Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Unholy Trio: Gun Control, the UN and Obama

By: Susan Brown  / Townhall Columnist

Welcome to President Obama's second term, America - that special place where ridiculousness replaces raison d'etre, and presidents give us things like gun control a' la United Nations.

Obviously, Obama understood he would never get the support needed for a gun control bill from Congress, so the astute Constitutional professor chose to skirt around the Constitution by signing on to the United Nations (UN) Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) shortly after his re-election. Liberals certainly know how to get what they want, ethics aside. Remember in 2010, when former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi described how liberals would circumvent the electorate to pass Obamacare? Pelosi said they would "...go through the gate.

If the gate's closed, we'll go over the fence.

If the fence is too high, we'll pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we'll parachute in."

And parachute they did.

Now Obama's doing the same thing with gun control. On one hand, we have the administration telling us they are committed to protecting our Second Amendment rights; while on the other hand, the president is joining alliances with UN gun grabbers by giving them the green light for the ATT. In the real world, presidents work in conjunction with Congress to pass laws, but in Obama Land anything goes.

The administration claims ATT primarily applies to exporting weapons, thus posing zero threat to gun ownership domestically. ATT's verbiage, instructing nations to "take the necessary legislative and administrative measure to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this treaty, is too gray, hence leaving room to dilute or supersede the Second Amendment.

It is clear Obama's been a gun control advocate all along although he was too cowardly to admit it before re-election. According to the Washington Post, last year Obama told gun control activist Sarah Brady, whose husband Jim was shot during the Reagan assassination attempt in 1981, that gun control was "very much on his agenda...but under the radar." History will not be kind to America's 44th president who promised transparency, but governed mostly under the radar.

Of course, the UN wants us to believe that global gun control is for our own good and granting them authority to force us to register our guns with them will prevent weapons from getting into the "wrong people's" hands, and will somehow make the world a safer place. For whom might it be safer? The easy answer is criminals.

In reality, government is the real problem. Case in point: that little scandal affectionately codenamed "Fast and Furious," wherein the Justice Department made the injudicious decision to sell weapons to those linked to the Mexican drug cartel in Arizona. Their plan backfired when the weapons "walked" across the border into Mexico and into the hands of cartel thugs. It should have been codenamed "Dumb and Dumber." And more than 50 million Americans voted to give them a second term.

The United Nations needs to mind its own business and stay out of ours, thank you. And President Obama needs to get over his attitude about those who, as he once put it, are bitter because they "cling to guns or religion." Before he came along, we had the Constitution, need I say more? It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or even this blond columnist, to deduce that if the UN is given an open door into our personal lives by way of the ATT, gun confiscations will, at some point, follow.

GOP Must Play Hardball In Benghazi-Gate 

By: Bob Barr  / Townhall Columnist

While the soap opera “All the General’s Girls” currently occupies the top spot in the Washington, DC ratings wars, the “Benghazi Chronicles,” with U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice in a starring role, continues to enjoy strong ratings – as it should.

Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney played it safe during the campaign -- refusing to press the many questions surrounding the September 11th fatal attacks on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.

The campaign was the perfect forum from which to demand and obtain answers to questions about why the United States was so poorly prepared for the violent attacks in Benghazi. It also served as an appropriate stage on which to discover why the Administration continued to mislead the American public about the forces behind the attacks.

With those opportunities badly flubbed by Romney, attention is now focused on Republican leaders in the Congress to use their confirmation, legislative and oversight powers to do what Romney did not – play hardball and demand answers.

Republicans should quickly and firmly brush aside Obama’s symbolic bravado during last week’s news conference, when he dared the Republicans to “take [him] on” and leave Rice alone. This is a red herring.

The GOP also should be firm in casting aside the nonsense being mouthed by Rice’s defenders, such as Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, who are playing the Race Card by claiming criticism of Rice is founded in racial prejudice.

What Republicans should not brush aside, but should continue to focus on, is that “Benghazi-Gate” represents a most serious series of errors committed by the Obama Administration – errors in judgment, intelligence, security, and policy that began long before the September 11th attacks; and which continued even after the tragic death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

This is serious business; and whatever smokescreens the Administration and its defenders throw out there – charges of “sexism,” “racism,” “partisanship,” or whatever – must not be permitted to pull the GOP off target. The GOP is the loyal opposition in this equation, and must not allow itself to be bullied into submission or start chasing animals down irrelevant rabbit holes. If the Republicans in either House flub this, then the incompetence displayed by the Obama Administration in meeting the challenges not only in Libya, but in Iran, Egypt and elsewhere, will continue and likely result in future debacles.

While the importance of Benghazi-Gate extends far beyond Susan Rice, the stakes for her are especially high. She is Obama’s personal choice to succeed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. For the President, if this truly is the proverbial “ditch” in which he has decided to fight to the death, its outcome will greatly impact how successful he will be in moving his second-term agenda forward on a number different issues.

On paper, Susan Rice clearly is qualified to serve as Clinton’s successor at Foggy Bottom – Stanford University, Rhodes Scholar, National Security Council, and youngest-ever Assistant Secretary of State under President Bill Clinton. She is accurately described as tough, smart and, according one biography, unafraid to offer “direct” and “plainspoken” assessments.

Why then is there such controversy swirling around her potential nomination to State, based on clearly erroneous assessments of what happened in the Benghazi attack offered publicly by her in the tragedy’s aftermath? The answer to this series of questions actually is rather straightforward and simple.

Rice inserted herself into the eye of the Benghazi hurricane, and became the face of the Obama Administration’s efforts to downplay and explain away the attacks in the final weeks leading to the November 6th election. No Republican Senator or Representative forced Rice into what turned out to be the unenviable position of describing the Benghazi attack as nothing more than a spontaneous response to an obscure film with anti-Islamic overtones. She either chose to enter the fray (perhaps hoping to burnish her credentials in anticipation of an Obama win), or she was too weak to resist efforts by others in the Administration to push her into the front lines so they could stand in the shadows and not be tarnished.

Either way, legitimate questions are raised about Rice’s judgment and about her ability to operate in the tough, complex political milieu in Washington.

The explanation by Obama and others, that Rice should not be criticized for her post-Benghazi statements because she was “just reading the talking points that had been given to her,” are equally devoid of merit. Do we want or need someone as Secretary of State who blithely reads talking point stuck in front of her, regardless of their merits or whether they make sense?

The answer to this and related questions clearly is “No”; and Republican leaders in both the House and the Senate must use their considerable powers to withhold funds, block nominations, and subpoena witnesses to get to the bottom of this fundamental foreign policy and national security debacle. If they don’t, who will?

GOP legally barred from fighting vote fraud

30 years later, consent decree violation claims still threaten

Voting machines suspiciously defaulting to Barack Obama? Buses loaded with strangers appearing at polling stations? Even ballots turning out 100 percent for one candidate in precinct reports?

In short, suspicions of vote fraud?

That’s too bad, because a race-based consent decree negotiated by Democrats against the Republican National Committee a generation ago still has tied the RNC’s hands, and GOP officials could be cited for contempt – or worse – if they try to make sure American elections are clean.


No. Fact.

The case is the Democratic National Committee vs. the Republican National Committee, originally from 1982.

Democrats alleged Republicans were trying intimidate minority voters in New Jersey and brought the legal action. The RNC, inexplicably, decided to agree to a consent decree before a Democrat-appointed judge rather than fight the claims.

The judge, Dickinson Debevoise, appointed by Jimmy Carter, later retired but decided he would continue to control the case. The decision requires the RNC – but not the DNC – to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose.”

The rest of the agreement essentially requires the RNC to follow applicable state and federal election laws.

But the section cited above has been used for decades to warn off Republicans from any challenge to evidence of voter fraud in districts with “racial or ethnic populations.”

The law has remained, even though the RNC recently challenged it at the appellate level only to be turned down by Judges Joseph Greenaway Jr., appointed by Bill Clinton; Dolores Sloviter, appointed by Carter; and Walter Stapleton, appointed by Ronald Reagan, in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

It now is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

But two election veterans both told WND it still is hurting the fight against voter fraud in the United States.

Attorney James Bopp of the James Madison Center said the threat that the RNC has faced is that someone will allege a violation of the decree, and party officials will be standing in a courtroom on Election Day.

Bopp’s organization was founded to protect the First Amendment right of all citizens of free expression and “to support litigation and public education activities in order to defend the rights of political expression and association by citizens and citizen groups as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Bopp himself has taken part in more than 60 election-related cases, including recounts, redistricting and constitutional law challenges to state and federal election laws.

He said the agreement even today, amid reports of fraud across the country, prevents the RNC from doing any anti-voter fraud activity on Election Day.

“It is way too restrictive,” he said. “It prevents the RNC from working with state parties in conducting voter integrity activities. It has been used by the DNC to harass the leadership of the RNC with false allegations of violations of the consent decree.”

He said the reason why the RNC originally agreed to the decree, rather than fight the allegations, was unclear. But he said he investigated the issue.

“It was very troubling that the RNC’s effort to ensure the integrity of the vote would be undermined,” he told WND.

While there have been periods in U.S. history in which there have been concerns about minority voting, the restrictions today, he said, are “completely unjustified.”

“It’s become absurd,” he said, noting that the GOP has had a black chairman.

Voters, he said, would be best served to have both political parties watching for vote fraud.

Also responding to questions about the issue was Cleta Mitchell of the Washington firm of Foley & Lardner.

Mitchell is on the firm’s political law practice team and has 30 years of experience in law, politics and public policy, advising candidates, campaigns and others on state and federal campaign finance law, election law and compliance issues. She practices before the Federal Election Commission.

“The RNC has been completely prohibited from doing anything in ballot security since 1982,” she told WND. “The Democrats repeatedly over the years have gotten the RNC officers into court on the weekend before the election.

“What it means is that for 30 years there has been no way to institutionalize, to help train state parties, to work with candidates [on vote fraud prevention issues],” she said.

Problems can be caused by malfunctioning equipment, programming errors, or “sheer incompetence” of local elections officials, she said. And sometimes by vote fraud.

“The problem is there’s nothing that the RNC can do in that regard because of that consent degree,” Mitchell said.  “A lot of things need to be done to improve state laws. … Democrats are able to be involved as they want to be.”

Republicans have tried to change the decree since 2009, after Obama took office. But Debevoise has ruled that they failed to show that conditions in the U.S. had changed since 1982.

Debevoise said that since most minority voters support Democrats, the RNC still has an incentive to suppress minority votes.

He dismissed the idea of voter fraud and extended his own supervision of the case until 2017.

In March, the 3rd Circuit issued its affirmation of Debevoise’s decision.

WND recently has reported on allegations of voter fraud, including a claim by a poll watcher in Pennsylvania who said votes reverted to Obama by default, no matter who the voter selected.

The incident took place in the state where officials claimed Obama received a total of 19,605 votes in 59 voting divisions to zero for Mitt Romney and not far from the 100 precincts in Ohio in which Obama got 99 percent of the vote.

With evidence mounting that the vote tabulation did not reflect the true choices of voters, talk-radio icon Rush Limbaugh declared: “Third-world, tin-horn dictators don’t get [these percentages]. I mean, the last guy that got this percentage of the vote was Saddam Hussein, and the people that didn’t vote for him got shot.

This just doesn’t happen. Even Hugo Chavez [of Venezuela] doesn’t get 100 percent or 99 percent of the vote.”

It was in Upper Macungie Township, near Allentown, Pa., where an auditor, Robert Ashcroft, was dispatched by Republicans to monitor the vote on Election Day. He said the software he observed would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.”

He said that happened in about 5 percent to 10 percent of the votes.

See the BIG LIST of vote fraud reports coming out of the 2012 election.

WND’s newest forum is your opportunity to report voter fraud

Stand up to fight against voter fraud right now!

Here’s the blueprint Obama used to steal the 2012 election.

This should be national news!

Proof this election was STOLEN from Allen...note the percentages.

What you see above is: 
1) A partial list of precincts in LTC West's District 18
2) The Reg. Voters is the number of 'Registered' voters for the 2012 election
3) The amount of votes that were actually cast in that precinct
4) The percent of votes compared to Registered
Voters equals the % of turnout.

Any percent that is greater than 100% is VOTE FRAUD.  Average voter turnout is about 30% to 35% And yet the Democrats will still tell 'We the People' there is no evidence of voter Fraud in the US...even with factual evidence like this right in front of them!
Israel...the Biblical battle vs the tangible here and now battle for the Holy land
By: Diane Sori

The Jewish nation of Israel is at a crossroads right now...will she go into Gaza and end the attacks on her once and for all or will she accept yet another supposed ceasefire that turns out to be empty words lasting but a few weeks if at that. Add into this conundrum the many Christian denominations who keep insisting that Jesus will 'miraculously' appear and save Israel from her enemies verses those who say Israel will win this battle by sheer military might alone.

For those who take the religious (mostly Evangelical Christian) view of this battle, the question that first must be answered is which millennial philosophy do you ascribe to. Many Christians read the book of Revelation and have different opinions about the 1000 year reign of Christ. Some believe that Christ will physically return to Earth to reestablish order and righteousness with his throne being in Jerusalem.  This belief (pre-millenialism) has been very influential in American politics with many American presidents basing their Israel policy on this religious belief.

But what some of those who hold this belief seem to forget is that the land of Canaan (now modern day Israel) that God promised to Abraham and his descendants (Genesis 12:1-7; 17:8; Galatians 3:8,16) was actually fulfilled during Joshua's time (The Book of Joshua).   Some people today falsely teach that God did not fulfill the land promise to Israel.  They say it will be fulfilled in the future when Christ sets up an Earthly Kingdom.  They believe the Jews must all return to Israel and take the land again.  They are guilty of ignoring what the Bible plainly says, “So the Lord gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it” (Joshua 21:43).  If a promise has been fulfilled, it cannot be fulfilled again, meaning everything promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was concluded and would not need to be addressed again.

However, there's yet another interesting contradiction between some Christian denominational beliefs and the words of Jesus himself.  "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from here” (KJV James 18:36), meaning according to Biblical scholars and teachers Jesus did NOT nor will NOT fight for man on this Earth for He is NOT from here.

The scholars explain this as the kingdoms of the world are defended by arms, meaning maintaining armies and engaging in wars.  If the Kingdom of Jesus had been like this, those that followed him would have prepared for battle and they did not. Jesus also would have armed the hosts that went with him to Jerusalem and he would not have been alone and unarmed in the garden of Gethsemane.

And while Jesus was indeed a king, his dominion was NOT one of man but was one of the heart, subduing evil passions and corrupt desires (according to His beliefs and teachings), and bringing the soul of man to the love of peace and unity. In other words Jesus' teachings and ways were the antithesis of warriors preparing for battle...and fast forward that to Israeli soldiers fighting for their country's survival.

And these words and teachings of Jesus should make it clear even to the most adamant of followers that Israel will fight on her own, for her own survival, with whatever allies she can muster for the battle going on now is a tangible here and now battle whose one goal is to wipe the nation of Israel off the is that simple. Jesus is NOT going to suddenly appear this week and descend from the Heavens to save Israel no matter how some try to apply the ancient words to this modern battle. Israel is the land of the Jews, most forget that, and the Jews know NOT of Jesus. And while God (Elohim) might indeed look over Israel and his chosen people, God will NOT fight this battle of Israel's for her...military might and military might alone is what will save Israel. Remember also that even the so-called diplomacy going on now is fleeting when you are a sliver of land surrounded by enemies.

So say a prayer for Israel and her people but let that prayer include that Israel has the military power to end what needed to be ended a long time ago NOT only for her survival but for the civilized world as well.