Senate passes S.744 amnesty, but grassroots opposition is on the way to blocking it in House | NumbersUSA – For Lower Immigration Levels

Senate passes S.744 amnesty, but grassroots opposition is on the way to blocking it in House | NumbersUSA – For Lower Immigration Levels.

What just happened: This afternoon, 68 Senators voted to pass S. 744. (Click here for the full roll call.) The bad news: If eventually signed into law, this bill would threaten to knock millions of Americans out of the middle class by flooding their occupations with 33 million foreign citizens who are offered lifetime work permits over the next decade. Can you believe 68 U.S. Senators voted for that?The willingness of every single Democratic Senator and almost a third of Republicans to accept the corporate lobbyists’ insistence that our country faces devastating labor shortages is disheartening to all of us who have fought so hard to protect the 20 million Americans who can’t find a full-time job, and the millions more who have seen their real wages declining for decades during a worker surplus.

What’s next, and the good news about your efforts thus far: Now, we must turn our full efforts to immigrationthe U.S. House of Representatives and another huge grassroots effort in July. But this will be only a three-week fight before the month-long August recess.

There is no question that the five-month opposition that all of you have waged is having good results in the House, where the Senate bill is facing an increasingly hostile reception.

If the House refuses to move a giant overall amnesty, it doesn’t matter what the Senate has done.

Your efforts have been phenomenal: Over the last few months, you have been faxing your Representatives and going to their offices, even as you focused primary attention on Senators. Republican Representatives have watched the incredible grassroots opposition to the 14 Republican Senators who broke with the rest of their Party and supported Pres. Obama‘s top priority for the year.

Just today, Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Illinois), a member of the House Republican leadership, told reporters,

“It is a pipe dream to think that that (Senate) bill is going to go to the (House) floor and be voted on. The House is going to move through in a more deliberative process.”

For months, the open-borders lobby and their supporters in the news media have proclaimed that citizens were not speaking against this amnesty anything close to the way they did in 2007.

Your efforts back in 2007 to mobilize against that amnesty effort has become the stuff of legend around Washington. But I’m so proud to tell you that over the last five months — especially the past two weeks — you smashed the old records for activism! You’ve sent millions of faxes and made hundreds of thousands of phone calls into congressional offices.

For example, Republican Bob Corker, the Senator who rescued the S. 744 amnesty from defeat last week with a fig-leaf border control amendment, admitted on the floor this morning that the bill is extremely unpopular back in his state of Tennessee.

All of us at NumbersUSA thank you U.S. citizens for everything you have done thus far. And we thank you for all Americans who will benefit if the House blocks the incredibly harmful provisions of S. 744.

Fighting the bad stuff in narrow House bill: The  grassroots uprising against the Senate has truly caught hold among House Republicans who have persuaded their Leadership to go along with House Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte (R-Virginia) to refuse to do a giant comprehensive bill, instead passing small bills that deal with one immigration issue at a time.

isupportlegalimmigrationThe problem is that the special-interest lobbyists are succeeding in getting a number of provisions into those small bills that would harm American wage-earners and taxpayers.

We will be coming to you for assistance in taming those Fat Cat Welfare provisions.

Dealing with the Conference Committee danger: Even if the House passes an absolutely wonderful immigration bill — such as the enforcement legislation recently passed overwhelmingly by the Judiciary Committee — that would give Senate leaders the opportunity to ask for a joint Senate/House “Conference Committee” which would split the difference between that very good bill and the Senate monstrosity.

If a Conference compromise bill were to include an amnesty, both the Senate and House would need to vote for it, without opportunity for amendment. The general thinking here in Washington is that most House Democrats would vote for the Conference “report” bill and very likely the needed couple dozen or so House Republicans would, too..

But . . .

Even if the Senate leadership were to ask for a Conference Committee, Speaker Boehner would not have to agree and appoint House conferees.

And even if there were a Conference Committee that reported out a bill with an amnesty, Speaker Boehner would not have to bring it to the House floor for a vote.

We have precedents in 2005 and 2006 for what we can hope will happen this year.

Many of you were part of those battles in which the House passed an excellent enforcement bill in late 2005. Despite our best efforts, the Republican-Majority Senate passed an amnesty in the spring of 2006. Then-Speaker Hastert refused to conference over those two bills, and the Senate amnesty died. (It was the next spring in 2007 when the new Democrat-Majority Senate failed to pass an amnesty when the new Democrat-Majority House was sure to have approved it.)

Until recently, Speaker Boehner has kept open the option of bringing an amnesty bill to the House floor that might pass with a minority of Republican votes — as he has done with some fiscal bills in the past. But over the last week, he has assured an increasingly aggressive Republican Conference in the House that he would not bring an immigration bill to the floor without at least a bare majority of Republicans supporting it.

Nonetheless, until today, he has refused to say what he would do about a Conference report that reconciled House and Senate bills.

This morning, once again, we saw the results of the powerful grassroots opposition to what the Senate has been doing. Politico just reported that Boehner told reporters :

“For any legislation including the conference report to pass the House it’s going to have to be a bill that has the support of the majority of our members.”

As you know, our Board of Directors, our staff and our members are Independents, Republicans and Democrats. But our July House Battle will be all about making sure that the majority of Republicans are against any overall amnesty. And we want the majority to be at least the two-thirds majority opposition to overall amnesty that we saw among Senate Republicans today.

The pro-amnesty, low-wage, labor globalization folks want Congress to believe that Americans will lose their will to fight and will just go back to reading celebrity news. But that’s not the Americans I’ve known ever since we’ve worked together to stop every amnesty attempt in every year starting in 2001 (after seven amnesties passed between 1986 and 2000).

Which Senators voted out of belief in ‘labor shortages’ and bogus enforcement promises?

At NumbersUSA, we have an Immigration Grade Card system that ensures that no vote against the interests of the American people will ever be forgotten.

Today, 68 Senators cast votes that will be very difficult to ever redeem with future actions.

After all the promises of “enforcement first,” these Senators accepted an entirely “amnesty first” bill that in the first few months would give work permits and legalization to some 11 million foreign citizens who either (a) crossed the border illegally, most of them by paying drug cartels and many of them by helping the cartels move drugs, or who (b) violated the promises on their vacation and guest visas and illegally took U.S. jobs (often through identity theft and fraud) and a share of the taxpayer-provided infrastructure.

Every single Democratic Senator voted YES to the amnesty and to the arguments of corporate lobbyists that a nation with 20 million Americans unable to find full-time jobs is desperately in need of 33 million new lifetime work permits for foreign citizens over the next decade.

And these Republican Senators voted YES to the same provisions, breaking with the majority of their Party (32 Senators) and all four of their Senate Party leaders:

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Chiesa (R-NJ)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Flake (R-AZ)
Graham (R-SC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Kirk (R-IL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Rubio (R-FL)

We will work with all of you to ensure that those 68 Senators are held accountable for their betrayal today of American wage-earners, of the unemployed and of the rule of law.

But our top attention must now be in the July House Battle that your activism has so-well prepared us for.

ROY BECK is the CEO & Founder of NumbersUSA

NumbersUSA’s blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.

RINOs and cowardly conservatives – Tea Party Nation

RINOs and cowardly conservatives – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Conservatives always lament RINOs.  Conservatives ask why we end up with RINOs all of the time.

 

Where are the conservatives that can defeat RINOs?

 One of the worst RINOs in the Senate has been at work again.   But understanding how he got there might help conservatives rid the Party of these RINOs.

 Who is one of the worst RINOs and how did he get there?

 One of the worst RINOs is Bob Corker of Tennessee.  Corker, despite his pledge to the people of Tennessee that he was a conservative, has been a non-stop disaster for Republicans.

 When the Democrats need help, they can count on Bob Corker to help bail them out.   Corker almost singlehandedly revived the horrendous Dodd-Frank financial reform bill.

 Now he is riding to the rescue to save the Gang of Eight and their amnesty bill.

 How did we end up with Corker?

 He was a businessman in east Tennessee, who got the political bug.  He ran or the Senate and lost in 1994.  He became Mayor of Chattanooga and then in 2006, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced he would not run for reelection.

 Corker quickly threw his hat into the ring, as did two other Republicans.  They were Ed Bryant and Van Hillary

 Both Bryant and Hillary were good solid conservatives.  They had been swept into office as a part of the 1994 Gingrich revolution.  Both served three terms and then left.  Bryant ran for the Senate, losing to “Liberal” Lamar Alexander.  Hillary ran for Tennessee governor, losing to Phil Bredesen.

 As 2006, rolled on, the three men campaigned against each other for the Republican nomination for the Senate.

 While that campaign was going on, another campaign was going on in Tennessee.  Governor Phil Bredesen was running for reelection.  As two well-funded, well-regarded and experienced candidates were busy dividing the conservative vote for the Senate, Tennessee Republicans were desperately searching for a candidate to challenge Bredesen for reelection.

 Jim Bryson was a relatively unknown state senator who ended up running against Bredesen.  The term that was often used by political pundits to describe Bryson’s campaign was, “sacrificial lamb.”

 In August 2006, Corker won the three way primary with 48% of the vote.  The two conservatives split the majority of the vote.  Since Tennessee does not have a runoff system, Corker became the nominee.   In November, Bredesen handily defeated Bryson, carrying all of Tennessee’s 95 counties and gaining a second term.

 There are lessons to be learned from this.

 First, had conservatives united behind a single candidate, we could have had a conservative Senator instead of Corker.  Second, conservatives need to learn how to be very forceful with conservative candidates.  In Tennessee in 2006, one of the candidates for the Senate should have been told to drop out and run for governor. 

 Had that happened, in January 2007, Tennessee might have seen a conservative Republican Governor and a conservative United States Senator

 This is a lesson conservatives should and must learn as we look to the 2014 elections.

 While there are some squishy Republicans we should give a pass to because it is better to have them than a Democrat, there are some RINOs in solidly Red States that we must replace.

 Lamar Alexander is one of them.  Lindsay Graham is another.  Conservatives must do something we are unaccustomed to doing.  We must unite and get behind one candidate in each of those races and replace those two RINOs. 

 Several candidates are already talking about running against Graham.  Alexander has done a good job of trying to co-opt his potential competition but there are a couple of people who are thinking about running against him.  Once the candidates have announced, the conservatives in those states must unite to find someone who can defeat both Alexander and Graham.

 Winning the Senate is the crucial battle of 2014.  We need not only a Republican majority in the Senate; we need to replace some of the worst RINOs.  There are some RINOs that if we primary them, we risk losing their seat and losing control of the Senate.  But there are some, like Alexander and Graham, we can primary and not worry about losing the general election.

 Conservatives must learn from our failures of the past and act.  Only then can we put RINOs on the endangered species list.

 

Immigration “Reform” Bill the Worst Ever at the Worst Time Ever – Tea Party Nation

Immigration “Reform” Bill the Worst Ever at the Worst Time Ever – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

If you liked Obamacare, you will love the proposed immigration “reform” bill which is all about the politics of the Left with no regard to the welfare of U.S. citizens by birth and naturalized citizens. Its final length remains unknown, but it was more than 1,500 pages by late April. The Senate takes up the bill this week.

The fact that Congress is revisiting the immigration issue is testimony to the estimated eleven million aliens illegally here due to law enforcement failures and limitations, and the political implications of granting them and eventually their families what is essentially instant citizenship, though fretted with a variety of fines and other factors.

The immigration bill gives the finger to those waiting, often for years, to go through the naturalization process and to the millions of Americans in need of employment during the worst economic times since the Great Depression.

As Alan Blinder, a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, wrote in the June 11 edition of The Wall Street Journal, “Mass joblessness is a shameful waste of human resources, a source of misery to millions, and now threatens to create an underclass of long-term unemployed whose skills are atrophying and whose hopes are vanishing.”

The “gang of eight” is composed of Senators of the far Left such as Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), along with RINOs (Republicans in name only) such as John McCain (R-McCain) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Others include Marco Rubio (R-FL) who is either going to vote for it or against it depending on what day it is. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Michael Bennett (D-CO) complete the list.

You can ignore the promises of increased enforcement of laws to protect our southern border as these laws have been ignored for years. In January, a federal judge ruled that ten Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and officers had the right to challenge the so-called Morton Memo on prosecutorial discretion and the DREAM directive on deferred action that essentially ordered agents to violate federal laws for face adverse employment actions against them. The Memo prohibited ICE agents and officers from arresting or removing, i.e. deporting, any but the most violent criminal aliens; both initiatives of the Obama administration.

As NumbersUSA pointed out in May, the U.S. Senate’s S-744 bill “would give lifetime permits to 33 million more foreign citizens to complete with Americans for scare U.S. jobs” over the next decade when the 20 million Americans are currently seeking work. “That’s like putting the entire population of Canada in line for American jobs.”

The 33 million new work visas in the decade ahead would be almost as many as all immigrants who ever entered the U.S. in its history through to today.

The Center for Immigration Studies says that S-744 “assures the continuation of poverty for the American underclass for the foreseeable future, noting that in the first quarter of this year, the “broad unemployment rate for Americans without a high school degree has reached 30% and is close to 20% for citizens with only a high school education.”

“There are now 55.4 million working-age Americans who are not working.”

NumbersUSA provides another way of looking at S-744, pointing out that is that it is comparable to “re-creating ALL of the Top 20 cities in the United States, filling them entirely with foreign citizens and giving them lifetime work permits to compete with America’s struggling workers—and in just ten years’ time.”

The bill when it was released in April had approximately 1.14 waivers or exemptions per page. The 2,409 page Obamacare bill had 0.78 waivers and exemptions. S-744 is filled with 85 mentions of “unless”, 150 uses of “except”, 18 inclusions of “exempt”, 95 mentions of “waiver”, 47 offers of “discretion”, 47 uses of “notwithstanding” and 618 uses of “may” in its original 876-pages. As noted, the bill now has some 1,500 pages. These are the work of the countless lobbyists who have influenced the bill.

In addition, the immigration “reform” bill includes two “slush funds” amounting to $150,000,000 that may be supplemented with additional taxpayer dollars for years to come. These funds would go to “public or private, non-profit organizations such as La Raza, Casa de Maryland, and the American Immigration lawyers Association! These and other organizations are devoted to helping illegal immigrants apply for legal status.

It gets worse if that is possible. The bill not only provides amnesty for illegal immigrants, but does so as well for their employers. As the Center for Immigration Studies points out, “Illegal aliens will be rewarded for breaking laws for which American citizens are routinely punished” such as the use of fraudulent Social Security cards, while imposing a $1,000 penalty that “in many cases would be waived. Then they would be issued a new Social Security number without any past bad credit or arrest records.”

The so-called immigration reform bill is the worst bill at the worst time. It is an invitation to millions more to illegally enter the United States.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

 

UN Treaties Erode US Sovereignty, Exert Control – Tea Party Nation

UN Treaties Erode US Sovereignty, Exert Control – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

Following the end of World War II in 1945, the idea of a United Nations, an international body devoted to avoiding future wars must have had a lot of appeal despite the fact that, not that many years earlier, the League of Nations that emerged after World War I had proven to be a toothless failure.

In the years since, the United Nations has prevented major world conflicts, but it has done little to curb others. It seems to exist to give its blessing to them and the U.S. has long acted as if it could not engage in a war without its permission. From the Korean War in the 1950s to Vietnam in the 1970s, to the wars in the Middle East, the U.S. has ceded its sovereign right to pursue wars in what it regarded as its national interest. Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars during the period of the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

The wars in the Middle East have been a response to 9/11, first in Afghanistan and later the need to remove the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, who had waged war against Iran and Kuwait. The U.S. actually lent support to the war against Iran because we have technically been at war with Iran since 1979 when our diplomats had been seized and held hostage. Kuwait is an oil-rich nation and, if Saddam had been allowed to take over, he would have turned his attention to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations. In the Middle East, it is always about oil. And now we must add to that equation, the rise of fanatical Islam.

In all the cases cited, the United States has had to do the heavy lifting, the bulk of the fighting. World War II left us the only superpower in the world and the only one with atomic bombs. We put Western Europe back on its feet as a counterweight to the Soviet control over Eastern Europe. When it collapsed in 1991, the balance of power changed, but by then China was already on the rise economically, having embraced capitalism, but retaining Communism as its governmental system. The dictators who ran the Middle East, many of whom the U.S. either tolerated or lent support, ran into a buzz saw of discontent from their oppressed populations.

One of the largest cliques in the United Nations is made up of Middle Eastern, African and other largely Muslim nations. They and others like the Chinese and Russians have no love for democracy or freedom. The result has been the rollout of treaties intended to (1) generate enough income to make the UN financially independent and (2) exert a centralized global control over commerce and the individual lives of people worldwide.

The UN is the center for the entire global warming/climate change hoax and its Kyoto Protocols to reduce so-called greenhouse gas emissions. It is the home of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which just finished its 18th conference to continue its intention to transfer money from the developed nations to those that are not. The U.S. Senate unanimously rejected this treaty in 1997 when it was initially proposed.

There is, however, a Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) that is seeking ratification by the U.S. and is supported by the Obama administration. It would give the UN control over offshore drilling, requiring the U.S. to pay half of its royalties to unelected UN bureaucrats who could spend it any way they want. Moreover, it would require the U.S. to make our offshore drilling technology available to any nation that wanted it and to do so for free despite the millions spent to develop it. One fears that a lame duck Senate might ratifies it. The most recent effort to ratify it was rejected in July.

What most Americans do not know is that international treaties trump the U.S. Constitution. They have the same status as constitutional law and must be enforced by U.S. Courts. Thus, our most sacred right as a nation, our sovereignty, is eroded by such treaties. It was the reason that the Congress rejected membership in the League of Nations. We should have done the same with the United Nations, but for decades since we have provided a quarter of its budget while having just one vote in the General Assembly.

There is no doubt in my mind that the worst of the UN treaties is the current effort to exert control over the Internet. This month, representatives of the 193 member countries of the International Telecommunications Union will meet in Dubai to discuss ways to control the international exchange of Internet traffic across countries and how to extract money from it.

Gorden Crovitz, writing in The Wall Street Journal on November 25th summed up the danger this represents. “Having the Internet rewired by bureaucrats would be like handing aa Stradivarius to a gorilla.”

He noted that “The Internet is made up of 40,000 networks that interconnect among 425,000 global routes, cheaply and efficiently delivering messages and other digital content among more than two billion people around the world, with some 500,000 new users a day.” More importantly, “The self-regulating Internet means no one has to ask permission to launch a website, and no government can tell network operators how to do their jobs.”

It is an irony that the Internet had been the platform by which Egyptians came together to overthrow its longtime dictator, Hosni Mubarak, but which has led to the takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood and a new constitution that is based on sharia law; a huge step back to the seventh century that makes women chattel and endorses slavery. One step forward, ten steps back.

Control over the Internet is control over the free flow of ideas and information. It is control over a large portion of the world’s population. Authoritarian nations hate it and seek to control it. Its implementation would turn the world into one large prison camp.

There are other UN treaties that need rejection and the U.S. Senate this week did reject the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which former Sen. Rick Santorum, joined by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) denounced as a “direct assault on us and our families.” It, too, was an attack on our national sovereignty and the rights of parents to determine how their children are educated and cared for. It was signed by President Obama in 2009, but the Senate’s action avoided its ratification. A treaty on small-arms control would render the Second Amendment null and void.

For years conservatives have called for the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations. That act alone would likely collapse this evil international institution. It won’t happen so long as the current administration is in power.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

 

The Year of the Tea Party Senators continues – Tea Party Nation

 

English: Ted Cruz at the Republican Leadership...

English: Ted Cruz at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

The Year of the Tea Party Senators continues – Tea Party Nation.

 

Posted by Judson Phillips

 

We have called this year the year of the Tea Party Senator.  As we had conservatives sweep into the House in 2010, Tea Party Senators are set to sweep into the Senate this year and will change things up in Washington

 

 What is happening now?

 

 From the Daily Caller:

 

 Ted Cruz now holds a solid 10-point lead over his opponent Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst heading into Tuesday’s Senate Republican primary.

 

A Public Policy Polling poll released Monday found the former Solicitor General, Cruz, with 52 percent support to Dewhurst’s 42 percent. The numbers show continuing momentum for Cruz, who two weeks ago led by half that margin: 49 percent to 44 percent.

 

Dewhurst will head into Tuesday already disadvantaged, as Cruz leads 55 percent to 40 percent among voters who cast a ballot during the past week in early voting. Unfortunately for him, Cruz also leads 49-44 among voters who plan to vote on Tuesday.

 

Cruz holds a whopping lead among the tea party, which has served as his base for much of the primary. He also leads among younger voters. Dewhurst leads among non-tea partiers and seniors.

 

The poll validates the Cruz campaign’s strategy of pushing for a run-off and winning in a midsummer, low-turn out race, where the candidate with the most enthusiastic supporters would be victorious. Indeed, “very excited” voters support Cruz over Dewhurst 63 percent to 33 percent, a group that composes 50 percent of Republicans, according to the poll.

 

Cruz has a smaller lead among “somewhat excited” voters. Dewhurst leads among the “not that excited” voters, but they compose only 21 percent of likely primary voters polled by PPP. And, as “not that excited” voters already lack enthusiasm, it’s possible they will not turnout to vote in the first place.

 

The race, which has attracted attention from conservatives nationwide, has also turned into something of a proxy way between two of the biggest names in Republican politics. Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Cruz, the poll finds, makes 31 percent of voters more likely to vote for him, while 24 percent are less likely.

 

 The good news is we are sending some good conservatives to Washington.  When Cruz wins the primary tomorrow, he will effectively win the seat as Texas is a deep red state.  In Indiana, Richard Mourdock defeated the crown prince of the RINO’s, Richard Lugar and he does have an opponent in the fall election.  Joe Donnelly, a liberal Indiana Congressman who would have lost his reelection bid for Congress, is fighting for the Senate seat.  Mourdock should take that seat but it will not be as easy as Cruz’s general election battle.  In Nebraska, Deb Fischer is facing retread liberal Bob Kerry.  In Ohio, a great young conservative, Josh Mandel is taking on one of the worst members of the Senate, far left wing nut Sherrod Brown

 

 The Senate is going to be different in January.  Not only will the Republicans take control but this Senate will be a more conservative Senate.

 

 Hopefully a conservative Senate and a conservative House can save us from taxageddon, Obamacare and the damage done by the Party of Treason for the last four years.

 

EDITORIAL: U.N. gun grab flops – Washington Times

EDITORIAL: U.N. gun grab flops – Washington Times.

International bureaucrats flub their attempt to create arms control treaty

The United Nations‘ drive to gain control of the international arms trade is a mixed bag. The bad news is that it has the potential to infringe on the legitimate rights of American gun owners. The good news is that the treaty drafting process has been so dysfunctional that whatever emerges has little chance of getting through the U.S. Senate.

The proposed United Nations Arms Transfer Treaty seeks to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer” of the billions of dollars of conventional arms traded annually. It would regulate tanks, military vehicles, combat aircraft, warships and missiles.

Any mention of the U.N. and gun control in the same sentence is bound to raise red flags. Not surprisingly, American firearms advocates strongly oppose the agreement. They believe the treaty’s language would be so loose that activist judges or overzealous federal enforcers would find ways to use the agreement to override the Second Amendment. Treaty backers scoff that this would be impossible since the measure applies only to international arms transfers.

Gun owners are right to be wary. The Constitution’s interstate Commerce Clause has been stretched to include all manner of trade that it was not originally intended to cover, and the same logic could be used regarding international commerce. It would not be much of a stretch to suppose activist judges could claim a gun manufactured in the United States that used some foreign components would satisfy a nexus requirement under the treaty. Such an expansive interpretation would be well beyond the stated purpose of the agreement, but that sort of technicality has never stopped determined government regulators.

Another concern is the current fad in liberal legal circles to read international laws, norms and standards into American jurisprudence. A treaty that establishes a framework for limiting, monitoring and reporting arms transfers — which the proposed arms treaty does — could well be applied to U.S. case law by judges enamored with the notion that international agreements somehow reflect a higher state of legal evolution than a musty old document like the Constitution.

Fortunately, the treaty likely won’t get that far. Its drafting committee released the latest language on Tuesday, and it has been watered down significantly. The United States won an important concession to exclude ammunition from the draft, and state-to-state transfers given as aid are also not covered. Left-wing activist groups are annoyed that the treaty is vague and full of loopholes, not the strong, binding agreement they initially sought. There are enough references to human rights issues that rogue states like Syria, North Korea, Iran and Cuba may try to block it.

The draft treaty must also be reviewed, debated, amended and voted on by Friday — a difficult task in itself. If the U.N. manages this, President Obama would have to sign it, which the White House seems poised to do. The treaty wouldn’t be binding on the United States until approved by two-thirds of the Senate. Given the amount of domestic opposition, that’s unlikely. Though it remains to be seen how the final text will turn out, it appears for now that the international gun grabbers aren’t going to get what they want.

The Washington Times

Freedom: Void where prohibited by law. – Tea Party Nation

Freedom: Void where prohibited by law. – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

If you want to understand liberalism and where the left wants to take America, it was on full display yesterday in the United States Senate.

 Surprisingly, outside of the conservative blogosphere and some conservative talk radio, little was said about one of the most outrageous assaults on freedom in modern time.

 What was said and what is the threat?

 Yesterday, in the United States Senate, New York Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat and fan boy for dictators around the world made a startling pronouncement. 

 He said, “I believe there ought to be limits because the First Amendment is not absolute. No amendment is absolute. You can’t scream ‘fire’ falsely in a crowded theater. We have libel laws. We have anti-pornography laws. All of those are limits on the First Amendment. Well, what could be more important than the wellspring of our democracy? And certain limits on First Amendment rights that if left unfettered, destroy the equality — any semblance of equality in our democracy — of course would be allowed by the Constitution.”

“And the new theorists on the Supreme Court who don’t believe that, I am not sure where their motivation comes from, but they are just so wrong. They are just so wrong.”

 Gee Chuck, don’t wait.  Go rip the Constitution from the National Archives building in Washington and just rip it to shreds.

 Schumer was speaking in favor of the DISCLOSE Act which would prevent political organizations, primarily conservative organizations, from protecting their donors by not being forced to disclose them.

 Why do conservative donors need protection?

 Ask the donors to the Mitt Romney campaign that Barack Obama has singled out.   Ask the donors to ALEC who have been harassed and threatened.  Ask the donors who gave to the Prop 8 campaigns in California who had to endure harassment from leftist activists outraged that they exercised their First Amendment rights. 

 What Schumer really believes is that there should be free speech for the Party of Treason and left wing activists and not for conservatives. 

 If Chuck Schumer had his way, America would be a one party socialist state.

 The outrage is not simply that a United States Senator said that on the floor of the Senate.   He is in the leadership of the Senate Democrats.  Has any Democrat said a negative word about what he said?  Has any Republican Senator jumped up to complain that Schumer wants to scrap our rights of free speech?  No, they are too busy being “bipartisan.”

 Where are the outraged newspapers calling for Schumer to at least retract his statement, if not resign for wanting to eliminate free speech?

 The answer is there are none.

 There are different types of speech.   The type of speech that Schumer wants to restrict is political speech.  This is the type of speech our founding fathers and the Supreme Court have always said is the most protected classification of speech. 

 Of course Chuck Schumer and the Party of Treason do not like this.  They want anyone who disagrees with them silenced.  They do not believe in freedom or the bill of rights.

 This is the danger America currently faces.  One of our two major political parties no longer believes in freedom or liberty.  Instead of believing in God given, inalienable rights, the Democrats simply believe that our liberties are grants from the government, which can be taken or given at the whim of the government.

 We are living in a perilous era when people who control parts of our government believe that.

 Chuck Schumer’s beliefs are right in line with Hugo Chavez, the Castro brothers, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin and Hitler. 

 Political speech was the one thing they would not allow.  With people like Chuck Schumer in positions of power, we edge closer towards the day where liberty and freedom are nothing but memories and stories we will tell our grand children about.

MORAN: Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable – Washington Times

MORAN: Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable – Washington Times.

Senate would shoot down U.N. treaty abridging U.S. gun rights

More than two centuries ago, our Founding Fathers wisely amended the U.S. Constitution to guarantee a Bill of Rights for its citizens. Rooted in freedom, our democracy has stood strong as Americans have enjoyed liberties unparalleled in the world – including the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Today, our freedoms and our country’s sovereignty are in danger of being undermined by the United Nations.

In October 2009 at the U.N. General Assembly, the Obama administration voted for the United States to participate in negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) – a reversal of the previous administration’s position. This treaty purportedly is intended to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” However, by threatening to include civilian firearms within its scope, the ATT would restrict the lawful private ownership of firearms in our country.

Last month, the ATT Preparatory Committee met in New York as part of a series of meetings prior to finalizing the treaty next year for adoption. Based on the process to date, I am gravely concerned this treaty will infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of American gun owners and will be used by other countries that do not share our freedoms to wrongly place the burden of controlling international crime and terrorism on law-abiding American citizens.

Proposals being considered by the committee would adversely impact U.S. gun owners. There have been regular calls for bans on the civilian ownership of guns Americans use to hunt, target-shoot and defend themselves. By requiring firearms to be accounted for throughout their life span, the ATT could lead to mandatory nationwide gun registration. Still other proposals could require the marking and tracking of all ammunition.

Forty-four U.S. senators recently joined me in sending a powerful message to the Obama administration: A U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that does not protect ownership of civilian firearms will fail in the Senate. On July 22, we notified President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton of our intent to oppose ratification of a treaty that in any way restricts Second Amendment rights. In fact, our opposition is strong enough to block the treaty from passage, as treaties submitted to the U.S. Senate require two-thirds approval to be ratified. In notifying the Obama administration, we outlined several concerns.

First, civilian firearms and ammunition should not be included in the scope of the ATT. Preparatory meetings have made it clear that many U.N. member states aim to craft an extremely broad treaty. For example, Mexico and several countries in Central and South America have called for the treaty to cover “all types of conventional weapons (regardless of their purpose), including small arms and light weapons, ammunition, components, parts, technology and related materials.” Such a treaty would be incredibly difficult to enforce and would pose dangers to all U.S. businesses and individuals involved in any aspect of the firearms industry, from manufacturers to dealers to consumers.

Second, any regulation of the domestic manufacturing, possession or purchase of firearms and ammunition is completely unacceptable. U.N. member states regularly argue that no treaty controlling the transfer of arms internationally can be effective without controls on transfers inside a country’s own borders. At stake is our country’s autonomy and the rights of American citizens protected under the Constitution.

Finally, America leads the world in export standards to ensure arms are transferred for legitimate purposes, and its citizens should not be punished by the ATT. There is no disagreement that sales and transfers to criminals and terrorists are unacceptable, but law-abiding Americans should not be held responsible for international crime and acts of terrorism. Instead, the responsibility should be on U.N. member states that have not enforced existing laws and have failed to block illegal trafficking of arms.

Our country’s sovereignty and Second Amendment rights must not be infringed upon by an international organization made up of many countries with little respect for gun rights. As the treaty process continues, I will continue to work with my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to ensure that any Arms Trade Treaty that undermines the constitutional rights of American gun owners is dead on arrival because our firearm freedoms are not negotiable.

Sen. Jerry Moran is a Republican from Kansas.

MORAN: Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable – Washington Times

MORAN: Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable – Washington Times.

Senate would shoot down U.N. treaty abridging U.S. gun rights

By Sen. Jerry Moran- The Washington Times

More than two centuries ago, our Founding Fathers wisely amended the U.S. Constitution to guarantee a Bill of Rights for its citizens. Rooted in freedom, our democracy has stood strong as Americans have enjoyed liberties unparalleled in the world – including the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Today, our freedoms and our country’s sovereignty are in danger of being undermined by the United Nations.

In October 2009 at the U.N. General Assembly, the Obama administration voted for the United States to participate in negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) – a reversal of the previous administration’s position. This treaty purportedly is intended to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” However, by threatening to include civilian firearms within its scope, the ATT would restrict the lawful private ownership of firearms in our country.

Last month, the ATT Preparatory Committee met in New York as part of a series of meetings prior to finalizing the treaty next year for adoption. Based on the process to date, I am gravely concerned this treaty will infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of American gun owners and will be used by other countries that do not share our freedoms to wrongly place the burden of controlling international crime and terrorism on law-abiding American citizens.

Proposals being considered by the committee would adversely impact U.S. gun owners. There have been regular calls for bans on the civilian ownership of guns Americans use to hunt, target-shoot and defend themselves. By requiring firearms to be accounted for throughout their life span, the ATT could lead to mandatory nationwide gun registration. Still other proposals could require the marking and tracking of all ammunition.

Forty-four U.S. senators recently joined me in sending a powerful message to the Obama administration: A U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that does not protect ownership of civilian firearms will fail in the Senate. On July 22, we notified President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton of our intent to oppose ratification of a treaty that in any way restricts Second Amendment rights. In fact, our opposition is strong enough to block the treaty from passage, as treaties submitted to the U.S. Senate require two-thirds approval to be ratified. In notifying the Obama administration, we outlined several concerns.

First, civilian firearms and ammunition should not be included in the scope of the ATT. Preparatory meetings have made it clear that many U.N. member states aim to craft an extremely broad treaty. For example, Mexico and several countries in Central and South America have called for the treaty to cover “all types of conventional weapons (regardless of their purpose), including small arms and light weapons, ammunition, components, parts, technology and related materials.” Such a treaty would be incredibly difficult to enforce and would pose dangers to all U.S. businesses and individuals involved in any aspect of the firearms industry, from manufacturers to dealers to consumers.

Second, any regulation of the domestic manufacturing, possession or purchase of firearms and ammunition is completely unacceptable. U.N. member states regularly argue that no treaty controlling the transfer of arms internationally can be effective without controls on transfers inside a country’s own borders. At stake is our country’s autonomy and the rights of American citizens protected under the Constitution.

Finally, America leads the world in export standards to ensure arms are transferred for legitimate purposes, and its citizens should not be punished by the ATT. There is no disagreement that sales and transfers to criminals and terrorists are unacceptable, but law-abiding Americans should not be held responsible for international crime and acts of terrorism. Instead, the responsibility should be on U.N. member states that have not enforced existing laws and have failed to block illegal trafficking of arms.

Our country’s sovereignty and Second Amendment rights must not be infringed upon by an international organization made up of many countries with little respect for gun rights. As the treaty process continues, I will continue to work with my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to ensure that any Arms Trade Treaty that undermines the constitutional rights of American gun owners is dead on arrival because our firearm freedoms are not negotiable.

Sen. Jerry Moran is a Republican from Kansas.