agree upon further improvements and developments in rules of international conduct and in processes for peaceful settlement of disputes and differences.


By the time Stage II has been completed, the confidence produced through a verified disarmament program, the acceptance of rules of peaceful international behavior, and the development of strengthened international peace-keeping processes within the framework of the U.N. should have reached a point where the states of the world can move forward to Stage III. In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled according to the agreed principles of international conduct.

The progressive steps to be taken during the final phase of the disarmament program would be directed toward the attainment of a world in which:
(a) States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N Peace Force.
(b) The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.
(c) The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.
(d) The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.


[end of document]

N Arms Transfer Treaty (ATT) on Small Arms: Gun Grab Gradualism

Written BY: Thomas R. Eddlem

New American
July 17, 2012

The United Nations is polishing up a global Arms Transfer Treaty (ATT) this month in a New York convention that would create a global registry of private ownership of firearms. This treaty — which would also mandate creation of a national collection agency for those guns and is contrary to the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment — has the long-standing and enthusiastic backing of the Obama State Department, headed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms,” Hillary Clinton noted as early as October 14, 2009. Clinton boasted that “the United States regularly engages other states to raise their standards and to prohibit the transfer or transshipment of capabilities to rogue states, terrorist groups, and groups seeking to unsettle regions.” Of course, that speech was delivered at the same time the Obama administration was transferring some 2,000 small arms to Mexican drug gangs in the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal.

The State Department website nevertheless absurdly continues to boast that “The United States has in place an extensive and rigorous system of controls that most agree is the ‘gold standard’ of export controls for arms transfers.”

In view of such obviously false public statements, one may question the sincerity of Obama State Department promises about “redlines” to the UN ATT, which supposedly protect the Second Amendment: “The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld. There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution. There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.” The Obama State Department also promises “There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.”

So America’s Second Amendment rights are safe, right? Hardly.

The draft of the treaty prepared earlier this year by the UN Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) explains that the treaty is aimed at crime control as well as rogue militias in developing nations:The majority of conflict deaths are caused by the use of small arms, and civilian populations bear the brunt of armed conflict more than ever. Also, small arms are the dominant tools of criminal violence.

The PrepCom report of February 2012 — despite protestations by the Hillary Clinton’s minions — is not limited merely to international transfer of firearms. The draft treaty covers “transfers” as well as imports and exports of firearms:

The international transactions or activities covered by this Treaty include those listed below and defined in Annex A:

(a) Import;

(b) Export;

(c) Transfer…

In this matter, the 2012 conference is merely following the goals of the 2001 UN Programme of Actionon small arms, which required national gun registries and collection agencies for those guns once they’ve been registered. The 2001 Programme of Action requires nations:

To ensure that comprehensive and accurate records are kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light weapons under their jurisdiction. These records should be organized and maintained in such a way as to ensure that accurate information can be promptly retrieved and collated by competent national authorities.

To develop and implement, where possible, effective disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes, including the effective collection, control, storage and destruction of small arms and light weapons…

The UN is still seeking this kind of broad control over private firearms ownership, and UN General Assembly resolution 66/47, adopted December 2, 2011 in advance of this month’s conference that it seeks to ban “The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects.” [Emphasis added]

Moreover, the 2012 PrepCom report uses broad bans on any transfer of firearms:

A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional arms if there is a substantial risk that those conventional arms would: Be used in a manner that would seriously undermine peace and security or provoke, prolong or aggravate internal, regional, subregional or international instability.

Some 56 or more U.S. senators have written a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton opposing the UN global gun registry, according to the National Rifle Association. Senatorial opposition began with a July 26, 2011 letter claiming that “the establishment of any sort of international gun registry that could impede upon the privacy rights of law-abiding gun owners is a non-starter.”

The U.S. State Department already has a State Department Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement that could be used as a control agency for domestic controls on firearms transfers.

The State Department policy on Conventional Weapons Destruction suggests: “The proliferation of illicit conventional weapons, including small arms and light weapons (SA/LW), in regions of the world suffering from political instability and violent conflict has proven a major obstacle to peace, economic development, and efforts to rebuild war-torn societies. In places like Afghanistan, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, and Colombia, thousands of innocent civilians have been killed and tens of thousands more displaced by ethnic and civil conflicts perpetuated in large part by easy access to illicit conventional weapons, particularly SA/LW.”

Many of the countries listed by State Department officials are the very nations that most need “illicit” small arms to fight back against genocidal governments. “Illicit” is the new globalist jargon for “illegal,” though in most instances the sparse “illegal” weapons around the world are the ones that are being used by victims to shoot back against genocidal governments. This is certainly the case in Syria today, where perfectly legal small arms in the hands of the government are crushing a largely disarmed civilian population. It was also recently the case in the genocide in South Sudan, which recently won independence from Sudan — ending the genocide — after using “illicit” small arms in an independence effort.

In the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the “illegal” and “illicit” guns would have been those owned by the victims. And in Rwanda, the United Nations helped to facilitate arms deals to the government forces and was complicit in the genocide of some 800,000 innocent TutsisGun control in Rwanda was so effectively implemented — in part with UN “peacekeeper” assistance — that much of the genocide against Tutsis was carried out by Hutu-aligned government forces with machetes — not guns!

Since the UN has traditionally backed genocidal governments over the victims who use “illicit” guns to defend themselves, it’s not surprising that human rights violator Iran is one of several regional chairmen of the UN ATT convention.

Top 12 Reasons to Vote Democrat

Posted by iPatriot on July 13, 2012 at 8:45pm

1. I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever
I want. I’ve decided to marry my German Shepherd.

2. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a
gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of
gas at 15% isn’t.

3. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job
of spending the money I earn than I would.

4. I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody
is offended by it.

5. I voted Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and
I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers
and thieves.

6. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if
it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt
away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.

7. I voted Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies
being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

8. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free
health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take
away the social security from those who paid into it.

9. I voted Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be
allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give
the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

10. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the
Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never
get their agendas past the voters.

11. I voted Democrat because I think that it’s better to pay billions for their oil
to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it
might upset some endangered beetle, gopher or fish.

12. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my ass,
it’s unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.



Another power grab by the corrupt U.N to gain control over the U.S. this is B.S. again.  This has to be stopped get hold of your Senator and tell them NO to this vote!

Senate considering treaty on ‘Rights of Persons with Disabilities’

Published: 24 hours ago

By Michael F. Haverluck

The rights of parents in the United States once again are in the bull’s-eye of a United Nations plan that is being reviewed by the U.S. Senate – this time under the proposed U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Supporters of the plan to bring the United States under the oversight of global standards say they’d like to see the proposal adopted by later this month, when the Americans with Disabilities Act anniversary is marked.

The plan was signed by Barack Obama in 2009, and the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations this week held a hearing where Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said he didn’t see a need for it.

“Why should we submit ourselves to other nations who have been far less effective and committed to this cause?” he wondered. “We can be the light on the hill … why should we submit instead of lead?”

Supporters say it’s about time that the United States start taking lessons from other nations on how to accommodate those with needs, and its ratification would work to ensure the equality and protection of disabled children who are vulnerable to mistreatment and discrimination.

Opponents say it’s just another world-government power grab that would violate the rights of Americans.

“We all want to show our love and care for people with disabilities,” said Home School Legal Defense Association Chairman Michael Farris. “This treaty, however, is not the way to do it.”

Farris insists that this treaty has all the trappings of socialism at its finest, as it would seize control from the legal guardians of children and hand it over to the government and an international organization.

“This treaty will give United Nations and government agents, not parents, the authority to decide all educational and treatment issues for disabled children,” Farris continued. “All of the rights that parents have under both traditional American law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act will be undermined by this treaty.”

Obama’s signature on the plan in 2009 moved it forward. At the time he said it was a civil rights issue, and insisted CRPD must be enforced.

“Disability rights aren’t just civil rights to be enforced here at home; they’re universal rights to be recognized and promoted around the world,” Obama said at the time. “As long as we as a people still too easily succumb to casual discrimination or fear of the unfamiliar, we’ve still got more work to do.”

But support in the Senate never has materialized for the measure. It would need a two-thirds approval.

Farris suggested that lack of support is good, but parents should not overlook the possibility that somehow the floodgates for government intrusion in families’ lives would be opened.

“Parental rights will be eviscerated by the mandatory application of the ‘best interest of the child’ standard,” Farris said. “If parents think that private education is best for their child, the CRPD gives the government the authority and the legal duty to override that judgment and keep the child in the government-approved program that the officials think is best for the child.”

According to Farris, the language of Article 7 of the CRPD should raise a major red flag, as the government would be given authority to make decisions regarding disabled children in every situation, “In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

HSLDA contends that the passage of the CRPD by the Senate would create a new standard for the courts to use when deciding legal issues having to do with disabled children and their parents. In other words, it would revolutionize the relationship between parents and children in America.

“There is no need for the Senate to ratify the CRPD, as our nation’s state and federal laws already protect our precious loved ones with disabilities,” Farris explained. “It is outrageous that U.S.senators would support a treaty that surrendersU.S.sovereignty and family integrity to unelected U.N. bureaucrats.”

HSLDA also notes that besides infringing on parental rights, the CRPD stretches the government hands far into the business of every private citizen.

“Article 4(1)(e) reminds that ‘every person, organization, or private enterprise’ must eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability,” Farris informs. “On its face, this means that every home owner would have to make their own home fully accessible to those with disabilities.”

According to Farris, religious liberty is also in jeopardy if the U.N. treaty is passed.

“Article 4(1)(e) also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your church will be established by the U.N. – not your local government or your church,” the HSLDA cofounder points out.

Critics say the issue is more about bureaucrats grabbing power than anything else.

“Article 7(2) advances the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,” Farris states. “This means that the government – acting under U.N. directives – gets to determine for all children with disabilities what the government thinks is best.”

Previous parental rights concerns have been raised by other U.N. plans, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which also has not been adopted by theUnited States.

Time to Storm Obama and Washington D.C.?

Condoleezza Rice: “It is time for all of us, in any way we can, to mobilize, get our act together, and storm Washington D.C.”



Sher Zieve Friday, July 13, 2012 

I am in extremely fine company. On 18 June 2012, I wrote in my column “Obama Dictatorship Now Overtly Lawless…Congress Largely Yawns”: “We have almost completely lost our country to the Marxist/Islamic ruler currently ensconced in OUR White House, folks.

It’s inordinately clear that Congress will do nothing. Only We-the-People can stop this. Isn’t it time for a REAL Million Patriot + march on Washington D.C.? If we don’t take back our country no one else will…no one. Obama and his illegal government are now completely criminal and, apparently, in total control of us all.”

Now recently, during a rousing speech given to donors at a Romney campaign event in Park City, Utah, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said: “It is a narrative that is being pushed by our current president, that ‘I’m doing poorly because you’re doing well,’” she said. “That has never been the American narrative. Ours has never been a narrative of aggrievement and ours has never been a narrative of entitlement. It is time for all of us, in any way we can, to mobilize, get our act together, and storm Washington D.C.”

It appears that many Republican leaders who, in the past, have not come out in any partisan manner have now realized the extreme jeopardy that comprises the current state of our country. Multitudes of Americans are also, more each and every day, now aware of the dire straits the Obama syndicate has forcefully pushed us all into and are determined to stop the totalitarian onslaught. Obama and his cabal have summarily gutted the US Treasury—with Obama Friend Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s assistance—and made tremendous progress into destroying every uniquely American institution that still exists.

Obama has appointed to high levels of the US government’s national security members of the foundational terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood (Sunni Muslims) and he and his syndicate are in the process of bringing down each and every non-Sunni Muslim regime (Obama’s ostensible father and family are Sunni) in the Middle East. He started by sending leftists (terrorists themselves) “Code Pink” (in 2008-2009), the husband and wife team of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn and Google executive Wael Ghonim to plan, implement and assist the “revolution” and ultimate end-goal of the installation of the Muslim Brotherhood as Egypt’s ruling body. It has worked. Obama then set his sights on Libya…another Shia Muslim country. Result? Libya quickly was taken over by the MB. Although the Brotherhood is now experiencing disgust from the Libyan people and will likely have difficulty in the upcoming elections, they are still in control. Now, Obama has set his sights on Syria…another Shia Muslim country…and has plans to destroy it and affect an MB takeover there. Is the pattern developing? You betcha’!

The final assault on non-Sunni Islam will be against Iran…and the Obama campaign against this terrorist country (to replace it with another terrorist group…the one to which Obama belongs) is well underway. Then, the traitor and dictator-in-chief will have nothing to stop him from moving on Israel.

The Final World War may be no more than a few weeks or months away. As if they won’t be affected, the wholly-owned media reports virtually nothing on this. With reports on daily briefings from the White House as to what they may and may not report, the media are already completely under the control of Dictator-in-Chief Obama and his masters.

Every day brings at least another treasonous act against the USA and its people by and from Dictator Obama. Still, Congress and the vast majority of the press say nothing and do nothing to stop him. Are partisanship and temporary payoffs with taxpayer money more important than saving OUR country? Apparently so, as we witnessed recently with SCOTUS CJ John Roberts…who is apparently now hiding out on the island of Malta.

It’s up to us, folks, as it has always been. We must pray to the Lord God for your redemption and the redemption of our country. But, it’s also now time for us to act. To repeat what Condi Rice said so eloquently: “It is time for all of us, in any way we can, to mobilize, get our act together, and storm Washington D.C.” In this country, we used to actually fight attempts to suppress and enslave us. It’s time to remember that. Let’s Roll!

“Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not enquire wisely concerning this”—Ecclesiastes 7:10

WE Have to take our country back at all cost. Obama should have been IMPEACH already! Our weak spine Republican Party is totally useless more concerned with their wealth and to hell with the common folks!

Good News: ObamaCare to Cost 3 Times More than First Thought


Posted by:

 Rick Moran

The Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee (via Daniel Halper) released a nifty little chart showing the progressively more dire estimates for the cost of ObamaCare over a decade.

President Obama promised a joint session of Congress in 2009 to spend $900 billion over ten years on his health care law: “Now, add it all up, and the plan that I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.” Adding up all the different spending provisions in the health care law, however, (including closing the Medicare ‘donut hole,’ implementation costs, and other spending) total gross spending over the FY 2010–19 period is about $1.4 trillion, based on CBO estimates,” the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff explains. “And most of the major spending provisions in the law do not even take effect until 2014. Congressional Democrats delayed these provisions in order to show only six years of spending under the plan in the original 10-year budget window (from FY2010-19) used by CBO at the time the law was enacted. Therefore, the original estimate concealed the fact that most of the law’s spending only doesn’t even begin until four years into the 10-year window. A Senate Budget Committee analysis (based on CBO estimates and growth rates) finds that that total spending under the law will amount to at least $2.6 trillion over a true 10-year period (from FY2014–23)—not $900 billion, as President Obama originally promised.

I know that no one reading this is surprised in the least. The question in my mind is how best to punish those — the president especially — for being such incredible liars. The Democrats in Congress knew exactly what they were doing when they based their projections of ObamaCare’s cost on 10 years of revenue and only 6 years of expenditures. Both the president and congressional Dems aren’t idiots when it comes to history either. No entitlement in history has ever met expectations as far as its cost is concerned. Social Security, Medicare, social welfare programs like food stamps — all far exceeded their original estimated cost. In the case of Medicare, as this Reason article from 1993 points out, the difference in estimated to real costs between 1965 and 1990 either makes one giggle uncontrollably or makes one want to put his fist through the wall:

At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly “conservative” estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion.

There is also no guarantee that in the next decade — assuming ObamaCare survives —  subsidies won’t be increased, coverage won’t be expanded, or other little goodies won’t be added to make this black hole of a program even more expensive. In fact, given the rate at which the cost of health insurance is rising, it is likely that an increase in subsidies will be needed almost immediately.

This isn’t the last increase in the estimated cost for ObamaCare we will see before 2014.

Obama’s Middle Class Tax Hikes HE LIED AGAIN!

Written by Daniel Horowitz (Diary)

Tuesday, July 10th at 12:00PM EDT

While Obama is prosecuting a flaccid war overseas and apologizing for our troops when they defend against Taliban attacks, he is fighting a no-holds-barred class war at home.  Once again, Obama has announced that he will orchestrate the largest tax hike in American history on those earning more than $200,000.  After all, taxing the rich is a great way to raise revenue; it worked so well in Maryland.  Oh, wait.

But fear not, he will renew the Bush tax cuts on those earning under $200,000, while repackaging them as his own tax cuts.

There’s one problem with Obama’s assertion that he hasn’t raised taxes on the middle class.  YOU LIE!  Government regulations and interventions that Obama supports will raise the cost of living on the middle class for the most vital goods and services.  Those higher costs will trump any savings they actualize as a result of the tax cut extension.  Oh, and there’s one other problem.  He’s forgetting about the massive tax increase on all those who don’t purchase government-approved health insurance.

In that vein, let’s review some of the hidden [or not so hidden] tax increases on the “middle class” that Obama has orchestrated:

  • Healthcare: Due to Obama’s war on free-market healthcare, all those who fail to buy Obama-approved health insurance will be subject to a tax.  All those who purchase health insurance will have to pay several thousand dollars more in premiums as a result of Obamacare.  Every American who purchases a medical device – from a wheelchair to a dental crown – will pay much more due to the Obamacare tax on medical devices.  Some Americans who earn less than $200,000 receive what Obama refers to as “Cadillac insurance plans.”  They will be slapped with a 40% excise tax. [view the 17 tax increases embedded in Obamacare here]
  • Electricity: Due to Obama’s war on coal, nuclear power, and sundry new EPA regulations, all Americans “necessarily” pay more for their electric bills.
  • Fuel/Food: Due to Obama’s war on oil production and refining, all Americans necessarily pay more for fuel.  They also pay more for food and almost every other product that relies heavily on transportation.
  • Cars: Due to Obama’s support for higher CAFE standards, all Americans will necessarily pay more to purchase cars.  Due to his support for renewable fuels mandates, all Americans will pay more to fuel those cars.
  • Money/Savings: Due to Obama’s support for monetary stimulus and a weak dollar, all Americans are forced to pay more for a number of commodities.  All Americans are seeing their savings depleted.
  • Credit: Due to Obama’s credit card regulations (Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act), it is harder for the poor to obtain credit.
  • Corporate Regulations: Finally, Obama’s onerous new regulations – from Obamacare to Dodd-Frank – affect almost every business.  We all know that corporations pass down the extra costs to consumers.  We will never know how much more consumers pay for typical goods and services as a result of this president’s policies.

Health, food, transportation, fuel, and electricity are among the most vital needs for everyone, and they account for a large portion of the budget for those whom Obama claims to be waging a war on their behalf.  And this guy has the impertinence to claim he cut taxes for the middle class?

The 8 Most Shameful Moments of Barack Obama’s Presidency

              Jul 10, 2012

8) “The private sector is doing fine:” Know what hasn’t been “doing fine” for a single day since Barack Obama came into office? The private sector. So when Barack Obama bizarrely proclaimed that “the private sector is doing fine” earlier this year, Obama was further out of touch than E.T. was when he wanted to phone home.

7) Obama bows to Saudi king: If Barack Obama had spent his formative years in the United States instead of overseas, he’d know that real Americans don’t bow. Moreover, no American, especially the President, should be bowing down to a dictatorial king like the one we had to overthrow in the Revolutionary War. Besides the Saudi king, Obama also continued to humiliate himself and his country by bowing to Japanese Emperor Akihito and the Chinese PM. We’re lucky that the SEALs killed Osama Bin Laden as opposed to capturing him or we might have seen pictures of Obama bowing to him on MSNBC by now.

6) Son looked like Trayvon: At a time when George Zimmerman was publicly being threatened with death and white people were being beaten “For Trayvon,” there was an opportunity for the President to show leadership and encourage people to calm down. Instead, after making some perfunctory remarks towards that end, Obama added fuel to the fire by noting, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” This was a follow-up to Obama’s similarly foolish decision to insert himself into another local situation that didn’t concern him. After his friend Henry Gates smashed his own door in and made such an ass of himself that he was arrested when the police arrived, Obama noted that he didn’t know the facts, but he did know that the “police acted stupidly.” He then followed that up by suggesting racism was probably to blame. Fortunately, he managed to patch over that bit of idiocy with a “beer summit” as opposed to the Trayvon Martin case where he increased the chances that someone would get killed because he was thoughtlessly shooting off his mouth.

5) Refusing to pick up illegals from Arizona: After the Obama Administration refused to enforce federal immigration law in Arizona, the state passed a tough new law that allowed local police to do the job ICE wouldn’t do. Disgracefully, Barack Obama held a White House press conference where both he and Mexican President Felipe Calderon ganged up against Arizona for doing little more than enforcing the laws on the book. The Obama Administration then suedArizona and after it didn’t emerge completely victorious, simply refused to pick up illegal aliens that aren’t felons fromArizona. In other words, not only is Barack refusing to enforce the law of the land, he won’t allow anyone else to uphold the laws he falsely swore to uphold when he became President.

4) Persecuting the Catholic Church: Obama spat in the face of the Catholic Church and violated its constitutionally-protected 1st Amendment religious rights by demanding that it provide birth control and abortifacient drugs in its hospitals. Unless this policy is stopped, millions of Americans will pay the price as the Catholic Church closes its hospitals rather than violate its deeply-held religious beliefs in order to cater to Barack Obama’s whims.

3) Passing Obamacare: Health care reform was opposed by the Republican Party and the American people despite endless lies the Obama Administration told about what a wonderful program it would be. The Obama Administration lied when it said everyone could keep their health insurance, that it wouldn’t increase the deficit, when it said there were no death panels in the bill, when it said it wouldn’t increase taxes, and when it said abortion wouldn’t be funded with your tax dollars. All of these lies were for a program that took 500 billion dollars out of Medicare to fund a new entitlement program that will cause large numbers of doctors to quit, dramatically reduce the quality of care, and force Americans to deal with the IRS just to get health care. It’s one of the single worst bills inAmerica history that delivers an incredibly expensive new entitlement program at the point in American history where we can least afford it.

2) Obama’s lawless attempt to pass the Dream Act by Fiat: After the DREAM ACT failed to make it through Congress, Barack Obama illegally decided to implement it anyway. After instructing the Department of Justice to stop following the law in regard to illegals under 30, Obama decided to issue work permits for illegals. That’s an illegal act that directly contradicts the existing immigration law. It also makes little sense to give somewhere between 800,000 and 3 million foreigners work permits when every job they take will keep another American out of work in tough economic times.

1) Eric Holder held in contempt of Congress after Obama uses executive privilege: On Barack Obama’s watch, the Department of Justice helped put guns into the hands of Mexican cartels and thes guns were used to kill hundreds of Mexicans along with American Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Did Eric Holder know about this beforehand? Did Barack Obama? We don’t know for sure because they’ve been engaged in a Nixonian cover-up. They’ve dragged their feet, stonewalled, and when they couldn’t hold off any longer, Obama declared executive privilege in an attempt to hide the truth about how deeply his administration is tied to the deaths of 300 plus people. Obama’s behavior was so sleazy that 17 House Democrats felt compelled to vote with Republicans to find Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. Say what you want about Watergate, but at least no one was killed during the scandal, which is something that can’t be said about Obama’s Fast and Furious debacle.

U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms

This is 1939 all over. Russia, China all of them want common folks not to have private gun ownership. Seriously Hillary, Obama this is where you want to take us Bull Squeeze!  Impeachment would be to good for you 

Larry Bell, Contributor

I write about climate, energy, environmental and space policy issues.

6/07/2011 @ 2:04PM |1,056,957 views

It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?

While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the

  1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
  2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
  3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
  4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
  5. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S.joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.

Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

Although professing to support the Second Amendment during her presidential election bid, Hillary Clinton is not generally known as a gun rights enthusiast. She has been a long-time activist for federal firearms licensing and registration, and a vigorous opponent of state Right-to-Carry laws. As aNew Yorksenator she ranked among the National Rifle Association’s worst “F”-rated gun banners who voted to support the sort of gunpoint disarmament that markedNew Orleans’ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

President Obama’s record on citizen gun rights doesn’t reflect much advocacy either. Consider for example his appointment of anti-gun rights former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as an alternate U.S. representative to the U.N., and his choice of Andrew Traver who has worked to terminate civilian ownership of so-called “assault rifles” (another prejudicially meaningless gun term) to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Then, in a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama administration quietly banned the re-importation and sale of 850,000 collectable antique U.S.-manufactured M1 Garand and Carbine rifles that were left in South Korea following the Korean War. Developed in the 1930s, the venerable M1 Garand carried the U.S.through World War II, seeing action in every major battle.

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. He also served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago during a period between 1998-2001when it contributed $18,326,183 in grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.

If someone breaks into your home when you are there, which would you prefer to have close at hand: 1) a telephone to call 911, or 2) a loaded gun of respectable caliber? That’s a pretty easy question for me to answer. I am a long-time NRA member, concealed firearms license holder and a regular weekly recreational pistol shooter. And while I don’t ordinarily care to target anything that has a mother, will reluctantly make an exception should an urgent provocation arise. I also happen to enjoy the company of friends who hunt, as well as those, like myself, who share an abiding interest in American history and the firearms that influenced it.

There are many like me, and fewer of them would be alive today were it not for exercise of their gun rights. In fact law-abiding citizens in America used guns in self-defense 2.5 million times during 1993 (about 6,850 times per day), and actually shot and killed 2 1/2 times as many criminals as police did (1,527 to 606). Those civilian self-defense shootings resulted in less than 1/5th as many incidents as police where an innocent person was mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).

Just how effectively have gun bans worked to make citizens safer in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. InCanadaandBritain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in theU.S.where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.

Recognizing clear statistical benefit evidence, 41 states now allow competent, law-abiding adults to carry permitted or permit-exempt concealed handguns. As a result, crime rates in those states have typically fallen at least 10% in the year following enactment.

So the majority in our Senate is smart enough to realize that the U.N.’s gun-grab agenda is unconstitutional, politically suicidal for those who support it, and down-right idiotic—right? Let’s hope so, but not entirely count on it. While a few loyal Obama Democrats are truly “pro-gun”, many are loathe to vote against treaties that carry the president’s international prestige, causing him embarrassment.

Also, don’t forget that Senate confirmation of anti-gun Obama nominee Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Many within the few who voted against her did so only because of massive grassroots pressure from constituents who take their Constitutional protections very seriously.

Now, more than ever, it’s imperative to stick by our guns in demanding that all Constitutional rights be preserved. If not, we will surely lose both.

It’s Official: Obama to Sign Gun Control Treaty July 27

Obama bypassed Congess to halt deportations. He bypassed Congress to provide massive amounts of aid to Palestine. So why is it so hard for some people to believe Obama is capable of restricting gun ownership?

According to Dick Morris, Obama will sign the Arms Treaty on July 27.


The purpose of which is, according to Morris:

The real purpose of this is that it will set up an international agency that will be in charge of controlling the flow of arms throughout the world. And while it will theoretically have jurisdiction over arms flows across national borders .. you know like the Interstate Commerce Clause… we see how that can be expanded. And it really will have the authority to tell member nations to adopt policies within their own countries to facilitate regulations of flows across borders. And those could include, will include, registration and may well include bans on arms and guns.

Now if this treaty is ratified by the Senate, it assumes parity with the 2nd Amendment. It is as if there is a new 27th or 28th Amendment to the Constitution. Because the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says treaties are the law of the land and cannot be overriden by acts of Congress or acts of the state legislatures.

For those of us who value the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, this is absolutely pivotal .. they changed the venue but it is the same fight.

Post Navigation


Honor America

China News

News and Opinions From Inside China

My Opinion My Vote

America needs saving


The greatest site in all the land!

Linux Power

Just another weblog

The ‘red pill’ and its opposite, ‘blue pill,‘ are pop culture terms that have become symbolic of the choice between blissful ignorance (blue) and embracing the sometimes-painful truth of reality (red). It’s time for America to take the red pill and wake up from the fog of apathy.

The Mad Jewess

Mirror Site For Reflection


Sudden, unexplained, unattended death and a families search for answers

Dedicated to freedom in our lifetimes

News You May Have Missed

News you need to know to stay informed


Making the web a better place

U.S. Constitutional Free Press

Give me Liberty, Or Give me Death!


Swiss Defence League

NY the vampire state

Sucking the money from it's citizens as a vampire sucks blood from it's victims. A BPI site

The Clockwork Conservative

All wound up about politics, history, culture... lots of stuff.

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.




Weapons-grade blogging; quips, quotes and comments 'cause we live in a world gone mad.......

%d bloggers like this: