BROTHERS & SISTERS IN THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO AND WEST TEXAS YOU NEED TO WATCH THIS SHORT VIDEO. LISTEN TO WHAT THE MAN SAYS, THEY COVER THE WHOLE STATE OF NEW MEXICO & WEST TEXAS. THE QUESTION IS WHAT IN THE WORLD DO THEY NEED THIS TYPE OF EQUIPMENT AND FIRE POWER FOR? THIS SHOULD MAKE EVERY NEW MEXICAN VERY WARY OF WHAT THEIR TRUE PURPOSE IS.
This global gun control scheme, concocted by the U.N., is called the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Disguised as a way to combat terrorism, insurgents and international criminals, this document endeavors to secure the world’s citizens cannot defend themselves.
The US is the world’s largest exporter of firearms; while private sales between citizens, collectors and sportsmen would all be internationally regulated with the approval of ATT. This includes rules over ammunition, and procurement.
Senator Jerry Moran said in a letter (signed by 44 other senators) to President Obama; warning him not to continue his push for ratification of the ATT. Moran wrote: “Our country’s sovereignty and the Second Amendment rights of American citizens must not be infringed upon by the United Nations. Today, the Senate sends a powerful message to the Obama Administration: an Arms Trade Treaty that does not protect ownership of civilian firearms will fail in the Senate. Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable.”
Chris Cox, the NRA’s top lobbyist, explains: “As we have for the past 15 years, the NRA will fight to stop a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that infringes on the Constitutional rights of American gun owners.” Cox feels that Senators like Moran “sends a clear message to the international bureaucrats who want to eliminate our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. Clearly, a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that includes civilian arms within its scope is not supported by the American people or their elected U.S. Senators. Senator Moran is a true champion of our freedom. We are grateful for his leadership and his tenacious efforts on this issue, as well as the 44 other senators who agree with the NRA’s refusal to compromise on our constitutional freedoms.”
Last month, in press release , The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) andImmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has awarded defense contractor ATK with an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) agreement for .40 caliber hollow point ammunition.
ATK has secured a major Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity deal to supply up to 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition to the Department of Homeland Security . . . The 1 year contract with four option years comes at a time when many Americans believe that DHS, along with certain aspects of the military, will soon turn their sights on the American people during some sort of martial law scenario . . . We are proud to extend our track record as the prime supplier of .40 caliber duty ammunition for DHS, ICE,” said Ron Johnson, the president of ATK’s Security and Sporting group.”
This particular type of bullet is meant to expand upon impact “engineered for 100-percent weight retention, limits collateral damage, and avoids over-penetration.”
This order is not the first for DHS. In 2009, DHS contracted Winchester for delivery of 200 million hollow point bullets.
“I have never seen such a situation in all my years as a gun owner, hunter and cop,” saidEdna Aquino , a New York police officer and shooting instructor. “I’m hearing from fellow shooters that they are stockpiling ammunition these days because they are afraid of what they’re seeing in this country.”
The economic state of America has caused US citizens to purchase armory at an incredible rate. A national “ gun-run ” last March saw a shortage of guns in stores for the first time.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has reported that an estimated 6 million requests for pre-sale guns in 2009 reflects a 26% increase.
In response to Americans arming themselves, President Obama is seeking Congress to approve the UN’s international governance over our 2nd Amendment while claiming that it is only an attempt to create more stringent gun legislation for the American public’s protection.
New concerns U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) will infringe on U.S. Constitutional rights.
The final version of the UN Arms Trade Treaty, aimed at keeping small arms from terrorists and rogue regimes, is due Friday. US gun rights advocates reject assurances the treaty would not infringe on their rights.
By Linda Feldmann / July 26, 2012
After last week’s shooting in Colorado, President Obama’s remarks Wednesday night about gun violence were a rare departure for a president who usually steers clear of the subject. Now another gun issue is coming to a head that the president likely would just as soon avoid: theUnited Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The treaty, whose final version is due out on Friday, aims to regulate the $60 billion international trade in small arms in an effort to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue regimes. But gun owners in the United States are on high alert over concerns that the treaty could undermine their Second Amendment rights.
Advocates of the treaty say that they need not worry. The US Constitution trumps international law, and the treaty will not affect domestic gun ownership, they say. But it’s not clear anything can mollify agitated gun owners, even the signatures of 58 senators on letters circulated by colleagues opposing the treaty. If Mr. Obama were to sign the treaty and send it to the Senate, it would fall far short of the two-thirds majority required for ratification.
Congressional opponents are trying to make sure the treaty never gets to the Senate.
“Disguised as an international arms control treaty to fight against terrorism and international crime syndicates, the UN small arms treaty is in fact a massive, global gun-control scheme,” Rep. Paul Broun (R) of Georgia says in a recorded message distributed Tuesday by the Colorado-based National Association for Gun Rights.
For many conservatives, the UN arms treaty pushes two hot buttons – the UN, which some fear has the potential to supersede US national sovereignty, and gun rights.
Assurances from the Obama administration that it will protect US domestic gun rights in the UN treaty aren’t enough, says Tom Zawistowski, president of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, a state-wide tea party organization. He worries that Obama can simply put the treaty in force without Senate approval, just as he put Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray in charge of the controversialConsumer Financial Protection Bureau in a recess appointment, bypassing Senate confirmation.
“I’d put gun rights way at the top” of issues tea partyers care about, Mr. Zawistowski says. “That’s really high on the emotional ladder.”
On Tuesday, the UN Arms Trade Treaty Conference released a draft of the treaty to widespread criticism that it was ambiguous and contained loopholes. Even groups supportive of the treaty’s concept voiced concern.
“All the core provisions of this draft treaty still have major loopholes which will simply ratify the status quo, instead of setting a high international standard that will change state practices and save lives on the ground,” said Peter Herby, head of the arms unit of the International Committee of the Red Cross, according to Agence France-Presse.
But on the issue of protecting civilian gun rights in the US, humanitarian groups watching the treaty negotiations were reassuring.
“This treaty is only about the international transfer of civilian weapons,” says Scott Stedjan, a senior policy adviser at Oxfam America. “A transfer means when a weapon both crosses a national boundary and there’s a change of title or control. US gun rights do not involve weapons flowing from one border to another border – it’s only about things domestically within the United States. The Second Amendment applies to the use of weapons within the United States.”
Mr. Stedjan said that once the National Rifle Association (NRA) sees the treaty text, it will see that it does not pose a threat to individual gun rights.
Suzanne Trimel, media director of Amnesty International USA, accused the NRA of sowing fear.
“The goal of this treaty is to keep weapons out of the hands of countries that we know are going to use them to commit human rights abuses and atrocities, like in Syria, like mass rapes in theDemocratic Republic of Congo,” said Ms. Trimel. “The fearmongering of the NRA should not get in the way of the proper argument, which is stopping human rights abuses and atrocities.”
The NRA declined a request for comment.
Monitor intern Kimberly Railey contributed to this report.
Posted by truther
By now, we all know the U.S.Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate portion of Obamacare by declaring it a “tax.” This is, in essence, a declaration that the federal government now has unlimited power to force consumers to spend some (or even all) of their take-home pay on various products, services or even intellectual property that they have no interest in buying in the first place. It is a concentration of economic power in the hands of thefederal government, and it suddenly ends economic liberty in America.
It’s also the largest tax increase in the history of the United States. By upholding Obamacare’s individual mandate as a “tax,” Chief Justice Robert just labeled President Obama the largest tax increase President in the history of the country! (http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2012/06/roberts-labels-obama-a-tax…)
And here’s the transcript of his interview with George Stephanopoulos:
But now, of course, Chief Justice Roberts has declared it IS a tax, after all. Thus, Obama’s key legislative achievement has become the single greatest legislative deception in the history of America.
How much will this new tax cost you? The Washington Post has published a handy online calculator:
It shows that the new tax begins in 2014, then ramps up to its maximum penalty at 2016, at which point you are taxed year after year until you cave in and buy into the monopoly Big Pharma health insurance scam. This is, for the record, the largest tax increase in history. And it’s for a system of medicine which is a Big Pharma monopoly that doesn’t even give consumers the freedom to choose natural medicine or alternative therapies!
21 new taxes on Americans
The high court’s ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases in the health-care law costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years, according to the House Ways and Means Committee. Of those, 12 tax hikes would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year, the panel said, including a “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans, a tax on insurance providers, and an excise tax on medical device manufacturers.(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/republicans-ruling-fo…)
Now that Obamacare’s penalty is a “tax,” not a “fee,” Mr. Obama is breaking a 2008 campaign pledge not to raise taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000. This new “tax” will hit across the economic spectrum, despite his campaign declaration that health care should “never be purchased with tax increase on middle-class families.” Now, Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats have enacted the largest tax increase in history.
Federal government can now order you to engage in selected commerce
For the record, under the precedent now set by the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal government can simply order you to engage in whatever commerce the government chooses. All they have to do is create a penalty for refusing to go along with their order, and characterize the penalty as a “tax.”
Ron Paul gets it. He understands the simple truth that the government has no power to compel people to engage in commerce. “The insurance mandate clearly exceeds the federal government’s powers under the interstate commerce clause found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution,” writes Ron Paul. “This is patently obvious: the power to ‘regulate’ commerce cannot include the power to compel commerce! Those who claim otherwise simply ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution because they don’t want to limit federal power in any way. The commerce clause was intended simply to give Congress the power to regulate foreign trade, and also to prevent states from imposing tariffs on interstate goods. In Federalist Paper No. 22, Alexander Hamilton makes it clear the simple intent behind the clause was to prevent states from placing tolls or tariffs on goods as they passed through each state — a practice that had proven particularly destructive across the many principalities of the German empire.” (http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul799.html)
Health insurance premiums will soar
Obamacare is going to absolutely shred the infrastructure of our medical system, it is going to send health insurance premiums soaring, it is going to dramatically expand the size and the scope of government, it is going to fundamentally alter the relationships between doctors and their patients and it is one of the largest tax increases in U.S. history. Not only that, it is also going to add about a trillion dollars to our national debt over the next decade. So no, the Obamacare decision is not good news. Obamacare was one of the worst pieces of legislation in American history, and now we are stuck with it.
Huge political revolt now expected
What are the political ramifications of all this? Obamacare remains widely hated by much of the U.S. population — at least the portion of the population that actually works for a living — and this Supreme Court decision will likely ruffle even more feathers of taxpayers who are tired of being pick-pocketed by the federal government at every turn. While most people don’t mind paying some reasonable level of tax to the feds, having the government invade your take-home pay and start forcing you to spend it on things you may or may not want is another thing entirely.
Because of the backlash against this law, it seems almost certain that this Supreme Court decision will play right into the hands of Mitt Romney, who will now make repealing Obamacare the centerpiece of his election campaign. He has already stated, in the Weekly Standard, “If We Want to Get Rid of Obamacare, We’re Going to Have to Replace President Obama.” (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-if-we-want-get-rid-obamaca…)
But even if Obama is replaced in the White House, the damage has already been done. With its decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has set a precedent of government control over private paychecks, and that precedent has fundamentally crushed economic freedom in America and opened the door to limitless taxes for everything imaginable. King George III couldn’t have done it better.
Nevertheless, based on this decision I now predict a sweeping victory for Republicans in the 2012 electionsas a backlash against Obamacare. I’m not saying I support Romney or the Republicans, because I think all politicians are crooks for the most part, and I agree with Gov. Jesse Ventura that the two-party system is largely just two criminal gangs jockeying for power on how they can exploit the people they claim to represent. Whether it’s DemoCRIPS or ReBLOODlicans in power, they’re all political gangstas.
Even if Romney takes office next January, actually repealing Obamacare would be almost impossible to achieve, by the way. Unraveling bad laws is far more difficult than getting them passed in the first place. It would take a true taxpayer revolt to pull it off.
The American revolution just inched one step closer to reality
We may be headed for that sooner than you think, by the way. With this decision to seize control of the money right out of your own paycheck, the moral collapse of the U.S. government is now complete. Once this “tax” starts to come due, many taxpayers will be in a state of near revolt. That, coupled with the economic collapseheading our way from the EU, will bring many Americans to a point of financial desperation.
It is from such conditions that, historically, revolutions emerge. And that’s assuming we even make it to 2014 when the Obamacare tax is supposed to be levied on the American people. By some estimates, the U.S. government may suffer a crushing financial collapse between 2012 and 2015. If the government collapses, Obamacare and all the other bad laws go down with it: the Patriot Act, the DMCA, the NDAA, and so on. That’s the one interesting thing about human history: Every time governments become too large, too bloated and too deeply invested in crushing liberty, the People eventually rise up against the injustices and take their country back, starting with a clean slate (which eventually becomes corrupt a few years later, of course).
It is the cycle of human civilization… the rise and fall of civilizations. We are living in the time of the fall of theAmerican empire, and it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Hope you’re ready to live in “interesting times,” because we all have a front row seat to history in the making.
July 1, 2012 – SYRIA – Turkey has scrambled six F-16 fighter jets near its border with Syria after Syrian helicopters came close to the border, the country’s army says. Six jets were sent to the area in response to three such incidents on Saturday, the statement said, adding that there was no violation of Turkish airspace. Last month, Syrian forces shot down a Turkish jet in the border area. The incident further strained already tense relations between former allies. Turkey’s government has been outspoken in its condemnation of Syria’s response to the 16-month anti-government uprising, which has seen more than 30,000 Syrian refugees enter Turkey. On Friday, Turkey said it had begun deploying rocket launchers and anti-aircraft guns along the border in response to the downing of its F-4 Phantom jet on 22 June. The move came after Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned that Turkey had changed its rules of military engagement and would now treat any Syrian military approaching the border as a threat. Turkey’s military has more than 500 miles of border with Syria to defend. It has now decided to treat everything that happens on the Syrian side of the border with extreme suspicion. The scrambling of the jets is a sign of continuing tensions. A little over a week ago, Syria shot down a Turkish warplane. Syria says that the aircraft was flying inside Syrian airspace – a charge denied by Turkey. Following this incident, the Turkish government announced that it had revised its military rules of engagement towards Syria. From now on, every military element that approached the Turkish border from Syria would be considered as a threat. The military has now acted on its new rules. –BBC
Battles escalate in Syria: A plan by world powers for a Syrian political transition appeared doomed Sunday, with Bashar al-Assad’s regime interpreting the outcome as a fresh lifeline from Russia—its principal international backer—while the lack of any reference in the plan to Mr. Assad’s departure from office angered the Syrian opposition. With no sign of any commitment by Syria’s warring sides to embrace the transition plan outlined in Geneva on Saturday, many warned that violence could worsen even beyond the levels seen in June, which is now believed to have been the bloodiest month in the Syrian conflict. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based opposition group, nearly 4,000 people, including members of the security forces, have been killed since May 26. At the core of the latest initiative by the international community to resolve the nearly 16-month conflict, which many now describe as a civil war, is the creation by “mutual consent” of a new transitional government that would have much of the executive powers exercised by President Assad and bring together members of the current government, the opposition and other groups, according to the communiqué issued at the end of the Geneva meeting. The meeting brought together foreign ministers from the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China—as well as Turkey, Iraq, Qatar and Kuwait. European Union and Arab League officials also attended. It excluded Iran—after U.S. objection to the participation of a Syrian ally seen as aiding the regime in its domestic crackdown—and Saudi Arabia, a main supporter of Syrian political and armed opposition groups. Kofi Annan, a former U.N. chief now serving as special envoy for the Syrian crisis, described the latest proposal as “a serious agreement on how we can help Syria at this grim and brutal time,” but said everything hinged on the implementation of a cease fire, the first item of an existing U.N. and Arab League-backed six-point peace plan already in tatters. “The bloodshed must end, and the parties must be prepared to put forward effective interlocutors to work with me toward a Syrian-led settlement,” Mr. Annan said at the end of the meeting. As of Sunday, there was no official reaction from the Syrian government to the idea of creating a new transitional government with significantly more powers, but state media outlets framed the result of the Geneva meeting as a victory for the regime and its ally Russia. -WSJ
More deaths: At least 83 people were killed, mostly civilians, in violence across Syria on Saturday, and hundreds more were trapped in Douma as regime forces stormed the town in Damascus province, monitors said. In the single most serious incident, mortar fire killed 30 civilians who were attending a funeral in the town of Zamalka, 10 kilometers (six miles) east of the Syrian capital of Damascus, the Syrian Observatory for Human rights said. The Observatory did not give any further details on the Zamalka incident but published two videos from people on the ground. The first showed several dozen people, mostly men waving Syrian revolutionary flags and shouting slogans as they accompanied the funeral cortege, when the picture was interrupted by an explosion. The second, which could not be confirmed as being shot at the same scene, showed people running away from a cloud of dust that gradually dissipated to show numerous bodies lying on the ground. –GMA
You can almost always count on the Supreme Court to do the wrong thing. In fact, just about every major decision by the U.S. Supreme Court over the last 40 years has been bad for America. Many were hoping that the Supreme Court would strike down Obamacare, but the truth is that we all should have known better than to expect them to get something right. So now America is headed for a complete and total disaster as Obamacare is fully implemented over the next several years. Obamacare is going to absolutely shred the infrastructure of our medical system, it is going to send health insurance premiums soaring, it is going to dramatically expand the size and the scope of government, it is going to fundamentally alter the relationships between doctors and their patients and it is one of the largest tax increases in U.S. history. Not only that, it is also going to add about a trillion dollars to our national debt over the next decade. So no, the Obamacare decision is not good news. Obamacare was one of the worst pieces of legislation in American history, and now we are stuck with it.
After the vote today, it is hard to have any faith in the U.S. Supreme Court. Many constitutional conservatives kept voting for Republicans in the hope that the direction of the Supreme Court would change, but it hasn’t.
Prior to the Obama administration, Republicans controlled the White House for 20 out of 28 years. If Republicans were going to fundamentally change the nature of the Supreme Court, that was their opportunity.
But it didn’t happen.
Instead, what we have is a Supreme Court that is dominated by judges that have very little respect for the U.S. Constitution. When I was in law school I got to study the Supreme Court pretty closely and I quickly realized that most of the time they simply do whatever they want to do and they make up whatever reasons they can to justify their decisions.
That sounds really bad, but that is the truth.
And thanks to the Supreme Court, we are stuck with Obamacare – at least for now.
The following are 15 reasons why the Obamacare decision is a mind blowing disaster for America….
#1 According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal government has the power to force you to buy private goods and services. Now that this door has been opened, what else will we be forced to buy in the future?
#2 Obamacare is another step away from individual liberty and another step toward a “nanny state” where the government dominates our lives from the cradle to the grave.
#3 The IRS is now going to be given the task of hunting down and penalizing millions of Americans that do not have any health insurance. In fact, the Obama administration has given the IRS 500 million extra dollars“outside the normal appropriations process” to help them enforce the provisions of Obamacare that they are in charge of overseeing.
#4 Obamacare imposes more than 20 new taxes on the American people. You can find a comprehensive list of Obamacare taxesright here. If you love paying higher taxes, then you are going to absolutely love Obamacare once it is fully implemented.
#5 In an attempt to “control costs” and “promote efficiency”, Obamacare limits the treatment options that doctors and patients can consider. This is likely to result in adecrease in life expectancy in the United States.
#6 Obamacare is going to imposenightmarish paperwork burdens on doctors, hospitals and the rest of the healthcare system. This is going to significantly increase our healthcare costs as a nation.
#8 Many small businesses are going to be absolutely crushed by the provisions in Obamacare that require them to provide expensive health insurance coverage for their employees. This is going to make them even less competitive with companies in other countries where businesses are not required to provide healthcare for their workers. This is also going to make it even less attractive for businesses to hire new employees.
#9 Obamacare is going to make the emerging doctor shortage in America a lot worse. Surveys have found that we could potentially see hundreds of thousands of doctors leave the medical profession because of Obamacare.
#10 Obamacare has already forced the cancellation of dozens of doctor-owned hospitals.
#12 Thanks to Obamacare, you are going to have to wait much longer to see a doctor. Just look at what happened once Romneycare was implemented in Massachusetts….
In fact, we have already seen the start of this process in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney’s health care reforms were nearly identical to President Obama’s. Romney’s reforms increased the demand for health care but did nothing to expand the supply of physicians. In fact, by cracking down on insurance premiums, Massachusetts pushed insurers to reduce their payments to providers, making it less worthwhile for doctors to expand their practices. As a result, the average wait to get an appointment with a doctor grew from 33 days to over 55 days.
#13 Obamacare contains all kinds of insidious little provisions that most people don’t even know about. The following is one example from the Alliance Defense Fund….
“Did you know that with ObamaCare you will have to pay for life-saving drugs, but life-ending drugs are free. One hundred percent free. If this plan were really about health care wouldn’t it be the other way around?”
#14 As if the U.S. government was not facing enough of a crisis with entitlement spending, it is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls. You and I will be paying for all of this.
#15 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Obamacare will add more than a trillion dollars to government spending over the next decade. Considering the fact that the U.S. government is alreadydrowning in debt, how in the world can we afford this?
- Posted on June 28, 2012 at 10:16am by Becket Adams
“The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn’t matter [because] there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power,”SCOTUS Blog reports. “The bottom line: the entire ACA [Affordable Care Act] is upheld, with the exception that the federal government‘s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.”
The court’s decision comes as a major defeat to those who have fought against the healthcare overhaul since before President Obama signed it into law in 2010. U.S. citizens are still legally required to purchase insurance via the federal government and the bill’s expansion of Medicaid, although now limited, still stands. This means roughly 30 million uninsured low-income Americans are still eligible for coverage through the bill’s expansion of the state-run entitlement program.
However, if it’s any consolation, the court also ruled that the Commerce Clause does not give the government the authority to compel Americans to purchase a product. So at least there‘s there’s that, right?
“I am disappointed with today’s Supreme Court decision because the Court has cleared the way for what looks like a very broad use of the tax power. But we can still be very thankful that the court has defended the contours of the Commerce Clause,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel, Judicial Crisis Network.
“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments,” Roberts wrote in his opinion (page six).
“Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices [emphasis added],” he added.
Needless to say, Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion has shocked many people.
“Wow. So Kennedy voted with conservatives, Roberts with liberals. Umpire, indeed,” the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein tweeted.
In his dissent, Justice Kennedy said “In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.”
After hearing oral arguments on the constitutionality of the bill in March, the Supreme Court Justices focused on these four points:
- Whether the “individual” mandate is constitutional
- Whether SCOTUS has the authority to rule on a tax law even though it hasn’t come into effect
- If the individual mandate is overturned, will it be cut from the rest of the law as a separate entity or will other provisions fall with it?
- Whether the law’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional
Of the four points discussed, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that, as a tax, the individual mandate is constitutional. Under the Commerce Clause, it doesn’t work, but as a tax, it’s legitimate.
It doesn’t seem that way now.
Chief Justice Roberts, whose vote saved “Obamacare,” announced the court’s decision at 10:07 EST.