Showing posts with label Obama administration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama administration. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Sens. Cruz, Lee Fight for Religious Freedom for Military Service Members
End Of Days News
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced two amendments to protect the religious liberties of military service members, both of which passed last week in the Senate Armed Services Committee’s consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
If passed by the full Senate and adopted into law, the amendments will:
- Strengthen existing law to protect the rights of conscience of military service members and protect troops who express their religious faith appropriately so that they are not discriminated against or subject to retaliation. The Lee-Cruz Amendment passed 19-7. All 12 Republicans on the committee supported the amendment, along with 7 Democrats. Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) has introduced a corresponding amendment in the House, which prompted a veto threat from the Obama White House.
- Instruct the Defense Department Inspector General to investigate reports of religious discrimination against troops’ sharing their faith and also investigate any undue influence outside groups may have in creating Pentagon policy on religious matters. The amendment will also mandate an anonymous survey to determine whether the Pentagon is preventing chaplains from doing their jobs or trying to force chaplains to perform actions that violate their conscience. The Cruz amendment passed committee by voice vote.
Obama Administration “Strongly Objects” to NDAA Religious Liberty Amendment
End Of Days News
The Obama Administration announced its objection to an amendment offered in theNational Defense Authorization Act for FY 2014 (H.R. 1960) that would expand and implement protection for the rights of conscience of members of the Armed Forces and their Chaplains. They said in a statement of administration policy on the bill:
The Administration strongly objects to section 530, which would require the Armed Forces to accommodate, except in cases of military necessity, “actions and speech” reflecting the “conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the member.” By limiting the discretion of commanders to address potentially problematic speech and actions within their units, this provision would have a significant adverse effect on good order, discipline, morale, and mission accomplishment.
This amendment was authored by Congressman John Fleming (R-LA) it was offered on June 5th. In a statement released then Congressman Fleming said, “The men and women who put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms should not have their own religious freedom jeopardized during their military service. Steps to protect the religious liberties of our Armed Forces were taken in last year’s NDAA, but troubling reports indicate that the military may be focused only on protecting beliefs of service members and not the exercise or expression of those beliefs. My amendment is necessary to ensure that men and women of faith will not be discriminated against in the Armed Forces, and will be free to exercise their religious beliefs.”
Some of these troubling reports as reported by Todd Starnes of Fox News:
- An Air Force officer being told to remove his Bible from his desk because it might give the impression he is endorsing a religion.
- The Air Force censored a video created by a chaplain because it include the word “God.” The Air Force feared the word might offend Muslims and atheists.
- A service member received a “severe and possibly career-ending reprimand” for expressing his faith’s religious position about homosexuality in a personal religious blog.
- A senior military official at Fort Campbell sent out a lengthy email officially instructing officers to recognize “the religious right in America” as a “domestic hate group” akin to the KKK and Neo-Nazis because of its opposition to homosexual behavior.
- A chaplain was relieved of his command over a military chapel because, consistent with DOMA’s definition of marriage, he could not allow same-sex weddings to take place in the chapel.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
White House shake-up may put Syria action on the front burner
End Of Days News
New National Security Adviser Susan Rice and UN envoy Samantha Power could push for more robust action against Damascus, though Power’s nomination may suffer for anti-Israel statements
WASHINGTON – “Those who didn’t want him as chief of staff got him as defense minister, and those who didn’t want him as defense minister will have him as prime minister,” journalist Uri Dan famously and presciently quipped about former prime minister Ariel Sharon in the 1980s.
It was the sort of political prophecy that would have suited Susan Rice, the outgoing US ambassador to the UN, just as well. As the Obama administration’s de facto spokesperson in the aftermath of the September 11 terror strike on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Rice became the focal point for Republican rage over what many on the right believed to be deliberate downplaying of the terrorist nature of the attack in the sensitive few weeks before a presidential election.
Monday, May 20, 2013
The Obama administration has reportedly apologized to Israel for another leak of classified information to the media, one that occurred earlier this month and which Israeli officials are concerned could place Israeli lives at risk.
End Of Days News
Israel Channel 2 broadcast this satellite image showing a Damascus airport warehouse before and after the airstrike (Screenshot: Channel 2 News)
The Justice Department's seizure of Associated Press reporters' phone records was reportedly one element of a "sweeping" federal investigation to find out who leaked classified information about a failed Al-Qaeda plot to bomb an American airliner.
Now, the Obama administration has reportedly apologized to Israel for another leak of classified information to the media, one that occurred earlier this month and which Israeli officials are concerned could place Israeli lives at risk.
Israel Radio's diplomatic correspondent Chico Menashe reported Sunday morning (via the Jerusalem Post):
American officials apologized to their Israeli counterparts for confirming that Israel was behind the airstrikes on the Damascus airport earlier this month, Israel Radio reported on Sunday.The confirmation reportedly came from the lower ranks at the Pentagon, and the reasons for the leak are being investigated.
Menashe tweeted: "The U.S. has apologized to Israel for leaking details of the attack in Syria.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Two months after the Obama administration released $250 million in aid to Egypt a surge of anti-Israel sentiment occurs!
End Of Days News
(CNSNews.com) – Two months after the Obama administration released $250 million in aid to Egypt in what Secretary of State John Kerry called “a good-faith effort to spur reform,” the country is witnessing a surge of anti-Israel sentiment, much of it stoked by the ruling Muslim Brotherhood.
“Israel is our enemy,” senior Muslim Brotherhood (MB) leader Mohamed el-Beltagy chanted during a rally outside a prominent Cairo mosque on Friday, accusing the Jewish state of “irresponsible and apprehensible crimes against our Muslim brothers and sisters in Palestine and Syria.”
“As Muslims, we will stay as one, generation after generation, and our goal will remain the liberation of Jerusalem,” the Brotherhood’s website quoted Beltagy as telling the gathering. “We must mobilize all resources to remember the real enemy and the seriousness of the situation, so we’ll be ready to confront the injustice and the monstrosity.”
The MB and other Islamist groups are protesting recent Israeli airstrikes in Syria, reportedly targeting Hezbollah-bound weapons shipments, as well as Israeli policies in Jerusalem.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
PENTAGON BEGAN RELATIONSHIP WITH ANTI-CHRISTIAN EXTREMIST IN 2009
End Of Days News
The Obama-Hagel Pentagon is trying to minimize Breitbart News’blockbuster story last week of top brass meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein, whom we reported calls Christians “monsters” imposing a “rapacious reign of theocratic terror” and says sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military an act of “sedition and treason” that must be punished.
The Pentagon sent out an email suggesting the Apr. 23 meeting with Weinstein in the Pentagon was a one-time event, saying only, “Weinstein requested, and was granted, a meeting at the Pentagon [on] April 23, with the Air Force Judge Advocate General and others, to include the Deputy Chief of Chaplains, to express his concerns of religious issues in the military.”
However, this was not a single meeting. Instead it was part of a relationship that began one month after Barack Obama was sworn in as president. And it goes much higher up the military food chain than was reported last week: Weinstein met with a four-star general who was the highest-ranking officer in the United States Air Force.
The New York Times reported on Mar. 1, 2009, in a story entitled, “Questions Raised Anew About Religion in Military,” that Weinstein met with the Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton Schwarz, on Feb. 24, 2009. The story noted this was the first time Weinstein and his Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) had “gotten an audience with a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”
Weinstein had sued the Defense Department during the Bush administration as part of his anti-Christian crusade, so Pentagon top brass knew exactly who he was and what he was about when the new Obama administration met with him in 2009. This means he had been fully-vetted when the Obama-Hagel Defense Department decided to meet with him again on Apr. 23, 2013, to discuss how to stop evangelizing (that is, Christian proselytizing) within the military.
The Bush administration had fought Weinstein, saying that any instances of senior officers pressuring subordinates on religious matters were “not systematic problems, but isolated instances.” And biblical Christians fully object to any coercion, since evangelism is about people embracing the Christian faith wholeheartedly and sincerely, which no person could ever force upon another. It’s a matter of the heart, between every human being and their creator.
By contrast, while the Bush administration fought Weinstein, the Obama administration has embraced this anti-Christian activist.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Obama's Orwellian World Persecutes Christians
End Of Days News
The Obama Regime must be reading its Orwell. Anyone remember 1984? War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. The Obama Regime is adding a few more to that list such as bigotry is tolerance and weakness is strength.
What is the Orwellian Obama Regime doing now and why should we be all worried about it?
Since the Obama Regime took power in 2009, it has been blatantly hostile towards not only conservatives, but in particular those who are conservative Christians. Now the Obama Regime is putting one of the top anti-Christian bigots on the payroll as a consultant to help the Pentagon formulate policies on religious tolerance.
Mikey Weinstein is the founder of the Orwellian named "Military Religious Freedom Foundation." As with many far left groups, his mission is just the opposite of the title. He does not want religious freedom for the military. In fact, he wants just the opposite. He wants the military to be a religion free zone. Specifically he wants it to be a Christian free zone.
In a column he recently wrote for the far left The Huffington Post, Weinstein said:
"Today, we face incredibly well funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation's armed forces. Oh my, my, my, how 'Papa's got a brand new bag.'
What's Papa's new tactic? You're gonna just love this! These days, when ANYone attempts to bravely stand up against virulent religious oppression, these monstrosities cry out alligator tears in overflowing torrents and scream that it is, in fact, THEY who are the dispossessed, bereft and oppressed. C'mon, really, you pitiable unconstitutional carpetbaggers? It would be like the utter folly of 1960's-era southern bigots howling like stuck pigs in protest that Rosa Parks' civil rights activism is "abusing" them by destroying and disenfranchising their rights to sit in the front seat of buses in Montgomery, Alabama. Please, I beseech you! Let us call these ignoble actions what they are: the senseless and cowardly squallings of human monsters.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Obama Administration Ships 140,000 Tear Gas Canisters to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood Regime
End Of Days News
A shipment of teargas canisters from the United States arrived at the Egyptian Abadeya Port in Suez on Sunday, according to official documents obtained by the Al-Masry Al-Youm newspaper.
Five containers carrying around 140,000 teargas canisters were apparently shipped to the Egyptian Interior Ministry by the Aramex International courier service.
The Egypt Independent reports that the shipping documents state that only the Egyptian government may use the canisters, and that they are forbidden to re-export the shipment or sell it to third parties.
The documents state that the shipment set sail from the port of Wilmington in Pennsylvania on 14 March on board the SS Jamestown. A letter of credit was forwarded without specifying the name of the bank. The Egyptian government paid the freight fees.
In February this year, Al-Masry Al-Youm reported that the Interior Ministry agreed to import teargas canisters for $2.46 million, to be shipped by an Egyptian military cargo plane.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Obama Admin. 'Most Hostile' to Religious Freedom FOR CHRISTIANS in US History, Says Expert
End Of Days News
"I think the record is clear that this president and this administration are the most hostile towards religious liberty in all of American history," said Klukowski.
"I say that without exaggeration. There are all sorts of lines that previous presidents have just not crossed…political operators around the president strongly encouraged him with regards to this HHS mandate that this is just a bridge too far. And yet the president chose to go after it anyways."
Klukowski's remarks came as he was part of a panel event sponsored by FRC titled "Religious Liberty in America," which focused on pressing issues surrounding the freedom of religion in the United States.
"Religious liberty in America has long been a cherished freedom. In recent decades, reaction to displaying that religion in the public sphere has grown increasingly hostile," reads the event summary on FRC's website. "It is imperative that we make ourselves aware of the battle fronts and support those who stand as sentinels against encroachment on our first freedom."
Fiedorek spoke to those gathered about the various legal suits coming up against Christian businessmen by gay rights groups. These included a photographer sued for refusing to take photos at a gay union ceremony and a baker sued for refusing to provide a cake for a gay union reception.
When asked by The Christian Post about whether there was a way gay rights could be advanced without harming religious freedom, Fiedorek answered that there would always be an issue.
"Experts on both sides agree that there is tension and I think that there always will be tension because obviously in terms of people of faith that have specific viewpoints and deeply held convictions on what is marriage and that's not going to change," said Fiedorek.
WASHINGTON – A conservative expert on religious freedom issues believes that President Barack Obama has headed "the most hostile" administration to religious freedom in American history.
Ken Klukowski, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council, told The Christian Post at an FRC event on Wednesday that he believes the administration has been unprecedentedly hostile to religious liberty."I think the record is clear that this president and this administration are the most hostile towards religious liberty in all of American history," said Klukowski.
"I say that without exaggeration. There are all sorts of lines that previous presidents have just not crossed…political operators around the president strongly encouraged him with regards to this HHS mandate that this is just a bridge too far. And yet the president chose to go after it anyways."
Klukowski's remarks came as he was part of a panel event sponsored by FRC titled "Religious Liberty in America," which focused on pressing issues surrounding the freedom of religion in the United States.
"Religious liberty in America has long been a cherished freedom. In recent decades, reaction to displaying that religion in the public sphere has grown increasingly hostile," reads the event summary on FRC's website. "It is imperative that we make ourselves aware of the battle fronts and support those who stand as sentinels against encroachment on our first freedom."
In addition to Klukowski, the other two guest speakers were Adele Keim, legal counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Kellie Fiedorek, litigation counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom.
Keim spoke about the religious liberty issues surrounding the controversial HHS "preventive services" Mandate. "I think it's one of the most significant threats to religious freedom that we've faced in decades. I can't really think of a more significant one right now," said Keim.Fiedorek spoke to those gathered about the various legal suits coming up against Christian businessmen by gay rights groups. These included a photographer sued for refusing to take photos at a gay union ceremony and a baker sued for refusing to provide a cake for a gay union reception.
When asked by The Christian Post about whether there was a way gay rights could be advanced without harming religious freedom, Fiedorek answered that there would always be an issue.
"Experts on both sides agree that there is tension and I think that there always will be tension because obviously in terms of people of faith that have specific viewpoints and deeply held convictions on what is marriage and that's not going to change," said Fiedorek.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Obama Administration: We Will Still Force Christians to Act Against Their Faith
End Of Days News
(CNSNews.com) - The Department of Health and Human Services on Friday set the stage for a massive showdown between the federal government of the United States and American Christians who believe the government has no right to force them to act against their faith by mandating that they buy, provide or facilitate health-care coverage that includes sterilizations, contraception, or abortion-inducing drugs.
HHS released a new proposed regulation under the Obamacare law that the department presented as an accommodation to religious “organizations” that object to providing sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in their health care plans. However, the proposal does not truly expand the exceedingly narrow religious exemption presented in the initial regulation, which was finalized last year, and continues to offer no exemption at all to Christian individuals or business owners.
“There really is no expansion of the religious exemption,” said Leonard Leo, a Washington attorney, who is a board member of The Catholic Association, a group of Catholic lay persons dedicated to applying the teachings and principles of the church to the issues of the day.
"The HHS mandate announcement today changes nothing, it is just another accounting gimmick and the HHS mandate continues to be a violation of civil rights, religious freedom and First Amendment rights,” said Maureen Ferguson, senior policy advisor to The Catholic Association. “Catholic institutions and other faith based organizations, including hospitals and universities and private employers, still do not get their First Amendment rights back and are still being forced to either violate their faith or pay crippling government fines for practicing their faith."
The original regulation, finalized by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in January 2012, said virtually all health care plans in the United States must provide all women of child-bearing age with cost-free coverage for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.
The Catholic Church holds that all three of these things are intrinsically immoral and that Catholics cannot be involved in them. Many Christians of other denominations object to the fact that the regulation requires coverage for abortion-inducing drugs.
The original regulation provided an exemption that applied only to houses of worship themselves and their immediate auxiliaries. To qualify, an institution needed to meet four criteria:1) It needed to be organized under the section of the Internal Revenue Code used by churches per se, 2) be primarily employed in the inculcation of religious tenets, 3) employ primarily people of its own faith, and 4) serve primarily people of its own faith.
This exemption did not extend to Catholic charities, hospitals and schools.
The original regulation also offered no conscience exemption at all to individual employees or business owners. Thus, Catholics and other Christians who objected to sterilizations, artificial contraception and abortion would be forced by the government to buy and/or provide health care plans that covered these things, paid for these things, and facilitated these things.
On June 13, the Catholic bishops of the United States unanimously adopted a statement calling the regulation an “unjust and illegal mandate.” The unanimous Catholic bishops said that the regulation not only would violate the free exercise of religion of Catholic institutions by forcing these institutions to act against the teachings of the Catholic faith, but also would violate the rights of individual Catholic workers and business owners.
“The HHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values,” said the unanimous Catholic bishops. “They, too, face a government mandate to aid in providing ‘services’ contrary to those values—whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees; or as insurers themselves—without even the semblance of an exemption.”
Around the country, more than 40 lawsuits were filed against the regulations. Plaintiffs ranged from the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.; to the EWTN television channel; to Hercules Industries, a heating and air-conditioning company owned by a Catholic family; to Hobby Lobby, a retail chain owned by a Christian family.
The new proposed regulation redefines a “religious employer” to mean only those institutions organized under the Internal Revenue Code section used by houses of worship. “The Department believes that this proposal would not expand the universe of employer plans that would qualify for the exemption beyond that which was intended in the 2012 final rules,” said a statement HHS released Friday.
Additionally, the regulation says that when a non-profit that “holds itself out as a religious organization” buys a health-care plan for its employees, the insurance company would have to set up a separate plan that it provides to those employees free of charge and that gives the employees free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.
When a non-profit that “holds itself out as a religious organization” is self-insured, the third-party administrator would be required to work with a health insurance provider to have that provider create a free policy that gives the covered employees free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.
When providing their employees with a health-care plan, these religious non-profits would be required by the government to trigger the provision of free abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilizations to their employees and an insurance provider who would be forced by the government to provide those things for free.
After HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finalized the original regulation in January 2012, many of the Catholic bishops of the United States had the priests of their diocese read a letter to their parishoners from the pulpit. In this letter, the bishops said: "We cannot--we will not--comply with this unjust law."
HHS released a new proposed regulation under the Obamacare law that the department presented as an accommodation to religious “organizations” that object to providing sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in their health care plans. However, the proposal does not truly expand the exceedingly narrow religious exemption presented in the initial regulation, which was finalized last year, and continues to offer no exemption at all to Christian individuals or business owners.
“There really is no expansion of the religious exemption,” said Leonard Leo, a Washington attorney, who is a board member of The Catholic Association, a group of Catholic lay persons dedicated to applying the teachings and principles of the church to the issues of the day.
"The HHS mandate announcement today changes nothing, it is just another accounting gimmick and the HHS mandate continues to be a violation of civil rights, religious freedom and First Amendment rights,” said Maureen Ferguson, senior policy advisor to The Catholic Association. “Catholic institutions and other faith based organizations, including hospitals and universities and private employers, still do not get their First Amendment rights back and are still being forced to either violate their faith or pay crippling government fines for practicing their faith."
The original regulation, finalized by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in January 2012, said virtually all health care plans in the United States must provide all women of child-bearing age with cost-free coverage for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.
The Catholic Church holds that all three of these things are intrinsically immoral and that Catholics cannot be involved in them. Many Christians of other denominations object to the fact that the regulation requires coverage for abortion-inducing drugs.
The original regulation provided an exemption that applied only to houses of worship themselves and their immediate auxiliaries. To qualify, an institution needed to meet four criteria:1) It needed to be organized under the section of the Internal Revenue Code used by churches per se, 2) be primarily employed in the inculcation of religious tenets, 3) employ primarily people of its own faith, and 4) serve primarily people of its own faith.
This exemption did not extend to Catholic charities, hospitals and schools.
The original regulation also offered no conscience exemption at all to individual employees or business owners. Thus, Catholics and other Christians who objected to sterilizations, artificial contraception and abortion would be forced by the government to buy and/or provide health care plans that covered these things, paid for these things, and facilitated these things.
On June 13, the Catholic bishops of the United States unanimously adopted a statement calling the regulation an “unjust and illegal mandate.” The unanimous Catholic bishops said that the regulation not only would violate the free exercise of religion of Catholic institutions by forcing these institutions to act against the teachings of the Catholic faith, but also would violate the rights of individual Catholic workers and business owners.
“The HHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values,” said the unanimous Catholic bishops. “They, too, face a government mandate to aid in providing ‘services’ contrary to those values—whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees; or as insurers themselves—without even the semblance of an exemption.”
Around the country, more than 40 lawsuits were filed against the regulations. Plaintiffs ranged from the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.; to the EWTN television channel; to Hercules Industries, a heating and air-conditioning company owned by a Catholic family; to Hobby Lobby, a retail chain owned by a Christian family.
The new proposed regulation redefines a “religious employer” to mean only those institutions organized under the Internal Revenue Code section used by houses of worship. “The Department believes that this proposal would not expand the universe of employer plans that would qualify for the exemption beyond that which was intended in the 2012 final rules,” said a statement HHS released Friday.
Additionally, the regulation says that when a non-profit that “holds itself out as a religious organization” buys a health-care plan for its employees, the insurance company would have to set up a separate plan that it provides to those employees free of charge and that gives the employees free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.
When a non-profit that “holds itself out as a religious organization” is self-insured, the third-party administrator would be required to work with a health insurance provider to have that provider create a free policy that gives the covered employees free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.
When providing their employees with a health-care plan, these religious non-profits would be required by the government to trigger the provision of free abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilizations to their employees and an insurance provider who would be forced by the government to provide those things for free.
After HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finalized the original regulation in January 2012, many of the Catholic bishops of the United States had the priests of their diocese read a letter to their parishoners from the pulpit. In this letter, the bishops said: "We cannot--we will not--comply with this unjust law."
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
THIS IS SCARY LANGUAGE FOLKS! PLEASE GET PREPARED! "The President Is Going To Act, There Are Execu...
Obama to Use Executive Order on Gun Control
Vice President Joe Biden is meeting with victims of gun violence today. Speaking with reporters beforehand, Biden said President Obama may use an executive order to push through more gun control and Second Amendment restrictions. More from the Weekly Standard.
"The president is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."We knew this was coming. The White House has been saying for a month that they are acting "quickly" on new gun control measures. Senator Dianne Feinstein's sweeping new gun control legislation hasn't even been introduced yet and Obama isn't the kind of president who has shown a willingness to wait on Congress.
Biden said that this is a moral issue and that "it's critically important that we act."
Biden talked also about taking responsible action. "As the president said, if you're actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking. But I'm convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly."
If Obama pushes through new regulations using executive powers, the process will unfold in different parts. After an order is signed, the Department of Justice led by Attorney General Eric Holder, will be in charge of enforcement through the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. Now, how far the order will go is the big question. You can bet it will ban semi-automatic rifles and large ammunition magazines, but how Obama grandfathers in old, lawfully purchases semi-automatic rifles remains unknown. Will he require citizens who already own these weapons to be fingerprinted as Feinstein's bill requires? Or will he go so far as confiscation as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has suggested? Time will tell.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Obama's secret plan to reclassify your guns
John M. Snyder heads GunRightsPolicies.org and has worked for organizations from the National Rifle Association to the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. He said Obama and his allies have already chartered what regulatory course to pursue through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF.
“We have some confidential information that he may order the ATF to reclassify certain models of semi-automatic firearms as Title 2 guns under the Gun Control Act of 1968,” Snyder told WND. “What this would mean is that people could not obtain these without going through a terribly difficult process that includes registration of each firearm and paying a severe fee for the ownership of each one.”
Snyder said an even more drastic approach from Obama would be to try to ban semiautomatic weapons altogether.
“Also, there is the possibility that the administration could try to declare that semi-automatic firearms are fully automatic firearms or machine guns under this Title 2, in which case they would be banned because of an amendment that’s on the books, the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Snyder is referring to what’s known as the Hughes Amendment, which forbids the acquisition of any new fully automatic weapons or machine guns.
The possible strategy is not a new idea, according to Snyder. He said liberal groups have advocated the move for years, but Democrats have been reluctant to pursue it because of the massive public backlash that will ensue.
“This is an ongoing project of theirs, and they use a lot of these tragedies to try to advance their cause in a public relations sense. So far they’ve been unable to do that,” said Snyder. “It appears that the public is catching on to them and they know what their game plan is, generally speaking. So a lot depends on their frustration, the political situation at the time and a number of other factors, too.”
Even if the Obama administration were to bypass Congress by imposing new regulations, there is still one card left for pro-Second Amendment forces to play: The House of Representatives could remove funding for the ATF or abolish it completely. But would the House GOP actually do that? Snyder is confident it would.
“I wouldn’t be surprised. I think the House is really furious with the president,” Snyder said. “The Republicans would like to cut budgets of the federal government because they think the federal government is taking too much money and spending too much money, and a good place for them to cut would be in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. If there is strong enough public support against the activities of the federal government, the House of Representatives will develop a plan to slash the budget of the agency. I think it’s a real possibility.”
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Obama Seizing Sole Authority for US Defense
In an attempt to seize total control over national security and bypass congress, a frightening new step by the Obama Administration is coming into play. As noted in Friday’s Wall Street Journal in an op-ed by John Bolton and John Woo, a State Department advisory group that is run by former Secretary of Defense William Perry is advising that the U.S. and Russia both reduce nuclear weapons without a treaty, as a treaty would require ratification by Congress. This would allow Obama and his executive branch to unilaterally cut our nuclear weaponry and ignore the treaty clause of the Constitution.
As Bolton and Woo point out, the US has a greater global responsibility than Russia; Iran and North Korea, neither of which is far from Russian interests, can only be countered by U.S. military strength. In addition, they note that Russia is not a trustworthy partner in weapons reduction; it has violated many arms-control agreements, such as the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives.Some of the inherent problems in the seizure by this executive branch of decision-making power is Barack Obama’s desire to deeply cut our nuclear forces. A joint decision with Russia would place long-term limits on our cache of arms, thus placing constraints on us catching up if Russia decides to go ahead and build and the blurring of the lines deliberately drawn by the Constitution’s Framers separating the executive and legislative branches power.
Obama has made no secret of his desire to dismantle our nuclear capacity; the New Start Treaty he championed in 2011 forced the U.S. to observe a ceiling of 700 strategic delivery vehicles and 1,550 strategic warheads, and this past March he stated his desire to cut our arsenal further:
“ … a step we have never taken before – reducing not only our strategic nuclear warheads but also tactical weapons and warheads in reserve.”It is naïve to assume that Obama is simply blind to the results of his actions and trusts the world around him to act with generosity. There has been too much evidence of Russia’s support of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and Russia has cunningly avoided supporting sanctions on North Korea for its rocket launches; in December, Georgy Toloraya, Director of Korean Research at the Institute of Economics, simply said:
"In Russia we believe that resolutions must be observed and UN decisions must be implemented. We think that North Korea has the right for space explorations but only after all the issues linked with the UN sanctions banning rocket launches with the use of ballistic technologies are settled. It is necessary to divide two aspects - we support the discussion of the rocket launch issue by the UN Security Council but we don’t think that this must automatically mean tougher sanctions against Pyongyang.”Obama knows all this. His step-by-step evisceration of the United States is not confined to its economic system but its national defense as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)