Editor's Note: This is the second part of a three-part series on the Second Amendment.
I believe the political stars are aligning right now for the opening of a new front in the battle against our gun rights, via the election and work of an anti-gun president, the disarmament passions of the Washington elite and the United Nations, the appointments of gun prohibitionists in the White House and Supreme Court, and the funding of an anti-Second Amendment movement by billionaire progressives, such as George Soros.
Last week, I discussed President Barack Obama's anti-Second Amendment record and his administration's goal to use dormant treaties and global agencies to loosen the boundaries and binds of the Second Amendment. I wish to expand upon the United Nations' participation a little further in this second part of my trilogy.
In October, the Obama administration reversed the position taken by the Bush White House by stating its support for a process that could, in 2012, result in an international treaty to regulate conventional arms sales. Of course, "regulate" is a euphemism here for "the beginning of banning."
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called conference on the arms trade treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."
Without a single mention of the Second Amendment or America's sovereignty in her entire statement, Clinton said, "The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons."
Amnesty International and Oxfam International jointly declared the action "a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations." But do Americans really want or need the U.N. to tell us what to do with our guns with an international treaty? And when we are negotiating with other countries, do we really expect non-U.S. delegates to be conciliatory to America's unique Second Amendment rights? James Madison noted in Federalist No. 46 that the Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
In 2006, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution titled "Towards an arms trade treaty." In 2008, the General Assembly passed another resolution that accelerated efforts toward an arms trade treaty. In both cases, the U.S. was the only country opposed. Now it appears that Obama and Clinton have ordered our team of U.N. negotiators to drop their opposition and move forward to develop "consensus."
With the Obama administration receptive and on board, the General Assembly is moving forward with a U.N.
conference to produce an arms trade treaty in 2012 — perhaps sooner. In fact, the U.N. is hosting a major conference on this subject in June.
John Bolton, who was the Bush administration's ambassador to the U.N., explained in November: "The (Obama) administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there's no doubt — as was the case back over a decade ago — that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control. After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it ... requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms. The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. ... (It) will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what (it) couldn't otherwise."
Of course, any international treaty needs the approval of two-thirds of the Senate to be ratified, and critics on both sides say there's no way that will happen. Cato Institute scholar Ted Galen Carpenter spoke for many others when he said, "There is no chance of getting a two-thirds vote in the Senate to pass this treaty; it has too many implications for gun rights in the United States." I respectfully beg to differ. Look at how Obamacare was shoved through the Senate like a ramrod, even after the landmark election of "no" voter Scott Brown of Massachusetts. Believe me; if there's a will, they'll find a way.
Why the Constitution is so complicated to some I never will understand. Our Founders ratified a Second Amendment as a right and defense for all Americans. There's nothing easy about defending your life. And taking a life is a mega-tragedy. But when your life is in danger, the Second Amendment provides for your and your loved ones' security.
Case in point: Last month, Michael Lish and his wife arrived home in Tulsa, Okla., at 10 p.m. to find the back door ajar and a window open. Unbeknownst to the couple, the intruder in their house had been released from jail recently and had a history of drug offenses and driving under the influence. Michael had just entered his house when he heard a noise coming from the master bedroom. Once Michael neared the bedroom, the intruder, 19-year-old Billy Jean Tiffey III, approached Michael with a sword that he was in the process of stealing from the house. When Tiffey did not comply with his order to stop approaching him, Michael, who had a concealed-weapons permit, pulled out his gun and shot Tiffey in the abdomen. However, the intruder dropped to his knees and reached behind his back, appearing to the homeowner as if he was reaching for another weapon. (In addition to the sword, he was packing a .38-caliber pistol, a 9 mm pistol, a knife and a stun gun.) Michael had no choice — and he shot Tiffey two more times in the chest, killing him.
It was certainly an understatement of Thomas Jefferson's when he wrote to George Washington these words in 1796: "One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
To find out more about Chuck Norris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CHUCK NORRIS
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
3 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Do all you can to hang onto your weapons, Chuck. On August 8th, 1998, the then President for the Association of Chief Police Officers in this country stated that 96% of firearms used in UK crimes had never been licensed, i.e. "If guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have the guns." You will also need to protect yourselves from not-so-grateful immigrants from south of the border, of which I guess the Lone Star State has more than its fair share. See http://www.vaticanassassins.org/?p=5427, from which this extract is taken. "To those who want to point out how much these illegal immigrants [i.e., "illegal alien invaders"] contribute to our society because they LIKE their gardener and housekeeper and they like to pay less for tomatoes: spend some time in the real world of illegal immigration and see the TRUE costs. Higher insurance, medical facilities closing, higher medical costs, more crime, lower standards of education in our schools, overcrowding, new diseases. For me, I'll pay more for tomatoes. Americans, We need to wake up." I hope you do asap. Pray that the UK does too.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Alan O'Reilly
Tue May 4, 2010 8:06 AM
|
|
|
|
Below is a Statement from Franklin Graham the son of Billy Graham.
Years ago, Mr Garner Ted Armstrong had told the same thing about what was going to happen. Did anyone listen!!!
Franklin Graham: Obama 'Giving Islam a Pass,' Warns of Persecution
Monday, 03 May 2010 08:16 PM Article Font Size
By: David A. Patten
Evangelical leader Rev. Franklin Graham issued his toughest remarks yet Monday on the administration' s role in revoking his invitation to speak at the Pentagon's National Day of Prayer event, charging that President Obama is "giving Islam a pass" rather than speaking openly about the "horrific" treatment women and minorities receive in many Muslim countries.
In an exclusive telephone interview with Newsmax.TV, Graham called revoking his invitation to the prayer service "a slap at all evangelical Christians."
And he clearly placed the blame on the Obama administration, telling Newsmax that the Pentagon would never revoke such an invitation without first consulting with the White House.
"I'm being restricted from my religious rights, and from what I believe," Graham warned, as he complained of a growing "secularization" in the government.
He also warned Christian of "coming" persecution for believing in Jesus Christ.
`Very Much Opposed to What We Stand For'
On April 22, the Pentagon announced that it would be "inappropriate" to have Graham speak at the May 6 event. After 9-11, Graham said Islamic teachings had made that faith "a very evil and wicked religion."
He says that view is based on decades of travel and ministry to the Middle East where he has seen evidence of religious violence, including the mistreatment of women.
Graham said the Pentagon snub matter came up during last week's visit by President Obama with Franklin and his world-renowned father, Rev. Billy Graham, at the elder Graham's home in North Carolina.
"He said he didn't know anything about it until two days prior to that meeting," Franklin Graham tells Newsmax. "And I would certainly believe him. I don't think that he would say something that wasn't true, so I believe what he said.
"But I certainly believe that it was people in his administration that said no," Graham continued. "I don't think the Pentagon would say no on an invitation like this without consulting the White House."
The Pentagon's invitation was actually to the National Day of Prayer task force led by Shirley Dobson, wife of respected Christian leader James Dobson. Shirley Dobson castigated the Pentagon's decision, saying it suffers from rampant "political correctness. "
Graham, as the task force's honorary chairman, had been scheduled to speak at the event. After the invitation was rescinded, he warned that anti-Christian activists are trying to remove all traces of religion from the U.S. military.
In his interview with Newsmax.TV, Graham said the invitation controversy is "absolutely" part of a pattern of hostility toward Christianity in the federal government.
"And I don't know if it's exactly from President Obama," Graham said in the interview. "But I'm certain that some of the men around him are very much opposed to what we stand for and what we believe."
The younger Graham tells Newsmax that he perceives an increasing secularization in government, a pattern that he says began long before Obama became president.
"This goes back into the Clinton years," he tells Newsmax. "This whole secularization has come in, creeping in, and it's getting more and more and more.
"And of course the Bush administration was very friendly toward evangelicals. And [Bush] certainly, I think if he were president … he would have overturned that [Pentagon] decision," Graham says. "And I am hoping that President Obama will do this as well."
Islam Is `Not the Faith of This Country'
Asked why President Obama has praised Islam on several occasions, even as his administration has taken actions seemingly hostile toward Christianity, Graham said: "I don't know."
He continued: "It seems as though Muslims are getting a pass. And you look at the violence that they have portrayed against women. It's just horrific. If you just take women alone … And I just don't understand why the president would be giving Islam a pass.
"We certainly love the Muslim people," Graham went on to say. "But that is not the faith of this country. And that is not the religion that built this nation. The people of the Christian faith and the Jewish faith are the ones who built America, and it is not Islam."
Regarding the recent case of a British preacher recently arrested for publicly espousing the biblical view that homosexuality is a sin, Graham was asked if that level of secular repression could be enacted in the United States.
"Oh, no question. It's coming," Graham says. "I think when you preach that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, I think we're going to see one day that people will say, 'This is hate speech, because you're being so narrow and you're excluding other people.' I believe that, I think we're going to see that come."
Revocation of the Graham speaking engagement is one of several administration moves that have alarmed some Christian leaders.
Earlier this year, an invitation to Family Research Council leader Tony Perkins to speak at a prayer lunch at Andrews Air Force Base was revoked, after he criticized President Obama's call to allow gays to serve openly in the U.S. military.
Perkins, a veteran himself, told CBN: "I never thought when I put on the uniform as a United States Marine, served six years serving this country, never gave thought to the fact that one day I would be denied the right to speak."
In March 2009, the Vatican condemned the president's decision to lift Bush administration restrictions on public funding for stem-cell research.
In April last year, the White House directed Georgetown University to cover up part of a crucifix, as well as the initials "IHS," a traditional symbol for Jesus Christ, that were visible above the podium where Obama was scheduled to speak.
The National Day of Prayer event is itself under attack. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb of Wisconsin ruled that holding a National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional, maintaining it violates the First Amendment's prohibition against the establishment of a religion by the federal government.
That ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed in 2008 by a group of atheists and agnostics. The Justice Department announced it will appeal Crabb's ruling.
The White House has announced President Obama will sign a proclamation recognizing this year's National Day of Prayer event, but he is not scheduled to attend Day of Prayer activities.
During President George W. Bush's administration, an annual Day of Prayer event was held in the White House.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Jim Parkhill
Tue May 4, 2010 5:30 PM
|
|
|
|
Even though everybody knows Chuck Norris needs no weapons (because he IS one!), it's still nice to know that he's watching out for the gun rights of his fellow citizens.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Eric Alder
Wed May 5, 2010 11:49 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
